Trying to give a balanced evaluation it appears the catalyst for development was considered to be getting close to or selling out the ground on a regular basis?
https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/sport/14468117.worcester-warriors-lining-up-new-north-stand-as-they-look-to-increase-sixways-capacity-to-20000/Each case has to be considered on its merits with a balanced evaluation of the particular circumstances. I understand this is a frustration for many, but may go some way to answering why this has been a struggle at Sixfields to date. GPC points out some very real challenges with the development issue that a head full of dreams and a heart full of hope alone won’t solve. Worcester by their own admission are not currently self sustaining and it is claimed by the former owners that it is being sold to take the club to the next level. Perhaps it was the case that the former owners felt it to be a challenge too far to achieve financial independence. Success on the pitch leads to bigger gates which sell out the ground and massively increase the argument for investment. This is not narrow minded thinking but a very viable and sensible option that shouldn’t be suppressed. To develop the infrastructure to attract bigger gates also has merit and is undeniably a possibility. However the single biggest challenge to this is raising the capital with a proven ability to meet the payment terms of any construction company and associated service providers. Without that you will not get a spade in the ground. How, who and on what terms did Worcester manage to achieve this? The only narrow minded thinking on here comes from individuals who have made their decision about what they would like to see and then fail to give due consideration to every option and risk, attempting to suppress the opinion of anyone who does. Whilst I am a firm advocate for a fan ownership with capped minority share ownership this undoubtedly highlights one of the risks and concerns associated with this proposed structure.
