Barrs Court Red Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-19975226 Who described the costs as unaccpetable? Since when was an inquiry for 2013 announced? How the hell can £57,000 be spent on mediation, yet its details are kept secret. Bristol City FC stadium row costs 'unacceptable' Costs of a legal battle over a 30,000-seater football stadium in Bristol have been described as "unacceptable". Bristol City FC wants to build at Ashton Vale but some residents applied for the area to become a town green. The town green inquiry, a subsequent judicial review and an attempt to mediate over the row cost Bristol City Council more than £234,000. Graham Sims, the council's chief executive, said they were faced with "rising costs and legal stalemates". If the land was registered as a town green under planning legislation, it would block any future development at Ashton Vale - including the proposed stadium. The figures were revealed following a Freedom of Information request by the BBC. The original town green inquiry had recommended that Ashton Vale become a town green but the council went against this advice. 'No defence' It registered part of the land as a town green but the area where the stadium would be built was not registered paving the way for it to be built. This sparked a judicial review which the council eventually withdrew from saying it could offer no legal defence to its decision. A second planning inquiry is due to take place in 2013. Much of the money spent during the inquiry was on legal costs - including almost £35,000 hiring planning inspector Ross Crail. The council also spent £28,658 on legal advice from several lawyers over the case. Another big cost was for litigation with the lawyers for the residents opposing the stadium totalling £58,196. Mediation costs between the two parties came to almost £57,000. Nobody from the protesters was available for comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myol'man Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Nothing new in that story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tall King Blox Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Same old same old........people making loadsamoney with no real progress ! rings a bit like the money spent on the Temple Meads arena site, we got a city full of bloodsuckers ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herman Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 £35k of public money used to hire her? the salary of a teacher, a nurse or a soldier? it makes you lose faith in humanity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 It paints the nimbys in a very bad light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 £35k of public money used to hire her? the salary of a teacher, a nurse or a soldier? it makes you lose faith in humanity A lot of teachers,nurses, and soldiers would love to earn £35k py. I totally agree with you, it makes you mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigeon Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 I simply don't understand how the town green supporters sleep at night... Knowing that the large majority of the city wants a new stadium, NEEDS a new stadium. The fact they can call a unused piece of land a town green is ridiculous! If that constitutes as a town green then so does every single bit of unused land in the country! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 This will go against them when the tvg laws change, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sephjnr Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 I simply don't understand how the town green supporters sleep at night... Knowing that the large majority of the city wants a new stadium, NEEDS a new stadium. The fact they can call a unused piece of land a town green is ridiculous! If that constitutes as a town green then so does every single bit of unused land in the country! They don't care about Bristol. They want their piece of garden out the back away from the rat race they've bled money from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 I simply don't understand how the town green supporters sleep at night... Knowing that the large majority of the city wants a new stadium, NEEDS a new stadium. The fact they can call a unused piece of land a town green is ridiculous! If that constitutes as a town green then so does every single bit of unused land in the country! Thats democracy for you. In Cuba things just get done but there is no liberty. So, which would you rather have? Most would answer somewhere in between so perhaps Brazil might be a good place to move the franchise. Either that or build a ship and shackle those nimbys to Oz for re-education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redcityman Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 £35k of public money used to hire her? the salary of a teacher, a nurse or a soldier? it makes you lose faith in humanity Especially when looking at her record regarding TVGs we already knew her answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCAGFC Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 The BBC conveniently miss the point that BCC didn't have to abide by Crail's recommendation. BCC should try to claim the 57k mediation costs back from the NIMBYs as they had NO intention whatsoever of mediation or sorting a deal. BCAGFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolman Mac Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Look at the picture used on the article. Like always never anyone on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcbs20 Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Will this work in our favour, those Bristol taxpayers who are footing the bill for this who don't mind/don't care if we get a stadium can't be happy about all this money the few nimby's are wasting fighting this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Red Rich Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 47 user(s) are reading this topic 12 members, 34 Nimby's , 1 anonymous users Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philly The Kid Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 It's as I've always said, it's got nothing to do with a stadium, open land, or dog walking and everything to do with stopping a rich man doing what he wants to. Envy and jealousy will reduce people into doing extraordinary things. Why is it that when a local boy makes good and earns himself a fortune through hard work, dedication and commitment, he is regarded with deep suspicion by a significant, influential group of people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeRed Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Will this work in our favour, those Bristol taxpayers who are footing the bill for this who don't mind/don't care if we get a stadium can't be happy about all this money the few nimby's are wasting fighting this. No, I think it will work against us. The majority of Bristolians don't care about football or the stadium and will view this as a waste of their council tax payments being spent on trying to support anew stadium for a club which already has a 20,000 seater stadium and who currently attract less than 14,000 despite being in the championship. They will also feel that the club is owned by a multi millionaire who has left the UK to avoid paying tax on his hundred million plus fortune that was derived directly from HL profits - a company (along with all the other investment companies) whose method of fee charging has now been outlawed by the government from Dec 31 as it was deemed unfair and not transparent (The RDR) . I'm not anti SL or the Stadium - but SL didn't help his PR by his well publised tax avoiding move and any hint of public expenditure going on "his" project won't sit well with non-football fans. Perhaps he should offer to fund the next public enquiry and council costs to win back some positve PR. CR Edit - I also note from the BBC news article that they made no mention of the Nimbys costs and expenditure all of which has also come from the public purse through their legal aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manon Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Edit - I also note from the BBC news article that they made no mention of the Nimbys costs and expenditure all of which has also come from the public purse through their legal aid. Yeah, I'd be interested to know who wrote that