Is This The Right Time To Be Trying To Move Grounds?

[Fat Cigar]

Hi all,

I don't expect this to be popular but I've written a piece this morning on "thisisbristol" outlining why I believe now may not be the best time to persist with the proposed ground move.

Am genuinely interested by peoples' views on this. I imagine the vast majority of you (I'm guessing 80-90%) won't agree with me, but I still think it's a discussion worth having. Look forward to some lively chat!

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/BLOG-Bristol-City-abandon-new-stadium-plans/story-17494630-detail/story.html

[BCFC_Dan]

Well written and well argued, though I disagree.

The time to be planning and building the new ground is now, whilst we're on a bit of a low, so that it is ready for the next upturn in form. Even if we go down this season it will only be the most pessimistic of supporters who believe we'll never come back up again and when we do it will hopefully be accompanied by the kind of impetus that took Johnson's side to the playoff final and has taken other sides to promotion. If that happens we would be glad of the new stadium to take advantage.

It would be naive and stupid to believe that a new stadium will guarantee success. As you mention in the article, Coventry are a good example of where a club has continued to decline despite a new stadium. On the other hand, though, Coventry is by no means the only outcome of a declining side in a new stadium. Even if it takes a while, clubs usually come out of the slump as Southampton and Leicester have done and end up better off for it thanks to their new grounds.

[Mendip City]

IMO, and it's all about opinions, we have no choice but to pursue a new stadium or at least rebuild Ashton Gate.

What I would say is the the whole new stadium fiasco has been a drain on our club for nearly 5 years.... It's no wonder the football side has gone backwards.... It's just one of a number of increasingly negative issues around the club.

[Manon]

Good piece, but I think you're missing the main crux of the matter: we need the new stadium to survive. It isn't merely a luxury, a millionaire's plaything. It serves a very important purpose, and that is the survival of Bcfc.

I agree that the prospect of rattling around a half empty stadium is not a nice one, but don't be fooled by the illusion that it might mean it's a failure. Yes, the new stadium might have been 25,000, but tickets sales would remain largely the same as at AG. It is the while host of revenue streams, which would be mostly unseen by the casual observer where the club would reap the benefits. Conferencing, corporate hospitality, restaurants/catering, hotel, concerts...the list goes on...

[BCAGFC]

Thanks Ben for giving the NIMBYs even more ammunition.

You may be a young political analyst but I suggest you try understanding economics and answer me this.......how are we going to raise our income streams at AG?.

BCAGFC

[del ete]

Without a new ground / new facilities we will not be able to compete with the majority of the teams in the championship when FFP kicks in. Even a large amount of the lower league teams have built new stadiums or redveloped their existing ground, and we are in danger of being one of the most backward clubs in the country with our current set up.

[marmite]

IMO, and it's all about opinions, we have no choice but to pursue a new stadium or at least rebuild Ashton Gate.

What I would say is the the whole new stadium fiasco has been a drain on our club for nearly 5 years.... It's no wonder the football side has gone backwards.... It's just one of a number of increasingly negative issues around the club.

Good piece, but I think you're missing the main crux of the matter: we need the new stadium to survive. It isn't merely a luxury, a millionaire's plaything. It serves a very important purpose, and that is the survival of Bcfc.

I agree that the prospect of rattling around a half empty stadium is not a nice one, but don't be fooled by the illusion that it might mean it's a failure. Yes, the new stadium might have been 25,000, but tickets sales would remain largely the same as at AG. It is the while host of revenue streams, which would be mostly unseen by the casual observer where the club would reap the benefits. Conferencing, corporate hospitality, restaurants/catering, hotel, concerts...the list goes on...

I believe at a recent Senior Reds dinner, a corporate manager was saying how they have spent a lot of money on the AG boardroom in order to increase the corporate income whilst still having an eye on a new stadium. His first question came from a long suffering supporter who asked why he was still sitting on the same slatted wooden seat in the Williams Stand that he had been sat on for years. The corporate mans response was that that the club did not want to waste money on new seating at AG in case we move grounds. One rule for one and one rule for the others???

[Nogbad the Bad]

Thanks Ben for giving the NIMBYs even more ammunition.

