Apathy...

[Nogbad the Bad]

I would just like to add that all the coaches that arrived from all over the west country were supporting Bristol City Football Club NOT the opposition.

BCAGFC

Well as they notably stopped coming when we were relegated that can't be true can it - they were obviously mostly there to see the opposition.

[cidercity1987]

One things for sure and that's City can be far far bigger than all but a few of the teams Spudski admires in his neck of the woods- Man City, Man Yoo, no, Blackpool, Burnley, Blackburn, Bolton, Wigan and any other Lancs shithole you care to mention, yes.

And Cardiff aswell- 40k, laugh. More people in Bristol than Cardiff, more people in the west country than the whole of Wales. Draw a diagonal line from Liverpool, through Birmingham to London and include Wales. Thats half the frikking country that Bristol is the biggest city within- if City got promoted and in a new stadium our attendances would explode.

[Frome Valley]

Yes, but only in the Prem. I don't believe we'd average 20,000 + at AV in the Championship. I think average attendance would be boosted by around 2,000 and obviously the first few months in the new Stadium we'd probably attract big crowds. PL football at the Vale is a different story. I'd imagine we'd average somewhere in the region of 20,000-25,000, pulling in sell out crowds for United/Liverpool etc. and having significantly less for the games against Wigan/Stoke etc. Obviously other factors such as our position in the league and how important a certain fixture is will change things.

I don't think we'd sell out 30,000 at AV every week, or even be close. However I also think we'd easily get 20,000 if in the PL, but not if we remain in the Championship, no matter where we're playing.

I also think there's a lot of unneccessary exaggerations in this thread. We are not a 'joke' or anything like that Spudski. We are a decent sized outfit who spent a lot more time in League 1 than we probably should've. We're by no means a big club but we're not a little football league club either. Ashton Gate isn't a 'piss poor' stadium either. If the Gate is considered 'piss poor' then around 60 grounds in the football league are which is not the case. It's not a super-stadium but it holds close to 20,000. We're Bristol City so what do some people expect? It's hardly considerably worse than most Championship grounds and I'd rather have this as our home than some washed out bowl like the Ricoh. One of the things that is nice about the proposed AV Stadium is that it actually has a bit of character and the stands are clear-cut and different from one another. I'd hate to occupy a half-empty bowl each week which is identical from ever area of the terrace; or should I say seated accomodation...

The bottom half of the stadium is a bowl [in size as large as Ashton Gate] and is described as such by the architcet. It is also very clearly based on the bowl at Stadium MK [same design team - HOK]. The lower section [the bowl] is uniform as part of its "design intent".

I too would expect an increase in crowds of 10 - 20% in the Championship which is half empty [more or less]. Without success gates could easily fall and Bristol City will end up matchday looking like Coventry City do.

Some clubs have easily surpassed attendance rises of 10 - 20% at redevoloped stadia.

[Fiale]

How do you know there will be 1000 in hospitality? This is the problem with this forum. Everyone assumes figures based on what? We have no history of top flight football apart from 30 years ago. Times have changed since then.

If someone could come up with facts, figures etc, i could take it. But people are just believing one mans spiel. You don't have to give details of where the facts come from, because i understand from commercial terms, where this is not viable. But no one on here has ever given fact or figures, based on anything bar assumptions or what SL has assumed.

I have worked for three corporate firms in Bristol in my life and all of them had Hospitality tickets with BCFC. They were used to take clients, guest out - for managers to reward staff, and sometimes when not used an email basicly saying - 1st reply can have them for this date as they are free. The last company had 5 tickets, a group of lawyers I worked for had 10.... So I can either think they are the exception to the rule for large companies in Bristol - or it is a common practice..... I know which side you will choose - you can wave to me sitting on the other side.

[spudski]

Yes, but only in the Prem. I don't believe we'd average 20,000 + at AV in the Championship. I think average attendance would be boosted by around 2,000 and obviously the first few months in the new Stadium we'd probably attract big crowds. PL football at the Vale is a different story. I'd imagine we'd average somewhere in the region of 20,000-25,000, pulling in sell out crowds for United/Liverpool etc. and having significantly less for the games against Wigan/Stoke etc. Obviously other factors such as our position in the league and how important a certain fixture is will change things.

