weeble

Any land has potentially a change of use. It just needs planning permission for that change. As none of this has actually even begun to happen, and may never, there seems to be loads of speculation. But then that’s what forums are for.

I imagine that in the absence of planning permission for other than industrial uses, then that is what the land values would be calculated on in the event of any eventual development, if that is the precedent.

Bearing in mind that our ancestral base at Eastville, was on a muddy field between a gasworks and a regularly flooding River Frome - if it ever happens, I’m sure we’ll feel quite at home.

It would appear that while BCC do not own the fruit market site, they do own quite a bit of the land between it and the river. The river frontage would of course, be a potentially attractive site for housing, rather like the development recently given permission on the old Esso garage site.

If you’d had to play for 14 minutes in our defence, you’d know exactly how he felt.

His one appearance was for 14 minutes as a substitute in 2011. He left in 2012.

The point I had been making was that no planning application by City or Rovers has ever been refused by the council. That remains the case.

I did not (I’m a Rovers fan), but agreement was made to transfer the allotments and planning permission granted on green belt land. Hardly the most effective blocking tactic. If it hadn’t been for the Judicial Review (ice skating, really?!), Ashton Vale would have been built.

To the best of my knowledge, neither City or Rovers have ever had a planning application turned down by the council. Despite various members of both sets of supporters claiming that the council are biased in favour of ‘the other lot’, history suggests that they have been supportive of both teams.

What evidence is there for Arthur Holmes being a Rovers supporter? He was a lifelong Bristol Rugby supporter. In 1986 with Rovers close to financial collapse, they had to leave for Bath, despite the ruby ground being just a mile up the road from Eastville. Rovers only got offered the opportunity to be tenants at the Memorial Ground in 1996 when the rugby club were desperate for more income. Strange behaviour for an apparently keen Rovers supporter.

A 'life long' supporter who hadn't noticed that Rovers had been forced to leave the city for Bath, and only remembered when the rugby club were desperate for more income in 1996?

Yes, it dates from Rovers announcing their preferred site - before South Glos agreed the changes. A training ground where you weren't allowed to use it before 6pm during school terms, wouldn't be much use to any professional football club.

While you or I would probably say 'bought', if we were buying a house, it is very common for the term 'acquired' to be used in the commercial sector. I don't think any inference on freehold or leasehold can be drawn from it. The rugby club used to own the combination ground at the end of the Filton runway, now the Horizon 38 site. When they sold it for development, part of the deal was to provide replacement pitches - the Colony Farm site. The combination ground was sold by the rugby club, as part of their efforts to deal with the enormous losses produced by the botched transfer to professionalism.

The amendments to the conditions on the planning permission have already been granted, which is why they went ahead with the acquisition of the site.

The site already has planning permission for sports pitches, floodlighting, changing facilities, car parking etc. Presumably the Al Qadis have a method for funding it, as sitting in the green belt it probably has little chance of being sold for housing.

The fifties Rovers side was composed mainly of Bristolians. The fact that the maximum wage for footballers was still in force then (£20 a week I think) and the Bosman ruling was decades into the future, made changing clubs a less attractive prospect than it is now.

The facilities, once your redevelopment is complete, will be excellent. Some Rovers fans will know this and refuse to acknowledge it simply because you are the 'other lot'. You can see plenty examples of City fans holding similar anti-Rovers views (not surprisingly on a City forum) on this thread. As far as I'm concerned, the better facilities the Greater Bristol area has for sport, and infrastructure in general, the better.

I'm pretty sure UWE will be built now. Can't see it being bigger than AG though. I'm sure the original capacity was chosen by NH as 21,700, because pre-redevelopment your capacity was 21,490. There is room for a second tier taking it to about 26,000 and potential for a third to take it to 35,000. Can't see Wael trying to cram in an extra 1,001 seats just to play our ground's bigger than yours. Doesn't seem to be his style.

Rovers go one up with a larger away attendance, City equalise with the correct spelling of 'your'.

This wasn't directed at me, but let me do my best to help. 1 No idea. 2 See the above. 3 We haven't. 4 See no. 2. 5 He wasn't. 6 He's been the owner for all of one week. 7 He didn't.

I think the vast majority of us are just relieved we are no longer in danger of going bust when our Wonga loan is due in June. The UWE stadium is designed for an initial capacity of 21,700. It is designed to incorporate a second tier (a little like Brighton's or MK Dons') taking it to around 26,000. A further tier taking it up to 35,000 can be added by removing and replacing the roof. I suspect that the second and third tiers are not likely to be pressing concerns for a while.

I believe that after City were wound up and before the City(1982) version was launched, a Rovers director (can't remember which one) approached the liquidators with an offer of £100,000 for Ashton Gate. The offer was rejected and the re-formed club acquired the ground. Obviously whether this is viewed as an attempt to 'steal' the ground, or a logical attempt to acquire the only available football stadium in Bristol by a team that didn't own one, probably depends on who you support. For what it's worth I wouldn't want to watch Rovers at Ashton Gate, anymore than most City supporters would want Eastville to have been home.