Ashton Vale V Ashton Gate

[NickJ]

From Fans Parliament Minutes:

"At the end of his presentation MG asked for a show of hands and a clear majority voted in favour of the redevelopment of Ashton Gate over a new stadium at Ashton Vale."

"MA then expressed his concern of remaining at Ashton Gate with tight restrictions. But MG explained that Ashton Gate can produce as much income as a new stadium at Ashton Vale."

So the alleged minority in opposition to a new stadium were right along then.

[kevinmabbuttshair]

Thanks Nick.

Not all of us believed the bolloc hype for one minute

[Bowie]

F@@king right.

I've never been keen on "new stadium".

Ashton Gate is our home and personally been never keen on moving out and selling our history for 'business reasons'. For years we have been sold the myth of the "must need" of a new ground which to me never rang true. "Corporate spin"

For years the club along with the "supporters club/trust cronies" have spun this myth which has finally been proven to be a crock of crap.

The new gate looks INSPRIED to the extent, I now honestly want the nimby's to win., if anything the lack of investment to the gate since the Atyeo was opened has been criminal and short sighted. We should have corporate boxes but short sightedness has ignored that.

Screw the Vale. the Gate is our HOME

[Cider red]

F@@king right.

I've never been keen on "new stadium".

Ashton Gate is our home and personally been never keen on moving out and selling our history for 'business reasons'. For years we have been sold the myth of the "must need" of a new ground which to me never rang true. "Corporate spin"

For years the club along with the "supporters club/trust cronies" have spun this myth which has finally been proven to be a crock of crap.

The new gate looks INSPRIED to the extent, I now honestly want the nimby's to win., if anything the lack of investment to the gate since the Atyeo was opened has been criminal and short sighted. We should have corporate boxes but short sightedness has ignored that.

Screw the Vale. the Gate is our HOME

+1. the only reason I was for the vale was the money making side of things. as its now been said the gate can provide that anyway, the new plans look much improved on av. Just hope the permission for planning goes smoothly!

[BS15_RED]

+1. the only reason I was for the vale was the money making side of things. as its now been said the gate can provide that anyway, the new plans look much improved on av. Just hope the permission for planning goes smoothly!

+2

Still pissed we've got to share it with Bristol Rugby (I say this as a Bristol fan and former season ticket holder), I'd rather the Gate was just for City, and Bristol could stay at a Gas free Mem, alas it isn't to be.

[eric04]

Or you are believing the message the club wants you to believe.

Before it was AV. Now they know it is dead in the water, it is AG.

[TRL]

Shock horror the clubs stance changes again. Not long ago SL swore blind AV was the only way to make the club self sufficient and AG was not able to do this.

Lies lies and more lies. Yet more pointers as to how SL hoodwinks people.

I just don't trust 'em

[kevinmabbuttshair]

It does make you think, TRL

[Rich]

Nick, being an accountant, could you explain how a stadium with a capacity of 26/27k, with a car park of 400, an exhibition hall with a smaller capacity (I believe) than that planned for AV and using the scenario that ticket prices are the same and that there is equal full capacities, how will the smaller stadium raise the same revenues as. One of 30,000 capacity, a car park of nearly 1,000 and a large conference facility?

This is not taking in to account the building costs or loss of revenue during development.

As I understand it, the overall cost of developng AG is greater than that of AV because of the assets being sold and naming right values.

I have recently been in discussion with someone at the club, any redevelopment of AG is definately going to be done on the cheap. I was told that everything is being cut to the bone to reduce costs. For example: the boxes at the rear of the Dolman stand will be integral to the stand and will reduce capacity of that stand by 500. There is an opportunity to have them at the rear, therefore not reducing the capacity, because that would increase the costs the reduced capacity and in my opinion, the poor relation, is being opted for.

If someone could convince me that developing AG is more viable than a new stadium then I'd love it. What I see though is SL commiting a set figure of money to the club and that's it, so if it goes on redevelopment costs, then there's no more for club investment.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I must be missing something here, we all knew where a fair bit of the funding was coming from for AV + money from the other bits and pieces on the site, presumably designed to wipe out the 41 mil debt, so where exactly is the money coming from for AG? and where will that extra debt go? onto the existing 41 mil?, so about 150 mil + of debt then?.

[TRL]

I must be missing something here, we all knew where a fair bit of the funding was coming from for AV + money from the other bits and pieces on the site, presumably designed to wipe out the 41 mil debt, so where exactly is the money coming from for AG? and where will that extra debt go? onto the existing 41 mil?, so about 150 mil + of debt then?.