I don't think we'd sell out 30,000 at AV every week, or even be close. However I also think we'd easily get 20,000 if in the PL, but not if we remain in the Championship, no matter where we're playing.

I also think there's a lot of unneccessary exaggerations in this thread. We are not a 'joke' or anything like that Spudski. We are a decent sized outfit who spent a lot more time in League 1 than we probably should've. We're by no means a big club but we're not a little football league club either. Ashton Gate isn't a 'piss poor' stadium either. If the Gate is considered 'piss poor' then around 60 grounds in the football league are which is not the case. It's not a super-stadium but it holds close to 20,000. We're Bristol City so what do some people expect? It's hardly considerably worse than most Championship grounds and I'd rather have this as our home than some washed out bowl like the Ricoh. One of the things that is nice about the proposed AV Stadium is that it actually has a bit of character and the stands are clear-cut and different from one another. I'd hate to occupy a half-empty bowl each week which is identical from ever area of the terrace; or should I say seated accomodation...

That is the most constructive and thought out reply to this thread. Fair play to you mate. And yes...BCFC are not a 'Joke' but we are not as big as many believe us to be. However...it was only up until about 5 years ago, that in the opinion of managers that have managed BCFC, that i have played golf with...we were in their eye's...a joke, compared with Clubs of our size and finance. One managers comments i can take with a pinch of salt. 3 managers and i start to listen and take notice.

As a plebian...You only have to do the 'Club' Tour and experience their hospitality to see how far we are behind other Clubs at our level and below. Tbh...it's quiet embarassing for a Company. Doing the 'Trophy' room is going to be no more exceptable in this Stadium or at AV, to make it worth it's salt. Just drop it imho.

[Nogbad the Bad]

One things for sure and that's City can be far far bigger than all but a few of the teams Spudski admires in his neck of the woods- Man City, Man Yoo, no, Blackpool, Burnley, Blackburn, Bolton, Wigan and any other Lancs shithole you care to mention, yes.

And Cardiff aswell- 40k, laugh. More people in Bristol than Cardiff, more people in the west country than the whole of Wales. Draw a diagonal line from Liverpool, through Birmingham to London and include Wales. Thats half the frikking country that Bristol is the biggest city within- if City got promoted and in a new stadium our attendances would explode.

Are you aware of City's average attendances for the 4 season's last time we were in the top league? 23,000 in our first season up, dropping to under 19,000 in our relegation season.

Barring big attendances against Man. Utd, Liverpool, Leeds etc.the crowds were fairly poor when playing mediocre teams like Leicester, Ipswich, Sunderland, Middlesbrough etc..

Why would it be so incredibly different now?

[spudski]

I have worked for three corporate firms in Bristol in my life and all of them had Hospitality tickets with BCFC. They were used to take clients, guest out - for managers to reward staff, and sometimes when not used an email basicly saying - 1st reply can have them for this date as they are free. The last company had 5 tickets, a group of lawyers I worked for had 10.... So I can either think they are the exception to the rule for large companies in Bristol - or it is a common practice..... I know which side you will choose - you can wave to me sitting on the other side.

I don't know where you sit, but i sit in the Williams 'Comfy' seats. And pay through the nose for the priveledge. But hey ho, i work hard so can afford it. I don't smoke and only drink wine and whisky, so City is my only expensive extravagant. I've done corperate on many occasion at City, so i know what i'm talking about. It's embarrasing.

[WellRedPhil]

The bottom half of the stadium is a bowl [in size as large as Ashton Gate] and is described as such by the architcet. It is also very clearly based on the bowl at Stadium MK [same design team - HOK]. The lower section [the bowl] is uniform as part of its "design intent".

I too would expect an increase in crowds of 10 - 20% in the Championship which is half empty [more or less]. Without success gates could easily fall and Bristol City will end up matchday looking like Coventry City do.

Some clubs have easily surpassed attendance rises of 10 - 20% at redevoloped stadia.

Oh I know this and it's one of the most off-putting things to me. If we're not in the PL we will be playing in a half empty stadium and that is in no way ideal. I do believe the Stadium is a lot more unique than some of the shit that's been built lately (Cardiff's lego-land springs to mind) and I don't mind the design, the fact it has four stands rather than identically rounded corners is better for me. I don't like these Stadium debates much as no one really used facts and figures more their own opinion wrapped up in make believe stats to attempt to prove a point. Personally I don't see how getting 16,000 every game in AV in the Championship is going to be raking in money nor do I see how we will save 10 million a year purely by being at AV rather than the Gate. These are the things being claimed by some and quite frankly a lot of it appears to be bullshit.

