Bulls News

International Tournament For Bulls?

SOME of Hereford United's brightest stars could feature in an international tournament this summer.

Unfortunately though, it's not the World Cup!

The English, Scottish and Welsh semi-professional teams will be joined by Republic of Ireland to play in a four-team event in May, held at the grounds of Lancashire clubs Southport (Haig Avenue) and Morecambe (Christie Park), both of whom play in the Nationwide Conference.

Tommi Morgan, the Welsh coach who is also manager of League of Wales side Carmarthen Town, could choose to select Gavin Williams and Tony James in his side. England boss John Owens has plenty of options from Hereford, including goalkeepers Matt Baker and Scott Cooksey and defenders Matt Clarke and Ian Wright.

The schedule and locations are only provisional, but are listed below:

Tuesday May 14th - Wales vs England; Scotland vs Republic of Ireland
Thursday May 16th - England vs Republic of Ireland, Wales vs Scotland
Saturday May 18th - England vs Scotland, Republic of Ireland vs Wales

 
THE future of Hereford United Football Club now hangs in the balance after an exchange of letters between Chelverton's Simon Morgan and Herefordshire Council Leader Terry James.
HU-FC.co.uk have obtained a letter from Mr. Morgan sent to Councillor James on January 14th, and the reply dated January 28th.
 
