COMMENT: Club should give stadium idea the boot (From Worcester News)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting WN NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
COMMENT: Club should give stadium idea the boot
10:20am Wednesday 8th September 2010 in
DEAD in the water – that is the only way to describe the plan for a new Worcester City FC stadium at Nunnery Way.
The proposal has been in existence in various forms since the late Nineties. The most recent incarnation of the scheme, a partnership between the club and developers St Modwen, had the support of this newspaper for some time. But no more. Our reports this week have highlighted just what a financial disaster moving to Nunnery Way would be for a club about to free itself from decades of debt.
City’s sale of its St George’s Lane ground to Carey New Homes will leave the club with £1.75 million at best once its debt to RBS is paid.
The latest estimated cost of building a stadium only suitable for City’s current league, including land and infrastructure costs, is £3.2 million. What on earth would be the point in City paying off its currents debts only to start life at a new stadium almost £1.5 million in the red? This assumes the current stadium plan wins approval from city council planners – and it will not. The city council is adamant it will only approve plans for a ‘landmark’ stadium at Nunnery Way. The current proposal falls well short of such a description. So the club has a plan that will not be approved for a stadium it cannot afford.
Bad decisions by City’s previous board mean the club is tied to a contract with St Modwen until 2017. But it has to be out of St George’s Lane by 2013.
Let us hope planners make it clear to St Modwen there is no prospect of planning permission being granted by 2017. That might at least free the club of a daft agreement and allow its current go-ahead board to concentrate on finding a new home for the club, even if that means a ground share in the short term.
Comments(37)
Andrew Guy
says...
11:10am Wed 8 Sep 10
-
“It’s time for City to bite the bullet" (WN 28 July 2000)
It doesn't seem three years since Worcester City Football Club first excited us with plans for a new stadium at Nunnery Way.
The Evening News has been steadfast in its backing for the dream and the site - and we remain desperate for City's success on and off the pitch.
But now we accept that Doc Sorensen's brave new world may have to take shape as something other than a gateway landmark on the M5 approach to the Faithful City.
Between June 1997 and June 1999, the club has gone to the city council with proposals for the business scheme it needs to sit alongside the ground and pay for its development.
Each time, the city has repeated its desire to see the club prosper - but told officials that, while a stadium's suitable for the greenfield site, the other ideas aren't.
A fourth proposal, due to be put before councillors four days before City's Dr Martens League programme kicks off next month, drifts even further from the path.
Indeed, the council's list of objections to the latest scheme casts such a large shadow that we can't resist the thought that, in essence, the club's now flogging a dead horse.
Doogie 46
says...
11:19am Wed 8 Sep 10
I`m afraid I`m what Avante describes as "worst kind of supporters" in that I turned up, paid my gate monet and went home after the match - my only defence being I assumed the club was in safe and capable hands.
Only since discovering the joys of the on-line WN and reading the comments sections have I realised what kind of a bunch of people had control of the club. Their decisions were not bad - they were catastrophic, and deep down the WN must have known this but continued to report blandly everything the then board told them.
So now they have belatedly jumped down off the fence they must vigorously continue in this vein to get the club released from the stranglehold of St Modwen and allow City`s current board to explore a sensible, viable alternative to the doomed Nunnery Way Project.
What that alternative might be, I don`t know. The Cinderella site has merit, but I rather think that the council would not be willing to move the club from one residential area to another.And there`s always the Nimbys!!!
Andrew Guy
says...
11:52am Wed 8 Sep 10
-
A: Less than 100m.
-
Interestingly, he was formerly the NIMBY-in-chief (sorry, "Chairman") of SOS (Save Our St Johns), the group that opposed Sainbury's.
-
I agree with you Doogie. There may be some problems ahead in persuading the club's board to give the Cinderella Ground due consideration...
Spetchley Dave
says...
12:11pm Wed 8 Sep 10
People have been saying this for the last 2 to 3 years!
Sadly "Your Worcester News" spent far too long sitting on the fence and swallowing Boddy's bull and now it is too late to save the club.
The contracts run until 2017 and look like they are watertight.
The club is doomed...
RichardW
says...
12:11pm Wed 8 Sep 10
Andrew Guy wrote:Therin lies the major problem with this whole "project". Back in 1998/99 the then Board were warned that they must attempt to clear the debt (which was 1/5th of what it is now. They spent the next 10 years saying we will be at Nunnery Way in "two years time" so didn't do anything to address it but instead chose to chase one man's dream of a development with a football ground.