I don't really know where I stand on the Stadium anymore. I'd rather the Gate was re-developed but I understand why Landsdown and others want to move. I just really would not like a situation that is at the Ricoh, which we will in my opinion have should we be in the Championship. One thing that does piss me off though is made up "facts" just to prove a point.

[spudski]

One things for sure and that's City can be far far bigger than all but a few of the teams Spudski admires in his neck of the woods- Man City, Man Yoo, no, Blackpool, Burnley, Blackburn, Bolton, Wigan and any other Lancs shithole you care to mention, yes.

And Cardiff aswell- 40k, laugh. More people in Bristol than Cardiff, more people in the west country than the whole of Wales. Draw a diagonal line from Liverpool, through Birmingham to London and include Wales. Thats half the frikking country that Bristol is the biggest city within- if City got promoted and in a new stadium our attendances would explode.

I don't admire... I just see it for what it is. I get invited to many grounds because of the nature of my business. Draw a line from Bristol to half of the West Country, and people would be going to see Villa or Fulham if they were really intersted in seeing Prem Football. Cornwall to Bristol, i can understand. But the rest of the populous is a joke.

[Frome Valley]

Oh I know this and it's one of the most off-putting things to me. If we're not in the PL we will be playing in a half empty stadium and that is in no way ideal. I do believe the Stadium is a lot more unique than some of the shit that's been built lately (Cardiff's lego-land springs to mind) and I don't mind the design, the fact it has four stands rather than identically rounded corners is better for me. I don't like these Stadium debates much as no one really used facts and figures more their own opinion wrapped up in make believe stats to attempt to prove a point. Personally I don't see how getting 16,000 every game in AV in the Championship is going to be raking in money nor do I see how we will save 10 million a year purely by being at AV rather than the Gate. These are the things being claimed by some and quite frankly a lot of it appears to be bullshit.

I don't really know where I stand on the Stadium anymore. I'd rather the Gate was re-developed but I understand why Landsdown and others want to move. I just really would not like a situation that is at the Ricoh, which we will in my opinion have should we be in the Championship. One thing that does piss me off though is made up "facts" just to prove a point.

The bottom of the stadium [20000 seats] has no corners as it really is a open bowl. It has corners etc and character above the concourse which divides the design in two. It is uniform except for extra rows added to opposite sections.

Half empty it will be a morgu and Bristol City could look a abject club matchday. Below average Championship gates v Large stadium then add high prices and you can see where this goes if the team do not perform to a point rarely reached by the club in its history

I would agree with yout point about actual facts on these threads, many people are simply making things up or using quotes from the club which appear also appear to have no factual basis.

[WellRedPhil]

The bottom of the stadium [20000 seats] has no corners as it really is a open bowl. It has corners etc and character above the concourse which divides the design in two. It is uniform except for extra rows added to opposite sections.

Half empty it will be a morgu and Bristol City could look a abject club matchday. Below average Championship gates v Large stadium then add high prices and you can see where this goes if the team do not perform to a point rarely reached by the club in its history

I would agree with yout point about actual facts on these threads, many people are simply making things up or using quotes from the club which appear also appear to have no factual basis.

I haven't seen any pics of the stadium for a while but I'm gonna take another look as I'm sure there were distinct stands. That may be more apparent from the outside than the inside. I rememeber it was tiered on the sides and not behind the goal because I thought that was a little strange at the time.

I can tell from your response you don't want a move, out of interest would you back re-development at the Gate or do you believe we are fine as it is and too much emphasis is put on the stadium situation?

[Frome Valley]

I haven't seen any pics of the stadium for a while but I'm gonna take another look as I'm sure there were distinct stands. That may be more apparent from the outside than the inside. I rememeber it was tiered on the sides and not behind the goal because I thought that was a little strange at the time.

I can tell from your response you don't want a move, out of interest would you back re-development at the Gate or do you believe we are fine as it is and too much emphasis is put on the stadium situation?