14 January 2002
 
Dear Councillor James
 
Hereford United Football Club
 
I am writing for the record to review the initiative that Chelverton pursued in the last four months of last year with both the Club and Herefordshire Council in respect of the principle of relocating the Football Club funded through the development of the existing ground.
As you are aware a special purpose company called Formsole holds the leases of the ground. Until August of last year Chelverton and Bristol Stadium (BS) equally owned this company. During the course of the last five years this company has advanced two loans of £500,000 each to support the financially ailing Football Club.
I would emphasize that Chelverton are the superior leaseholder to the Club and a property company. As such we are under no obligation whatsoever to provide financial support to the Club and nor is it our business. Irrespective of this the company lent £1 million pounds and without these loans the Club would have failed years ago. During this time Formsole provided further financial assistance as follows:
The conclusion of a joint venture agreement between Formsole and the Football Club whereby 50% of any residual value in the ground would be split 50:50 (tenants residual value).
Postpone the repayment of one of the loans in line with the repayment date for the other namely May 2003.
Acceptance that interest on the interest-bearing loan would not be paid during the term but instead rolled up and paid in May 2003.
Despite the agreement between the Club and Formsole no requests for rent have been made with Formsole accepting repayment in May 2003.
Co-operating in the partial release of the Council bond to allow improvements to be undertaken to the Supporters' Club building.
Until the end of last year Formsole considered that the continued additional modest support of the Football Club was justified as long as there remained the prospect of them being able to repay the debt in May 2003. Both the Club’s Board and Formsole were of the opinion that, in the absence of a philanthropic investor, they would only be able to repay the debt through the provisions of the joint venture agreement between Formsole and the Club. Clearly any income to the Club via the joint venture agreement would only be achieved in the event that that redevelopment value in the ground could be realized. Accordingly the Club’s Board agreed with me that we should jointly make strong representations as part of the emerging UDP process.
During the early part of 2001 I became increasingly frustrated by the unproactive stance being adopted by BS. The Chairman of the company had made a number of public statements signaling their departure from property development and it was clear that they were seeking to sell their interest without, in the meantime, incurring additional costs. Accordingly, Chelverton decided to purchase the BS interest in Formsole thereby enabling us to control a constructive debate to explore the alternatives that the Club was faced with.
In August Chelverton acquired the BS interest and immediately I began a dialogue with the Club's Board, Senior Officers of the Council and latterly, the supporters. I explained to all concerned that the future of the Club must be considered as part of the emerging UDP process and, in light of the publication of the consultation “Proposals for Hereford City” document in September, an opportunity existed to make representations about the future of the Club.
The subsequent discussions that I had with Neil Pringle, the Board of the Club and the supporters sought to set out the alternatives that the Club were faced with, namely:
Accept the consultation Proposals document issued by the Council, which would result in the liquidation of the club because of their inability to repay the debts; unless of course Chelverton were able and prepared to continue with their financial support.
Seek to release value around the margins of the existing ground in the hope that sufficient value could be generated to repay the debt.
Seek to maximise the inherent residual value in the ground thereby funding a relocation and sufficient surplus funds to secure the Club’s future.
I explained to all concerned that Chelverton had carefully considered the three alternatives and wish to avoid the first alternative. I explained that the second alternative, having been considered in detail earlier in the year, would not generate sufficient value to repay the debt, let alone secure the long-term future of the Club. Accordingly, I requested support for the principle of relocation funded by the release of the inherent redevelopment value of the ground integrated with other "Edgar Street grid square properties” to provide a comprehensive development.
Later in October I obtained the support of the Club’s Board following which George Hyde met with you and issued a public statement confirming that the Club would financially fail unless significant value could be released from the ground. In addition, my meeting with the Liaison Committee of the Supporters Clubs had gone well and it was expected that the supporters would vote in favour of the third alternative following a presentation that I was asked to give to the next home game on Saturday 10 November.
You will appreciate that the Club’s support to my initiative was critical to establish any credibility when asking Herefordshire Council to consider the principle of relocation and the redevelopment potential of the ground. I was disappointed to hear shortly before my presentation on Saturday 10 November that certain influential members of HUISA had been lobbied to reject Chelverton's initiative supported by the statements that were incapable of substantiation namely:
That Chelverton's proposal would not generate sufficient value to fund a relocation of the Club and repay the debt.
That Chelverton’s intention was to allow the club to fail in any event thereby saving relocation costs.
That the ground could not be redeveloped due to the Jackson request/covenant, which prevented the site from being used for anything other than a sports ground.
There existed a party who were prepared to purchase Chelverton’s interest and support the Club going forward without the need to relocate.
It became apparent that influential members of the Hereford community, unconnected with the Football Club, were seeking to jeopardize a genuine attempt to identify a sustainable and long-term solution to the Club's financial problems by misleading lobbying.
Nevertheless I gave a presentation to approximately 150 members of the Club on Saturday 10 November and presented the three alternatives. The vast majority of those present supported the principle of relocation and I left the presentation in no doubt that the initiative would be backed. It was therefore to my great surprise that I heard later in the day that the decision was one of deferral (effective rejection) as a result of strong lobbying from a small group of HUISA representatives.
Both the Club's Board and Chelverton were shocked with the outcome and the lobbying that had taken place before the 10 November presentation. This lobbying will ultimately prove fatal for the Football Club and I believe it is essential that, as Leader of Herefordshire Council, you are aware of the facts behind this genuine attempt to ensure the Club’s survival.
Chelverton's strategy has been to secure, if at all possible, the future of the club. In strict business terms this was clearly not the most commercial decision, as the residual value of the ground will be diminished by the cost of relocation. However, Chelverton accepted that the survival of the Club was essential and would form the basis of future proposals. Minutes of Chelverton meetings can be provided to evidence this fact. There has therefore been no hidden agenda, seeking to close the Club in any event.
The Board and the vast majority of the supporters that I have spoken to endorse the need to consider releasing value from the ground through relocation. If achieved this would provide the Club with sufficient revenue to repay the debt and for the provision of a new football ground could be designed to ensure off pitch income could be maximized.
Chelverton's Consultants have provided evidence to the Herefordshire Council Planning Department, which evidences sufficient capacity in Hereford to accommodate the scale of development that would be required to fund the relocation.
Chelverton have proven that there is sufficient value to fund a relocation of the club, repay the debt and provide the Council with an appropriate share of the residual value. This information has been provided by the Council’s Estate Department and, to my knowledge, the figures not disputed.
Neither the Council's solicitors nor Chelverton’s solicitors can find any evidence of the Jackson covenant~ which was mentioned periodically last autumn. Accordingly, there is no restrictive covenant on the use of the ground; however, there is a standard user clause in the existing lease preventing the ground from being used for anything other than a sports facility.
Notwithstanding considerable press and public debate no buyer for Chelverton’s interest has come forward. I understand that you are aware of the identity of such a party who would be prepared to support the Club going forward but as yet his identity has not been revealed and no contact has been yet made with Chelverton. If such an approach were made I can confirm Chelverton would be prepared to consider selling our interest at cost. However we remain firmly of the opinion that it is best for the Club and for Hereford as a center to relocate the Club and develop a comprehensive mixed use scheme on the Edgar Street grid square land to enable Hereford to more effectively compete with neighbouring centres such as Worcester, Gloucester and Cheltenham.
On 7 December the Planning Committee of Herefordshire Council endorsed the Planning Officer's recommendation following the consultation period on the Proposals for Hereford City document. This confirms that the Football Club will not be recognized as having redevelopment potential in the emerging UPD, which will be placed on deposit in the spring of this year.
This decision leaves Chelverton in a difficult position with there being no prospect of the Club being able to repay the debt in May 2003, and in fact, it is questionable whether they will still be trading by this date. Although the televised FA Cup game with Wrexham provided a valuable boost to funds, the Club will probably need to raise additional cash to support the business on a day-to-day basis prior to 2003. You need to appreciate that Chelverton will find it difficult to meet any additional cash demands (in light of the Club’s inability to repay the loan) and the inevitability of the situation will be that it will fail between now and 19 May 2003 as a result of pressure from senior creditors.
In the meantime, Chelverton have no other alternative but to make representations at the juncture as part of the UDP process and hope to successfully argue the case at a subsequent Inquiry. For my part I am bitterly disappointed that Hereford United Football Club's struggle to survive will in all probability now fail.
I apologise for the length of this letter; however as the Club’s future will inevitably continue to be a topic of considerable debate over the next 16 months I tought you should have a summary of the facts behind this position. If there are any issues arising out of this letter that you wish to discuss then please contact me at the above address and I would obviously be only to happy to meet you in Hereford.
Yours sincerely
S Morgan
 
