Uncertain times are ahead for the club

Worcester News: INVESTMENT WELCOMED: Worcester City chairman Anthony Hampson will encourage cash boosts to help the club says Carl Heeley. INVESTMENT WELCOMED: Worcester City chairman Anthony Hampson will encourage cash boosts to help the club says Carl Heeley.

THERE is a huge challenge facing Worcester City and we need everyone to help and fully understand the club’s plight.

We have one season left at St George’s Lane and need to raise funds to build a new ground at Nunnery Way.

It’s going to be difficult but it’s not impossible.

However, we only have a small group of people who are readily willing to help and those numbers need to swell.

Around 850 have turned up to home games consistently this season and every one of them should make it their goal to understand the club’s predicament.

We need investment and might have to look at the structure of the club to encourage that to happen but help doesn’t always have to be financial. Fans might have expertise in other areas such as construction or have commercial and sponsorship experience.

Nobody will be turned away by chairman Anthony Hampson and the board, any help will be welcomed with open arms. As much as there is frustration, it’s the situation we find ourselves in and there is no benefit in dwelling on the past.

Of those 850 people, we will have expertise in lots of areas and we need them to come forward.

I think there are three phases to the situation. First of all we have got the last season at the Lane coming up which will have a lot of sentiment for a lot of people.

I am sure there will be some emotion towards the end of the campaign and I am certain we will see some very big crowds as a result of that.

The second phase will be a period of time away from Worcester when we won’t have our own ground and will have to share.

That is going to bring it’s own challenge of trying to retain as much of our fan-base as we can.

We will have to look at travel arrangements and possible incentive schemes for supporters alongside season tickets but I also think it’s crucially important we maximise our income streams and build a good infrastructure at the club.

The third phase is looking at how we can raise funds to build the new ground, after the infrastructure costs have been taken out of the Careys New Homes money, and look at grants available to us.

While these phases are taking their course, we have also got the big issue running alongside of capital gains tax.

We need to see if it can be delayed so that all of the funds go into the new ground.

In all of this, we are trying to develop a good squad of players on the pitch and that’s a considerable challenge.

But we have done incredibly well this season and there’s no reason why we can’t do well next season too.

We have tried our level best to play entertaining football and it’s good to see the average home gate has increased.

However, there are likely to be some uncertain times ahead for the club and we need everyone behind us.

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:03pm Thu 26 Apr 12

Andrew Guy says...

The begging bowl is now out...
-
So, when Anthony Hampson assured the councillors of the planning committee that the club was "willing and able" to relocate, he was, well, er, ... perhaps stretching the widely accepted definitions of the words "willing" and "able".
-
What exactly did the KPMG report commissioned by the council on the financial viability of relocation actually say? Alan Coleman summarised it as "not good reading for the football club"... and here we are.
The begging bowl is now out... - So, when Anthony Hampson assured the councillors of the planning committee that the club was "willing and able" to relocate, he was, well, er, ... perhaps stretching the widely accepted definitions of the words "willing" and "able". - What exactly did the KPMG report commissioned by the council on the financial viability of relocation actually say? Alan Coleman summarised it as "not good reading for the football club"... and here we are. Andrew Guy

1:10pm Thu 26 Apr 12

Ex-Worcester boy says...

No might have to look at the structure of the club. For this to happen its got to be without past dictating the present/future ie we all saw previous boards behaviour. Got to be a peoples club to make this work in the short to medium term.
No might have to look at the structure of the club. For this to happen its got to be without past dictating the present/future ie we all saw previous boards behaviour. Got to be a peoples club to make this work in the short to medium term. Ex-Worcester boy

4:22pm Thu 26 Apr 12

CityBlueBoy says...

SUPPORT THE TRUST, JOIN THE SUPPORTERS TRUST, ITS THE WAY FORWARD !!!!

Andrew as a citezen of Worcester with the Citys best interests at heart I will save you a signing on form also !
SUPPORT THE TRUST, JOIN THE SUPPORTERS TRUST, ITS THE WAY FORWARD !!!! Andrew as a citezen of Worcester with the Citys best interests at heart I will save you a signing on form also ! CityBlueBoy

4:43pm Thu 26 Apr 12

Andrew Guy says...

I'll join WCFCST when WCFC tears up the St Modwen contracts.
I'll join WCFCST when WCFC tears up the St Modwen contracts. Andrew Guy

5:19pm Thu 26 Apr 12

CityBlueBoy says...