Bristol City in its present form is not a going concern, no longer owns its own stadium, is no longer owned by its own fans and just ten years ago this was not true. So I would favour firstly a total overhaul of how the club is run dramatically cutting the waste of wages, cutting dramatically reducing squad size and running the club as any other busines would be [not at a constant loss].

I don't have enough information to feel this move is actually of financial benefit to go further rendering any argument about moving or staying null and void.

I really do feel much of the reasoning for moving has been "over cooked" v that for re-development.

Stadium report may interest - http://www.bristolcityst.org.uk/trust_news/article000556.shtml

[WellRedPhil]

Bristol City in its present form is not a going concern, no longer owns its own stadium, is no longer owned by its own fans and just ten years ago this was not true. So I would favour firstly a total overhaul of how the club is run dramatically cutting the waste of wages, cutting dramatically reducing squad size and running the club as any other busines would be [not at a constant loss].

I don't have enough information to feel this move is actually of financial benefit to go further rendering any argument about moving or staying null and void.

I really do feel much of the reasoning for moving has been "over cooked" v that for re-development.

Stadium report may interest - http://www.bristolci...cle000556.shtml

I won't disagree with that and it's obvious now, as it was at the time, that a hell of a lot of money was wasting unneccessarily on wages in the last couple of seasons, particularly on pointless loans that added nothing to the Club.

I'll read through that document now and I'm printing off a hard copy of the accounts as I find it harder to read in-depth online material.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Apart from modern aesthetics and hospitality...what is wrong with our Stadium? What do you want that AV will give you, that AG hasn't?

The ground is a toilet. it is costing the club money staying there, we need first class hospitality and boxes etc. and urgently. When the Atyeo stand was built the height of the stand was determined by planning concerns over the limiting of light to the residents of Ashton Road. if we have to re-develop AG the same problem will occur with the East End, we need to move end of or we risk being a standard 1st division club with vounteers with buckets at home games collecting helping to pay debts, does that remind you of another club in Bristol.

[glynriley]

Yes...I remember those days. I've spent most of my life in Bristol and watched City home and away for years. You end up in a bubble, thinking your team is bigger than it really is.

I moved up North, about 3 years ago, and watch I Premier League football on a regular basis. Either at Man Utd, Man City, Blackburn, Wigan, Bolton, Liverpool, Blackpool and from the Championship Burnley and Preston. I also go to watch Bury and FC United.

All these Clubs are within 45 mins of where i live now. It wasn't until i moved away, that i realised how small BCFC are as a Football Club, in the big picture of things.

We live in a bubble of dreams in Bristol. 40 miles from any worthy other Club. It's a joke. You read the Evening Post and watch points West, and you start believing the bullshit. Seriously...we are nothing. A blip on the map of football. We need to get realistic.

Yes...People will travel to start with, when we get a new Stadium. But like today, where fans have got used to Championship football, people will get used to a new Stadium. After 2/3 years, if we are still in the Championship, the crowd average, will still be the same as what it is now at AG. Are people going to travel in droves just because of a new stadium, playing Championship footballl, year in, year out.

Just out of interest , in between watching all these other teams and living in t'north, how often do you manage to get to AG ??

[Heathy33]

What's sad about this is that of the 40,000 who go whenever we are in a final, only about half have signed the petition. Seems the original poster is pretty right.

[BCAGFC]

Well as they notably stopped coming when we were relegated that can't be true can it - they were obviously mostly there to see the opposition.

Me and 2 mates used to sell programmes in those days and would see 50+ of coaches from all over the west country turn up with BCFC flags in the back windows.

Yes, most of the coaches disappeared when we got relegated, perhaps there wasn't the numbers to make it worthwhile or perhaps they started arriving by train, who knows?.

As for what AV will bring me, a more comfortable seat, leg room, not have to queue for the toilets for 20 minutes at half time, same with the grub, be able to get a beer before & after the game within yards of my seat, easier parking, the list goes on.

We all love AG but it is outdated and need to move into the 21st century with all the advantages that that can bring us.

BCAGFC

[TRUEBRIT66]

[Frome Valley]

I'll read through that document now and I'm printing off a hard copy of the accounts as I find it harder to read in-depth online material.

The section entitled "physical enclosure" I felt was the most telling. Fans ideas for an enclosed "end" in one section of the bowl contradict his concept. He then goes onto tell fans why they actually attend football.