Kevin, I'm experiencing deja vu! What follows is from the WN Comment / Editorial column of 10 years ago: - “It’s time for City to bite the bullet" (WN 28 July 2000) It doesn't seem three years since Worcester City Football Club first excited us with plans for a new stadium at Nunnery Way. The Evening News has been steadfast in its backing for the dream and the site - and we remain desperate for City's success on and off the pitch. But now we accept that Doc Sorensen's brave new world may have to take shape as something other than a gateway landmark on the M5 approach to the Faithful City. Between June 1997 and June 1999, the club has gone to the city council with proposals for the business scheme it needs to sit alongside the ground and pay for its development. Each time, the city has repeated its desire to see the club prosper - but told officials that, while a stadium's suitable for the greenfield site, the other ideas aren't. A fourth proposal, due to be put before councillors four days before City's Dr Martens League programme kicks off next month, drifts even further from the path. Indeed, the council's list of objections to the latest scheme casts such a large shadow that we can't resist the thought that, in essence, the club's now flogging a dead horse.
What could be more simple than selling one bit of ground, buying another bit of ground & putting a small stadium up? - it couldn't be more simple and the WCFC Board had opportunities to do this but instead chose not to.
In 2008 at the Trust meeting at WCCC the true facts and figures were put forward by the Trust who were described as liars and troublemakers. Everything said that night was True apart from when the Chairman of the day spoke. The then Board had the facts and figures in front of them in a report they commissioned by a reputable local firm of solicitors but they chose to ignore the advice they were given and signed up to a breathtakingly one sided agreement.
A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then washing away all of the dead wood from WCFC. There is a great atmosphere at the Club, the Board has the backing of the fans and we have a half decent entertaining team.
Unfortunately the WCFC Board HAVE to back an agreement a previous Board signed upto, they have no choice.
However, the fans of Worcester City FC don't have to. Back the Trust!
CityBlueBoy
says...
12:14pm Wed 8 Sep 10
Maybe now its time to interview Dave Boddy and see what the muppet has to say about the contract he signed and why he still hangs around like a bad smell.
The club doesnt have the money to build a ground at Nunnery Way, they dont have the money to go through court and get the monkey that is SM off our backs.
I have to agree its time the planners said this will never happen and the contracts get cancelled.
The problem with the Cinderella ground is there is only a 20 year lease....if we are still around in 20 years the council could quite easily take the lease away and then we will have a ground built which we cant even play at.
Its time for the idiots on the council to help this City keep its football team, stop thinking about the Cricket and Rugby clubs who are now starting to have their own problems off the pitch and help WCFC stay alive.
blue & white
says...
12:41pm Wed 8 Sep 10
stargazer
says...
12:55pm Wed 8 Sep 10
Keith B
says...
1:39pm Wed 8 Sep 10
For a small provincial City or Town Club that's success.
The problem at Worcester City lies in the constitution where ownership has to be shared - and nobody is going to put in large sums of money without having complete control.
It's an unfortunate fact of life that community owned clubs, by their very nature, are often run by people from the community who have huge dreams but without the real money needed to bring success on the field or the often the business expertise and nowse needed to operate in a harsh business environment.
Those slagging off Dave Boddy, who I believe has been a supporter since childhood, need to ask themselves where they were when he stepped up to be Chairman.
If mistakes were made by David Boddy and the then Board of Directors, it was the shareholders who elected them and allowed them to control the Club - and spend money it couldn't afford on players wages in order to compete with other Clubs with benefactors.
(It's almost like Gordon Brown was in charge!!!!!)
Real world. Maybe Worcester City needs to take a long view and cut it's suit according to it's cloth.
Maybe the solution is to look at Aldershot who in the year of their demise were knocked out of the FA Cup by ......... Worcester City.
They stared from scratch at a very low level and are back in the League while Worcester City are in the same place they were then, but in financial ruin.
Worcester City are just about at that "start again" stage.
chris peacockpeacock
says...
3:00pm Wed 8 Sep 10
RichardW
says...
4:14pm Wed 8 Sep 10
Any potential benefactors, people with relevant experience or anyone with half a brain over the past 15 years were chased away from the club with a big stick, an example of which was as at the AGM in 2008, when given a clear alternative those holding the majority of the shares (most of whom were
on the Board or closely associated to them) chose to follow the pipe dream (which we were promised we would be playing in at the start of this season!!)
