New Stadium

[NickJ]

BCAFGC - we are entitled to our views unfortunately all four points you have made in support of yours are factually incorrect.

"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."

Ashton Gate is owned by Ashton Gate Ltd which is a wholly owned subsidiary of BCFC Holdings, which in turn is owned by the supporters of Bristol City.

"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."

Number one to correct is that I live nowhere near Ashton Vale therefore I can hardly be accused of NIMBY and number two incorrect is that I had a one to one meeting with Steve, this meeting partially being the reason for my informed views.

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

Number one to correct again is that "we" have not lost ownership of Ashton Gate, and your view that one promotion and one play off in 15 years with most of the remainder in relegation battles, and a balance sheet dissipated from positive £10million to £40million in the red is "success", is laughable and speaks for itself.

"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 view is a personal one of course it is, but to suggest it is based on one off the cuff comment made long ago, when in fact my view is consistently backed up by more fundamental and far reaching arguments, demonstrates that you don't really have an argument.

When people resort to factual inaccuracies and name calling, as you have done, that usually demonstrates that they dont really have much an argument. I'm sure there are plenty of others in the "Yes" camp who can back their views up with factually correct and coherent arguments, but sorry, you arent one of them.

[bucksred]

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.

Crap, the Liebour Party of 45 were hell bent on massive nationalization which left the UK in the shit in the 60's, made worse by the useless Wilson/Callahan governments. It took fifteen years for them to come to power again, and they ****** it up, yet again, for which we are paying the price for now...Liebour, same shit different decade...and shit loads of bloody lawyers, civil rights campaigners, and others who are helping to **** up our chances of the move were direly need, vote ****** Liebour...

PS all generations of Liebour are big on immigration unless they are anti communist Poles, or anti socialists of any hue..after all Liebour need their votes, as they piss off everyone else sooner or later, mostly sooner. Liebour are in the main pro Europe as well..

[Rich]

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.

There are no plans as such to build an arena at Temple Meads, only a desire.

Planning permission for redevelopments at AG have all lapsed.

During this season alone we have had two matches where the reduced capacity during the rebuilding of the EE would have resulted in a loss of revenue and we are playing shyte. During our first season up in the championship we had plenty of occasions where people tried to purchase tickets as couples or more in a group and had no chance due to the lack of capacity.

[Rich]

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.

If you want accuracy, start using it yourself. I would be grateful if you did actually show and prove my innaccuracies rather than just claiming them.

Why you want to compare completely outdated plans with current I don't know. perhaps it's one of those ploys used by those against the new stadium when they just want to show as many irrellevent negatives as possible.

If you want to make comparisons, use the published development costs for both current plans, please also allow for loss of revenue during the redevelopment of AG.

Perhaps using your accountancy skills, you could also do a study on clubs average incomes that have built new stadia, compared to their previous income. Please also include average league positions, before and after.

The plans you refer to no longer exist, they even predated the more recent plans which have lapsed and do not include the Dolman stand, which is included in the projected redevelopment costs. There are no such grants available now as you know, so all costs would have to be found for the relevent current developments.

The figures quoted for redevelopng AG were published during the planning process for AV.

The capacity during our first season was 40,000. It reduced gradually over the years and I believe (but I could be slightly wrong) once we had vacated our top flight position, firstly to 36,000, then 32,000, then 28,000 then finally 22,000 before more recent all seater developments, (Attyeo Williams enclosure and Wedlocks).

Where you got the 13,000 figure from I don't know, I believe our lowest attendance was against Middlesbrough. Perhaps you were mistakenly thinking of our promotion year where our average was 16,200.

Our first seasons average was 23,500, second, 23,300 third, 22,200 and our last and year of relegation was just under 19,000.

We had several crowds over 30,000 with most around the 21,000 to 22,000 and the occasional middle to late twenties.

PS, See if you can remain civil

[Rich]

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.

Nick, Are you really expecting people to think that anyone will take the route you suggest seriously? You could if you wanted use the opposite comparison, of walking from the carpark entrance at Winterstoke road to the northern entrance to AV over the rail lines, probably under 500 metres. It just seems like another dig at the new stadium plans or anyone that supports them.

[Rich]

This post does nothing but serve the purpose of those opposing the stadium. They are using it to undermine the clubs plans.