You may be a young political analyst but I suggest you try understanding economics and answer me this.......how are we going to raise our income streams at AG?.

BCAGFC

http://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topic/150462-new-ground/page__st__45

Timbo7, post 69 - some pertinent questions you might like to give some replies to.

[sunningdalered]

Thanks Ben for giving the NIMBYs even more ammunition.

You may be a young political analyst but I suggest you try understanding economics and answer me this.......how are we going to raise our income streams at AG?.

BCAGFC

I'm not sure that the piece does this - the point re a bit of scrubland suddenly becoming a valuable community asset is well made.

However, as all of the above posters have said, the question of current form is far too narrow an analysis to build the whole piece on. You could have read the endless debates on this forum and got a far more balanced and insightful view on the issue. It is lazy 'journalism' and suggests a very limited amount of thought and research IMO.

[Aizoon]

Thanks Ben for giving the NIMBYs even more ammunition.

You may be a young political analyst but I suggest you try understanding economics and answer me this.......how are we going to raise our income streams at AG?.

BCAGFC

But surely the review is about the Town Green, not the new stadium?

[chipdawg]

I believe at a recent Senior Reds dinner, a corporate manager was saying how they have spent a lot of money on the AG boardroom in order to increase the corporate income whilst still having an eye on a new stadium. His first question came from a long suffering supporter who asked why he was still sitting on the same slatted wooden seat in the Williams Stand that he had been sat on for years. The corporate mans response was that that the club did not want to waste money on new seating at AG in case we move grounds. One rule for one and one rule for the others???

I appreciate the cynicism with which that ill-advised comment would inevitably be taken with, but no one is going to pay more money to sit on a plastic seat in the Williams. If they would then no one would be sat in the Williams stand if you see what I mean

I take the point of the original author, but as with many he makes the mistake of directly comparing what he saw on the pitch with the development of a new stadium. As you point out yourself, when the stadium was first proposed we were riding the crest of a wave and the momentum of that will have propelled our enthusiasm. By extension then and given the fact that I would think that in Steve Lansdown's wildest dreams he doesn't see us in a new stadium before the start of the 2016/17 season, how do you know that the opening of a new ground will not coincide with the crest of another wave? Look at Norwich or Southampton; both were in our shoes in previous years and within my optimistic timescale had got themselves to the Premier League. Unfortunately, in 2007 as now, we don't have a crystal ball to map out the future of our club and so if we accept the argument that a new stadium is needed (and I know that many don't), we're as well to crack on with one now as we would be in a few years time. You never know what's round the corner...

[BCAGFC]

http://www.otib.co.u...nd/page__st__45

Timbo7, post 69 - some pertinent questions you might like to give some replies to.

I'm working on that but I will say that they are only pertinent questions for people who don't trust SL & his vision and also want to keep their beloved part of the ground.

Perhaps you could answer my question....how do we increase revenue streams at AG?.

BCAGFC

[myol'man]

Well written, but a poor argument. New Stadia have to be planned years, even decades in advance, for every Darlington or Coventry I raise you a Swansea, Reading or Brighton. If City stay at Ashton Gate in it's present state we will get left behind in the league one wilderness.

Premier League 2 will be with us inside 10 years and only shiny new Stadia or totally rebuilt old grounds will be allowed in.

[Nogbad the Bad]

I'm working on that but I will say that they are only pertinent questions fror people who don't trust SL & his vision.

Perhaps you could answer my question....how do we increase revenue streams at AG?.

BCAGFC

OK, don't mind repeating myself.

The redeveloped Williams and East End would increase capacity to 28,000+ and incorporate conference facilities, executive boxes restaurants, bars etc.

Everything then except a hotel - do most new grounds have hotels?

Plenty of new toilets as well, you'll be glad to hear.

[bcfcbs20]

OK, don't mind repeating myself.

The redeveloped Williams and East End would increase capacity to 28,000+ and incorporate conference facilities, executive boxes restaurants, bars etc.

Everything then except a hotel - do most new grounds have hotels?

Plenty of new toilets as well, you'll be glad to hear.

But what about the Ateyo and Dolman it would look bloody stupid if you left them as it is.