piece.. Can't find a name on there. I wonder if it could be our old friend (her name has escaped me) who has released similar trash, leaning heavily toward the nimby element, conveniently omitting facts here and there. I think her last piece was the one claiming residents being harassed/having bricks through their windows etc etc. It does seen suspect to me since someone at the bbc has gone the route of freedom of information act to obtain these figures but then (as the previous poster has said) omitted to mention the nimbys cost to the tax payer. It its at best very shoddy reporting, at worst a smear campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Yeah, I'd be interested to know who wrote that piece.. Can't find a name on there. I wonder if it could be our old friend (her name has escaped me) who has released similar trash, leaning heavily toward the nimby element, conveniently omitting facts here and there. I think her last piece was the one claiming residents being harassed/having bricks through their windows etc etc. It does seen suspect to me since someone at the bbc has gone the route of freedom of information act to obtain these figures but then (as the previous poster has said) omitted to mention the nimbys cost to the tax payer. It its at best very shoddy reporting, at worst a smear campaign. Doesn't this line make that point? "Another big cost was for litigation with the lawyers for the residents opposing the stadium totalling £58,196." Or am I misreading it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS15_RED Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Sounds to me like Crispin & co have instigated this to try and turn public opinion against the stadium. Anyone with half a brain will deduce that the nimby cretins have wasted £57k by participating in mediation when they've had absolutely no intention of striking a compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langford Red Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 No, I think it will work against us. The majority of Bristolians don't care about football or the stadium and will view this as a waste of their council tax payments being spent on trying to support anew stadium for a club which already has a 20,000 seater stadium and who currently attract less than 14,000 despite being in the championship. They will also feel that the club is owned by a multi millionaire who has left the UK to avoid paying tax on his hundred million plus fortune that was derived directly from HL profits - a company (along with all the other investment companies) whose method of fee charging has now been outlawed by the government from Dec 31 as it was deemed unfair and not transparent (The RDR) . I'm not anti SL or the Stadium - but SL didn't help his PR by his well publised tax avoiding move and any hint of public expenditure going on "his" project won't sit well with non-football fans. Perhaps he should offer to fund the next public enquiry and council costs to win back some positve PR. CR Edit - I also note from the BBC news article that they made no mention of the Nimbys costs and expenditure all of which has also come from the public purse through their legal aid. Go and support somebody else if can not support SL It has nothing to do with making money on tax If he was doing something wrong it would be looked at by the law! He has always made his money by dealing with money investment Grow up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 Go and support somebody else if can not support SL It has nothing to do with making money on tax If he was doing something wrong it would be looked at by the law! He has always made his money by dealing with money investment Grow up! Back to school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunningdalered Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 Thats democracy for you. In Cuba things just get done but there is no liberty. So, which would you rather have? Most would answer somewhere in between so perhaps Brazil might be a good place to move the franchise. Either that or build a ship and shackle those nimbys to Oz for re-education. Is it democracy? Allowing what is no more than a handful of people to prevent the development of a stadium that would bring pleasure to thousands of people, and (if you accept the commercial arguments) economic benefit to many thousand more non-football fans. I always thought democracy was about following the wishes of the majority (who can be bothered to express a view one way or the other on a particular issue)? Why is this always framed as a matter of SL trying to impose his will against the interests and wishes of the public (in dictatorship style)? He is just the 'agent' for change surely, he has the plan, but its up to the public if the plan is acceptable, and at the moment a handful of people are defeating the true meaning of democracy (by using some ill-conceived legislation that is the antithesis of true democracy). IMO, sometimes, the rights of a few individuals, and in this case it is only a few, can and should be subjugated for the well-being of a much greater proportion of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 To be honest I really don't care about this stadium business at all, it has been dragging on too long, improving AG would be the way ahead, and of course ensuring we stay in the Championship should be the priorty of the club. is that going to be our aim every year to survive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 Is it democracy? Allowing what is no more than a handful of people to prevent the development of a stadium that would bring pleasure to thousands of people, and (if you accept the commercial arguments) economic benefit to many thousand more non-football fans. I always thought democracy was about following the wishes of the majority (who can be bothered to express a view one way or the other on a particular issue)? Why is this always framed as a matter of SL trying to impose his will against the interests and wishes of the public (in dictatorship style)? He is just the 'agent' for change surely, he has the plan, but its up to the public if the plan is acceptable, and at the moment a handful of people are defeating the true meaning of democracy (by using some ill-conceived legislation that is the antithesis of true democracy). IMO, sometimes, the rights of a few individuals, and in this case it is only a few, can and should be subjugated for the well-being of a much greater proportion of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 is that going to be our aim every year to survive? No, he said its a priority, and he's right. You can't get promoted before you've gained enough points to survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted October 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 This was on the news last night. It lasted for about 3 minutes. It seems they've dug for something, come up with nothing and still run a quick report on it. They spent longer talking about the hazards of bamboo pits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 This will go against them when the tvg laws change, The new legislation (which prevents TVG applications where planning has been permitted or applied for) is expected to become law in the summer of 2013....might be too late for SL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCAGFC Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 Think we probably have enough evidence to go for a retrospective scrapping if AV gets TVG status, many of the NIMBYs have stated it is just about stopping the stadium develeopment not actually preserving the green (should have been registered as brown) belt.....which is against the ethics of the TVG legislation. They have also stated that they had to pay the farmer to ice skate.....again, against TVG ethics. I'm all for giving people power as long as it used genuinely, fairly and truthfully....none of which have been used in the AV debacle. We have people from outside AV causing havoc who have probably never set foot on the place until they did their BBC/ITV interviews, let the locals complain if they are that worried. It fails to amaze me that SL hasn't set up a hidden time lapse camara to actually show how little AV is used......that would be the most damning evidence of all I would have thought. BCAGFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bert tann Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.