You have missed nowt. More spin to appease the masses es. Same old same old.

[bcfcsouth]

Nick, being an accountant, could you explain how a stadium with a capacity of 26/27k, with a car park of 400, an exhibition hall with a smaller capacity (I believe) than that planned for AV and using the scenario that ticket prices are the same and that there is equal full capacities, how will the smaller stadium raise the same revenues as. One of 30,000 capacity, a car park of nearly 1,000 and a large conference facility?

This is not taking in to account the building costs or loss of revenue during development.

As I understand it, the overall cost of developng AG is greater than that of AV because of the assets being sold and naming right values.

I have recently been in discussion with someone at the club, any redevelopment of AG is definately going to be done on the cheap. I was told that everything is being cut to the bone to reduce costs. For example: the boxes at the rear of the Dolman stand will be integral to the stand and will reduce capacity of that stand by 500. There is an opportunity to have them at the rear, therefore not reducing the capacity, because that would increase the costs the reduced capacity and in my opinion, the poor relation, is being opted for.

If someone could convince me that developing AG is more viable than a new stadium then I'd love it. What I see though is SL commiting a set figure of money to the club and that's it, so if it goes on redevelopment costs, then there's no more for club investment.

Putting boxes at the back of the dolman, and reducing the seats makes more sense. Than Expanding the back of the dolman to fit them in, for the sake of 500 seats, were hardly going to miss 500 seats.

[Gazred]

If that was the case from the start, then the only reason i can see for trying to build at AV is because it would of been cheaper.....anyone able to confirm that?

[Rich]

From Fans Parliament Minutes:

"At the end of his presentation MG asked for a show of hands and a clear majority voted in favour of the redevelopment of Ashton Gate over a new stadium at Ashton Vale."

"MA then expressed his concern of remaining at Ashton Gate with tight restrictions. But MG explained that Ashton Gate can produce as much income as a new stadium at Ashton Vale."

So the alleged minority in opposition to a new stadium were right along then.

Are we talking about the fans parliament that is formed out of those people that are in favour of the redevelopment of AG and are therefore involved in it?

[Jesus]

Nick, being an accountant, could you explain how a stadium with a capacity of 26/27k, with a car park of 400, an exhibition hall with a smaller capacity (I believe) than that planned for AV and using the scenario that ticket prices are the same and that there is equal full capacities, how will the smaller stadium raise the same revenues as. One of 30,000 capacity, a car park of nearly 1,000 and a large conference facility?

This is not taking in to account the building costs or loss of revenue during development.

As I understand it, the overall cost of developng AG is greater than that of AV because of the assets being sold and naming right values.

I have recently been in discussion with someone at the club, any redevelopment of AG is definately going to be done on the cheap. I was told that everything is being cut to the bone to reduce costs. For example: the boxes at the rear of the Dolman stand will be integral to the stand and will reduce capacity of that stand by 500. There is an opportunity to have them at the rear, therefore not reducing the capacity, because that would increase the costs the reduced capacity and in my opinion, the poor relation, is being opted for.

If someone could convince me that developing AG is more viable than a new stadium then I'd love it. What I see though is SL commiting a set figure of money to the club and that's it, so if it goes on redevelopment costs, then there's no more for club investment.

This

[BS15_RED]

Shock horror the clubs stance changes again. Not long ago SL swore blind AV was the only way to make the club self sufficient and AG was not able to do this.

Lies lies and more lies. Yet more pointers as to how SL hoodwinks people.

I just don't trust 'em

Steve Lansdown, how much did he but the land at Ashton Vale for? My guess is that he bought it for peanuts, it wasn't just the stadium that was going to be on the development, there was a lot of housing to be built there, plus he'd of pocketed the money from the sale of AG to Sainsburys. With redeveloping AG, there's no housing, no sale of AG, meaning that he or the club (same thing) has to pay for it all, that's why he made out that Ashton Vale was the only way forward for the club. Would Ashton Vale of even belonged to Bristol City FC? Or would we of been tenants? My view is that SL would personally of made money out of Ashton Vale, which he won't by redeveloping AG. In fact I will only believe that AG will be redeveloped when the East End is actually demolished. Cynical yes, but if anyone can put in a convincing counter argument I'm listening.

[Rich]

Putting boxes at the back of the dolman, and reducing the seats makes more sense. Than Expanding the back of the dolman to fit them in, for the sake of 500 seats, were hardly going to miss 500 seats.