I'll bet that of all those that have voiced an opinion on otib in the past, regarding not wanting or needing a stadium, the majority are posting on this topic.

What benefit is there to yet another poll which outsiders can register and vote on? Don't think for one minute that they wont.

They will then use it as ammunition against the plans, claiming supporters are split over the plans. They've done it before and will do it at every opportunity.

Move it.

[del ete]

This post does nothing but serve the purpose of those opposing the stadium. They are using it to undermine the clubs plans.

I'll bet that of all those that have voiced an opinion on otib in the past, regarding not wanting or needing a stadium, the majority are posting on this topic.

What benefit is there to yet another poll which outsiders can register and vote on? Don't think for one minute that they wont.

They will then use it as ammunition against the plans, claiming supporters are split over the plans. They've done it before and will do it at every opportunity.

Move it.

With you mate, I called for an earlier move of thes threads. Wheres "Timbo" gone. Maybe hes ice skating on the green

[Timbo7]

With you mate, I called for an earlier move of thes threads. Wheres "Timbo" gone. Maybe hes ice skating on the green

Each to his own but I regret to say Timbo7 + ice-skating invariably = broken bones!

Personally, I think the recent debate on this subject has been pretty productive. After a whole lot of bluster we seemed to have found a substantial amount of common ground including:

1. a realistic pre-financial crisis capex comparison (other than the figures quoted for naming rights) which seems to favour Ashton Vale - the extent of optimism bias and the effects of the global economic situation and/or the potential loss of part of the site to a TVG is not known;
   
2. if Bristol City is to have a sustainable future at Championship level or above it must acquire sufficient capacity to accommodate larger crowds (when necessary) and tap into significant executive box revenues;
   
3. Bristol City may (is likely to) be a tenant in the new stadium;
   
4. Bristol City will not probably not enjoy ongoing revenues from ancillary developments (hotel, drive-thru, housing and retail) as these will sold to reduce the initial capex burden;.
   
5. the non-football revenue earnings potential (conference facilities etc.) of the new stadium will exceed that of the current stadium but none of us know by how much and none of us have seen any estimates; and
   
6. Ashton Vale will avoid the temporary capacity restrictions which will arise from redevelopment of Ashton Gate.
   

As I have said from the start, it is quite likely that (based on a positive forecast of team performance) the Ashton Vale option may, even in the absence of optimism bias, present the best option purely in terms of finance. Whether this benefit is enough to offset the burden of leaving the spiritual home will depend on how big a benefit it is and the price put on history - this of course will vary from one supporter to another but ultimately I suspect every one of us will have our own price.

I regret that every time I attempt to express a rational view on anything to do with the stadium development I am condemned as heretic, subversive or similar but to sum up:

1. whatever revenue benefit Ashton Vale might bring to Bristol City it will not enough to make any more than a small dent in the current annual losses (I think this is now generally accepted);
   
2. I do not believe for one second that the landfill portion of the AV site meets the legal criteria for a TVG - but insufficient evidence was provided at the first enquiry to prove this - I am led to believe that such evidence is now available
   
3. I do not know whether or not the remainder of the site meets the TVG criteria - Ross Crail previously decided that it was more likely than not and she studied the evidence in somewhat more depth than any of us
   
4. It is not within the authority of Bristol City Council (or the mayor whatever the colour of his trousers) to ignore the Law or the requirements of proper process
   
5. Bristol City Council, and in particular the planning authority, have been supportive of Ashton Vale - planning consent has been given on greenbelt land and planning consent was given for a supermarket at Ashton Gate (at the second attempt which is not unusual for such developments) despite a clear recommendation to the contrary - TVGs have nothing to do with the planning authority and hence it could do not more than it has
   

Finally, I am at a complete loss to understand why even the strongest supporter of the new stadium should want this debate to be silenced given that the vote continues to indicate more than 80% in favour. Unless I have missed something, the general belief is that the TVG matter is currently the only obstacle to the plan - the resolution of the TVG matter has nothing whatsoever to do with public opinion or with individual opinions expressed on this forum.