[Nogbad the Bad]

I'm working on that but I will say that they are only pertinent questions for people who don't trust SL & his vision

BCAGFC

I'd say they are pertinent questions for all of us - and certainly for such a strong advocate of bulldozing AG as yourself.

[chipdawg]

OK, don't mind repeating myself.

The redeveloped Williams and East End would increase capacity to 28,000+ and incorporate conference facilities, executive boxes restaurants, bars etc.

Everything then except a hotel - do most new grounds have hotels?

Plenty of new toilets as well, you'll be glad to hear.

Do we have planning permission for either of these new stands? Can the transport infrastructre around Ashton Gate support the additional 9000 fans? What could be done to raise money towards the projects? How much revenue would the club lose from those stands during the development phase? I do think it would be interesting to hear answers to these questions but the elephant in the room for me is that if this was a viable, attractive option for the club (as a business) then why wasn't the Ashton Vale project abandoned? It's now 5 years since AV first came to the table, we could have had those 2 new stands by now...

[Nogbad the Bad]

But what about the Ateyo and Dolman it would look bloody stupid if you left them as it is.

Only if you thought the rest of the ground looked stupid when the Dolman was built.

[bcfcbs20]

Only if you thought the rest of the ground looked stupid when the Dolman was built.

I have only ever known AG to be like it is now. Having two gert new stands and leaving the rest imo is not the answer the Dolman is getting on and needs updating the Ateyo is okay for the time being but give it 10 years and that will need an overhaul aswell.

[BCAGFC]

OK, don't mind repeating myself.

The redeveloped Williams and East End would increase capacity to 28,000+ and incorporate conference facilities, executive boxes restaurants, bars etc.

Everything then except a hotel - do most new grounds have hotels?

Plenty of new toilets as well, you'll be glad to hear.

If you take a look at both sets of plans, there is a HUGE difference between them, more boxes at AV, much larger conference facilities at AV, more restaurants at AV, a TV studio at AV (which could be rented out at HUGE profit), retail units at AV (more income) & I don't think bars were included in the old Williams Stand plans....at least not for meer mortals like mois.

If we rebuilt the Williams & EE, AG would look like a larger version of Gresty Road, we would have 1 & 1/2 massive stands (EE is limited due to housing/light issues) and then the rest would look ridiculously small.

Developing the Williams and EE would be a like putting a corn plaster over the grand canyon, it just wouldn't make enough difference to our income....not even sure the plans would get through now with all the new planning/light laws. The residents on Ashton Road had enough problems when the present Williams Stand was expanded.

BCAGFC

[Nogbad the Bad]

Do we have planning permission for either of these new stands? Can the transport infrastructre around Ashton Gate support the additional 9000 fans? What could be done to raise money towards the projects? How much revenue would the club lose from those stands during the development phase? I do think it would be interesting to hear answers to these questions but the elephant in the room for me is that if this was a viable, attractive option for the club (as a business) then why wasn't the Ashton Vale project abandoned? It's now 5 years since AV first came to the table, we could have had those 2 new stands by now...

We certainly did have planning permission - not sure if we still have - did you never see the detailed plans sent out in the 'Gatepost'?

I should think transport infrastructure could easily support 9,000 extra fans - I've been in a crowd of 40,000 there so it's not an issue.

Other clubs have redeveloped 1 stand at a time without problems.

AV is the preferred option because it is said to be less expensive and will apparently potentially provide more income (through a hotel?) - don't forget SL has always said redeveloping the Gate was the fall back plan if AV fell through, so it must be a viable option.

[Nogbad the Bad]

If you take a look at both sets of plans, there is a HUGE difference between them, more boxes at AV, much larger conference facilities at AV, more restaurants at AV, a TV studio at AV (which could be rented out at HUGE profit), retail units at AV (more income) & I don't think bars were included in the old Williams Stand plans....at least not for meer mortals like mois.

If we rebiuilt the Williams & EE, AG would look like a larger version of Gresty Road, we wouild have 1 & 1/2 massive stands (EE is limited due to housing/light issues) and then the rewst would look ridiculously small.

