City V Nimby Matchday Thread

[harvey]

might be worth a look if it's not already posted. I musta dmit i am quite lost with all this going on

http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/707746?&condense_comments=false#comment55537

[Fiale]

Actually, being serious for a moment, how on earth did the Olympic stadium manage to get built, bearing in mind the endless obstacles which have been placed in our way? Do different rules apply in London?

If a council wants to do something it will - the council turn their parks over to development without having to worry about TVGs because the decision is theirs to make. They could have just refused the TVG application/recommendation - instead they sent it out to a barrister for study, then felt semi obliged to follow some of her recommendations, they then sent us to arbitration that was a waste of time because again they refused to make a decision - leading us into a half baked mess giving both side a sense of optimism that they may win.

This never works as either there will be no stadium, or not - the council should have stepped up and made a final decision early on and not got us into this situation. They want to be seem to be doing the right thing and not offend anyone, leading to the buck being passed on when they needed to step upto the plate.

[old parkender]

Crispins out of his kennel again, "the judge has led us to believe he will Allow the review to go ahead"

Suppose he's told you personally Peter has he?

[Tales From The Front]

If a council wants to do something it will - the council turn their parks over to development without having to worry about TVGs because the decision is theirs to make. They could have just refused the TVG application/recommendation - instead they sent it out to a barrister for study, then felt semi obliged to follow some of her recommendations, they then sent us to arbitration that was a waste of time because again they refused to make a decision - leading us into a half baked mess giving both side a sense of optimism that they may win.

This never works as either there will be no stadium, or not - the council should have stepped up and made a final decision early on and not got us into this situation. They want to be seem to be doing the right thing and not offend anyone, leading to the buck being passed on when they needed to step upto the plate.

Exactly as I see it....I honestly think Councilor Cook wants the stadium but is his view reflective of the council as a whole? I'm not so sure. Your summary of how we have arrirved at this situation is spot on, the council could have shown far more leadership, rather then deligating responsibility time and again. Every step in this process had to appealled following decsions by BCC or BANES, thats democracy, but as you point out it was their decision to pursue the TVG process left themselves and us open to the exploitation of that act. An Act which it is on public record as being flawed and that had the previous Labour Government modified or done away with in 2006 we would not be in this perdiciment.

[Northampton Red]

Crispins out of his kennel again, "the judge has led us to believe he will Allow the review to go ahead"

Suppose he's told you personally Peter has he?

This guy is just incredible. How dare he come here from London telling the people of Bristol what they need and don't need. The problem with these Green Party types, is they see a bit of field and think its the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Is Ashton Court and out towards Dundry not good enough for these idiots?

[Timbo7]

I posted last Saturday at some length on this issue but the thread was moved or deleted - so to summarise

It seems to me that we have all been somewhat misled by BCC and the EP.

A Second Judicial Review?

It is wholly inaccurate to suggest that a second JR is being considered or has been allowed out of time. The 22/02/12 court order is simply to join a second claimant ("ABC") to the original JR - thereby allowing the first claimant to abandon his/her claim without bringing the action to an end. In effect this will be a substitution of claimant without amendment (other than necessary adjustments to certain interim deadlines) to the existing process and timetable.

Is allowing the second claim contrary to established law (e.g. CPR19)?

It has already been established that CPR19 does not necessarily apply to public law cases. In River Thames Society and Lady Berkeley v First Secretary of State [2006]EWHC2829(Admin) J Underhill considered whether or not Lady Berkeley could in effect take-over a claim against a planning consent originally commenced (but later abandoned) by River Thames Society. He decided that it was not in the public interest to deny substitution because this could lead to injustice against a range of potential claimants who may have presented their own claims but decided not to because the River Thames Society was effectively pursuing the claim on their behalf. It seems to me that in our case if substitution was not possible there would have been nothing to prevent either BCC or BCFC planting/sponsoring their own claimant at the outset only to withdraw once the deadline had passed thereby killing the JR dead.