If I (or anyone else) was minded to contribute to some effective action to prevent Bristol City moving to Ashton Vale or anywhere else - this is not the best route to take. I am not and never have been so-minded - I simply want to understand as fully as I can the positive (bluster-free) case for moving so that I can weigh it against the personal emotional cost of moving and make up my own mind. Until then I keep an open mind and simply resist the more unrealistic and fanciful claims on this forum as they can be a dangerous distraction from the football and financial realities current facing our club.

[Rich]

Each to his own but I regret to say Timbo7 + ice-skating invariably = broken bones!

Personally, I think the recent debate on this subject has been pretty productive. After a whole lot of bluster we seemed to have found a substantial amount of common ground including:

1. a realistic pre-financial crisis capex comparison (other than the figures quoted for naming rights) which seems to favour Ashton Vale - the extent of optimism bias and the effects of the global economic situation and/or the potential loss of part of the site to a TVG is not known;
   
   
2. if Bristol City is to have a sustainable future at Championship level or above it must acquire sufficient capacity to accommodate larger crowds (when necessary) and tap into significant executive box revenues;
   
   
3. Bristol City may (is likely to) be a tenant in the new stadium;
   
   
4. Bristol City will not probably not enjoy ongoing revenues from ancillary developments (hotel, drive-thru, housing and retail) as these will sold to reduce the initial capex burden;.
   
   
5. the non-football revenue earnings potential (conference facilities etc.) of the new stadium will exceed that of the current stadium but none of us know by how much and none of us have seen any estimates; and
   
   
6. Ashton Vale will avoid the temporary capacity restrictions which will arise from redevelopment of Ashton Gate.
   

As I have said from the start, it is quite likely that (based on a positive forecast of team performance) the Ashton Vale option may, even in the absence of optimism bias, present the best option purely in terms of finance. Whether this benefit is enough to offset the burden of leaving the spiritual home will depend on how big a benefit it is and the price put on history - this of course will vary from one supporter to another but ultimately I suspect every one of us will have our own price.

I regret that every time I attempt to express a rational view on anything to do with the stadium development I am condemned as heretic, subversive or similar but to sum up:

1. whatever revenue benefit Ashton Vale might bring to Bristol City it will not enough to make any more than a small dent in the current annual losses (I think this is now generally accepted);
   
   
2. I do not believe for one second that the landfill portion of the AV site meets the legal criteria for a TVG - but insufficient evidence was provided at the first enquiry to prove this - I am led to believe that such evidence is now available
   
   
3. I do not know whether or not the remainder of the site meets the TVG criteria - Ross Crail previously decided that it was more likely than not and she studied the evidence in somewhat more depth than any of us
   
   
4. It is not within the authority of Bristol City Council (or the mayor whatever the colour of his trousers) to ignore the Law or the requirements of proper process
   
   
5. Bristol City Council, and in particular the planning authority, have been supportive of Ashton Vale - planning consent has been given on greenbelt land and planning consent was given for a supermarket at Ashton Gate (at the second attempt which is not unusual for such developments) despite a clear recommendation to the contrary - TVGs have nothing to do with the planning authority and hence it could do not more than it has
   

Finally, I am at a complete loss to understand why even the strongest supporter of the new stadium should want this debate to be silenced given that the vote continues to indicate more than 80% in favour. Unless I have missed something, the general belief is that the TVG matter is currently the only obstacle to the plan - the resolution of the TVG matter has nothing whatsoever to do with public opinion or with individual opinions expressed on this forum.

If I (or anyone else) was minded to contribute to some effective action to prevent Bristol City moving to Ashton Vale or anywhere else - this is not the best route to take. I am not and never have been so-minded - I simply want to understand as fully as I can the positive (bluster-free) case for moving so that I can weigh it against the personal emotional cost of moving and make up my own mind. Until then I keep an open mind and simply resist the more unrealistic and fanciful claims on this forum as they can be a dangerous distraction from the football and financial realities current facing our club.

Timbo

I don't fear debate, it's healthy. What I do fear and have experienced over a long period of time is, the opposition will use any snippet of information or any sign that support for the stadium is on the wain. They will post negative comments to fuel their cause on this site and they will then use those comments as evidence of their claims. Everything they have done has been in secret using anonymity whenever possible and exageration of anything they can. There are obviously genuine concerns from genuine people but, there are most definately a contingement of those against the plans that are devious people, that will do anything possible for their crusade. The club are not just fighting the local residents, it includes the green party, and various other groups some of which are only worried about possible developments close to where they live nationwide.

