weeble

2 hours ago, Natchfever said:

It has to be valued on the basis of best possible use - if the type of development is a nailed on cert because the Council is facilitating a change of use then that is how it should be valued, otherwise the Council is open to a 5 oclock knock from the Ombudsman, which I would love to see happen.

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.

3 hours ago, Rich said:

Thanks, I am aware that the council own lots of this land, also the yard adjoining the fruit market on Albert Rd where the bin and recycling wagons currently reside. Obviously if this were to go ahead and land was sold/transferred or leased to new owners, the public would expect the council to obtain market values for whatever land and buildings were disposed of.  If the land and buildings disposed of meant that new land and buildings had to be found, that would be at market value and as such must be at no extra cost to the local authority.

As I stated previously, land deals relating to the AV deal between BCFC and the council, were carried out using existing valuations ie: for unused allotments, also for the East End car park which had a 90 year lease on it, valued as a car park and remaining a car park. 

It could and was argued that the council themselves could have obtained PP for housing on the allotment site and increased it's value for the residents of Bristol. The same argument applies to any land transferred/sold or leased surrounding the fruit market in central Bristol, where the land values are considerably higher.

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.

31 minutes ago, Bazooka Joe said:

Marsh Gas (aka Swamp Gas) smells foul. A toxic substance generally associated with decaying vegetation, sewers and noxious industrial emissions.

Probably why the Sags want to go there.

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.

1 hour ago, Rich said:

That'll be a consortium Purchasing that site,  leasing or buying at a below market rate all the adjoining council sites. Putting forward initial plans for apartments and a hotel with profits aimed at building a stadium. Obviously those profits will be made from the procurement of council owned (public owned) land. If the land is acquired initially, they'll be able to proceed with the stadium using loans against the publicly owned (at present) land values.

Effectively I can see the council land transferred to the consortium ownership, to be enable BRFC to compete with the nasty billionaire owned franchise, that is BCFC. Aided and abetted by Marvelous Marvin and his gas chums on the council.

Pure guesswork and conjecture mind.

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. 

54 minutes ago, Betty Swallocks said:

Didn’t take long for the club to leave a lasting impression on him then. 

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

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

I’ll just leave this here , from the BBC;

’ It's not been an easy road back for Mike 'Boats' Boateng, the twice-jailed former Bristol Rovers defender who now helps keep England's future talent on track.

Mike served 16 months in prison for an attempted match-fixing fraud in 2013 before receiving a lifetime ban from football.‘ 

 

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

2 hours ago, Rich said:

Very economical with your memory there. The area known as Ashton Vale, where the stadium was planned, was scheduled to be removed from the green belt and, agreed by the four unitary authorities prior to an application going in. It was also deemed to be a very important development for the region and as such, met the criteria allowing development within an existing Greenbelt area. 

Agreement for the allotments, was for the "sale" of the allotments to BCFC, as was also agreed for the East End car park, not a transfer. 

The QC appointed to hold the village green application review, was appointed by Bristol City Council. It just so happens that, she had "NEVER" found against an application for a village green. Makes one wonder why she was appointed and, who recommended her.

We also had a scenario where the chair of planning was replaced on the morning of the meeting and replaced by a person on the committee actively opposing the development, Simon Rayner. He spoke beautifully with his mates from the green party, whom he gave extra time to present their case against the development and managed to get a refusal, which went to an appeal.

On the other side of the city, at a very  important planning meeting to determine whether there could be a redevelopment of the rugby ground. Six members of the committee were removed on the morning of the meeting and, replaced with six councillors who actively supported the scheme. The application was passed, I wonder who made that decision to change the committee members.

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.

2 hours ago, GrahamC said:

I’m assuming you never attended the meeting at City Hall when the move to Ashton Vale was being proposed then? It couldn’t have been more obvious that everything possible was being done to stop it.

As for the other lot, probably not in my best interests to say too much, but if you look hard enough it is pretty easy to find evidence of how they have been helped recently & are likely to continue to be for at least the next year.,

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.