On this basis, ABC's claim in our case can only fail if:

1. ABC did not have a legitimate interest in the TVG decision at the time or the original claim; or
   
2. ABC is unable to give the court the necessary assurance/guarantee in regard to costs
   

That is to say the reasons for and nature of the first claimant's withdrawal are entirely irrelevant to ABC's right to pursue the claim and hence are unlikely to be even considered by the court for the purposes of the JR.

Can BCC appeal against the court order to allow ABC's claim?

On the basis of the above it seems to me that they cannot - that being the case I am not sure what the purpose of yesterday's (or next Tuesday's) court procedure. I fear that the media's (e.g. EP/BBC) abject failure to attent the court in London yesterday in order to report the outcome first-hand may have allowed BCC to continue a myth (entirely of its own making) that HHJ Thornton's court order may be overturned.

In my opinion BCC's objection to ABC's claim must be left until the full JR hearing in May - and even then it will be doomed to fail as the court will be unwilling to abandon the JR on a technicality given that it has already decided that BCC's decision should be reviewed.

What will be the outcome of the JR?

I understand the case for the JR is on the following two issues:

1. did BCC have the authority to effectively grant an application which was not in fact made?- i.e. given that it had an application for the whole site and an objection for the whole site - could it decide to grant TVG status to part of the site? - this seems to be a legal technicality which could go either way but subject to BCC being able to show that it was a reasonable decision the court is more likely (in my opinion) to allow than disallow.
   
2. was the conclusion BCC reached (i.e. that part but not all of the site met the qualifying criteria for a TVG) rational, reasonable and reached on the basis of all the relevant evidence without undue consideration of extaneous matters (e.g. Bristol's need for the stadium, potential for jobs etc.). This will depend entirely on the quality and nature of the new evidence put forward by BCFC/SL - it will be for BCC to demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that the new evidence was so compelling and incontravertible that it was justified in taking it at face value rather than subjecting it to the same level of scrutiny (i.e. independent enquiry / cross-examination etc.) as the original evidence. Again I would say there are grounds for optimism.
   

What happens if the JR finds against the council?

BCC will find itself back in the same position it was when the new evidence was presented - depending on the detail of the JR decision it may make a different decision (either the whole site or none of the site is a TVG) or it may initiate a new enquiry with all the evidence and a new set of questions.

Having said all of this, does anyone seriously believe that if the JR fails next week or finds in favour of BCC in May we will see works commence on the new stadium any time soon? My own doubts are based on the following:

1. how many times in the last 3.5 years have potential customers been turned away from Ashton Gate because of inadequate capacity?
   
2. how many times will this happen in the next 3.5 years?
   
3. although it is said that the new ground will promote greater interest and provide greater potential for non-match income, to generate a minimum yield (say 4%) on a £90M investment would require a revenue increase of £3.6M/annum - is £20K per week in non-match revenue and 5,000 additional season ticket holders realistic?
   

Still - it all continues to provide a welcome distraction from the failing team, falling crowds and delapidation of our current home.

[Tales From The Front]

I posted last Saturday at some length on this issue but the thread was moved or deleted - so to summarise

It seems to me that we have all been somewhat misled by BCC and the EP.

A Second Judicial Review?

It is wholly inaccurate to suggest that a second JR is being considered or has been allowed out of time. The 22/02/12 court order is simply to join a second claimant ("ABC") to the original JR - thereby allowing the first claimant to abandon his/her claim without bringing the action to an end. In effect this will be a substitution of claimant without amendment (other than necessary adjustments to certain interim deadlines) to the existing process and timetable.

Is allowing the second claim contrary to established law (e.g. CPR19)?

It has already been established that CPR19 does not necessarily apply to public law cases. In River Thames Society and Lady Berkeley v First Secretary of State [2006]EWHC2829(Admin) J Underhill considered whether or not Lady Berkeley could in effect take-over a claim against a planning consent originally commenced (but later abandoned) by River Thames Society. He decided that it was not in the public interest to deny substitution because this could lead to injustice against a range of potential claimants who may have presented their own claims but decided not to because the River Thames Society was effectively pursuing the claim on their behalf. It seems to me that in our case if substitution was not possible there would have been nothing to prevent either BCC or BCFC planting/sponsoring their own claimant at the outset only to withdraw once the deadline had passed thereby killing the JR dead.