Question for you Andrew... are St Modwen in breach of contracts if there was no mention of a secondary planning application needed for the bridal way ??

On a personal note and from the documents I have saved from the documents on planning website, I find no mention of the bridal way needing a second planning application, I could be wrong though.
Question for you Andrew... are St Modwen in breach of contracts if there was no mention of a secondary planning application needed for the bridal way ?? On a personal note and from the documents I have saved from the documents on planning website, I find no mention of the bridal way needing a second planning application, I could be wrong though. CityBlueBoy

6:22pm Thu 26 Apr 12

Andrew Guy says...

CBB - These are just the sort of questions fans should have been asking years ago! Happy to oblige...
-
Re the contracts: Ask a (decent) solicitor!
-
On 15 March 2012 the County Council confirmed by email to me that the City Council had received no formal application through the planning process for diversion or extinguishment of Bridleway571.
-
So, given that SMD have indeed failed to include the diversion/extinguish
ment of the bridleway in the planning application P08Q0652, they now have to make another separate formal application, under different legislation, for a PPO (Public Path Order).
-
Some useful reading for you on PPOs: http://www.worcester
shire.gov.uk/cms/pdf
/Extinguishment%20Gu
idance%20Notes.pdf
-
You should also look up:
http://www.facebook.
com/bridleway571
and
http://www.twitter.c
om/bridleway571
CBB - These are just the sort of questions fans should have been asking years ago! Happy to oblige... - Re the contracts: Ask a (decent) solicitor! - On 15 March 2012 the County Council confirmed by email to me that the City Council had received no formal application through the planning process for diversion or extinguishment of Bridleway571. - So, given that SMD have indeed failed to include the diversion/extinguish ment of the bridleway in the planning application P08Q0652, they now have to make another separate formal application, under different legislation, for a PPO (Public Path Order). - Some useful reading for you on PPOs: http://www.worcester shire.gov.uk/cms/pdf /Extinguishment%20Gu idance%20Notes.pdf - You should also look up: http://www.facebook. com/bridleway571 and http://www.twitter.c om/bridleway571 Andrew Guy

6:26pm Thu 26 Apr 12

CityBlueBoy says...

Does this mean the contract is null and void and effectively can be scrapped or is there a clause that is in small print somewhere ??
Does this mean the contract is null and void and effectively can be scrapped or is there a clause that is in small print somewhere ?? CityBlueBoy

6:34pm Thu 26 Apr 12

Andrew Guy says...

Whatever the contracts say, it does appear to have been something of an oversight by SMD not to have addressed the issue of the bridleway in the planning application.
-
PS This is useful too: http://www.ramblers.
org.uk/Resources/Ram
blers%20Association/
Website/Rights%20of%
20Way/Documents/Row_
pathflowchart.pdf
Whatever the contracts say, it does appear to have been something of an oversight by SMD not to have addressed the issue of the bridleway in the planning application. - PS This is useful too: http://www.ramblers. org.uk/Resources/Ram blers%20Association/ Website/Rights%20of% 20Way/Documents/Row_ pathflowchart.pdf Andrew Guy

7:10pm Thu 26 Apr 12

toofaraway says...

Isnt it a case that they have to put in a plan to remove the footpath and if we can raise enough objections to that path being moved then their own contract will be frustrated and they will have to come up with an alternative.
It will not be null and void but it will make things difficult for them
Isnt it a case that they have to put in a plan to remove the footpath and if we can raise enough objections to that path being moved then their own contract will be frustrated and they will have to come up with an alternative. It will not be null and void but it will make things difficult for them toofaraway

7:23pm Thu 26 Apr 12

CityBlueBoy says...

Yes but they still have until 2017 to try everything and anything they can if I'm correct in my thinking
Yes but they still have until 2017 to try everything and anything they can if I'm correct in my thinking CityBlueBoy

9:25am Fri 27 Apr 12

toofaraway says...

I see the Supporters' Trust have taken an initiative and asked supporters if they are willing to contribute or not.
be interesting to see the response of the public to this
http://bit.ly/IvB8I1
I see the Supporters' Trust have taken an initiative and asked supporters if they are willing to contribute or not. be interesting to see the response of the public to this http://bit.ly/IvB8I1 toofaraway

10:34am Fri 27 Apr 12

Andrew Guy says...

