New Stadium

[Mr Mosquito]

Don't beat around the bush RG, say what you really think, chicken.

You just know I'm not a chicken........I'm a turkey and Christmas is coming so I'm going to gobble off for now. Remember wise olde saying: turkeys don't vote for Christmas so don't vote Labour.

[Rich]

You just know I'm not a chicken........I'm a turkey and Christmas is coming so I'm going to gobble off for now. Remember wise olde saying: turkeys don't vote for Christmas so don't vote Labour.

Enjoy your gobble.

[China]

Those figures are from three years ago, I think,

Could be 5 then, could be 3? Not exactly accurate in any case.

You can tell me AV is essential until your blue in the face mate, but until someone gives accurate and recent figures, I dont accept that argument.

[Stephen Lewis]

The anti English and pro unrestricted immigration and European Union loving traitor Labour Party did leave our country in massive debt. I doubt that those Labour Party Cultural Marxists would have got away with it in my Grandfathers' day as they'd all have been executed for High Treason.....and rightly so.

Do you realize how stupid and brainwashed the above statement makes you sound?

[Guest]

If all the dissenting voices on this post were less demanding and more forthcoming then it might make a better discussion.

You all want to know how much and where the finace is coming from and how much it will earn regarding the new stadium, the answer is, we don't know for sure. All we know is that it will have the biggest conference facilities with double the parking and an Hotel adjacent to it. Making it infinately better than the Dolman hall facilities at AG.

It will have corporate facilities unlike anything we currently have. It will have a chance to hold bigger events than AG currently has and earn more from them, because of the increased size and quality of the facilities. There will also be much more scope for the club to earn more money from the stadium on matchdays because of the increased onsite facilities. This last point is the fear that some (in North st) have, meaning lost revenue for them, which is another reason they oppose it.Is there not a plan to build a new arena/conference centre on brown field site by Temple meads?which would get a green light and knock our efforts into the middle of next week.

Those dissenting voices never ask the question of, how much will AG cost to redevelop, or how much could we potentially lose during it's redevelopment, or where are those extra facilities going to come from, to make up the shortfall between the two sites, such as parking and the extra 500 capacity for conferences, or indeed who is going to shell out that money for a smaller return on their investment. They only highlight what they think will undermine the new stadium bid.plans to redevelop the EE are already approved with boxes etc, Williams redevelopment could follow after, with little to no effect on present need.

From memory, the redevelopment costs for AG were put at £60m +. The new stadium costs were £92m, with money coming in from AG £20m, Housing site sale £10m, Hotel and restaurant site sale £5m and naming rites of £5-£10m. it would leave a shortfall of £52 or £47m, which is obviously lower than the redevelopment costs At AG of £60m.

Take into account the disruption and possible losses from gate receipts,not gonna happen see above(cup runs or more success) and the case for a new stadium adds up finacially. Add into the equasion that a redeveloped AG would still have a reduced capacity compared to AV and absolutely no chance whatsoever of increasing that capacity, for whatever reason, even temporarily, then the advantage of a new stadium is plain for all to see, apart from those not wanting it.

I can understand nostalgia and not wanting to be in what some describe as a souless bowl, even though it's only the lower section that is such but, the arguments of not wanting to play in a half empty/full stadium don't add up.

Not long ago, we were playing to gates of 7/8,000 with a capacity of 32,000. our ground is regularly under capacity, should we reduce that capacity?

When we were promoted to the old 1st division, our gates were not dissimilar to recently and we had a capacity of 40,000 plus, we needed that capacity on a few occasions with a team that had little success, a little more and we'd have used it more and increased our fan base. I suggest we try again.

There is no, even guess, on how much BCFC will be better off by this new stadium; I believe any profits from arenas/hotels etc will go to its investors first, as they will want there money back and some.

Apart from that fact we are living beyond our means atm we are quite capable of staying at AG redeveloping and moving on

We need to improve things on and off the pitch to progress not rent a new stadium.

[Guest]

But West Brom haven't got a new stadium - The Hawthorns has been redeveloped to hold 26,000, rising to 30,000 max. in 2014, if the club then feel more seats are needed.

West Brom are a very good example of how you can redevelop a ground successfully to provide banqueting, conference facilities, executive boxes etc. and increase revenue streams without leaving your traditional home.

The Hawthorns is actually the perfect model to show what Bristol City could achieve without leaving Ashton Gate.

agree; Now stop being sensible and spoiling dreams.

This is reality and they seem to be quite happy in the prem.

[NickJ]

What 5 minutes walk across Winterstoke Road? Hardly a big move outside if the clubs heartland now is it?

The walking distance from the entrance to Ashton Gate to what will be the entrance to Ashton Vale is just under a mile. If you can walk that in 5 minutes I look forward to seeing you in the next Olympics.

[NickJ]

From memory, the redevelopment costs for AG were put at £60m +.

When we were promoted to the old 1st division, our gates were not dissimilar to recently and we had a capacity of 40,000 plus,

1. When planning permission was first granted, the cost of re-developing the East End and the Williams to create a double tiered joined stand was £9million, part of which was to be paid for by grants from the Football Trust.

2. The capacity in the old 1st division was 37,000 and gates normally fluctuated between 13,000 and 25,000, ocassionally creeping towards 30,000 and on just the one time capacity was reached was home to Liverpool in the last home game of the first season.

Cant be bothered to correct the remainder of your inaccuracies but I would add that the aforementioned redevelopment was largely to be paid for from the clubs own resources and future cash flows at that time, ie Bristol City Football Club would retain ownership of its freehold stadium.

[del ete]

Like with anything those in the minority shout loudest

[CIDER NOT CIDRE]

I voted no because although I want the new stadium I'd much rather it be where AG is now. I worry the AV site will feel too far outside of the BS3 community - no pubs or shops nearby, it could all feel a bit soulless. I don't want us to be another Reading or Brighton in terms of location.

If all this extra money will come from corporate facilities then why not just build a huge new Williams stand, double tiered for boxes etc?

Yeh true, and also at Ashton Gate we have has a bit of soul and history whereas I can imagine us getting a new stadium and it losing the soul AG has and becoming like Cov a bit of a 'ghost stadium'

[...]

Perhaps the poll should read:-

Do you think we will see a new BCFC stadium in our lifetimes? YES / NO?

[screech]

Like with anything those in the minority shout loudest

Shout?

Put it this way, cardiff have been slated on here for overspending chasing the Premier League, we now have debts of around 40million, and people want to attach another 40-50 million debt for a stadium that nobody knows how it will be paid for or how long the club will be paying it off. This will make cardiffs debt look like small change, considering they look likely to be challenging again for the premier league and we could well be in league 1 next season.

90 million of debt tomorrow if it was finished, for what? Playing in front of 11000 crowds in league 1 or lower half championship with that kind of debt, crazy.

[Jordan Tansley]

You mention Coventry City and their new stadium. I heard that the owner of Coventry City FC is threatening to pull out of the council owned new stadium and play elsewhere as the rental charge is too high !!!!!!! I've no idea how Coventry Council came to own the stadium but the same could happen to us. Would you like the known anti Bristolian and anti sport Bristol Council to own the new Ashton Vale? It could eventually happen and this club could then be made homeless as a result !!!!! I voted 'no' to a new stadium for this reason.

The council have always owned the Ricoh. Your reasoning is flawed, the situations are in no way comparable.

[oldstandrobin]

pill for all 'ills' a new stadium - wont guarantee better football.....redevelop the gate with more facilities like The Hawthorns.....old supporters like me have been dealt many promises by different boards over the years and we are STILL hovering on League 1 football, realise we will NEVER be like Arsenal, Man Utd so forget that. I have always admired WBA and not a bad model to follow. My opinion for what its worth.

[glynriley]

Perhaps the poll should read:-

Do you think we will see a new BCFC stadium in our lifetimes? YES / NO?

How long have Rovers been waiting , 26 years ?

I'm with you , I'll believe all this "new staium" talk when I'm sat in one.

[Jordan Tansley]

How long have Rovers been waiting , 26 years ?

I'm with you , I'll believe all this "new staium" talk when I'm sat in one.

With a bit of luck, Glyn, we could be STOOD in one

[glynriley]

With a bit of luck, Glyn, we could be STOOD in one

I think my seat might have 4 wheels by the time it's built !!

[Brizzle Jordan]

I think my seat might have 4 wheels by the time it's built !!

I think my seat will be in a box by the time it's built.

[NickJ]

The council have always owned the Ricoh. Your reasoning is flawed, the situations are in no way comparable.

Incorrect, the situations are comparable.

Ashton Vale will not be owned by Bristol City, it will not necessarily even be owned entirely by Steve Lansdown, as other investors are involved.

So there could be a situation where other investors with no interest in Bristol City pull the strings.

The board a few years ago separated the legal ownership of Bristol City Football Club and Ashton Gate Stadium, in order, as was put at the time, to identify the trading results of each (why they did not do this simply by the creation of divisions within one single company, as could just have easily achieved this desired information, never having been satisfactorily explained) - except that the supporters of Bristol City and in particular its shareholders have never been provided with detailed accounts showing the trading results of each.....

Anyway, the same will prevail at Ashton Vale, with the crucial difference that the stadium will not be owned 100% by BCFC Holdings. So the ownership of our stadium will be diluted among external investors. That leaves Bristol City open to precisely the same downward spiral as is being inflicted upon Coventry, and has been so at other clubs before, most notably of course in this area, Bristol Rovers.

I often see comments in these debates from the supporters of Ashton Vale that they cannot understand how anybody cannot see that Bristol City has to move to be financially viable in the long term. They say that without any knowledge of exactly what financial benefits will accrue to Bristol City; they cannot, this information has not been released.

Until answers are provided to fundamental questions to demonstrate the opposite, I do not understand how anybody cannot see that Ashton Gate Stadium and eventually Ashton Vale Stadium is the start of a long process whereby Bristol City loses ownership of its key asset.

[Jordan Tansley]

Incorrect, the situations are comparable.

Ashton Vale will not be owned by Bristol City, it will not necessarily even be owned entirely by Steve Lansdown, as other investors are involved.

So there could be a situation where other investors with no interest in Bristol City pull the strings.

The board a few years ago separated the legal ownership of Bristol City Football Club and Ashton Gate Stadium, in order, as was put at the time, to identify the trading results of each (why they did not do this simply by the creation of divisions within one single company, as could just have easily achieved this desired information, never having been satisfactorily explained) - except that the supporters of Bristol City and in particular its shareholders have never been provided with detailed accounts showing the trading results of each.....

Anyway, the same will prevail at Ashton Vale, with the crucial difference that the stadium will not be owned 100% by BCFC Holdings. So the ownership of our stadium will be diluted among external investors. That leaves Bristol City open to precisely the same downward spiral as is being inflicted upon Coventry, and has been so at other clubs before, most notably of course in this area, Bristol Rovers.

I often see comments in these debates from the supporters of Ashton Vale that they cannot understand how anybody cannot see that Bristol City has to move to be financially viable in the long term. They say that without any knowledge of exactly what financial benefits will accrue to Bristol City; they cannot, this information has not been released.

Until answers are provided to fundamental questions to demonstrate the opposite, I do not understand how anybody cannot see that Ashton Gate Stadium and eventually Ashton Vale Stadium is the start of a long process whereby Bristol City loses ownership of its key asset.

Why will the stadium not be 100% owned by BCFC holdings? I've not seen any evidence to support that. Provide and convince.

On your last paragraph, I must chuckle. Quite hypocritical wouldn't you agree? You say that without any knowledge, unless of course you're privy to details the average fan is not, as you say, this detail has not been released.

I'm of blind faith.

You're scaremongering.

Same arguments and evidence for both conclusions. I've said already, until these questions, however ridiculous they may seem to SL (a man who has done nothing but support this club, sometimes misguidedly, but always in good faith), are answered we'll continue to have a divisive minority questioning every detail.

The vast vast majority, 4 in 5 (from this straw poll) want this stadium for their club. I was always under the impression that democracy was essentially the rule of the majority....

[NickJ]

Oh, forgot to say, before Ricoh, Coventry owned Highfield Road.

They enjoyed almost 40 years in the top division. Then some bright spark decided that a football club needs a new stadium, but to rent, not to own. So Highfield was sold and Coventry moved into Ricoh. I dont know what exactly happened to the money from Highfield, but clearly it was pissed against the wall by a succession of managers on overpaid underperforming players. Then the money ran out. And Coventry are left with insufficient income to justify a tenancy at the Ricoh.

Is that a scenario impossible at Ashton Vale? I think not.

[NickJ]

Why will the stadium not be 100% owned by BCFC holdings? I've not seen any evidence to support that. Provide and convince.

On your last paragraph, I must chuckle. Quite hypocritical wouldn't you agree? You say that without any knowledge, unless of course you're privy to details the average fan is not, as you say, this detail has not been released.

I'm of blind faith.

You're scaremongering.

Same arguments and evidence for both conclusions. I've said already, until these questions, however ridiculous they may seem to SL (a man who has done nothing but support this club, sometimes misguidedly, but always in good faith), are answered we'll continue to have a divisive minority questioning every detail.

The vast vast majority, 4 in 5 (from this straw poll) want this stadium for their club. I was always under the impression that democracy was essentially the rule of the majority....

I think the fact that the Ashton Vale site is owned by investors other than BCFC and Steve Lansdown makes it fairly obvious that there is a possibility maybe probability that Ashton Vale Stadium will not be owned by BCFC Holdings.

I am not a hypocrite and I am not scare mongering, I am simply thinking through a scenario which I think is all too likely to happen. I think the fact that Steve told me that he could see no reason why a football club needs to own its stadium somewhat adds credence to my view.

I am not questioning SL's motives, I am questioning the long term benefit to Bristol City. If we lose ownership of the stadium, as I believe is the logical outcome of everything that has happened over recent years, that will in the long term be disastrous for Bristol City.

You are right that from this poll the majority want a new stadium, I do not deny that. Are you denying me the right to express my view?

[Jordan Tansley]

I think the fact that the Ashton Vale site is owned by investors other than BCFC and Steve Lansdown makes it fairly obvious that there is a possibility maybe probability that Ashton Vale Stadium will not be owned by BCFC Holdings.

I am not a hypocrite and I am not scare mongering, I am simply thinking through a scenario which I think is all too likely to happen. I think the fact that Steve told me that he could see no reason why a football club needs to own its stadium somewhat adds credence to my view.

I am not questioning SL's motives, I am questioning the long term benefit to Bristol City. If we lose ownership of the stadium, as I believe is the logical outcome of everything that has happened over recent years, that will in the long term be disastrous for Bristol City.

You are right that from this poll the majority want a new stadium, I do not deny that. Are you denying me the right to express my view?

Of course not, the only problem I have is when a distinctly minority view (in any situation, not just this) can be pushed by a selfish and vociferous few to hinder the needs and wants of the masses.

The arguments have moved away from trying to convince or debate the pros and cons to unsubstatiatable scaremongering. And it is scaremongering, Nick. You're painting a hypothetical picture of the club going to the wall based on a completely unsubstantiated viewpoint.

I have never seen anything to suggest Steve Lansdown will ever make a decision to the detriment of this clubs long term survival. The millions of pounds ploughed into our training facilities and academy support the notion that Lansdown is here long term and therefore has our long term interests as a football club at heart.

[poland_red]

Like with anything those in the minority shout loudest

so you don't think those who want to stay at AG have argued their point sensibly and eloquently. It's your post that has done nothing for the debate.

[NickJ]

Of course not, the only problem I have is when a distinctly minority view (in any situation, not just this) can be pushed by a selfish and vociferous few to hinder the needs and wants of the masses.

The arguments have moved away from trying to convince or debate the pros and cons to unsubstatiatable scaremongering. And it is scaremongering, Nick. You're painting a hypothetical picture of the club going to the wall based on a completely unsubstantiated viewpoint.

I have never seen anything to suggest Steve Lansdown will ever make a decision to the detriment of this clubs long term survival. The millions of pounds ploughed into our training facilities and academy support the notion that Lansdown is here long term and therefore has our long term interests as a football club at heart.

Again, I do not question motives. I question the "business" model.

Cue the "SL is a self made multi millionaire etc what do I know".

Here's how things work in the real world. If you are doing a deal with someone, you agree the terms, and you put those terms in something called a contract. The best contracts are those that never get looked at, because the deal proceeds in terms with whats been agreed and so the contract stays in a drawer somewhere. Before the deal is signed, nobody suggests that the other party cannot be trusted. However the basic principle of a contract is that you never know who you can trust and who you cant, so you put all the terms in a contract, just in case. I'm not talking trust just in the ethical or moral sense, but in the sense of what is being agreed is what everyone thinks is being agreed.

Well, the supporters of Bristol City have a sort of contract with Steve Lansdown. Except its never been signed and the terms are capable of being dictated and/or varied at any time, by Steve Lansdown. Thats fine you may say, he's a City fan. Good. But what about the situation when Bristol City no longer owns its own stadium?

Just in case you overlooked it, there was a bit of a giveaway in my previous post, namely that Steve himself told me that he does not see why a football club needs to own its own stadium. Please explain how repeating something that has been said is scare mongering.

EDIT for clarity: Steve himself told me that he does not see why a football club needs to own its own stadium.

[BCAGFC]

I think the fact that the Ashton Vale site is owned by investors other than BCFC and Steve Lansdown makes it fairly obvious that there is a possibility maybe probability that Ashton Vale Stadium will not be owned by BCFC Holdings.

That is your blinkered version of events, my blinkered view is that Vence LLP (or a new stadium company) is owned by SL, JL & a property developer as their 'project' is named 'The Ashton Gateway Project'. Bristol City FC will not own the stadium, we don't own it now, due to our constant demands for a higher standard of football than L1/L2 which SL has provided at a cost I must admit but he made it happen.

I am not a hypocrite and I am not scare mongering, I am simply thinking through a scenario which I think is all too likely to happen. I think the fact that Steve told me that he could see no reason why a football club needs to own its stadium somewhat adds credence to my view.

Well NIMBY NIck, I'm thinking through a senario, which I think is just as likely to happen and it is nothing like yours as you have a built in distrust of all things SL due to him not giving into your demands for a personal hearing of your views.

I am not questioning SL's motives, I am questioning the long term benefit to Bristol City. If we lose ownership of the stadium, as I believe is the logical outcome of everything that has happened over recent years, that will in the long term be disastrous for Bristol City.

We have already lost ownership of AG, it was the cost of our 'success'.

You are right that from this poll the majority want a new stadium, I do not deny that. Are you denying me the right to express my view?

You have every right to express your views Nick but your view is a personal one, moving to AV will, as you have stated a couple of times, make your matchday experience harder to cope with (you & your father walking from the Luckwell). Well that is thinking about yourself, not the club.

My matchday experience may also be made worse but I can see through my possible problems and so I can see the benefits to BCFC of having AV as a stadium.

In an ideal footballing world, we would all like to have a CL/PL/Championship club, playing attacking, attractive football, with players that actually care what happens on a matchday (rather than thinking about the end of the month pay slip) in a stadium that caters for all & delivers the much needed extra revenue.

There is NO ideal footballing world.....

BCAGFC

[arpaul]

We're talking about a redeveloped AG - including conference facilities, restaurants, executive boxes etc. - as an alternative to a new stadium, not settling for staying at an unchanged AG.

As well as an increased capacity to about 28k.,there would be the potential for markedly increased non matchday revenue - why would SL say a redeveloped AG was a viable alternative, and his stated plan B, otherwise?

Not only would a new stadium cost less than redeveloping Ashton Gate, but the existing site has limited space and with it comes limited opportunities.

[Pemburthy]

It's not just about football!

[Fiale]

Those figures are from three years ago, I think,

Could be 5 then, could be 3? Not exactly accurate in any case.

You can tell me AV is essential until your blue in the face mate, but until someone gives accurate and recent figures, I dont accept that argument.

If you were being truly honest you would also not accept the case for redeveloping Ashton Gate either as there are no " accurate and recent figures" to suggest that it would provide the money the club needs to survive. Your using the lack of information and bias to give AG a bye, and AV a negative connotation with the same (or lack of) information.

[Fiale]

Shout?

Put it this way, cardiff have been slated on here for overspending chasing the Premier League, we now have debts of around 40million, and people want to attach another 40-50 million debt for a stadium that nobody knows how it will be paid for or how long the club will be paying it off. This will make cardiffs debt look like small change, considering they look likely to be challenging again for the premier league and we could well be in league 1 next season.

90 million of debt tomorrow if it was finished, for what? Playing in front of 11000 crowds in league 1 or lower half championship with that kind of debt, crazy.

The stadium debts will not be the clubs debts - in fact there should be little to no stadium debt, as the AG sale, SL's share sale and stadium naming rights are supposed to cover the stadium costs.