On this basis, ABC's claim in our case can only fail if:

1. ABC did not have a legitimate interest in the TVG decision at the time or the original claim; or
   
2. ABC is unable to give the court the necessary assurance/guarantee in regard to costs
   

That is to say the reasons for and nature of the first claimant's withdrawal are entirely irrelevant to ABC's right to pursue the claim and hence are unlikely to be even considered by the court for the purposes of the JR.

Can BCC appeal against the court order to allow ABC's claim?

On the basis of the above it seems to me that they cannot - that being the case I am not sure what the purpose of yesterday's (or next Tuesday's) court procedure. I fear that the media's (e.g. EP/BBC) abject failure to attent the court in London yesterday in order to report the outcome first-hand may have allowed BCC to continue a myth (entirely of its own making) that HHJ Thornton's court order may be overturned.

In my opinion BCC's objection to ABC's claim must be left until the full JR hearing in May - and even then it will be doomed to fail as the court will be unwilling to abandon the JR on a technicality given that it has already decided that BCC's decision should be reviewed.

What will be the outcome of the JR?

I understand the case for the JR is on the following two issues:

1. did BCC have the authority to effectively grant an application which was not in fact made?- i.e. given that it had an application for the whole site and an objection for the whole site - could it decide to grant TVG status to part of the site? - this seems to be a legal technicality which could go either way but subject to BCC being able to show that it was a reasonable decision the court is more likely (in my opinion) to allow than disallow.
   
2. was the conclusion BCC reached (i.e. that part but not all of the site met the qualifying criteria for a TVG) rational, reasonable and reached on the basis of all the relevant evidence without undue consideration of extaneous matters (e.g. Bristol's need for the stadium, potential for jobs etc.). This will depend entirely on the quality and nature of the new evidence put forward by BCFC/SL - it will be for BCC to demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that the new evidence was so compelling and incontravertible that it was justified in taking it at face value rather than subjecting it to the same level of scrutiny (i.e. independent enquiry / cross-examination etc.) as the original evidence. Again I would say there are grounds for optimism.
   

What happens if the JR finds against the council?

BCC will find itself back in the same position it was when the new evidence was presented - depending on the detail of the JR decision it may make a different decision (either the whole site or none of the site is a TVG) or it may initiate a new enquiry with all the evidence and a new set of questions.

Having said all of this, does anyone seriously believe that if the JR fails next week or finds in favour of BCC in May we will see works commence on the new stadium any time soon? My own doubts are based on the following:

1. how many times in the last 3.5 years have potential customers been turned away from Ashton Gate because of inadequate capacity?
   
2. how many times will this happen in the next 3.5 years?
   
3. although it is said that the new ground will promote greater interest and provide greater potential for non-match income, to generate a minimum yield (say 4%) on a £90M investment would require a revenue increase of £3.6M/annum - is £20K per week in non-match revenue and 5,000 additional season ticket holders realistic?
   

Still - it all continues to provide a welcome distraction from the failing team, falling crowds and delapidation of our current home.

I read your orginal prose and as per your summary above is based on case law and your interpretation of it, no doubt very elequently put accross.

However your closing comments m'lud, all relate to the status quo and do not take into accout what the "potential" of a new stadium can bring to the area. Your summary is in the context of the football club today, this project is to increase the profile and investment potential into the football club and its surrounding area.

Put legal statute to one side and think in the context of other football clubs that have developed their grounds on this scale and its pretty much a success story. Take Reading how many times did Elm Park sell out in the 3 years prior to moved to the Madjeski Stadium. Brighton certianly get far and away more fans at their new Amex then laterly at the Goldstone Ground and certianly the Withdeam athletics stadium. So you see its not apples for apples. We can all look at the situation today and you are right, but Swansea now play in front of sell out crowds at the Liberty stadium which is a millions miles away from the Vetch field.