Look Guys, sorry to be blunt about this, but for as long as WCFC remains in with St Modwen appealing for cash just looks crass! St Modwen is a PLC with a market capitalisation of over £300m... and you want us, the general public, to put our hands in our pockets to help St Modwen develop a protected greenfield site?! Are you mad?! Do you think we are mad?!
-
Either ask St Modwen to donate (ha ha) or ditch St Modwen, and then ask us again...
Look Guys, sorry to be blunt about this, but for as long as WCFC remains in with St Modwen appealing for cash just looks crass! St Modwen is a PLC with a market capitalisation of over £300m... and you want us, the general public, to put our hands in our pockets to help St Modwen develop a protected greenfield site?! Are you mad?! Do you think we are mad?! - Either ask St Modwen to donate (ha ha) or ditch St Modwen, and then ask us again... Andrew Guy

10:59am Fri 27 Apr 12

toofaraway says...

Who said anything about helping St Modwen develop at NW?

All St Modwen have to do is build a road (the infrastructure) that leads to a piece of grass where a sports facility has to be built to allow St Modwen to build their hotel, car showroom etc once that stadium is built.

That does not have to be a home for WCFC. In theory it could be a training pitch. Currently when St Georges Lane realises the sale price, the only asset WCFC has is that piece of ground. It may be the preferred choice at the moment but all they are currently set to do is build the infrastructure.

The Supporters' Trust are generating funds that will be ring fenced and protected. These funds will not be used to support St Modwen's, they will be used to secure a stadium for WCFC.

Saying it is crass to ask for this money is the last thing that is needed. This will do more harm than good .

If no building happens before 2017 then the contract will be null and void with St Modwen. The club could possibly share with KHFC until 2017 and then this money generated by the Supporters' Trust can be used to build a new WCFC home.
Whilst it is protected and ring fenced by the Trust then only the WCFC Supporters' Trust have the capability of spending it as they feel fit. And everyone who joins the Trust will have their say in it!
Who said anything about helping St Modwen develop at NW? All St Modwen have to do is build a road (the infrastructure) that leads to a piece of grass where a sports facility has to be built to allow St Modwen to build their hotel, car showroom etc once that stadium is built. That does not have to be a home for WCFC. In theory it could be a training pitch. Currently when St Georges Lane realises the sale price, the only asset WCFC has is that piece of ground. It may be the preferred choice at the moment but all they are currently set to do is build the infrastructure. The Supporters' Trust are generating funds that will be ring fenced and protected. These funds will not be used to support St Modwen's, they will be used to secure a stadium for WCFC. Saying it is crass to ask for this money is the last thing that is needed. This will do more harm than good . If no building happens before 2017 then the contract will be null and void with St Modwen. The club could possibly share with KHFC until 2017 and then this money generated by the Supporters' Trust can be used to build a new WCFC home. Whilst it is protected and ring fenced by the Trust then only the WCFC Supporters' Trust have the capability of spending it as they feel fit. And everyone who joins the Trust will have their say in it! toofaraway

11:05am Fri 27 Apr 12

toofaraway says...

And one more thing comes to mind.....

If that asset is all the club has, who says they can not sell it as soon as it is theirs and go and build a ground somewhere else with the money they make from it? The contract I believe is just for the infrastructure.....
What would St Modwen do then??
And one more thing comes to mind..... If that asset is all the club has, who says they can not sell it as soon as it is theirs and go and build a ground somewhere else with the money they make from it? The contract I believe is just for the infrastructure..... What would St Modwen do then?? toofaraway

4:34pm Fri 27 Apr 12

Doogie 46 says...

Having read Andrew Guy`s comments on this subject for several years, I would say that he has never come across as anyone who could remotely be called a City fan - his one object in life seems to have been to stop that chunk of land being developed into a retail or business park at any price.
He has always demonstrated tremendous understanding of planning law but no love for the football club - his current concerns regarding the financial wellbeing of WCFC and the SMD contract are, I suspect, bogus, calculated to inflame supporters` opposition to the situation, thereby helping his ultimate goal.
I think every City fan would love the club to be free to build a stadium elsewhere but I would imagine "tearing up the contract with SMD" has been looked at and found to be not an option.
It is not in the interests of the club to spin out the process for as long as possible - I can`t see too many fans travelling to Kidderminster for very long.
If City disappear off the map the result will be either A)a win for Andrew Guy - no development or B)a win for SMD - development with no football stadium.
I respect and understand Mr Guy`s opposition to SMD`s proposals but not his feigned concerns for our football club.
Having read Andrew Guy`s comments on this subject for several years, I would say that he has never come across as anyone who could remotely be called a City fan - his one object in life seems to have been to stop that chunk of land being developed into a retail or business park at any price. He has always demonstrated tremendous understanding of planning law but no love for the football club - his current concerns regarding the financial wellbeing of WCFC and the SMD contract are, I suspect, bogus, calculated to inflame supporters` opposition to the situation, thereby helping his ultimate goal. I think every City fan would love the club to be free to build a stadium elsewhere but I would imagine "tearing up the contract with SMD" has been looked at and found to be not an option. It is not in the interests of the club to spin out the process for as long as possible - I can`t see too many fans travelling to Kidderminster for very long. If City disappear off the map the result will be either A)a win for Andrew Guy - no development or B)a win for SMD - development with no football stadium. I respect and understand Mr Guy`s opposition to SMD`s proposals but not his feigned concerns for our football club. Doogie 46

