What If........you Want A New Stadium

[Rich i e]

[Claverham_Red]

Build the supermarket, but then shop somewhere else. Simples.

[Riaz]

I know what you mean - they should stick this supermarket with other horrible places like drug rehab centres, probation centres & prisons. Because they are so terrible.

Moving a supermarket a couple hundred of yards is a terrible thing to do.

[Rich i e]

Build the supermarket, but then shop somewhere else. Simples.

Good point, but when the supermarkets finally wreck the independent trade, we'l have no choice to shop at supermarkets. Still...........

[cider head]

Then someone else with 20 million who does not like supermarkets step in and buy AG and turn it in to whatever!

[Riaz]

Good point, but when the supermarkets finally wreck the independent trade, we'l have no choice to shop at supermarkets. Still...........

have you got 20 million quid? is george ferguson got 20 million quid to buy ashton gate

if not, your points are irrelevant.

[City Chuds]

Good point, but when the supermarkets finally wreck the independent trade, we'l have no choice to shop at supermarkets. Still...........

How will this wreck independent trade the same super market exists on the same road!! I could understand if it was the Tesco plan but this is madness to think more people will use it because its moving 800 metres down the road.

[Red_Mat]

Good point, but when the supermarkets finally wreck the independent trade, we'l have no choice to shop at supermarkets. Still...........

I have to admit, Rich i e, I feel the same as you. When it came out that City could only afford this by building a supermarket on Ashton Gate, I was torn for two reasons: a) I hate supermarkets, b) I really didn't want my Ashton Gate to be under the freezer aisle in Tesco.

I avoid shopping in supermarkets as much as possible, and really don't like the idea of them being built on every single street, as Tesco seem to want to do. They seem to want to kill off every other single form of trade on the high street. People don't seem to get the concept that if there is only the big names on the high street, they'll be able to charge/sell/do what they want.

However, I do appreciate a lot of people do like to shop in these places - I admit I shop there too, occasionally, - and they do have uses. Personally, I do so as infrequently as possible, but I work next to Asda and don't have a high street within walking distance of where I live. But I still try and shop at independent grocers, butchers, bakers, bookshops, clothes shops, etc., as much as possible.

So there is a 'market' for these places. But I'm not entirely convinced by the arguments of a lot of the anti-campaigners in this case.

There is already a Sainsburys there, and it is only being moved down the road. Admittedly, the size is increasing, but so is the population in the area - especially with the several new housing developments currently and due to be built in that area. And just because it will be twice the size, it won't mean people will buy twice as much.

The other aspect is which other shops will be most severely affected by this development, and from what I gather regarding the assessments of this development, it won't be a handful of independent shops on North Street (let's be honest, most of the venues on North Street are now either cafes, bars, takeaways or shops which sell items not found in a Sainsburys). In fact those most likely to affected are Asda in East Street and Lidl just around the corner. Other than the managers of these two locations and maybe a few staff, is anyone really that bothered about that?!

Yes, we may lose one of the copious newsagents or convenience stores on North Street, but again is that a massive negative?

I work on East Street and look at the example of Asda next door and see a very lively high street every day I go out there. Yes, there are less shops there now than when it opened - but that was many years ago and the shop hasn't killed off the high street completely. It just means the high street has changed and evolved.

I have to say, looking at it pragmatically, this is probably the best outcome. It's not great, but it could be far worse.

The fact is, once it's been sold to Sainsburys and City have the money from the sale, there's nothing making you or any of the other City fans shop there...

[Daniro]

Yes - how anyone can object to building a Sainsburys there when there already is one up the road beats me. If it meant there was going to be two supermarkets there it would be weird but this seems like the best solution.

In an ideal world Ferguson and Co would build some amazing mixed use construction which would celebrate the historic home of BCFC, but sadly that ain't gonna happen. Money talks.

On the other hand, much as I love what he does for the club, I'm mighty suspicious of Mr Lansdown. I'm no fan of Tax Exiles for a start and I'd love to know more about the Ashton Vale transactions. I heard he personally owns the Ashton Vale site so wonder how much he stands to make personally from the deals. Sorry for blaspheming but I fly the red flag!

[beaverface]

Can't make up my mind on the "Supermarket on every street" scenario? I remember the days when the local store would have been a JCR or a Dillons and they were so expensive, you didn't shop there unless it was an emergency (you know, like the wifes Birthday), anyhow the alternative was to go to even cheaper local stores which were usually scruffy, dirty, or the only brand you could buy was the real, real cheap brand which you wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

They may be overbearing and bad for competition, but at least the big 3 supermarkets have created competition for other goods ie. house insurance, holidays insurance, credit cards etc.., and all their stores and clean, tidy, bright and affordable.

Of course the flip side is, if they take over the entire highstreet there won't be anything to stop them charging what they want (apart from the monopoly commission) and they're likely to drive small suppliers out of business ie. milk, dairy, cattle trades.

What is the lesser of the two evils? In the case of City, build the new store as it's a like for like build (give or take)

If I personally had the choice, and I was Steve Lansdown, I would get Bristol Rugby to borrow £20million off me as a kind of mortgage, and then get them to pay me back over 20years or whenever they get a big influx of cash. In return Steve Lansdown isn't a sugar Daddy to just City, but he's then got other business interests in the City.