This project is about providing a long term future and legacey for the football club, by all means tread water and look at how things currently are (pretty desperate) but to continue in that vein is to surely accept mediocrity, something the Greater Bristol area seems to have done for far to long....be quite nice to be a bit more positve and aspire for better, surely?

How about a light rail system?????

[BCAGFC]

Crispins out of his kennel again, "the judge has led us to believe he will Allow the review to go ahead"

Suppose he's told you personally Peter has he?

Pistol Pete still thinks he has a legal right to be part of this case........well I have news for him.

HE HASN'T.............he is just an interested 3rd party, like the rest of us.

Typical ex-councillor, egotistical & power hungry.

BCAGFC

[NOTR]

Greetings from north of the river. Most of us of the blue and white persuasion are well aware that designating a reclaimed rubbish tip as a village green is a nonsense. You will get there in the end. The council to be fair to them, have backed both clubs with regards to planning permissions and can't be blamed for some people wanting the TVG to stop the stadium. The law has to applied as it stands - the fact that it is obvious to everyone including the judge that the application is simply to stop the stadium is neither here nor there.

The council appear to have made a pig's ear of the designation process so I imagine you will finish up going to back to an inspector and working through it all again. You already have planning permission you just need a properly arrived at TVG designation.

The irony of all this is, if Lansdown had quietly fenced off the land as soon as he bought it and before any announcements were made, none of this would have happened.

I think you could be right,not bad for a sag.

[BCAGFC]

I posted last Saturday at some length on this issue but the thread was moved or deleted - so to summarise

It seems to me that we have all been somewhat misled by BCC and the EP.

A Second Judicial Review?

It is wholly inaccurate to suggest that a second JR is being considered or has been allowed out of time. The 22/02/12 court order is simply to join a second claimant ("ABC") to the original JR - thereby allowing the first claimant to abandon his/her claim without bringing the action to an end. In effect this will be a substitution of claimant without amendment (other than necessary adjustments to certain interim deadlines) to the existing process and timetable.

Is allowing the second claim contrary to established law (e.g. CPR19)?

It has already been established that CPR19 does not necessarily apply to public law cases. In River Thames Society and Lady Berkeley v First Secretary of State [2006]EWHC2829(Admin) J Underhill considered whether or not Lady Berkeley could in effect take-over a claim against a planning consent originally commenced (but later abandoned) by River Thames Society. He decided that it was not in the public interest to deny substitution because this could lead to injustice against a range of potential claimants who may have presented their own claims but decided not to because the River Thames Society was effectively pursuing the claim on their behalf. It seems to me that in our case if substitution was not possible there would have been nothing to prevent either BCC or BCFC planting/sponsoring their own claimant at the outset only to withdraw once the deadline had passed thereby killing the JR dead.

On this basis, ABC's claim in our case can only fail if:

1. ABC did not have a legitimate interest in the TVG decision at the time or the original claim; or
   
2. ABC is unable to give the court the necessary assurance/guarantee in regard to costs
   

That is to say the reasons for and nature of the first claimant's withdrawal are entirely irrelevant to ABC's right to pursue the claim and hence are unlikely to be even considered by the court for the purposes of the JR.

Can BCC appeal against the court order to allow ABC's claim?

On the basis of the above it seems to me that they cannot - that being the case I am not sure what the purpose of yesterday's (or next Tuesday's) court procedure. I fear that the media's (e.g. EP/BBC) abject failure to attent the court in London yesterday in order to report the outcome first-hand may have allowed BCC to continue a myth (entirely of its own making) that HHJ Thornton's court order may be overturned.

In my opinion BCC's objection to ABC's claim must be left until the full JR hearing in May - and even then it will be doomed to fail as the court will be unwilling to abandon the JR on a technicality given that it has already decided that BCC's decision should be reviewed.

What will be the outcome of the JR?

I understand the case for the JR is on the following two issues:

1. did BCC have the authority to effectively grant an application which was not in fact made?- i.e. given that it had an application for the whole site and an objection for the whole site - could it decide to grant TVG status to part of the site? - this seems to be a legal technicality which could go either way but subject to BCC being able to show that it was a reasonable decision the court is more likely (in my opinion) to allow than disallow.
   
