Ashton Vale - The Financial Fallacy

[Martyn Hocking]

I won't win any friends on here with this one, but I've been around here long enough to take the rough with the smooth.

A few points on the Ashton Vale project:

1. Steve L originally planned to sell AG to a property developer to build houses on. This would have been contentious but much less so than selling it to a supermarket.

2. He then decided, as the property market slowed down, that he would be able to raise significantly more money by selling the site to Tesco. This was clearly a massive gamble as local residents were always going to protest far more loudly about a supermarket than a new housing development.

3. When that move failed he opted for a deal with Sainsbury's that looked far more favourable on paper but was already tainted by the earlier Tesco bid in the eyes of some councillors.

4. Selling the site to a supermarket is not in reality essential to finance building the new stadium - this is a condition that Steve has imposed on the project for his own, understandable, personal reasons. He could raise the money either in the form of a bank loan or by selling more of his stake in HR.

5. I still firmly believe the new stadium will be built - what we are seeing now is posturing on both sides that will, at worst, delay the project by a few months.

[Old Dazzler]

I think you are absolutely right, although in an ideal world the Club would get maximum profit from the sale of AG, the Ashton Vale project was in a very advanced state long before Tesco and Sainsbury's got involved.

Steve is obviously an incredibly astute businessman, he may still be confident that Sainsbury's is a goer (which it may well be), but he would not have put in all the hard work and planning with the risk that 4 numpty councillors would put the boot in, without some back-up plan. A warning that this might happen would have come from North Somerset Councillors initially ignoring the advice of their paid professionals when considering access roads.

I still have a feeling (I raised in a previous thread) that AG will be the venue for the new Arena/conference centre etc, it makes sense, especially as BCC did state that the other day that they would like a trade of with BCFC's new stadium in providing an arena. As it would probably not fit in with the Ashton Vale plans and would cause problems with football/concert clashes, what better place to built it than AG, the local traders would be quids in so would not object to concerts every night , surely?!?

[Riaz]

Steve Lansdown wants to get as much as possible from ashton gate and rightly so. The more he gets, the less that comes out of his own pocket.

What his original intention was is irrelevant. He's been offered 20 million by sainsburys, there the highest bidder and there is no logical reason why there could'nt be a supermarket there.

[Old Dazzler]

Steve Lansdown wants to get as much as possible from ashton gate and rightly so. The more he gets, the less that comes out of his own pocket.

What his original intention was is irrelevant. He's been offered 20 million by sainsburys, there the highest bidder and there is no logical reason why there could'nt be a supermarket there.

Fair point, this raises 2 questions (at least).

1) Whether or not there is a logical reason for a supermarket to go on the AG site, we all now that the Council has the power to stop it happening, so surely SL has a contingency plan should Sainsbury not get planning permission?

2) The property market will not be depressed for ever. Whatever successive governments do or say we have been in a boom and bust economy since the War, with the boom-times lasting a decade or more , the recessions lasting between 2-5 years. Is there a possibility that SL could just go ahead and build the stadium asap, saving money whilst building materials and labour are relatively cheap, and sit on Ashton Gate until the property developing market picks up in , say 2 or 3 years, and getting a lot more than 20 million for it?

[howey_ducky]

Fair point, this raises 2 questions (at least).

1) Whether or not there is a logical reason for a supermarket to go on the AG site, we all now that the Council has the power to stop it happening, so surely SL has a contingency plan should Sainsbury not get planning permission?

2) The property market will not be depressed for ever. Whatever successive governments do or say we have been in a boom and bust economy since the War, with the boom-times lasting a decade or more , the recessions lasting between 2-5 years. Is there a possibility that SL could just go ahead and build the stadium asap, saving money whilst building materials and labour are relatively cheap, and sit on Ashton Gate until the property developing market picks up in , say 2 or 3 years, and getting a lot more than 20 million for it?

interesting view mate and it makes perfect sense. it is still a gamble though and does sl want to gamble that much on it? he's given enough already.

[Nibor]

The Tories will be interested in building more jails and immigrant detention centres. Maybe the government money here is almost as good as a supermarket?

[spudski]

If and it is a big IF, SL could raise the funds to build our new stadium from elsewhere. I would keep Ashton Gate and turn it into a Speedway/Greyhound track, that would cheer the residents up no end.

Eastville residents got rid of the Bulldiogs because of one night of noise. Now what have they got? Seven days of congested traffic and Ikea...serves 'em right.

[garlicbread]

We should organise squads of people walking round bs3 at all hours, blowing vuvuzalas....that'll show the nimbys

[midland red]

I won't win any friends on here with this one, but I've been around here long enough to take the rough with the smooth.

A few points on the Ashton Vale project:

1. Steve L originally planned to sell AG to a property developer to build houses on. This would have been contentious but much less so than selling it to a supermarket.

2. He then decided, as the property market slowed down, that he would be able to raise significantly more money by selling the site to Tesco. This was clearly a massive gamble as local residents were always going to protest far more loudly about a supermarket than a new housing development.

3. When that move failed he opted for a deal with Sainsbury's that looked far more favourable on paper but was already tainted by the earlier Tesco bid in the eyes of some councillors.