In reply on January 28th, Council Leader Terry James wrote:
 
Dear Mr. Morgan,
Thank you for your letter of 14th January regarding Hereford United Football Club. You set out the history of the situation which I think we are all well aware of but I have to take issue with you on a number of the points you make in your letter.
Chelverton’s prime objective is not, as you state in your letter, to secure the future of the Club but to make a profit from the demolition of the stadium and the building of a supermarket partly on the site. Chelverton is a development company; nothing more, nothing less, and the loans to Hereford United were given to secure financial benefit for your Company, which is its purpose. That does not mean that I or the Herefordshire Council have to set our policies and priorities to the detriment of our own future in order to secure your financial gain.
I have discussed with you before my desire to develop the Edgar Street area as a multisport and leisure facility, including multiplex cinema and other facilities, which is supported by the public of Herefordshire, but you still persist in forcing your vision upon this county, namely yet another supermarket and allied warehouse type retailing. Indeed the plans you showed me some twelve months ago filled me with horror and would be viewed as such, I am certain, by Herefordshire residents.
When we first met to discuss your interest in this area you stated you wished to work with the Council in partnership to develop the area but all we have subsequently had in effect is a series of ultimatums and threats to Hereford United, its supporters and ourselves which is hardly the basis for a working relationship let alone a partnership. My position has always been that if there was a certainty of sufficient funds to purchase a site, develop and build a new stadium and those monies were guaranteed, that would form the basis of a serious discussion but you know and I know that that is never going to happen. With seven existing food/supermarket retailers in Hereford there is never likely to be serious competition involving the major supermarket chains for the Edgar Street site, indeed if there were a desire by the various companies for a site, their preference would be for the cattle market site not the Edgar Street ground.
All you have placed before the fans and ourselves is that it could produce ‘X’ amount of money, but no guarantee. I have to say I could win the lottery but I am not planning my future on its likelihood.
Let us clear up a number of points:
1. If, as you state you are certain, there is sufficient value in the site after all costs and the repayment of the debt of Hereford United have been met, to purchase a site and build a new stadium, you would be prepared to give a binding legal guarantee to provide sufficient funds to carry out the project. You have not, nor I venture to suggest, will you ever.
2. You make much of the meeting held on the 10th November and your surprise at its outcome. Your description of the meeting is totally at variance with all that I have had reported to me by numerous supporters, and your suggestion that it was improperly run is an insult to those that were there, the HUISA Committee and its Chairman.
3. You state that the Board supports your decision but as I understand it, they are contractually bound by the loan agreement to so do and are not entirely free agents in this matter if I am correct.
Finally, I see no point in continuing what I think is a pointless dialogue over these matters. As you say, you will make your representations during the UDP process but I have to say to you bluntly that they are unlikely to receive any support from the Council, from the planners or from the public and they are unlikely to be successful.
I am disappointed that we are unable to work together on what will be an exciting development for Herefordshire. As the landowners, we are determined that what happens on this site will be what the people of Herefordshire want, not the wishes of a property development company.
Yours sincerely,
TERRY JAMES
LEADER OF THE COUNCIL
 
HU-FC.co.uk were unable to contact Simon Morgan for his comments this afternoon.