2. was the conclusion BCC reached (i.e. that part but not all of the site met the qualifying criteria for a TVG) rational, reasonable and reached on the basis of all the relevant evidence without undue consideration of extaneous matters (e.g. Bristol's need for the stadium, potential for jobs etc.). This will depend entirely on the quality and nature of the new evidence put forward by BCFC/SL - it will be for BCC to demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that the new evidence was so compelling and incontravertible that it was justified in taking it at face value rather than subjecting it to the same level of scrutiny (i.e. independent enquiry / cross-examination etc.) as the original evidence. Again I would say there are grounds for optimism.
   

What happens if the JR finds against the council?

BCC will find itself back in the same position it was when the new evidence was presented - depending on the detail of the JR decision it may make a different decision (either the whole site or none of the site is a TVG) or it may initiate a new enquiry with all the evidence and a new set of questions.

Having said all of this, does anyone seriously believe that if the JR fails next week or finds in favour of BCC in May we will see works commence on the new stadium any time soon? My own doubts are based on the following:

1. how many times in the last 3.5 years have potential customers been turned away from Ashton Gate because of inadequate capacity?
   
2. how many times will this happen in the next 3.5 years?
   
3. although it is said that the new ground will promote greater interest and provide greater potential for non-match income, to generate a minimum yield (say 4%) on a £90M investment would require a revenue increase of £3.6M/annum - is £20K per week in non-match revenue and 5,000 additional season ticket holders realistic?
   

Still - it all continues to provide a welcome distraction from the failing team, falling crowds and delapidation of our current home.

Thank you Mr Crispin.

Your summing up of the potential benefits from a new stadium at AV proves to me that you are firmly in the 'NickJ anti stadium' brigade and have no understanding of how the facilities will be used on a non-matchday or can even comprehend how much extra income they will/should/could bring in.

I really think your posts have an underlying agenda, perhaps you work for the NIMBYs.

BCAGFC

[Sleepy1968]

I read your orginal prose and as per your summary above is based on case law and your interpretation of it, no doubt very elequently put accross.

However your closing comments m'lud, all relate to the status quo and do not take into accout what the "potential" of a new stadium can bring to the area. Your summary is in the context of the football club today, this project is to increase the profile and investment potential into the football club and its surrounding area.

Put legal statute to one side and think in the context of other football clubs that have developed their grounds on this scale and its pretty much a success story. Take Reading how many times did Elm Park sell out in the 3 years prior to moved to the Madjeski Stadium. Brighton certianly get far and away more fans at their new Amex then laterly at the Goldstone Ground and certianly the Withdeam athletics stadium. So you see its not apples for apples. We can all look at the situation today and you are right, but Swansea now play in front of sell out crowds at the Liberty stadium which is a millions miles away from the Vetch field.

This project is about providing a long term future and legacey for the football club, by all means tread water and look at how things currently are (pretty desperate) but to continue in that vein is to surely accept mediocrity, something the Greater Bristol area seems to have done for far to long....be quite nice to me a bit more positve and aspire for better, surely?

How about a light rail system?????

Yes. Ashton Gate is antiquated and in dire need of replacement. Also the cost of just maintaining the 'Stadium' must be getting prohibitive (i.e. not cost effective.) Taking each stand in turn:-

East End - the only thing going for it are the acoustics,

Williams Stand - sit in the front and you suffer a low rake, sit further up and the posts obscure the view. The seats in the Grandstand are also much too small and hard on the arse.

Atyeo Stand - acoustically abysmal. Views and access seem to be okay (I've only sat in there once).

Dolman Stand - Excellent views guaranteed. Access is pretty poor, especially if you're old or fat (me).Takes a good 10-15 minutes to actually get out of the ground from near the back of block D, so I can see why a proportion of the crowd want to leave early every game (quality of footy notwithstanding).

Would anyone really choose to to continue with the status quo?

[Timbo7]

BCAGFC

As is so often the case on this forum - seemingly on every subject, facts are mistaken for opinion and predictions are mistaken for desire.