[City Ben]

Afternoon all.

Interesting discussion, thought I'd throw my thoughts in and try to find some numbers, as have been requested!

As others have said, it's impossible to say for a "fact" what will happen in the future, apart from something like... if I drop Rovers fan from the top of a tall building on to concrete he will fall to the ground and die in a bloody mess. However, some clever people have tried to predict what happens to attendances when you have a new stadium.

This lot have put together what seems like a fairly complex model to predict attendance in major league baseball. I know it's in the US, and football is different etc etc... but, meh.

http://armchairgm.wi...d_Ticket_Prices

Key para is probably towards the bottom. For context, total annual attendance seems to be about 3m.

"One of the important findings of this study was new stadiums boosted attendance tremendously in the first season, then the attendance started to slowly drop. In the first season, a park could expect an attendance boost of 758,308 fans. In the next season, the impact dropped by 228,558 fans, but this still leaves the attendance 529,750 above the expected attendance had the stadium not been built (758,308-228,558=529,750). The effect of building a new stadium does not appear to wear off within the first five years; although, the variables after year two are not significant. Likewise, ticket prices soared in the new stadiums. Prices increased greatly in the first year. For the next four years, prices gradually fell. Still, they stayed above the price expected if they had not built a new stadium. All years after the first were not statistically significant. "

So that suggests about a 25% increase in year one. For City, that would mean around an extra 3,000 - 4,000.

Next up I saw that PwC, the second biggest professional services firm in the world (my firm is the biggest - yay!) have prepared this report on funding stadia.

http://www.pwc.co.uk...rence_rooms.pdf

This is a paragraph from their executive summary:

"Increased attendance is the name of the game

The benefits of stadia developments come primarily through increased attendance: we have seen stadia achieve and sustain growth of between 24 per cent and 284 per cent at those English football stadia in the top three leagues which were expanded since the founding of the Premier League (excluding teams that were relegated after expansion)."

In the detail they go on to say:

"Premier League clubs with over 25 per cent capacity growth have seen an average of 127 per cent growth in attendance over this period, compared with 51 per cent growth at other clubs. This situation is similar in the Championship where the clubs with expansion have seen over 70 per cent growth in attendance on average, compared with just under 30 per cent at the clubs with lower or no expansion. In League One expanded clubs have recorded growth of almost 80 per cent over this period, compared with flat average attendance growth at clubs with less than 25 per cent expansion (see Figure 3)."

Good report, worth a read if you've got a spare 15 mins and are interested.

There's a few other bits and bobs out there if you're bored and have Google open but I can't be a'd to put it all on here.

So, what does it mean? It seems to me to be pretty clear that historically the evidence has been that new stadia promote increased attendances. Indeed based on all of the above, that seems to be a fact. New stadia = higher attendances.

Will the same be true of Ashton Vale? I don't know, and that's what we're debating. From what I've read this afternoon it seems like we should expect a boost. Will this automatically get us to 20,000 every week, performing as we are now? I'd doubt it. In the prem? In my view - definitely.

[Frome Valley]

[City Ben]

City should expect a rise of 10 -20%, but it is a fact clubs have experienced drops in average attendance below that of the stadiums they have moved from in two seasons.

Hi FV

Do you think so? That's not what I've read. In fact, the PwC report said exactly the opposite. Their research was over a longer term than just one season, and they still observed increases. It does seem to be the case that the effect is most obvious in the first season, and I guess that this makes sense given the number of people who would go along just to see what it's like.

Which clubs did you have in mind?

[054123]

<br />We ought to consider whether this is something we City fans actively want though - twice the crowd but half of them either actively supporting the opposition or not caring either way who wins.<br /><br />Thousands of premier league following spectators, rather than Bristol City fans, only there for the occasion and the day out like 50%+ of our Wembley/Millennium turnouts.<br /><br />Doesn't sound like an improvement to my day out watching City, the thought of being amongst 14,000 Bristol City fanatics in the Championship at Ashton Gate is far more appealing.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

There is some truth in this.

I can remember the wembley day out against Hull and apart from a couple of hours very early doors at Baker Street, it just didn't feel like City. If we built a new new stadium and the gates increased, i imagine the away days would feel more real to me than the home ones.

