weeble

According to the Post, the requirement is that planning permission be applied for within a year, rather than granted within a year. That is a much less difficult target.

Actually Marvin considered Temple Meads unsuitable, the planners who gave it permission and the intended arena operators (one of the world’s largest) did not. Marvin’s friends YTL, are building the arena in Bristol, if only by about 50m or so.

Never seen that before. Nice to watch, apart from the result. Rovers’ keeper Dick Sheppard was never the same after his fractured skull. That was the last league game he ever played. Died at only 53 years of age.

I can.

It was half time and I needed something to take my mind off the impending second half!

This would be the training ground that wasn’t going to be completed, because we were negotiating an extension to the lease at our previous base? The name is “The Quarters” by the way. I’m surprised a committed Rovers fan like yourself didn’t know that. ?

It’s in the green belt and has permission for use as a sports training facility. It has a gym and will have changing rooms/offices within the next 6 months or so. Not exactly likely to cause a huge increase in value unless you know someone desperate to buy a football training ground.

1950s camp site, I’ll give you. But 1050s? ?

In six months time that would be a potential cause for worry. But not two weeks after the resolution was passed.

The shared experience of the war years produced a lot of social cohesion that persisted probably into the sixties. The pathe news footage of Rovers v City games in the fifties doesn’t seem to show any fan segregation and games passed without trouble. I remember speaking to some people at Eastville who watched Rovers one week and City the next, something I can’t imagine doing. While rivalry/banter between teams is part of being a football fan, the illogical vitriol that can be found on any of the football forums, towards people who enjoy the same sport and come from the same city, I have to say I find rather saddening.

He’s referring to Rovers’ keeper, who was on the bench for Finland.

The original application in 2001 to convert the site to a rugby training centre, is the one being used. Sufficient progress was made at the time for the planners to consider it had been started and South Glos have confirmed it is still extant. The PT16/4965/RVC is an application (in 2016), to change two of the conditions attached to the 2001 permission. One condition (no. 13) was to change the wording referring to Bristol Combination Trustees, as this was no longer relevant. The other (no. 7) limited the use of the site until after 6pm on school days. This was because in 2001, the planners were worried about the effect the extra traffic might have on the junction with the A38 during school hours. However in the meantime, the Hortham hospital site has been developed for housing, and the road improved and a traffic light controlled junction with the A38 installed as part of it. Therefore the condition was regarded as irrelevant and has been removed. The remaining conditions generally refer to things that have to be completed before the buildings are used. It is normal practice to deal with these as the development proceeds. If you want to bore yourself silly, take a look at the BCC planning website, where you can find dozens of examples of planning conditions applied for, for buildings that are already underway. I hope this is clear, if somewhat tedious.

If only that wasn’t true ...

The August 6th application is to meet the condition on specifying the types of brick and roof tiles to be used. The two conditions asked to be removed have already been agreed. The other conditions are very straight forward and will not be an issue, however much BertTann apparently would like them to be.

I have no idea whether a request has been made to extend the agreement with the current training centre. The pitches at Almondsbury are already structurally complete. The first grass cut was yesterday. As for the clubhouse building, architects are working through the planning conditions, which would seem to be a little odd if there is uncertainty over its completion.

Can it play up front?

The construction of the changing rooms isn't due to be finished until December (and that was always the case). As players are not recommended to share changing rooms at the moment where possible, because of Covid-19, we have the perfect excuse to ask them to turn up already changed. The internal layout of the clubhouse has changed from the original rugby layout, so will not have the arrangement you describe.

Not that I’m aware of. It’s being constructed under an already existing planning permission. The only change Rovers asked for (and had approved), was that the training ground could be used during school hours - which wasn’t the case with the originally intended rugby pitches.

This one ?

If we get a reasonable offer he'll be off. One year left on his contract and he hasn't signed the extension on offer. The training ground hasn't come to a halt, it's under construction. First pitch ready by September, second by October.

Dwane Sports is owned 90% by Wael Al Qadi, 10% by his brother Samir. BRFC (the football club) after the capitalisation, is 96% owned by Wael, the remainder held by the Supporters Club and other small shareholders. If BRFC(1883)Ltd‘s next set of accounts don’t show the loan dealt with, then that would be a concern, but somehow I don’t think that’s likely. As with Bristol Sport’s labyrinthine set up, money passes between companies, but in the end it’s all Steve Lansdown’s. In this case it’s all Wael’s, just not so much of it.

Wael took effective sole control by negotiating the acquisition of the other family shareholdings in Dwane Sports after the death of his father. He now holds 90% of the family share holding and his brother Sami 10%. Although I’m no expert on capitalising debt, I think your description is pretty much spot on. By issuing more shares that he then acquires, Wael can remove the outstanding debt, but this also dilutes the percentage held by other people. I believe it’s the process SL has used at City to remove debt, although I stand to be corrected.

The theoretical capacity of Eastville was 39,000. The safety at sports ground act reduced that to 12,500. The record attendance was 38,472 against Preston in the FA cup in 1960. I watched a league cup game against Stoke as a youngster in the seventies. The crowd was over 33,000 and it was scarily packed. The idea that you could legally still squash in another 6,000 horrifies me. It’s amazing that there weren’t more crowd fatalities than there were over the years.

No they shouldn’t (and I’m from the blue side), however if their role is to help organise various parties to sort out land deals etc, without investing as such, then that would be acceptable. Projects such as Cabot Circus, had council input with the assembly of the site, without direct financial support.

As the rumoured price for the fruit market site is £65m and the Mem is worth probably less than a third of that, how do the numbers stack up?