Rich

There was also a restriction on the hours of use, which they were appealing against, something like restricted use between 9am and 5pm. I have a feeling they never continued with their application but, were in discussions with the planning authority over what they could do there. I believe applications for temporary structures are quite straight forward and, more importantly, don't need architect costs to implement them.

How do you know that isn't level? Anyway, what's so wrong with a couple of trees, Victoria park pitch had a path running diagonally through it.

According to the Post site, they are actually getting the first team pitch ready for the upcoming season. I still say it's a smokescreen which as Gazred states, has been forced onto them. One or two leveled pitches and a portacabin.

In reality, if they manage to continue, they'd need somewhere next year anyway, so need to plan for it. Portaloo's and pitches are all I can see happening. Then they keep the option of developing it properly, for housing.

Thought I read recently that they have an option to continue at the present site, Cribbs?

Smoke screen to appease supporters and portray a positive stance to interested parties considering buying the club. As in, we're moving forward anyway and don't need to sell.

It's a step up from tents.

They do need the bush cutting back a bit though.

He'd be offended, that's his new mattress.

It's so that they can say they've laid out the pitch.

It only remains for the pitches to be marked out and goal posts erected.

They could be locked out.

Obviously going in to see a load of crap.

He must have been looking for "The Colony". Too overgrown to be seen now, it needs a drone with fixed camera.

Agreed, I wasn't looking down on you or your team though, well, not this time. I was actually feeling the pain for you and your like.

Ten years in the second tier, in your whole life, seven of those before you were eighteen and, twenty six years since the last time, that's genuinely sad. I have to admit, you've got some staying power. And I complain about our relative lack of success in my lifetime, plus ten on yours.

Pension?

Not really, you reap what you sow. I suppose if we had a solicitor to unearth information to feed to opposition groups that opposed all their plans for new stadia, supermarkets, or were the only professional sporting club in the region that failed to support Bristol's WC bid and then, tried to take their ground off of them for a paltry sum, then we'd be getting a bit closer.

And ran a political campaign against the council during local elections, ironically, I think they named their party "Bristol Sport", or something like that. The same council that issued winding up procedures against BCFC for non payment of rates in 1982.

I expect we'll be telling Liverpool we're coming to get them and, we'll have more, noisier and better fans than them.

Sorry, can't agree with you on the poorly supported footballing city. Between the two clubs, we have a regular attendance of nearly 30k. Now taking into account that historically we've only managed about nine years in the top flight between us and the average position between us would be somewhere near, top of tier 3, bottom of tier 2, then I don't see that figure as too bad, for the dross this footballing city has served up over the years. Traditionally football has been considered a working mans sport, we as a city and region do not compare with some of the more traditional "working class" cities of anywhere further north than Gloucester. We are a reasonably affluent area in comparison, which much of our employment in the higher end of manufacturing and a traditional centre for commerce. Put simply, we aint as working class as most traditional working class cities, so don't have as many people in the bracket of working class football fans. The city has a population of approximately 460k and in the greater Bristol area about 1m+. You'd probably find that, our floating supporters who claim to support other teams, have a similar person in another city that does the same but favours their local team but, again doesn't attend on a regular basis. That city however, has a larger latent support, due to it's historic traditions, when compared to Bristol. This debate has gone on for years, I remember using Sunderland as an example back in the 70's, there was sweet fa to do in Sunderland apart from follow the local football. Where as in Bristol, we had the rugby, cricket, tennis, numerous areas to visit and generally more things/choice for people to occupy themselves with. Having said that, over the years there has been a change in the type of supporter football is being aimed at and attracting, I think we've got a great chance of increasing our average attendances and also of success, hopefully prolonged success.

I remember it being quoted in the paper that we had 12k in the Muller Rd end. It was horrible, I was there with my future wife and we were crushed on the way out with our feet off the ground as we went out, absolutely terrible. I believe everyone went for the exits at the end and they kept them closed for segregation. It could have been one of the worse disaster ever, if they hadn't opened the gates, as people were still leaving the terraces and going for the exits putting pressure on those in front of them.

You struggle to get through the gates now.

That's westers for you, a bit like educated gasheads.

Originally built for 15k in I believe 1923. It was tested and reduced to 12k in the old 1st div days and again down to 10k. The old uncovered end was set at 10k initially. I think eventually 7k. They actually put 6,500 seats into the old EE including the corners but, about one thousand were useless as they were at the back and too low, just as the terracing was. So we had, 12k 10k, 7k enclosure, 5.500 Dolman and 2,500 Grandstand =37k. Briefly the capacity was increased with approx. 2,500 standing in front of the Dolman, this disappeared with the next assessment and safety cert.