The planned boxes will I believe be inferior because of their reduced size, They will not be as marketable as larger boxes, so therefore not producing as much revenue. That coupled with the loss of seating which could raise £100,000 per capacity match is definately something we'd miss. Bare in mind this plan is designed to so say make the club more successful, if we are more successfull, we'd need the extra seats and revenue, egg and chicken spring to mind.

[TRL]

Steve Lansdown, how much did he but the land at Ashton Vale for? My guess is that he bought it for peanuts, it wasn't just the stadium that was going to be on the development, there was a lot of housing to be built there, plus he'd of pocketed the money from the sale of AG to Sainsburys. With redeveloping AG, there's no housing, no sale of AG, meaning that he or the club (same thing) has to pay for it all, that's why he made out that Ashton Vale was the only way forward for the club. Would Ashton Vale of even belonged to Bristol City FC? Or would we of been tenants? My view is that SL would personally of made money out of Ashton Vale, which he won't by redeveloping AG. In fact I will only believe that AG will be redeveloped when the East End is actually demolished. Cynical yes, but if anyone can put in a convincing counter argument I'm listening.

This is my belief also. But spun wonderfully for his adoring public. Otherwise, why the lies?

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

In fact I will only believe that AG will be redeveloped when the East End is actually demolished. Cynical yes, but if anyone can put in a convincing counter argument I'm listening.

Ignoring what appeared to be some kind of conspiracy theory that formed the bulk of your post, are you saying that you think that this is all a load of old bollo cks and that the club have no intention of redeveloping AG?

[BS15_RED]

This is my belief also. But spun wonderfully for his adoring public. Otherwise, why the lies?

The AV proposal was announced six months after we'd won promotion to the Championship, the club was at the time riding on the crest of a wave, many fans, myself included had never had it so good and as such blindly followed him, the fact he's severely mismanaged the clubs finances since then has opened many people's eyes that his motives may not be entirely with the best interests of Bristol City FC at heart. Many people still believe him to be our great saviour, if he fails to deliver either AV (extremely unlikely now) or a redeveloped AG then there will be a ground swell in people turning on him and his son.

[Rich]

Steve Lansdown, how much did he but the land at Ashton Vale for? My guess is that he bought it for peanuts, it wasn't just the stadium that was going to be on the development, there was a lot of housing to be built there, plus he'd of pocketed the money from the sale of AG to Sainsburys. With redeveloping AG, there's no housing, no sale of AG, meaning that he or the club (same thing) has to pay for it all, that's why he made out that Ashton Vale was the only way forward for the club. Would Ashton Vale of even belonged to Bristol City FC? Or would we of been tenants? My view is that SL would personally of made money out of Ashton Vale, which he won't by redeveloping AG. In fact I will only believe that AG will be redeveloped when the East End is actually demolished. Cynical yes, but if anyone can put in a convincing counter argument I'm listening.

All the money from the sales of AG, the sites for housing, the sites for an Hotel, the site for the drive through and the naming rights would have gone towards the development costs of AV. These are considered to have leaft a defecit on AV of about £50m, at the time the redevelopment costst for AG were put at £60m which included rebuilding the Dolman stand as well as the Williams and Wedlock. The Dolman is now not being rebuilt only redeveloped. Unless the redevelopment plans are a smokescreen. We will end up with a smaller stadium with obviously less chance to increase if ever required, plus a scenario where only an idiot would argue that you can raise as much revenue from 26,-27,000 seats as you can from 30-32,000 seats.

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

The AV proposal was announced six months after we'd won promotion to the Championship, the club was at the time riding on the crest of a wave, many fans, myself included had never had it so good and as such blindly followed him, the fact he's severely mismanaged the clubs finances since then has opened many people's eyes that his motives may not be entirely with the best interests of Bristol City FC at heart. Many people still believe him to be our great saviour, if he fails to deliver either AV (extremely unlikely now) or a redeveloped AG then there will be a ground swell in people turning on him and his son.

What if he does deliver a redeveloped AG, what will you slag him off about then?

[Bowie]

Nick, being an accountant, could you explain how a stadium with a capacity of 26/27k, with a car park of 400, an exhibition hall with a smaller capacity (I believe) than that planned for AV and using the scenario that ticket prices are the same and that there is equal full capacities, how will the smaller stadium raise the same revenues as. One of 30,000 capacity, a car park of nearly 1,000 and a large conference facility?