[CIDER NOT CIDRE]

Timbo

I don't fear debate, it's healthy. What I do fear and have experienced over a long period of time is, the opposition will use any snippet of information or any sign that support for the stadium is on the wain. They will post negative comments to fuel their cause on this site and they will then use those comments as evidence of their claims. Everything they have done has been in secret using anonymity whenever possible and exageration of anything they can. There are obviously genuine concerns from genuine people but, there are most definately a contingement of those against the plans that are devious people, that will do anything possible for their crusade. The club are not just fighting the local residents, it includes the green party, and various other groups some of which are only worried about possible developments close to where they live nationwide.

Nah mate, people are posting on here against the stadium because they want whats best for the club in their opinions. They aren't trying to be devious. I just started this post to see what other people think and to voice my opinions!

[NickJ]

If you want accuracy, start using it yourself. I would be grateful if you did actually show and prove my innaccuracies rather than just claiming them.

Why you want to compare completely outdated plans with current I don't know. perhaps it's one of those ploys used by those against the new stadium when they just want to show as many irrellevent negatives as possible.

If you want to make comparisons, use the published development costs for both current plans, please also allow for loss of revenue during the redevelopment of AG.

Perhaps using your accountancy skills, you could also do a study on clubs average incomes that have built new stadia, compared to their previous income. Please also include average league positions, before and after.

The plans you refer to no longer exist, they even predated the more recent plans which have lapsed and do not include the Dolman stand, which is included in the projected redevelopment costs. There are no such grants available now as you know, so all costs would have to be found for the relevent current developments.

The figures quoted for redevelopng AG were published during the planning process for AV.

The capacity during our first season was 40,000. It reduced gradually over the years and I believe (but I could be slightly wrong) once we had vacated our top flight position, firstly to 36,000, then 32,000, then 28,000 then finally 22,000 before more recent all seater developments, (Attyeo Williams enclosure and Wedlocks).

Where you got the 13,000 figure from I don't know, I believe our lowest attendance was against Middlesbrough. Perhaps you were mistakenly thinking of our promotion year where our average was 16,200.

Our first seasons average was 23,500, second, 23,300 third, 22,200 and our last and year of relegation was just under 19,000.

We had several crowds over 30,000 with most around the 21,000 to 22,000 and the occasional middle to late twenties.

PS, See if you can remain civil

You want me to back up my claims but you don't feel the need to yourself, what are you some sort of superior being?

1. At one time it was possible to look in the archives on the official site showing a news report stating a total development cost of £9m for the Williams and Wedlock. That link no longer works, but there are other posters on here who will verify that. What's more it was to be part funded by football trust grants. At the time I spoke to a relatively senior banker at Barclays who confirmed to me that it would have been possible to borrow the remainder secured on Ashton Gate. Not surprising given that at the time Ashton Gate was valued at £20m with little borrowing against it and banks were falling over each to lend money.

2. The lowest attendance was even lower than I thought, 10,837 against M'boro 22 April 1980. We also had 12,319 against M'boro 17 March 1979, 12,489 21 December 1979 against Southampton, 13,584 12 April 1980 against Bolton, and several in the 14,000's.

The average attendance figures you quote are all over stated.

The FA Cup games against Leeds and Liverpool in 1974 both had 37,000 attendances as that was the capacity; the final home game of 1976/7 against Liverpool the capacity was slightly exceeded at just over 38,000. That game incidentally was one of just three (I suppose "three" is technically "several") games with 30,000+ attendances, the other 2 were both just over 31,000.

SOURCE: "Bristol City a Complete Record 1894-1987", David Wood.

Dont know what all that proves other than I'm right and you're wrong on relatively inconsequential facts.

Why is it irrelevant to point out the development plans of around 7 or 8 years ago. It was doable, Bristol City could have had a 30,000 stadium done and dusted long ago.

In what way is pointing out a simple fact a "ploy" or "negative".

[Rich]

You want me to back up my claims but you don't feel the need to yourself, what are you some sort of superior being?