Developing the Williams and EE would be a like putting a corn plaster over a the grand canyon, it just wouldn't make enough difference....not even sure the plans would get through now with all the new planning/light laws. The residents on Ashton Road had enough problems when the prersent Williams Stand was expanded.

BCAGFC

So there would be everything we require (apart from a hotel) but less of everything.

That's fine then because there would be less (empty) seats.

I'm quite happy if the ground is not symmetrical.

Did you see the size of the proposed Williams - it was absolutely massive, 13-14k, and if they wanted to fit in a TV studio these days no doubt it could be done with ease, and there would certainly be large bars and restaurants incorporated.

[chipdawg]

We certainly did have planning permission - not sure if we still have - did you never see the detailed plans sent out in the 'Gatepost'?

I should think transport infrastructure could easily support 9,000 extra fans - I've been in a crowd of 40,000 there so it's not an issue.

Other clubs have redeveloped 1 stand at a time without problems.

AV is the preferred option because it is said to be less expensive and will apparently potentially provide more income (through a hotel?) - don't forget SL has always said redeveloping the Gate was the fall back plan if AV fell through, so it must be a viable option.

Those plans are very old though, I would think a resubmission would be required at the very least. Haven't looked at them in ages though, might spend an exciting evening on the BCC website seeing what's what!

What was considered adequate transport provision in the 1970s (last time there were 40k down the Gate without checking) and today is very different. There was far less traffic on the road too

Undoubtedly and in our current situation we could lose the Williams for a season and still not sell the ground out

I don't think the only difference in income streams will be the hotel, the whole AV site was bigger and being out of town will be more attractive to businesses and 'casual' users and perhaps there in lies the problem. The needs of the current fans and the needs of the prospective fans are different

I'm only posing questions rather than seeking to prove anyone wrong. I'm firmly in the AV camp and feel that if redeveloping the gate was a good option more would have been made of it but I have warmed to the idea of a redeveloped stadium in recent times

[Fat Cigar]

Thanks for all the replies. And thanks @BCFC_Dan, @Manon and @myol'man for the kind words, even though I know you disagree.

As I say in my article, and have always said (since day one in fact), I really want the new ground to happen. I'm also someone who likes to take the long view with regards to football and our club. In terms of attracting extra revenue, that may be tricky if we're languishing in League One.

Success leads to investment, unless you're a Man Utd or Liverpool in which case you’ll always be able to attract wealthy backers or rely on the fact that your club has become a global brand. Which is slightly tragic but that’s 21^st century football for you.

My main concern, always has been, is the thought of our great club playing in a wonderful new stadium, with top notch facilities...playing league one football, in front of 10,000 fans, or fewer.

My suggestion would be to get the green light, overcome all the legal obstacles, and wait until we’re regularly challenging promotion, or at least a top 6 club, like Cardiff.

I know this is a difficult and touchy subject. I also know there have been success stories, but many have their own unique reasons: Brighton has a huge catchment area. They were cup finalists in 1983. Swansea is a good example to compare us to, but did they really go up because of their new ground? Same for Reading. Remember, many top clubs had to move or redevelop grounds out of necessity because of the Taylor Report.

I think the new ground will happen. But, I also think it’s several years away.

[CodeRed]

I havn't seen anything that says that ALL the additional revenue generated by the new stadium development :

ie Hotels, Retail units, Restaurants, Conference, Boxes, Corpoate events etc will flow through to BCFC as assumed by many.

- The site is owned by Vence (SL,JL, & JP I believe), won't some of these rents (Hotel, restaurant, retails units) together with some of the non martchday income go through to Vence ?

Will BCFC pay rent to another company ( ? Ashton Vale ltd) to use the stadium

Or do we think Lansdown has bought the land, is paying for the build, and all the hotel, retail, etc and is going to hand over all the incomes and profit to BCFC ?

I don't know. Certainly there will be a rise in matchday income (assuming we get a reasonable attendance increase) with catering, boxes, and events held within the stadium but I'm not sure it's going to be the cash cow that solves all our problems.

For instance, the following clubs all play in reasonably recent new build stadiums and i don't necessarily see them having a huge advantage over their peers. It still seems to be the richer the owner, the better the team does ( there is of course the exception that proves the rule!!)

Championship

Leicester

Hull

Cardiff

Boro

Millwall

Brighton

Huddersfield

Derby

Bolton

L1

Donnie

MKD

Yeovil

Cov

Colchester

Wallsall

Shrewsbury

Scunny

L2

Rotherham

Northampton

Burton

Chesterfield

morecambe

Oxford

Wycombe

[WellRedPhil]

Thanks Ben for giving the NIMBYs even more ammunition.

You may be a young political analyst but I suggest you try understanding economics and answer me this.......how are we going to raise our income streams at AG?.

BCAGFC

http://www.otib.co.u...nd/page__st__45

Timbo7, post 69 - some pertinent questions you might like to give some replies to.

I'm working on that but I will say that they are only pertinent questions for people who don't trust SL & his vision and also want to keep their beloved part of the ground.

Perhaps you could answer my question....how do we increase revenue streams at AG?.

BCAGFC

You got there before me Nogbad! I assume you're struggling with that one BCAGFC because it requires using answers other than "you're a NIMBY".

In terms of trusting SL, there is nothing wrong with wanting facts/proof before believing words. It's called awareness. The point Timbo7 made about more information is a good one, for all your hype about needing more revenue streams, which everyone agrees with, you haven't addressed these specifically. Nor has SL and that is where some people's queries lie. It doesn't make them NIMBY's, it doesn't even necessarily mean that they are anti-stadium, it just means they are inquisitive.

[Supercidereds]

It looks like everyone has an opinion and raise points that we can all discuss in detail.

The timing of it all looks a bit strange as I think most of us and I include the Board in this, felt that it would have been sorted by now and the wrangles would be over and the Stadium would be built.

The fact that we are watching a team, a manager and a board seemingly devoid of ideas and leadership is one thing but I can't see how the new stadium will benefit us or the team much at all.

Some may say it will increase income streams... Really? Hows the income stream at Arsenal these days? Not exactly doing any better than they were are they? How will the City Board play it if we moved? Will they look to recoup loses before spending more on the team?

I'm more than happy at AG and we hardly ever fill it now and that is likely to remain the same.

To plan for a future away from the Gate is one thing but we need to have a look at us now and our current predicament. There won't be much of an income stream in League 1 or 2. Before anyone scoffs at the last comment. Look at Plymuff and their yet to be completed nice new stadium which is a quarter full at home games.

For me, it has to be a question of priorities and my feeling is that the stadium at the Vale will never happen anyway!

[screech]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy 200 3 bed semi homes and get an income in rent payments every month for what we are going to spend on a new stadium?

Rent must be about £600 a month every month of the year x 200 homes = £1.4m a year income for ever. Will conferences generate the same revenue?

[Rich]

People keep going on about playing games in a half empty/full stadium, with fans rattling around inside. What are the options?

Have fans rattling around a half full/empty AG, or worse, third full. What's the difference?

Spend a huge amount redeveloping AG, what for? To provide a poorer version of the proposed AV stadium, in terms of revenue raising abilities.

New stadia have always had the effect of raising attendances and with it, income. People like going to new grounds. Why not have that raised income instead of spending proportionately more on redevelopment. Which then might go towards making the club more financially stable and allow us to compete with others, when trying to get a higher standard of player to consider joining BCFC, we've lost plenty of targets so far this season by all acounts.

During our brief success story on returning to the champinship, our ground held us back. It was frequently to capacity and on many occasions could have raised more for the clubs coffers, it did not have the capacity and that revenue was lost, gone forever. How much could we have raised that first season with just 5,000 extra seats?

Our ground like many others has always had fans rattling around in it. In the early seventies our average crowds were about 12k to 14k but it held 42,000, we didn't reduce the capacity did we? Then just when the crowds were rattling around, we had liverpool and Leeds in the cup, 36,000 crowds, then back to the 14ks. Attendances vary with success, at least have the ability to cope with success and benefit financially from that success, than be stifled with negative thinking.

[Tall King Blox]

Guys, leave this one well alone, not fishing, this guy is a pro, they will pick and choose, same as it always was, no more posts, no more targets...worse than a crap evil post reporter, dunno why i feel this way but i dont feel good about the OP, cant explain, gut feeling, scuse me ta ta