I don't know about you but I for one do not expect to win the lottery tonight and I do not expect City to win at Ipswich this afternoon. However, I am in no doubt that I would very much like both those things to happen.

Similarly, if I had any interest in promoting the TVG agenda (for a rubbish tip for God's sake!), would I waste my time sharing my limited understanding with the opposition. As outcome of this issue is unlikely to be decided on this forum I might invest my time more profitably elsewhere.

You are correct that I have no understanding of how the stadium will be used to generate non-match day income - this is mainly because BCFC has chosen not to share this information (other than vague unquantified and unsubstantiated claims) with its minority shareholders (the ex-chairman prefering to have little if anything to do with them!) Consequently, my fear/opinion is based on market logic alone - i.e. if an investment of £90M in a football stadium can be commercially justified by potential non-match revenue alone, then just imagine how much more profitable it would be to develop a facility focussed entirely on tapping the non-match revenue - i.e. earn the same revenue without the needless expense of providing a football ground.

If there really is such an untapped high-spending demand for conference facilities (or whatever other facilites it is that AV will provide that are beyond my comprehension) then why is it that the BCC planners are not swamped with applications to build such facilities on every spot of under-developed land in and around the city? Perhaps we are on to something here?

As you say - I cannot comprehend - please enlighten me regarding the proposed uses and indicative forecast revenues

[Timbo7]

I read your orginal prose and as per your summary above is based on case law and your interpretation of it, no doubt very elequently put accross.

However your closing comments m'lud, all relate to the status quo and do not take into accout what the "potential" of a new stadium can bring to the area. Your summary is in the context of the football club today, this project is to increase the profile and investment potential into the football club and its surrounding area.

Put legal statute to one side and think in the context of other football clubs that have developed their grounds on this scale and its pretty much a success story. Take Reading how many times did Elm Park sell out in the 3 years prior to moved to the Madjeski Stadium. Brighton certianly get far and away more fans at their new Amex then laterly at the Goldstone Ground and certianly the Withdeam athletics stadium. So you see its not apples for apples. We can all look at the situation today and you are right, but Swansea now play in front of sell out crowds at the Liberty stadium which is a millions miles away from the Vetch field.

This project is about providing a long term future and legacey for the football club, by all means tread water and look at how things currently are (pretty desperate) but to continue in that vein is to surely accept mediocrity, something the Greater Bristol area seems to have done for far to long....be quite nice to be a bit more positve and aspire for better, surely?

How about a light rail system?????

Of course - if the new ground can be part of a revolution of the type experienced at Reading, Swansea and (although its still early days) Brighton then I must wholeheartedly support it - and the rapid transit facility!

This is not impossible but we must guard against an expectation that a stadium can deliver on its own - Although I hate to say it - Swansea City appears to be the ideal model - a long-term plan and philiosphy that is not dependent on any individual - managers recruited to suit the way they do things - young players, giving youth a chance - letting Trundle play - selling Trundly for £1M and getting him back on loan (for part of his wages) etc. etc.

A single word of caution though - Darlington

[Tales From The Front]

Of course - if the new ground can be part of a revolution of the type experienced at Reading, Swansea and (although its still early days) Brighton then I must wholeheartedly support it - and the rapid transit facility!

This is not impossible but we must guard against an expectation that a stadium can deliver on its own - Although I hate to say it - Swansea City appears to be the ideal model - a long-term plan and philiosphy that is not dependent on any individual - managers recruited to suit the way they do things - young players, giving youth a chance - letting Trundle play - selling Trundly for £1M and getting him back on loan (for part of his wages) etc. etc.

A single word of caution though - Darlington

Almost a good post, almost.... Darlington...come on.

Comparing our situation to Darlington, you might as well throw Real Madrid in as well. Darlington's stadium, the then Raynolds Arean as is well known was the brain child of a Chairman, in my oppinion of suspect repute and was clearly not in context with their geographic position, operating on the door step of Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesborough. The same thing, I suspect would happen if Hartlepool went down that route.