[Frome Valley]

Hi FV

Do you think so? That's not what I've read. In fact, the PwC report said exactly the opposite. Their research was over a longer term than just one season, and they still observed increases. It does seem to be the case that the effect is most obvious in the first season, and I guess that this makes sense given the number of people who would go along just to see what it's like.

Which clubs did you have in mind?

Stoke with a new stadium saw their average gates drop below their former ground average, a relegation and the club having to be taken over by new owners.

At the other end of the scale Chesters gatequickly dropped and their fate was far worse than Stokes!!

Unless ALL clubs moving to new stadium experienced prolonged increases in attendances it is a trend not a fact.

You could create an argument stating that redeveloped stadium lead to massive increases in attendance e.g Newcastle and Wolves. That would not be factual either

[City Ben]

This is quite interesting too, again from the PwC report:

Promoted:

Clubs that have been promoted soon after expansion have experienced attendance growth of between 63 per cent and 284 per cent (at Preston North End and Wigan respectively):

Hull City, Charlton and Wigan saw modest growth after expansion, followed by a significant increase when the clubs were promoted

In some cases there are positive synergies between these two events, when:

- Investment in the facility is accompanied by investment in the playing squad, particularly if there is an injection in funds (for instance a new wealthy owner) and a desire for the club to fulfil its ambitions. For example, Wigan Athletic was taken over by millionaire Dave Whelan in 1995, which heralded an investment in the stadium and playing squad

Increased attendance will bring in cash to invest in the playing squad, which leads to a virtuous circle of strong performance, boosting demand from fans.

Actually, I'm starting a new rule. Anyone posting on this thread from now on has got to read the PwC report :tongue:

[City Ben]

Stoke with a new stadium saw their average gates drop below their former ground average, a relegation and the club having to be taken over by new owners.

At the other end of the scale Chesters gatequickly dropped and their fate was far worse than Stokes!!

Unless ALL clubs moving to new stadium experienced prolonged increases in attendances it is a trend not a fact.

You could create an argument stating that redeveloped stadium lead to massive increases in attendance e.g Newcastle and Wolves. That would not be factual either

For Stoke, their first year in the Brittania was 1998, and in that year average attendance went up from 12,748 in 1997 to 15,003. Unfortunately, they also got relegated in that year! Of course attendances would be lower in the year following a relegation. In 1999, having been relegated, their average was 12,735 - ie about the same as when they were at the Victoria Ground, but a division higher. I think that is pretty impressive. Clearly, the relegation wasn't caused by the new stadium.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/stkc.htm

I guess there's a potential argument that the new stadium and attendant increased revenue opportunities made the club more attractive to buyers, which got the Icelandics involved and the investment in the playing side of things which has got them to where they are now. But that's not the point I'm trying to make.

Don't know anything about Chester, but I'd suggest we are more comparable in terms of scale etc to Stoke anyway.The PwC report had the following to say:

Six of the clubs analysed were relegated shortly after expansion. The typical experience in this case is for attendance to decline on relegation but in most cases attendance stabilises at a higher level than was achieved before expansion.

Good things.

Trend/fact... semantics. I'm happy to call it a trend. It seems to me to be a pretty strong one though!

[Frome Valley]

For Stoke, their first year in the Brittania was 1998, and in that year average attendance went up from 12,748 in 1997 to 15,003. Unfortunately, they also got relegated in that year! Of course attendances would be lower in the year following a relegation. In 1999, having been relegated, their average was 12,735 - ie about the same as when they were at the Victoria Ground, but a division higher. I think that is pretty impressive. Clearly, the relegation wasn't caused by the new stadium.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/stkc.htm

I guess there's a potential argument that the new stadium and attendant increased revenue opportunities made the club more attractive to buyers, which got the Icelandics involved and the investment in the playing side of things which has got them to where they are now. But that's not the point I'm trying to make.

Don't know anything about Chester, but I'd suggest we are more comparable in terms of scale etc to Stoke anyway.The PwC report had the following to say:

Six of the clubs analysed were relegated shortly after expansion. The typical experience in this case is for attendance to decline on relegation but in most cases attendance stabilises at a higher level than was achieved before expansion.

Good things.

Trend/fact... semantics. I'm happy to call it a trend. It seems to me to be a pretty strong one though!