This is not taking in to account the building costs or loss of revenue during development.

As I understand it, the overall cost of developng AG is greater than that of AV because of the assets being sold and naming right values.

I have recently been in discussion with someone at the club, any redevelopment of AG is definately going to be done on the cheap. I was told that everything is being cut to the bone to reduce costs. For example: the boxes at the rear of the Dolman stand will be integral to the stand and will reduce capacity of that stand by 500. There is an opportunity to have them at the rear, therefore not reducing the capacity, because that would increase the costs the reduced capacity and in my opinion, the poor relation, is being opted for.

If someone could convince me that developing AG is more viable than a new stadium then I'd love it. What I see though is SL commiting a set figure of money to the club and that's it, so if it goes on redevelopment costs, then there's no more for club investment.

I think your missing the point, about AV and AG generating equal Income.

It's not Nick J saying this, this has come from the club themselves and a direct quote from the official site,

Are we talking about the fans parliament that is formed out of those people that are in favour of the redevelopment of AG and are therefore involved in it?

Again no. I think you need to look into who is actually involved in it,

[BS15_RED]

Ignoring what appeared to be some kind of conspiracy theory that formed the bulk of your post, are you saying that you think that this is all a load of old bollo cks and that the club have no intention of redeveloping AG?

I'm saying that I'm cynical and ill only believe it when I see it. Am I saying I don't have a lot of faith with the management and the way they run our club? No I don't, if they do deliver a redeveloped AG, then I'll happily change my outlook towards them.

[BS15_RED]

What if he does deliver a redeveloped AG, what will you slag him off about then?

Severe mismanagement of the clubs finances perhaps? Seriously if he does deliver, I'll give him the credit he's due.

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

I'm saying that I'm cynical and ill only believe it when I see it. Am I saying I don't have a lot of faith with the management and the way they run our club? No I don't, if they do deliver a redeveloped AG, then I'll happily change my outlook towards them.

Fair enough.

[Bowie]

The planned boxes will I believe be inferior because of their reduced size, They will not be as marketable as larger boxes, so therefore not producing as much revenue. That coupled with the loss of seating which could raise £100,000 per capacity match is definately something we'd miss. Bare in mind this plan is designed to so say make the club more successful, if we are more successfull, we'd need the extra seats and revenue, egg and chicken spring to mind.

Have you seen the revised plans than were discussed at the meeting? I'm guessing not?

The boxes will prove signicantly improved income, not so much in league one but at Championship level they are of a massive income,

Do you also realise that we are the only club in the football league without a single corporate box?

[NickJ]

Nick, being an accountant, could you explain how a stadium with a capacity of 26/27k, blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah etc etc

[

Unfortunately for you Rich the club themselves have destroyed your arguments because whereas before they were saying we could not survive at Ashton Gate, now they are saying that AG can generate as much income as AV.

So it's not a question of IF I am right - the club have confirmed I was, and a few others, all along.

Are we talking about the fans parliament that is formed out of those people that are in favour of the redevelopment of AG and are therefore involved in it?

No, wrong again, its the Fans Parliamant officially endosed by the club, comprising fans from a wide cross section.

And to be fair, because I will give credit where its due, the FP does appear to be developing into a little bit more than just the talking shop that I thought it might be.

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

Severe mismanagement of the clubs finances perhaps? Seriously if he does deliver, I'll give him the credit he's due.

I hope he delivers what has been planned and if he does I would have no issue with him adding that to the outstanding debt, especially as he has stated that he will not be calling in the debt (presumably unless we are in a position to pay it back...surely that's an incentive for him to try and push this club forward).

I'm not saying that being in debt to anyone is a good thing but we clearly cannot pay for all this on our own.

If this IS all just a load of rubbish designed to keep us quiet then my opinion of their management of the club would be very similar to yours however I still believe that SL has the best interests of Bristol City at heart.

[Rich]

I think your missing the point, about AV and AG generating equal Income.

It's not Nick J saying this, this has come from the club themselves and a direct quote from the official site,

Again no. I think you need to look into who is actually involved in it,

I'm not missing any points about the income comparisons for each ground, you tell me if you can raise as much income from 27,000 seats or 30,000 seats.

As for who's involved in the parliament, there's obviously people from the Trust and some interested reps from the EE and other parts of the current ground, all of whom are interested in the redevelopment of AG. They are being talked to by people from the club that want to keep fans happy.