I think the examples I provided are more relastic in terms of club size and I would argue that City has the potential to be bigger than any one of the clubs mentioned.

[BCAGFC]

BCAGFC

As is so often the case on this forum - seemingly on every subject, facts are mistaken for opinion and predictions are mistaken for desire.

I don't know about you but I for one do not expect to win the lottery tonight and I do not expect City to win at Ipswich this afternoon. However, I am in no doubt that I would very much like both those things to happen.

Similarly, if I had any interest in promoting the TVG agenda (for a rubbish tip for God's sake!), would I waste my time sharing my limited understanding with the opposition. As outcome of this issue is unlikely to be decided on this forum I might invest my time more profitably elsewhere.

You are correct that I have no understanding of how the stadium will be used to generate non-match day income - this is mainly because BCFC has chosen not to share this information (other than vague unquantified and unsubstantiated claims) with its minority shareholders (the ex-chairman prefering to have little if anything to do with them!) Consequently, my fear/opinion is based on market logic alone - i.e. if an investment of £90M in a football stadium can be commercially justified by potential non-match revenue alone, then just imagine how much more profitable it would be to develop a facility focussed entirely on tapping the non-match revenue - i.e. earn the same revenue without the needless expense of providing a football ground.

If there really is such an untapped high-spending demand for conference facilities (or whatever other facilites it is that AV will provide that are beyond my comprehension) then why is it that the BCC planners are not swamped with applications to build such facilities on every spot of under-developed land in and around the city? Perhaps we are on to something here?

As you say - I cannot comprehend - please enlighten me regarding the proposed uses and indicative forecast revenues

The reason BCC is not swamped with conference centre applications is because it won't bring in the 'quick buck' that all developers insist on these days, conference facilities are a long term profit maker.

Do you know how much an executive box at Championship level costs to lease for a season?, last time I looked it was between 10k & 20k per season and that was a while ago. Remind me what executive facilities (because that is where the money is made these days) we have at AG?.

A question: Would you deny SL & KD the chance of clawing back some of the millions they have invested in our club?, because that is what you would do if AV doesn't go ahead.

BCAGFC

[Timbo7]

Almost a good post, almost.... Darlington...come on.

Comparing our situation to Darlington, you might as well throw Real Madrid in as well. Darlington's stadium, the then Raynolds Arean as is well known was the brain child of a Chairman, in my oppinion of suspect repute and was clearly not in context with their geographic position, operating on the door step of Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesborough. The same thing, I suspect would happen if Hartlepool went down that route.

I think the examples I provided are more relastic in terms of club size and I would argue that City has the potential to be bigger than any one of the clubs mentioned.

Sorry - I do completely agree with you on all counts - we do need to take calculated risks to move forward

As part of a long-term sustainable plan, a new stadium is probably an essential part of a long-term plan to put BCFC back to somewhere near where it was 100+ years ago - the best team in the south of England. I just hope we have the courage and patience to commit to the long-term.

Given the current situation (form, squad, losses) it may of course be that we have no choice but to start from a low base as both Swansea and Brighton did and in time this may turn out to be for the best. In some ways I am encouraged that we seem to have stopped signing average players on long-term top-wage contracts and we do seem to be determined to make the most of clear-out opportunity this summer will create.

If we are relegated I just hope we make better of it than we did last time - 6 months of destruction from Pulis (depressing) - followed by the introduction of youth by Fawthrop leading to a trip to Wembley for a young team we could be proud of in defeat (encouraging) - followed by the appointment of DW, abandonment of youth and influx of journeymen in pursuit of quick wins, several seasons treading water (depressing again) - and the rest is history

Onwards and upwards - bring-on AV and a brighter future!

[Tales From The Front]

I've been hearing about the potential of BCFC for decades.

To realise that potential takes more than the football club and its supporters - you need the city behind it as well. The clubs you mentioned had that in spades.

We haven't, as we are finding out.

Agree, but a 14 year fight by Brighton might suggest otherwise. Sometimes you have to succeed in spite of a situation, but you are right even in alledgedly trying to help the Council still appear to have made a pigs ear of it, either by design or through incompetence.