4. Selling the site to a supermarket is not in reality essential to finance building the new stadium - this is a condition that Steve has imposed on the project for his own, understandable, personal reasons. He could raise the money either in the form of a bank loan or by selling more of his stake in HR.

5. I still firmly believe the new stadium will be built - what we are seeing now is posturing on both sides that will, at worst, delay the project by a few months.

You make some valid points but at the end of the day SL is trying to broker the best deal possible for BCFC, this happens at all football clubs who move to new stadiums, the more the club can get for AG the less it has to borrow to build the new ground which means less debt and more money available for team developement, so in my view all fans should spend their time backing the Sainsburys application.

yours MR.

[mark43]

[Geoff65]

I won't win any friends on here with this one, but I've been around here long enough to take the rough with the smooth.

A few points on the Ashton Vale project:

1. Steve L originally planned to sell AG to a property developer to build houses on. FOR CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN THE £20M THAN THE SUPERMARKET This would have been contentious but much less so than selling it to a supermarket.

2. He then decided, as the property market slowed down, that he would be able to raise significantly more money by selling the site to Tesco. MARKET CONDITIONS CHANGED TO THE EXTENT THAT ONLY £5.5M COULD BE RAISED VIA THE HOUSING This was clearly a massive gamble as local residents were always going to protest far more loudly about a supermarket than a new housing development. INCORRECT BASED ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT WAS WRONG

3. When that move failed he opted for a deal with Sainsbury's that looked far more favourable on paper but was already tainted by the earlier Tesco bid in the eyes of some councillors. COUNCILLORS DIDNT BELIEVE THE IMPACT REPORT BUT THE LEGAL OFFICER SAID SHE COULDNT DEFEND A REFUSAL BASED ON THE IMPACT REPORT BEING WRONG AND SUGGESTED A DIFFERENT REASON ON THE GROUNDS OF BEING "OUT OF CENTRE", ONE COUNCILLOR ACTUALLY GAVE THEIR REASONS, THE OTHERS DIDNT, EVEN THOUGH THE OTHER LEGAL OFFICER SAID THEY NEEDED TO - WE DONT KNOW THE OFFICIAL REASON AS IT HASNT BEEN DRAFTED UP AND WE DONT KNOW THE REASONS BEHIND THIS AS THE CHAIR OF THE MEETING DIDNT ASK THE COUNCILLORS TO GIVE REASONS BUT ONLY ONE DID THEN PROPOSED A VOTE AND THEY VOTED ON IT.

4. Selling the site to a supermarket is not in reality essential to finance building the new stadium - IF YOU HAVENT DONE THE RESEARCH THEN THIS IS REASONABLE ASSUMPTION BUT THE OWN COUNCIL OFFICERS SAID THAT THERE WOULD BE A £20M HOLE IN THE PLANS BEFORE THE STADIUM GOT IT'S PLANNING PERMISSION, ADD THE LOSS OF SOUTHLANDS PROJECT OF £5M, EXTRA WORK ON THE FOOTBRIDGE AND OTHER ALTERATIONS TO THE TRANSPORT ACCESS TO THE STADIUM YOU'RE LOOKING AT £26M SHORTFALL. this is a condition that Steve has imposed on the project for his own, understandable, personal reasons. He could raise the money either in the form of a bank loan or by selling more of his stake in HR. FROM THE LITTLE INFORMATION RELEASED REGARDING THE FINANCES OF THE STADIUM, I WOULD ESTIMATE SL IS CHUCKING £30M OF HIS OWN CASH INTO THE PROJECT, BUT SEEING A PLANNING APPLICATION REFUSED DESPITE PLANNING OFFICERS SAYING IT SHOULD BE APPROVED BY COUNCILLORS WHO HAVENT GOT A ****ING CLUE AND INCREASING THE COST TO SL BY AT LEAST £15M - YOUR SOLUTION IS DONT INVEST £30M INVEST £45M STEVE, WE KNOW YOU CAN IS NOT THE ******* POINT IS IT.

5. I still firmly believe the new stadium will be built - what we are seeing now is posturing on both sides that will, at worst, delay the project by a few months. SO CONFIDENT ARE YOU? SAINSBURYS COULD WALK AWAY IN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT COMPETITION FOR THEIR EXISTING SITE IS COMPLETELY RULED OUT, IF THEY DECIDE TO APPEAL, THEN THE APPEAL COULD TAKE A YEAR OR MORE.

[Port Said Red]

We all know he has the capacity to plough in more money but the point is he shouldn't have to. The sale of the ground to the right developer would reduce the size of the millstone around our neck, the more debt you go into when building a new stadium the more likely it is to go wrong. Look across the Severn.............

There is no good reason why the Sainsburys deal should have failed, the impact on North Street is a fallacy, ASDA and LIDL haven't killed it, so moving Sainsburys approximately 1/2 mile shouldn't either. The NIMBY's and certain sections of the council didn't like that fact that SL and the team had outflanked the BERATE, lobby by switching the sale to an existing supermarket instead of a new one.