Don't forget that the "Company Secretary" who was caught counting the votes on behalf of the independent adjudicator before this AGM also "sold" several thousand shares to keep them in front of the challenging"rebel group".
The club might be in a considerably better position if it wasn't for this shameful episode which oversadowed the Club for the past two years and for several more years to come.
Fortunately they are no more.
Who says City fans want a League place anyway, What is wrong with having a small well run non-league club. Benefactors generally cause more trouble than their worth.
Keith B
says...
4:36pm Wed 8 Sep 10
But it does frustrate me that football supporters want to operate as if football wern't part of the real world. The comment was made that Mr Boddy was shoehorned in as Chairman. Be honest - that happens in every company - look at Barclays Bank today. But in the end it's shareholders who own the Company and they who can change things should they wish to and are able to organise.
And what is wrong with businessmen trying to make some money from a land deal. That happens in every walk of life - why do supporters (who at the end of the day are simply customers of a company in the same way I am a customer of Marks & Spencer) think that the product they buy is any different to socks or bra's. If M&S do a land deal to re-define a field and build a new store (for example, in Malvern), who complains if the developer makes money. But supporters of a footbal club somehow think that's wrong.
The comments are made (rather rudely) that Mr Boddy wasn't a great businessman - which, if true, puts him alongside about 99% of the population.
There is a headline here .... "SMALL BUSINESS SPENDS MORE THAN IT EARNS".
And who is pressing for it to do so. It's customers/supporters who are constantly wanting more expensive and better paid players so that it can win football matches but who don't want to pay more for entry to the matches.
It goes back to M&S. If they buy socks at 50p a pair and sell them at £2-00 they are in heaven. But if they buy those socks at £3-00 a pair and sell them at £2-00, in the end have to sell off their shop to pay the debt created. And then they have nowhere to trade from.
Football IS in the real world - just sometimes supporters forget that.
Archie Claines
says...
5:10pm Wed 8 Sep 10
"And what is wrong with businessmen trying to make some money from a land deal." Nothing if it benefits the company they represent. But at WCFC we've had directors who have pushed through deals that blatantly were against the interest of the club.
If directors of M&S were caught selling company socks and bras in the local market cheaper than in the stores, they couldn't claim "we were only making a few bob." They'd be prosecuted. The land deal at NW was designed purely to line certain individuals' pockets - and was never intended to benefit WCFC.
Avante
says...
5:24pm Wed 8 Sep 10
It didnt take a genius to find out as much info as you wanted about this land deal and how it affected the football club, or who was orchestrating it. It was presented at various meetings, most of them attended by Worcester News, and most of them recorded too.
So finally the penny has dropped, 3 years of hard work, ridicule, provocation, threats, and basically being considered a liar and a troublemaker - finally it looks like its been worth it. Everybody, object to this crazy crazy scheme, which is, and always has been, totally unviable!
Keith B, I am guessing that you have no understanding of the constitution of WCFC Ltd.
Keith B
says...
6:24pm Wed 8 Sep 10
Be fair - I did say I came into this thread without much detailed knowledge. And that's what it's about. You are looking at it as supporters of a team representing your City. I've approached it as an ordinary citizen who sometimes watches football for entertainment, without supporting a particular team. In Football, success is winning matches and trophies. In the business world which you are straying into, success is increasing share value and high dividends (and I do know that's not what happens in football.) The day the Club became a Limited Company was the day when business values over-rode sporting values. That rule applies to Manchester United, whose owners regard success in terms of how much they will make ... just as it does to, say, Perrywood FC who are committee run and play just up the road from St Georges Lane as amatuers and where success is winning a trophy at the end of the season.
But actually if what you state is true, then as shareholders, customers and just as local citizens you have a duty to draw this to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
If you believe a law has been broken, Worcester has a big police station. West Mercia Police have a specialist unit that deals with this sort of investigation.
If you think Company law has been broken, then Companies House at Crown Way, Cardiff CF14 3UZ will be pleased to investigate. HM Customs will be very interested too as these things normally go hand in hand.
On the other hand I think if I were on the receiving end of some of these comments, and they were untrue, I'd be at my solicitors consulting on the libel implications.
I'm not being hostile to what you're saying - just interested in contributing to the debate.