Regarding the new ground I try to use real facts.

Attendance rises at new stadiums are often small rather than seismic. There "is" the possibilty that any increase at Ashton vale will not be sustained.

There is also the very real possibilty that the financial benefits may not appear. The club has lost over twenty million pounds in three seasons and if you check clubs in new stadiums losses it is at best unclear how Citys finances will improve. The busines model of a Derby or a Leicester is not going to do it, nor will Boro, on it goes looking for this club which providres the example of this financial panacea.

If City struggle on and off the pitch fans could be rueing this move for decades surrounded by a half empty ??? That obviously is opinion, but there are some grim examples of modern clubs out there to use as examples.

[City Ben]

Regarding the new ground I try to use real facts.

Attendance rises at new stadiums are often small rather than seismic. There "is" the possibilty that any increase at Ashton vale will not be sustained.

There is also the very real possibilty that the financial benefits may not appear. The club has lost over twenty million pounds in three seasons and if you check clubs in new stadiums losses it is at best unclear how Citys finances will improve. The busines model of a Derby or a Leicester is not going to do it, nor will Boro, on it goes looking for this club which providres the example of this financial panacea.

If City struggle on and off the pitch fans could be rueing this move for decades surrounded by a half empty ??? That obviously is opinion, but there are some grim examples of modern clubs out there to use as examples.

Umm, I did use real facts. I don't understand your point!

I think you're right that the new stadium won't immediately cure all financial ills at the club. However, I think it's pretty clear that it will give us a much more stable footing. We lose money to a large extent because of our stadium - the new ground is likely to be a game changer in terms of revenue for the club.

Almost all clubs who move to new stadia do report increased revenue, both purely from attendances and then seccondary income (non-ticket matchday spend) and then tertiary (conference facilities, hotels, events etc). For the facts behind this please see the PwC report, or do a bit of Googling! Of course how the clubs spend that money is up to them - losses at boro etc are because they pay large wages, not because of the new stadium.

[NOTR]

Me and 2 mates used to sell programmes in those days and would see 50+ of coaches from all over the west country turn up with BCFC flags in the back windows.

Yes, most of the coaches disappeared when we got relegated, perhaps there wasn't the numbers to make it worthwhile or perhaps they started arriving by train, who knows?.

As for what AV will bring me, a more comfortable seat, leg room, not have to queue for the toilets for 20 minutes at half time, same with the grub, be able to get a beer before & after the game within yards of my seat, easier parking, the list goes on.

We all love AG but it is outdated and need to move into the 21st century with all the advantages that that can bring us.

BCAGFC

My job takes all over the west country and you would be suprised at the number of people who say they support City.However most no longer attend games due to the standard of football we have been playing in for far too long.Another problem is the younger generation have only known us to play at a lower level,and therfor follow prem teams.The support is there just waiting to be tapped,the club must start marketing its self as THE team of the west. Just as crapdiff have done, ie the team of Wales,it wont happen overnight but can be achieved .I cant stand tiny pe*is but he has said the same thing about Stoke,youve got to catch them while theyre young.

[BCAGFC]

Regarding the new ground I try to use real facts.

Attendance rises at new stadiums are often small rather than seismic. There "is" the possibilty that any increase at Ashton vale will not be sustained.

There is also the very real possibilty that the financial benefits may not appear. The club has lost over twenty million pounds in three seasons and if you check clubs in new stadiums losses it is at best unclear how Citys finances will improve. The busines model of a Derby or a Leicester is not going to do it, nor will Boro, on it goes looking for this club which providres the example of this financial panacea.

If City struggle on and off the pitch fans could be rueing this move for decades surrounded by a half empty ??? That obviously is opinion, but there are some grim examples of modern clubs out there to use as examples.

There "is" also the possibility that attendances could go through the roof and be sustained, nobody knows, you use your assumptions to suit yourself as does Nick J & Spudski.

We might also make it the best ever thing BCFC have ever done......IF FANS SUPPORT IT and don.t just moan!!!!.

As people have said, Steve Lansdown is an extremely successful buisnessman and doesn't take risks, he knows what has to be paid in the Championship (forget the Pleasure Beachers.....they were VERY lucky, even Hollowhead said it) he must have a very good idea of what he can attract and will happen with the new stadium.

BCAGFC