I just feel that if the club can get over this hurdle, long term things will be so much better. Even the Gashead on here the other day suggested as much as although he agreed in the priciple in our stadium fight the fact it could well propell City forward was his concern. That sentiment from our nearest and dearest sums it up quite nicely for me.

[Tales From The Front]

Sorry - I do completely agree with you on all counts - we do need to take calculated risks to move forward

As part of a long-term sustainable plan, a new stadium is probably an essential part of a long-term plan to put BCFC back to somewhere near where it was 100+ years ago - the best team in the south of England. I just hope we have the courage and patience to commit to the long-term.

Given the current situation (form, squad, losses) it may of course be that we have no choice but to start from a low base as both Swansea and Brighton did and in time this may turn out to be for the best. In some ways I am encouraged that we seem to have stopped signing average players on long-term top-wage contracts and we do seem to be determined to make the most of clear-out opportunity this summer will create.

If we are relegated I just hope we make better of it than we did last time - 6 months of destruction from Pulis (depressing) - followed by the introduction of youth by Fawthrop leading to a trip to Wembley for a young team we could be proud of in defeat (encouraging) - followed by the appointment of DW, abandonment of youth and influx of journeymen in pursuit of quick wins, several seasons treading water (depressing again) - and the rest is history

Onwards and upwards - bring-on AV and a brighter future!

Wouldn't argue with any of that good points made, the club needs to start to look longer term on a number of fronts, stadium and a youth system that delivers being highest on the agenda. Football cannot sustain the quick fix strategy anymore, as the goings on at Portsmouth and Rangers demonstrate.

The fight for our new stadium must continue whatever happens next week.

[Timbo7]

The reason BCC is not swamped with conference centre applications is because it won't bring in the 'quick buck' that all developers insist on these days, conference facilities are a long term profit maker.

Do you know how much an executive box at Championship level costs to lease for a season?, last time I looked it was between 10k & 20k per season and that was a while ago. Remind me what executive facilities (because that is where the money is made these days) we have at AG?.

A question: Would you deny SL & KD the chance of clawing back some of the millions they have invested in our club?, because that is what you would do if AV doesn't go ahead.

BCAGFC

No I do not know what a championship (or premier league or league 1) executive box costs for a season and I readily acknowledge that the new stadium could, subject to the product being served up on the park, enable this lucrative market to be tapped. This can make a substantial contribution to yield the investment would require. It does, however, fall into the same box as my concern about demand. If we are able to generate demand then having the facilies to tap the demand is essential and the new stadium investment can be justified. If we cannot then it is not.

Plainly I would not deny (although I would if I was acting for the Nimbies as you have suggested) SL or anyone else to make a return on their investment if the opportunity arises. It is precisely because I do not expect SL or anyone else to invest in hopeless venture that I refered to the minimum yield on a £90M investment in the first place. However, even on the most optimistic analysis the new stadium can only begin to repay SL/KD after the £90M investment/debt has been serviced (£3M - £4M per annum) and, if such repayment is part of the plan - what financial benefit would remain for BCFC?

In essence - I agree that capacity to tap all available revenues is essential if BCFC are ever to progress beyond 2nd/3rd division (in old money) mediocrity but in the absence of all the other elements required to make such progress possible (sustainable long-term plan, effective youth structure, end to endless expensive fire-fighting etc.) the stadium could be seen as throwing good money after bad.

Unless DMcI and our current squad can deliver a miracle in the coming weeks we will be rebuilding again from a low base, but stripped of our excess squad and many of our top-earners the time could be right for the fresh start we all need (as Swansea did in League 2!) - a lot may depend on our willingness to turn up in large numbers and to show the patience and encouragement that any long-term plan requires.

I refer back to my first post - I am optimistic regarding the JR but concerned that the AV investment does not look as attractive as it did when first proposed - neither SL nor anyone else is going to go on throwing £1M/month at a sinking ship. It has been clear from the off that SL/KD only get their money back if the business is worth more when they sell than it was when they bought - let's hope that it is.