18 hours ago, kevinmabbuttshair said:

That seems like a massive conflict of interest, perhaps some of the people of Bristol might like this issue investigated. Planners being pressed to force things through?

 

Judicial review may be?

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.

21 hours ago, Rich said:

So the rugby club chairman and BRFC supporter (Arthur Holmes) threatened to sell the Memorial ground to Amtrak for £2.3m (the figure he was owed by the rugby club), until he came up with the better plan of selling 50% of it to BRFC (Dunford), for the same figure of £2.3m (the amount he was owed). There was a condition that, if either of the clubs went bankrupt, the other club could buy the remaining 50% for £10,000. Yippee! BRFC come to the rescue of the rugby club, they'll be joint owners of the stadium company, and the rugby club will be forever grateful.

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.

14 minutes ago, pongo88 said:

The Bristol Rugby owner was a lifelong Rovers supporter who just happened to put the club into administration, enabling Rovers to buy the other 50% for £10k. No attempt was made to find any other backers to avoid administration.  This has been covered many times on the forum, but is always ignored by those of a gas persuasion 

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?

11 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

Is that right? Is the piece that Rich quoted out of date then?

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.

3 hours ago, Rich said:

Waiting to be shot down on this but, do they own it? We know BRFC don't. 

Their initial statement said that Dwayne Sports had acquired the site, If I'd bought it, I'd say "bought it". I think they might have bought a lease of the site from the owners, which might be linked to the dodgy deal for the Memorial ground when, certain rugby directors were palmed off with land out by Filton, given away in return for an easy transition to joint ownership (sold down the river) of the Memorial ground.

The rugby club acquired planning permission for the use of their combination team, but didn't have the funds to see the project through.
 

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.

2 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

The first part I have highlighted looks like another chance for them to show how hard done by they are when the planning applications get turned down. 

The second part means that we can take our pick of any decent talent they identify until they can afford and are granted cat 2 status  

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.

On 4 February 2017 at 10:47, Charliesboots said:

I agree with you, to a point....

You've got to obtain planning permission which is never guaranteed (Ashton Vale anyone?) and genuinely good luck on getting that on green belt land with notoriously NIMBY residents in that area.

Oh and there's the small matter of building the facility which isn't cheap.

The final question is, how is Wael planning to fund this? Seriously tell me How?

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.

1 hour ago, Southstandoriginal said:

Yes I've heard older sags talking about that. I believe they were relegated soon afterwards. Edit: According to wiki they abolished the policy in 1961 at the end of their only really successful period. THEN they were relegated. So it must have worked reasonably well surprisingly.

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.

16 minutes ago, 'keepuplino' said:

Exactly this ^^^

Aren't we also holding 4 concerts a year and building a Hotel on the wicks site?.... 

One thing that is blatantly clear about Rovers fans and this has been the case for quite some time is that they only see what they want to see and choose to ignore the blatantly obvious!!

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.

14 minutes ago, 'keepuplino' said:

 

 

 

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.

8 minutes ago, Seventeen said:

 

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

2 hours ago, Coombsy said:

S-y-g

can you answer some questions

1 have your new owner payed off the lone

2 if you lose the Sainsbury court case where the money coming from to pay court charges

3 why have you pulled out on the uwe deal

4 where the money coming from to build a new ground 

5 why was Darrel told there no money for new players

6 if he has money to invest why have yet to be seen 

7 why did Darrel offer to leave 

please try to answer questions sensibility 

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.

7 hours ago, Kim_il_sung said:

I'd suggest all saggies to take the "cautious optimism" approach rather than screaming from the rooftops that they are now bigger than us.

They can build their stadium in a few years... it will still be significantly smaller than ours.
 

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.

On 1 January 2016 at 16:17, PHILINFRANCE said:

I have seen this mentioned on numerous occasions, but I have no idea whether or not it is true and, if so, of the details.

Anybody able to explain/expand.

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.