1. At one time it was possible to look in the archives on the official site showing a news report stating a total development cost of £9m for the Williams and Wedlock. That link no longer works, but there are other posters on here who will verify that. What's more it was to be part funded by football trust grants. At the time I spoke to a relatively senior banker at Barclays who confirmed to me that it would have been possible to borrow the remainder secured on Ashton Gate. Not surprising given that at the time Ashton Gate was valued at £20m with little borrowing against it and banks were falling over each to lend money.

2. The lowest attendance was even lower than I thought, 10,837 against M'boro 22 April 1980. We also had 12,319 against M'boro 17 March 1979, 12,489 21 December 1979 against Southampton, 13,584 12 April 1980 against Bolton, and several in the 14,000's.

The average attendance figures you quote are all over stated.

The FA Cup games against Leeds and Liverpool in 1974 both had 37,000 attendances as that was the capacity; the final home game of 1976/7 against Liverpool the capacity was slightly exceeded at just over 38,000. That game incidentally was one of just three (I suppose "three" is technically "several") games with 30,000+ attendances, the other 2 were both just over 31,000.

SOURCE: "Bristol City a Complete Record 1894-1987", David Wood.

Dont know what all that proves other than I'm right and you're wrong on relatively inconsequential facts.

Why is it irrelevant to point out the development plans of around 7 or 8 years ago. It was doable, Bristol City could have had a 30,000 stadium done and dusted long ago.

In what way is pointing out a simple fact a "ploy" or "negative".

Ok Nick, what is the point of referring to something that was do-able many years ago, which is certainly irrelevent to the current situation? There can be nothing positive gained from it, other than saying that it could be done then. It obviously cannot be done now for the same costs, as there are no grants available, no banks willing to throw money at it and the costs will have risen considerably which you have not catered for. So the whole argument is just a smokescreen.

I've checked those attendance figures you've quoted. They are wrong according to the more up to date book, "Bristol City The modern Era". This was also compiled by David woods. Mboro 1980 12,013 not 10,000.

Mboro 1979 13,559 not 12,300. Saints 1979 14,185 not 12,489. Bolton 1980 14,270 not 13,584.

I will dispute that our capacity was only 37,000, the fact we only sold that amount is not proof of the capacity. I cannot find the information but hope someone will come up with it. As I remember from the times, the EE was 15,000, uncovered end, 12,000, Dolman 5,000, Enclosure 5,5000 and the Grandstand 2,500. Giving a capacity of 40,000.

You use the same tactics as Tony Dyer, making great emphasis on totally irrelevent points, such as talking to a banker or referring to planning applications that didn't actually materialise, for one reason or another, perhaps they weren't so attainable after all. I can only assume you do this as Dyer used to, in order to make the rest of your rubbish seem more credible.

So to go back to your so called facts which so say prove me wrong but actually prove that you are wrong and try again. I will admit that some of the home attendances are lower than I thought/remembered but the averages are not.

I challenge you to come up with the finacial comparisons, (which are still available) between the only relevent options, not long forgotten abandoned unachievable plans. The options are, the redevelopment of the existing stadium including the Dolman stand and the building of the new stadium. So far you have not done this, I can only assume it would not suit your argument to do so.

The average league attendances are accessable here http://www.stadium-attendances.com or google average league attendances.They prove me correct and not overstated as you claim.

As for the plans you refer to being 7or 8 years ago, I believe you are again wrong. The last plans covering the Wedlock were submitted in 2005. They were for a single tier stand alone structure. You referred to a two tier construction incorporating the Williams, which was a much earlier proposal.

[Rich]

Nah mate, people are posting on here against the stadium because they want whats best for the club in their opinions. They aren't trying to be devious. I just started this post to see what other people think and to voice my opinions!

I'm not referring to those people that want what's best for the club, I'm sure you and all supporters do. I only refer to those devious people that have made it their business to join our site to gain and use information against us and for their cause, even when they've actually posted some of the comments themselves.

Part of the dossier given to the judge which claimed threats towards the applicants for a TVG, were actually taken from this site. I am reliably informed that some of those threats were made by people known to be members of the opposition groups posing as city supporters. In my dealings with them, I can assure you that they are some of the most devious decieptful lying obnoxious individuals I have ever had the misfortune to come across. I used to believe that green supporters were of a high moral standard, believe me, those I've dealt with are not.