5:12pm Fri 27 Apr 12

Andrew Guy says...

Doogie - Ouch! We've exchanged opinions online many times, but I have said over and over that I wish the club every success, to survive and prosper, so you're being more than a little disingenuous on that last line. I don't have to be a City fan to know a bad commercial decision when I see one.
Doogie - Ouch! We've exchanged opinions online many times, but I have said over and over that I wish the club every success, to survive and prosper, so you're being more than a little disingenuous on that last line. I don't have to be a City fan to know a bad commercial decision when I see one. Andrew Guy

6:40pm Fri 27 Apr 12

SouthCoastSupporter says...

We do not need expert legal advice on constitutions. We need to change the current ruls of the club to permit the Supporters Trust to bus shares in order to provide capital for any development. There is a proven co-operative business model for clubs using the Supporters Trust as the vehicle. No need to re-invent the wheel.
We do not need expert legal advice on constitutions. We need to change the current ruls of the club to permit the Supporters Trust to bus shares in order to provide capital for any development. There is a proven co-operative business model for clubs using the Supporters Trust as the vehicle. No need to re-invent the wheel. SouthCoastSupporter

7:17pm Fri 27 Apr 12

toofaraway says...

Ha ha after the fourth time I think we got the idea :)
But you are so right.
If the club hours bust the contract would still be in force for SMD, meaning they would take their money out of the asset which is NW.
However put your money into the Supporters' Trust and that money is safe from SMD anyone else and can be used by the trust members for whatever the trust members feel to be right. Another reason why we should all be joining the trust at the cost of a whole pound Sterling.
Ha ha after the fourth time I think we got the idea :) But you are so right. If the club hours bust the contract would still be in force for SMD, meaning they would take their money out of the asset which is NW. However put your money into the Supporters' Trust and that money is safe from SMD anyone else and can be used by the trust members for whatever the trust members feel to be right. Another reason why we should all be joining the trust at the cost of a whole pound Sterling. toofaraway

10:57am Sat 28 Apr 12

toofaraway says...

toofaraway wrote:
Ha ha after the fourth time I think we got the idea :)
But you are so right.
If the club hours bust the contract would still be in force for SMD, meaning they would take their money out of the asset which is NW.
However put your money into the Supporters' Trust and that money is safe from SMD anyone else and can be used by the trust members for whatever the trust members feel to be right. Another reason why we should all be joining the trust at the cost of a whole pound Sterling.
Sorry wrote that on a mobile and predictive text took over.

if the club goes bust the contract with SMD is still in place so that is not an option. Put any money into the Supporters' Trust and that is separate and ring fenced and would not be in consideration.
The Trust spend that as they require and if you are a member of the Supporters' Trust you will have a say in how that is spent. One member one vote no matter how much you put in.
What better reason do you need to join for that £1 membership fee
[quote][p][bold]toofaraway[/bold] wrote: Ha ha after the fourth time I think we got the idea :) But you are so right. If the club hours bust the contract would still be in force for SMD, meaning they would take their money out of the asset which is NW. However put your money into the Supporters' Trust and that money is safe from SMD anyone else and can be used by the trust members for whatever the trust members feel to be right. Another reason why we should all be joining the trust at the cost of a whole pound Sterling.[/p][/quote]Sorry wrote that on a mobile and predictive text took over. if the club goes bust the contract with SMD is still in place so that is not an option. Put any money into the Supporters' Trust and that is separate and ring fenced and would not be in consideration. The Trust spend that as they require and if you are a member of the Supporters' Trust you will have a say in how that is spent. One member one vote no matter how much you put in. What better reason do you need to join for that £1 membership fee toofaraway

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Your Team »

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree