Worcester City players sign up for club's supporters trust

Worcester News: SIGNED ON: Worcester City players with their Supporters Trust membership. SIGNED ON: Worcester City players with their Supporters Trust membership.

WORCESTER City Supporters’ Trust has received a further boost after the entire City playing squad signed up as members.

The fans organisation, who last month unveiled plans to build a community stadium at Perdiswell, are continuing to recruit members and now have the backing of the players.

They are pictured above with their forms before last Saturday’s 2-0 victory against Stalybridge Celtic at Bower Fold.

The Trust, which has close to 300 members, want as many people to join as possible and are keen for both adult and junior clubs within Worcester to join. Membership is £1 and more details can be found at wcfcst.co.uk

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:35pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Andrew Guy says...

Another hammer blow to Anthony Hampson's credibility! Does anyone still believe his claim that the club is "willing and able" to relocate to Nunnery Way?
-
He's not convinced the board.
He's not convinced the fans.
He's not convinced the players.
However, the council's planners and planning committee chose to be convinced... how? why?
Another hammer blow to Anthony Hampson's credibility! Does anyone still believe his claim that the club is "willing and able" to relocate to Nunnery Way? - He's not convinced the board. He's not convinced the fans. He's not convinced the players. However, the council's planners and planning committee chose to be convinced... how? why? Andrew Guy
  • Score: -2

4:05pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Hillbilly1 says...

This isn't a blow to Hampsons credibility, he doesnt have a choice in making claims to actively support the NW scheme. He's contractually obliged to be seen to be actively promoting the scheme. Or at least, not actively attacking the scheme, I havent seen any promotion of NW for a very long time. Hampson and the board had to get Planning consent, even though this means nothing in terms of getting SMD to work on the site, the board just had to show that there was a possibility of rolling over profits from the sale of SGL to avoid a big CGT bill. If thats what was needed to save the club 500k, then it was the right move. I still dont quite see how the planning committee were convinced however, by a scheme which showed no financial planning, no sustainability, and no community use. Still, an inept planning committee might well have saved the club 500k!
This is a great story, and it just shows how little the club see the prospects of moving to NW. They just can't come out and say it!
This isn't a blow to Hampsons credibility, he doesnt have a choice in making claims to actively support the NW scheme. He's contractually obliged to be seen to be actively promoting the scheme. Or at least, not actively attacking the scheme, I havent seen any promotion of NW for a very long time. Hampson and the board had to get Planning consent, even though this means nothing in terms of getting SMD to work on the site, the board just had to show that there was a possibility of rolling over profits from the sale of SGL to avoid a big CGT bill. If thats what was needed to save the club 500k, then it was the right move. I still dont quite see how the planning committee were convinced however, by a scheme which showed no financial planning, no sustainability, and no community use. Still, an inept planning committee might well have saved the club 500k! This is a great story, and it just shows how little the club see the prospects of moving to NW. They just can't come out and say it! Hillbilly1
  • Score: 1

5:22pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Doogie 46 says...

Andrew - over the years you have shown tremendous knowledge of the planning laws (I`v always thought you worked in the planning dept.) but you have obviously gained little knowledge about the football club and its circumstances and details of the contract with SMD which has the club and directors by the throat.
So please read Hillbilly1`s comment again and spare Anthony Hampson any more derogatory comments about his credibility - SMD`s contract with WCFC has him bound & gagged!!!
Andrew - over the years you have shown tremendous knowledge of the planning laws (I`v always thought you worked in the planning dept.) but you have obviously gained little knowledge about the football club and its circumstances and details of the contract with SMD which has the club and directors by the throat. So please read Hillbilly1`s comment again and spare Anthony Hampson any more derogatory comments about his credibility - SMD`s contract with WCFC has him bound & gagged!!! Doogie 46
  • Score: 1

7:44pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Andrew Guy says...

Doogie,

I know all about the SMD contracts and it is clear from numerous posts by you and others that I am not the only one that is already conversant with the contents (ie I know all about the gagging clauses).
-
But, consider this: Hampson was not obliged, nor was he preregistered (as is required) to address the planning committee when it considered the SMD planning application in January 2012. However, he made an effort to attract the attention of the committee chair when the committee was in session, who then called upon him to address the committee. Hampson assured the committee the club was both "willing and able" to relocate to Nunnery Way, despite the evidence of public WCFC board statements, the letter of objection from a serving WCFC board director, the correspondence between WCFC and SMD about ending their agreement between them and the KPMG financial report which Alan Coleman summarised as "not good reading for the football club". Had Hamspon said nothing the 6:5 vote could and indeed would have been different ("willing and able" were the pivotal issues under consideration) resulting in a refusal of the application. Had the application been refused then the SMD contract would have been (arguably) frustrated and WCFC could have walked away from SMD. Now, ask yourselves - and maybe Hampson too - why was he so determined to leap to the assistance of SMD when he could have just kept silent? This is a very important question because it seems you and many others have been fed and swallowed the line that "hands are tied" when this was an active intervention by Hampson.
-
The first concern of a company director is the interest of the shareholders. I repeat my suggestion that it is time for an EGM of WCFC. Especially as the shareholders were never consulted about the sale of SGL nor the deal with SMD. So, who was consulted if not the shareholders?
-
Furthermore, despite asking these many times, I have still had no answers to the following questions: Who agreed that SGL would be exempted from the statutory requirement to provide 25% (rising to 40% the day after the SGL application was submitted) social and affordable housing on a residential development of more than 12 dwellings? Who requested the concession? Who considered it? Who granted it?
-
Doogie - Your football club has been ruthlessly exploited. The fans, the shareholders, the players - and the public - deserve some answers.
Doogie, I know all about the SMD contracts and it is clear from numerous posts by you and others that I am not the only one that is already conversant with the contents (ie I know all about the gagging clauses). - But, consider this: Hampson was not obliged, nor was he preregistered (as is required) to address the planning committee when it considered the SMD planning application in January 2012. However, he made an effort to attract the attention of the committee chair when the committee was in session, who then called upon him to address the committee. Hampson assured the committee the club was both "willing and able" to relocate to Nunnery Way, despite the evidence of public WCFC board statements, the letter of objection from a serving WCFC board director, the correspondence between WCFC and SMD about ending their agreement between them and the KPMG financial report which Alan Coleman summarised as "not good reading for the football club". Had Hamspon said nothing the 6:5 vote could and indeed would have been different ("willing and able" were the pivotal issues under consideration) resulting in a refusal of the application. Had the application been refused then the SMD contract would have been (arguably) frustrated and WCFC could have walked away from SMD. Now, ask yourselves - and maybe Hampson too - why was he so determined to leap to the assistance of SMD when he could have just kept silent? This is a very important question because it seems you and many others have been fed and swallowed the line that "hands are tied" when this was an active intervention by Hampson. - The first concern of a company director is the interest of the shareholders. I repeat my suggestion that it is time for an EGM of WCFC. Especially as the shareholders were never consulted about the sale of SGL nor the deal with SMD. So, who was consulted if not the shareholders? - Furthermore, despite asking these many times, I have still had no answers to the following questions: Who agreed that SGL would be exempted from the statutory requirement to provide 25% (rising to 40% the day after the SGL application was submitted) social and affordable housing on a residential development of more than 12 dwellings? Who requested the concession? Who considered it? Who granted it? - Doogie - Your football club has been ruthlessly exploited. The fans, the shareholders, the players - and the public - deserve some answers. Andrew Guy
  • Score: 0

10:13pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Doogie 46 says...

Andrew,I thnk Hillbilly1 appears to address Mr Hampson`s action at the planning meeting in his comment, regarding the obtaining of planning consent, so I wouldn`t condemn him yet.
However, I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your comment - this has always ben referred to as a "grubby land deal" and it is quite clear there is somthing "not quite right" about the whole thing - how we get those
answers I have no Idea.
Andrew,I thnk Hillbilly1 appears to address Mr Hampson`s action at the planning meeting in his comment, regarding the obtaining of planning consent, so I wouldn`t condemn him yet. However, I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your comment - this has always ben referred to as a "grubby land deal" and it is quite clear there is somthing "not quite right" about the whole thing - how we get those answers I have no Idea. Doogie 46
  • Score: 0

10:15pm Wed 13 Feb 13

charlie the cat says...

I also think this Great City of ours deserves a Great football club so why not stop all the point scoring comments and forget the past and look to the future and support the Supporters Trust and what they are working hard towards which is giving Worcester City a football club and new modern stadium that we as a City can be proud of.
I also think this Great City of ours deserves a Great football club so why not stop all the point scoring comments and forget the past and look to the future and support the Supporters Trust and what they are working hard towards which is giving Worcester City a football club and new modern stadium that we as a City can be proud of. charlie the cat
  • Score: 0

4:03am Thu 14 Feb 13

CityBlueBoy says...

Andrew, its simple, the old board tied us into this contract, they sold St George's Lane.

It's time the dirt was dug up on Hallmark and Co. Also must mention our former chairman who now has a cosy job with Newport County, thank god their chairman is a millionaire !
Andrew, its simple, the old board tied us into this contract, they sold St George's Lane. It's time the dirt was dug up on Hallmark and Co. Also must mention our former chairman who now has a cosy job with Newport County, thank god their chairman is a millionaire ! CityBlueBoy
  • Score: 0

11:43am Thu 14 Feb 13

Andrew Guy says...

Speaking up in favour of NW to save CGT is not a sustainable argument. The money released by ending the SMD agreement could equally have gone into Cinderella/Perdiswel
l/Hindlip/Grove Farm/elsewhere, any one of which would have negated the CGT liability.
-
If the fans, the players, WCFC board members and the public cannot take Hampson's "willing and able" statements on NW seriously then why would HMRC? They won't. (Eg. There has been no formal application to divert or close the bridleway on NW more than 13 months after the planning approval.)
Speaking up in favour of NW to save CGT is not a sustainable argument. The money released by ending the SMD agreement could equally have gone into Cinderella/Perdiswel l/Hindlip/Grove Farm/elsewhere, any one of which would have negated the CGT liability. - If the fans, the players, WCFC board members and the public cannot take Hampson's "willing and able" statements on NW seriously then why would HMRC? They won't. (Eg. There has been no formal application to divert or close the bridleway on NW more than 13 months after the planning approval.) Andrew Guy
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Hillbilly1 says...

If the planning consent had not been approved, the contracts would not have been considered frustrated. SMD would simply have gone back to the drawing board regarding the design aspects, and they had until 2017 to do this. WCFC had tried to get the contracts considered frustrated previously and were told by SMD that they were not, and that SMD would keep trying until 2017, and would consider this breach of contract.
If getting planning consent saves WCFC a few hundred thousand pounds, then that serves shareholders well. SMDs intent to build anything is now being tested, and nothing appears to be happening. The SMD bully boys have wrapped up all the remaining revenue from the sale of SGL until 2017, regardless of whether this PC was granted.
The planning process was shoddy and showed that the councillors hadn't read any of the documents or made any attempt to understand the planning application. To date the financial statements and business plans have still not been provided to show any sign of sustainability.
If the planning consent had not been approved, the contracts would not have been considered frustrated. SMD would simply have gone back to the drawing board regarding the design aspects, and they had until 2017 to do this. WCFC had tried to get the contracts considered frustrated previously and were told by SMD that they were not, and that SMD would keep trying until 2017, and would consider this breach of contract. If getting planning consent saves WCFC a few hundred thousand pounds, then that serves shareholders well. SMDs intent to build anything is now being tested, and nothing appears to be happening. The SMD bully boys have wrapped up all the remaining revenue from the sale of SGL until 2017, regardless of whether this PC was granted. The planning process was shoddy and showed that the councillors hadn't read any of the documents or made any attempt to understand the planning application. To date the financial statements and business plans have still not been provided to show any sign of sustainability. Hillbilly1
  • Score: 0

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