[ciderup]

Nick,

I cannot accept your argument about how much longer it take you to get your dad to AV but you are factually incorrect about the redeveloped gate. We gained PP for a crappy single tier stand and never actually applied for PP for this beauty which you are talking about....

I, too, have an elderly father that loves the City but I will make sure we leave any watering hole, should we enter one, slightly earlier if we move and respectfully suggest you do the same. The club is more important than an extra 10 minutes in the pub for your dad WTGR. I want a BCFC for my son to be proud of and his son etc etc.

The move is necessary for us and I wholeheartedly suggest you think about the clubs' future and the facilities other clubs have. which we do not and the future generations of BCFC followers.

I must admit to finding your anti Vale stance slightly baffling TBH, especially seeing the facilities on offer at clubs in much smaller towns and cities than Bristol. Please explain your agenda if you don't mind?

[NickJ]

Nick,

you are factually incorrect about the redeveloped gate. We gained PP for a crappy single tier stand and never actually applied for PP for this beauty which you are talking about....

I must admit to finding your anti Vale stance slightly baffling TBH, especially seeing the facilities on offer at clubs in much smaller towns and cities than Bristol. Please explain your agenda if you don't mind?

My agenda is that I oppose the new stadium for reasons stated, whats so jhard to understand? Whats your agenda for supporting it?

Anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Gate_Stadium

The key phrase being:

The club were also granted permission to redevelop the Williams Stand in 1998, and have consistently renewed that so it still applies today.

Next.

[Jordan Tansley]

My agenda is that I oppose the new stadium for reasons stated, whats so jhard to understand? Whats your agenda for supporting it?

Anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Gate_Stadium

The key phrase being:

The club were also granted permission to redevelop the Williams Stand in 1998, and have consistently renewed that so it still applies today.

Next.

I let the insufficient citation of a book go earlier, (page number Nick, FFS!) but quoting from Wikipedia?!

Come on, you'll never pass at this rate. At least use the source they provided for that statement.... There is a source right?

[NickJ]

Thats right Jordan I made that up and put it in wiki myself....

... not, of course.

You can try looking at Bristol City Council planning applications if you like, it just takes longer to access.

Oh another one for Rich, tickets for the 1974 FA Cup games were like gold dust and I will bet you anything you like both attendances were 37,000 and something. Sort of proves an inconsequential point about capacity nearly 40 years ago, and BTW the website you quote gives no historical information about historic Ashton Gate capacities. As for the other stats you quote, well I know I am right so its up to people who they believe. Not that many if any will be interested but my main point is everything I say I can back up with fact....

.... so therefore your comment about planning applications is inaccurate because it was most definitely planning permission.

The point about this being we could have had a 30,000 stadium years ago, and yet again you are wrong about what a banker might say, I would think a bankers view would be highly relevant. At the time, Bristol City's relatively low bank borrowings were with Barclays. Maybe you'd like to dispute that as well, so in advance get your old copies of Annual Accounts out.

Simple example of a city and a football club I know well, Norwich. What have they done that we couldn't? Do they look like a football club in disarray? Do their fans look unhappy with Premier League football? Would you say they are a better run club than Bristol City? Would you say that developing a site which is actually smaller than Ashton Gate has been an impediment to their success?

[Jordan Tansley]

Nick, I was joking. I couldn't really give a flying frig.

It's my opinion that both of our arguments are baseless, I trust one of the only men who know the score, you don't. That's essentially what it boils down to.

However, I get the feeling you would still be anti new stadium if SL came out and proved all your concerns were unfounded. Is that the case?

[Frome Valley]

Nick,

I cannot accept your argument about how much longer it take you to get your dad to AV but you are factually incorrect about the redeveloped gate. We gained PP for a crappy single tier stand and never actually applied for PP for this beauty which you are talking about....

I, too, have an elderly father that loves the City but I will make sure we leave any watering hole, should we enter one, slightly earlier if we move and respectfully suggest you do the same. The club is more important than an extra 10 minutes in the pub for your dad WTGR. I want a BCFC for my son to be proud of and his son etc etc.

The move is necessary for us and I wholeheartedly suggest you think about the clubs' future and the facilities other clubs have. which we do not and the future generations of BCFC followers.