Archie Claines
says...
7:22pm Wed 8 Sep 10
Boddy and co are not dealing with a bunch of stereotypical, yobbo football fans. Many of us are extremely well educated, and - certainly in the case of Avante and Rich - truly honourable men.
brooksider
says...
10:16pm Wed 8 Sep 10
Avante
says...
12:11am Thu 9 Sep 10
Piccolo
says...
7:51am Thu 9 Sep 10
Flagman
says...
8:38am Thu 9 Sep 10
It was a blank page, and reading the comments on this sorry saga, how right he was !
kevin ward
says...
9:26am Thu 9 Sep 10
All posters agree to a set of terms and conditions when they register. Please abide by them.
Any further abuse of the site's terms and conditions will result in the comments facility on this article being locked.
Kevin Ward
EDITOR
WORCESTER NEWS
Avante
says...
10:49am Thu 9 Sep 10
brooksider
says...
1:18pm Thu 9 Sep 10
"I only deal in facts!"
Avante
says...
6:14pm Thu 9 Sep 10
If the Worcester News had taken this view based on facts 2 years ago, then there was still hope to put an end to this, and to rescue the club. So why didnt they?
Maybe the Sports Editor, or someone at an executive level at the Worcester News could explain? Was the Worcester News gagged in some way?
Avante
says...
6:17pm Thu 9 Sep 10
Doogie 46
says...
7:56pm Thu 9 Sep 10
This at the time resulted in decent people being branded rebels and troublemakers - something they most certainly were not.
Far from locking out comment on this article, the Editor should be preparing an explanation of why this newspaper did not investigate the "rebels`" claims and carried on supporting a now discredited board and project, when the financial evidence pointing to a disaster has been obvious for so long.
Allegations that the WN was gagged in some way have appeared in comment before -that`s something that needs addressing urgently.
I assume that the postings deleted for "legal reasons" are allegations of , shall we say, conficts of interests, relating to departed directors - was their any evidence of this supplied by the "troublemakers"?
Is it possible a scandal may yet hit the headlines?
Avante
says...
9:52pm Thu 9 Sep 10
mooster
says...
8:45am Fri 10 Sep 10
.com
If we don’t do it together it will never happen…
kevin ward
says...
9:40am Fri 10 Sep 10
I can also confirm man did land on the Moon and Elvis is dead.
Our job is to report both sides of the argument. We have done that consistently over a number of years and received considerable complaints and, at times, abuse from both sides as a result.
Have we changed our opinion on Nunnery Way? Yes.
We have removed some comments from this article because they are potentially libellous and defamatory.
Some posters may believe they are above the law but we are not - and I have the responsibility of ensuring anything published in our print or online editions is legal.
Closing comments on an article is always a last resort for us if posters persist in leaving comments that could leave them and us open to legal action.
Finally, not a single criticism of the Worcester News has been deleted.
Kevin Ward
EDITOR
WORCESTER NEWS
Avante
says...
10:29am Fri 10 Sep 10
If the group who were trying to save the football club, or at least to ensure football stayed in Worcester at a high level had been given the support of thr Worcester News, and do bear in mind that the Worcester News have no facts now that are different to 3 years ago (if they believed that Careys were going to ever pay £7.3 million for SGL, they must be well puddled, that was obvious by their lack of movement on planning) or the contract lengths - which they also were aware of, particularly the discrepency in the lengths of buyer and seller agreements, then maybe the plan could have succeeded.
The following percieved lack of support from the major media outlets eventually led to the plans breaking down, after all, with no support, the group would simply look like the group of "Rebels" that the Worcester News always called them. They werent rebels, they were potential saviours, hard working good loyal supporters of the club, yet referred to as "rebels" - a nice negative spin that! Backed up of course with the publication of comments from the former Chairman talking about "troublemakers" and "a small minority talking loudly" These comments looked to be true in the context being presented by the media.
Unfortunately most of the main drivers of those plans have moved on to other business ventures, and moved away from WCFC, and won't be coming back, the opportunity presented itself at the time, and the time has now gone.
Its not a case of saying "I told you so" its more a case of pointing out what the cost has been, what damage has been done, and needing some assurance that the Worcester News will base their opinion on facts in the future, and not just run with hare or hounds depending on the following wind.
Andrew Guy rightly points out the feeling of deja vu from Kevin Wards comments from 2000. There has been absolutely no change whatsoever in the ground plan structure (football stadium viable only with enabling development) or the Council planning policy. So why on earth would WN editor release that comment, and then back track for the next 10 years by supporting a virtually identical application, until some "epiphany" 2 weeks ago?
As can be seen by some of the comments following this report, from some people who simply refused to believe a word of what was being said, and took the Worcester News spin for gospel, they have a lot of local power. So I do embrace this change of heart from the WN, but I do also expect them to back it up with their reasoning (and it cant be to do with a £1.5 million deficit, they knew there was a deficit 3 years ago when a loyal supporter presented the forecasted figures at the cricket ground meeting) and ther reasons why they felt they had to support a financially unviable scheme which would destroy a community sports club. Maybe after they have done this, then the larger population of Worcester can help the club move forward to new opportunities.
So Kevin, nows the time to utilise the power of the Worcester News to help the football club and its supporters.
RichardW
says...
10:35am Fri 10 Sep 10
kevin ward wrote:As a "rebel", "troublemaker" etc the posts above from fellow "rebels" and "troublemakers" are all based on fact which can all be backed up in most cases by information supplied by the Board at the time and with Public Documents and none of those posts have ever been deleted, whereas the deleted posts in question were nothing more than complete nonsense.
Not that anything I say will convince the conspiracy theorists, but this newspaper has never been gagged by anyone or any organisation during my time as editor. Nor will it ever be. I can also confirm man did land on the Moon and Elvis is dead. Our job is to report both sides of the argument. We have done that consistently over a number of years and received considerable complaints and, at times, abuse from both sides as a result. Have we changed our opinion on Nunnery Way? Yes. We have removed some comments from this article because they are potentially libellous and defamatory. Some posters may believe they are above the law but we are not - and I have the responsibility of ensuring anything published in our print or online editions is legal. Closing comments on an article is always a last resort for us if posters persist in leaving comments that could leave them and us open to legal action. Finally, not a single criticism of the Worcester News has been deleted. Kevin Ward EDITOR WORCESTER NEWS
Elvis dead? Are you sure?
Avante
says...
10:51am Fri 10 Sep 10
kevin ward wrote:Kevin, the obvious question to ask you is "Why have you changed your view?"
Not that anything I say will convince the conspiracy theorists, but this newspaper has never been gagged by anyone or any organisation during my time as editor. Nor will it ever be.
I can also confirm man did land on the Moon and Elvis is dead.
Our job is to report both sides of the argument. We have done that consistently over a number of years and received considerable complaints and, at times, abuse from both sides as a result.
Have we changed our opinion on Nunnery Way? Yes.
We have removed some comments from this article because they are potentially libellous and defamatory.
Some posters may believe they are above the law but we are not - and I have the responsibility of ensuring anything published in our print or online editions is legal.
Closing comments on an article is always a last resort for us if posters persist in leaving comments that could leave them and us open to legal action.
Finally, not a single criticism of the Worcester News has been deleted.
Kevin Ward
EDITOR
WORCESTER NEWS
Nothing new has appeared that wasnt being said in public meetings 3 years ago. No new facts have suddenly come to light. Alam Williams the project manager and John Dodds the SMD Director have publically stated that there may be no overage, and various project leaders and football club directors have also stated that the plan is not viable without overage.
The Business Plan submitted to Worcester City Council as part of the planning application shows the deficits, its all public domain information which has been brought to the attention of Worcester News. Not once did the Worcester News ask the questions about whether the club could move debt-free, even after the drop in sale price of SGL, if that didnt send alarm bells ringing, you must be exceedingly deaf!
And of course, you yourself wrote in your comment in 2000 that WCFC are "flogging a dead horse" regarding planning for Nunnery Way. Yet for reasons unknown, you then decide to back the very same plan (same land usage, same enabling requirements, different applicant) for the next 10 years! Planning requirements are still the same, CLT32 reads the same, the issue of enablement is the same.
So maybe, instead of continuing to label good supporters of the football club as "rebels" or "conspiracy theorists", you'd maybe like to lay out your rationale behind this about turn. It miust have been based on quite a few facts, so how about publishing them? That way you can use the undoubted power of the Worcester News to present the facts in a way that we have struggled to over the last few years.
kevin ward
says...
11:47am Fri 10 Sep 10
I was appointed editor of the Worcester News in 2007 and can therefore hardly be accused of backtracking on something written by a previous editor 10 years ago.
Editors change, viewpoints change, editorial policies change.
As I've said before, we have reported both sides of this debate consistently.
Because this has been such a hostile issue the result is those against Nunnery Way don't like us publishing anything from those who support it, and those who support it don't like us publishing anything from those who are against it.
Kevin Ward
EDITOR
WORCESTER NEWS
Avante
says...
1:00pm Fri 10 Sep 10
If you were the Editor in 2007, then you have been Editor ever since the announcement of the deals with SMD and Carey New Homes. So nothing has changed apart from the viewpoint of the Editor of the Worcester News. The Worcester News has actively promoted this scheme since its inception, so its only fair that an explanation is given for this about face.
kevin ward
says...
2:18pm Fri 10 Sep 10
I know I can't win here, and I'm not going to add anything after this post, but nevertheless...
The amount of criticism and, at times, abuse we have received on this issue from both sides of the debate is pretty much equal. That tells me we have been reporting fairly.
I'm happy to defend our coverage but it's clear that you will - indeed you always have - use whatever part of what I say that does not fit your version of events as a stick to beat the Worcester News with.
So you'll ignore getting your facts wrong over something written well before my time at the Worcester News and pick on another element of what I've said instead.
If you read our Comment pieces over the last two years (they are all online and you've commented on most of them) you will see our initial support for Nunnery Way has waned considerably and we have increasingly called for a Plan B, whether that be an alternative stadium proposal or a ground share, to be considered by the club.
The latest version of the Nunnery Way plan, for a stadium that only just meets the criteria for City's current league, has been the tipping point for us.
I know well enough your view that Nunnery Way was always a non-starter. That's fine. You have every righ to hold your opinions. We have every right to hold ours. That's democracy.
I also know well enough that you won't agree with what I say or what we publish unless it coincides precisely with your point of view.
Again, that's fine. But it makes for a pointless debate. Therefore, as I say, I won't be adding to this post.
As always, readers are welcome to contact me by post or email on this issue.
Regards
Kevin Ward
EDITOR
WORCESTER NEWS
Avante
says...
3:09pm Fri 10 Sep 10
But you still have not asked answered the question. Why the change of heart?
You do not know my view, in fact you're way off it. I actively worked with the football club to promote Nunnery Way, working with Mr Boddy and Mr Sorenson, debating with interested parties, writing letters of support to the planning committee, spending freezing Saturday mornings petitioning for support.
However, the planning application was rejected, following a very detailed public inquiry which was published, and outlined very clear reasons for refusal.
Since that point, it has been obvious that a retail enabled scheme would never be approved. Whether the developer is B&Q, or SMD, that form of plan wont work. I am therefore against the concept of a retail enabled development at this site for the simple reason that it will never fly. I would fully support a standalone stadium on the site at Nunnery Way.
You say that the Worcester News support for the scheme has waned and you've asked for a Plan B, well I am sorry but, for at least two years you've known that a Plan B cannot be researched by the football club due to contractual obligations with SMD.
So, please, for the third time, why the change of opinion? What has made the Worcester News suddenly come out with this change of mind? My reasoning was Richardsons Report, what is yours? You say the release of the details of the new stadium was the tipping point, yet this was published back in late 2009 by Jim Panter and Alan Herbert (Alpha Projects) at the open meeting at cricket ground. Jim also presented the financial deficit, which was calculated back then as around £1.2 million. Frank Scanlon from Carey made it perfectly clear that the club were obligated to sell to Carey, or face penalty, and SMD were conspicuous by their absence.
More Sport stories
- Government gives ground green light - ballot
- James quashes any talk of title
- Sale Sharks 15 Worcester Warriors 12
- Form upturn call by City hitman Mike
- Gray has Goode and Carlisle in his sights for Warriors’ fly-half spot
- Robust United in training regardless of bad weather
- Lyness hopes for full recall
- Warriors match tonight gets the green light
- City's match postponed
- It's snow joke at Tamworth
COMMENT: Club should give stadium idea the boot
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
MrStJohns says...
10:29am Wed 8 Sep 10
Look at the Cinderella sports ground in St Johns such a viable prospect its untrue. Keep the football club in the city centre surrounded by good transport links, instead of sticking it up by the motorway. The rugby club is successful in that location because it has serious amounts of cash. The football club im sure would do well on the Cinderella sports ground.