This way Ashton Gate gets to stay, the residents who protested will then have two stadiums on their doorsteps () and we get to see AG safe forever :-)

[CotswoldRed]

If you want the Stadium but don't like supermarkets, then you better get used to not liking supermarkets and just put up with it. A shame, but that's compromise and progress in this case. Something the Liberals would do well to acknowledge.

[Sir Colby-Tit]

It's a fair question.

I hate capatilism & the pusuit of profit, and supermarkets are a result of this. BUT in today's economic climate & hectic lifestyle, who has the money or time to shop anywhere else?

I bet all the local traders in North Street do their weekly shop at the supermarket, as well as members of Bristol City Council & George Ferguson (Fi Hance obviously cycles home with hers). High Streets with greengrocers, butchers, fishmongers etc are becoming a thing of the past & will no doubt disappear altogether in the not too distant future. It is a shame, but is the price of "progress".

[chinapig]

if you are a private citiizen you can do whatever you like, including protesting against supermarkets. If you are a member of a planning committee your personal likes and dislikes should be put aside. That's the difference.

[Nibor]

Supermarkets don't actually want to kill off any other trade, they are completely neutral about it. Their motivation is purely to grow. They do this because if they don't grow satisfactorily, the bloke who manages your pension fund will invest in something else instead, and the supermarket executives share bonuses will be worth less. It's that simple.

I want both. I want the convenience of going (or ordering) most stuff from one place and not spending much time traipsing around shops. I don't see any benefit to having to go to twelve different shops to get stuff that is much the same and more convenient and cheaper to buy from a supermarket. In this respect, supermarkets represent progress and anybody trying to stop them on grounds of nostalgia is pissing in the wind.

However I also want to be able to shop at somewhere like Werlocks Butchers - where the quality is excellent and it's worth the journey across town and the ******* long queue. The thing is, supermarkets do not stop me doing so. Independent shops that are good enough have survived supermarkets for years and they always will. I buy particular goods from specialists and will do as long as they are better.

I don't want to buy Kellog's cornflakes or Whiskas from specialists, because it's a waste of my time and money. Who cares if a corner shop that offers nothing unique or remarkable goes out of business? Not me, sorry.

The arguments hippies tend to fall back on then are usually about:

1) treatment of third world workers

2) abuse of buying power on suppliers

3) environmental impact

4) globalisation/capitalism

1) is a valid concern and things like fairtrade help - ultimately supermarkets will help fix this because they are putting money into those economies (even if you think it isn't quickly enough) and they will balance out.

2) is purest bollocks that I will believe on the day I meet a poor farmer. Nobody forces a supplier to sell to a supermarket and I am happy to have food offered cheaply.

3) could be a valid concern but is never studied properly - I've never seen a study comment on the comparative environmental impact of 50 small traders driving vans to the cash and carry.

4) is easily dismissed by saying, yes, capitalism sucks but of all the systems available it is the least unfair found so far. Find a better one and start a revolution.

I find those arguments to be weak at best and usually the most vocal objectors are just doing so for the good old NIMBY reasons and will happily go shop at a supermarket in someone else's back yard. So screw them

[chinapig]

Supermarkets don't actually want to kill off any other trade, they are completely neutral about it. Their motivation is purely to grow. They do this because if they don't grow satisfactorily, the bloke who manages your pension fund will invest in something else instead, and the supermarket executives share bonuses will be worth less. It's that simple.

I want both. I want the convenience of going (or ordering) most stuff from one place and not spending much time traipsing around shops. I don't see any benefit to having to go to twelve different shops to get stuff that is much the same and more convenient and cheaper to buy from a supermarket. In this respect, supermarkets represent progress and anybody trying to stop them on grounds of nostalgia is pissing in the wind.

However I also want to be able to shop at somewhere like Werlocks Butchers - where the quality is excellent and it's worth the journey across town and the ******* long queue. The thing is, supermarkets do not stop me doing so. Independent shops that are good enough have survived supermarkets for years and they always will. I buy particular goods from specialists and will do as long as they are better.

I don't want to buy Kellog's cornflakes or Whiskas from specialists, because it's a waste of my time and money. Who cares if a corner shop that offers nothing unique or remarkable goes out of business? Not me, sorry.

The arguments hippies tend to fall back on then are usually about:

1) treatment of third world workers

2) abuse of buying power on suppliers

3) environmental impact

4) globalisation/capitalism

1) is a valid concern and things like fairtrade help - ultimately supermarkets will help fix this because they are putting money into those economies (even if you think it isn't quickly enough) and they will balance out.

2) is purest bollocks that I will believe on the day I meet a poor farmer. Nobody forces a supplier to sell to a supermarket and I am happy to have food offered cheaply.

3) could be a valid concern but is never studied properly - I've never seen a study comment on the comparative environmental impact of 50 small traders driving vans to the cash and carry.

4) is easily dismissed by saying, yes, capitalism sucks but of all the systems available it is the least unfair found so far. Find a better one and start a revolution.

I find those arguments to be weak at best and usually the most vocal objectors are just doing so for the good old NIMBY reasons and will happily go shop at a supermarket in someone else's back yard. So screw them

Well put as ever Nibor. Your point 3. is in fact taken on by Brian Dunning in his excellent Skeptoid podcast and surprise surprise it is not as simple as painted. The relevant episode is here:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4162