I must admit to finding your anti Vale stance slightly baffling TBH, especially seeing the facilities on offer at clubs in much smaller towns and cities than Bristol. Please explain your agenda if you don't mind?

My memory fails me as well, but BCFC submitted several applications. I will go carefully here as I think the first application was only an outline application, not full. That application was for a two tiered stand. Height restrictions on the site would not have prevented it. The plans are, or were available at the City library to view.

[Barrs Court Red]

Indeed, City did submit planning permission for a revamp of the East End and Williams. The Williams would of held a huge number, while the East End was called "The Drum" I think this plan was shortly after Hengrove was turned down by residents. Everything then went quiet as first Severnside, and then the Fruit Market were looked at. It was a number of years untill the new East End was shown, the plan would finance it self......People could by a brick... Given the embarresing history of schemes not getting off the ground, why did we ever believe AV would.

[Kid in the Riot]

My agenda is that I oppose the new stadium for reasons stated, whats so jhard to understand? Whats your agenda for supporting it?

Anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Gate_Stadium

The key phrase being:

The club were also granted permission to redevelop the Williams Stand in 1998, and have consistently renewed that so it still applies today.

Next.

That is not correct. The club have no extant planning consents to redevelop Ashton Gate.

[Frome Valley]

That is not correct. The club have no extant planning consents to redevelop Ashton Gate.

Does an outline application expire? I don't know the answer.

[Kid in the Riot]

Does an outline application expire? I don't know the answer.

Yes, same 3/5 year rules apply.

[NickJ]

Nick,

...you are factually incorrect about the redeveloped gate. We gained PP for a crappy single tier stand and never actually applied for PP for this beauty which you are talking about....

http://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=IN7NZSDN3J000

Next.

[ciderup]

Nick,

I am well aware that the club looked into developing the Williams for a huge stand but the stand planned for the EE was very similar to the Atyeo IIRC.

Unlike yourself, I don't have an agenda, I just want what is best for the club and its' future. If that is Ashton Vale then so be it.

I still don't see why towns and cities far smaller than Bristol should have facilities which are far, far better than ours when we have the opportunity, through private financing, to build one of, if not the countries finest medium sized stadia for our club.

I really don't see the issue WTGR.

[BCAGFC]

http://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=IN7NZSDN3J000

Next.

The applications for the redevelopment of the Williams Stand ran out in Feb 2009 and haven't been renewed.

Also, the stand was to be nothing like the imagine you have posted, that was made by a member of OTIB after consulation with other members.

The new EE never had a suspension type structure at either end of it, it was a single tier structure that held around 5k.

BCAGFC

[NickJ]

Nick,

I am well aware that the club looked into developing the Williams for a huge stand but the stand planned for the EE was very similar to the Atyeo IIRC.

Unlike yourself, I don't have an agenda,

They didnt just "look into" developing the Williams, full pp was obtained for a 11,500 stand.

As for Wedlocks:

http://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ID6JPTDNZD000

http://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=IDFZEJDN2D000

Think you'll find the words "three tier" and "Wedlocks" in there somewhere.

So tell me then, what is my "Agenda"?

[ciderup]

'Three story' does not mean three tier Nick. It was a three storey single tier stand a la Atyeo.

I have no idea what you are after, hence my earlier question. I do find it difficult to believe there isn't some sort of alterior motive as you are so vociferous in your anti Ashton vale stance WTGR. Why giving Bristol a stadium the city can be proud of is so bad baffles me in all honesty.

Are you a member of the 'Keep Bristol small' party or something? (Joke BTW!).

I have no reason to give anyone personal stick FWIW, nor wish to. I am just slightly bemused as to why the new stadium is so bad.

[NickJ]

'Three story' does not mean three tier Nick. It was a three storey single tier stand a la Atyeo.

I have no idea what you are after, hence my earlier question. I do find it difficult to believe there isn't some sort of alterior motive as you are so vociferous in your anti Ashton vale stance WTGR. Why giving Bristol a stadium the city can be proud of is so bad baffles me in all honesty.

Are you a member of the 'Keep Bristol small' party or something? (Joke BTW!).

I have no reason to give anyone personal stick FWIW, nor wish to. I am just slightly bemused as to why the new stadium is so bad.

Ashton Vale is a proposed 30,000 stadium which will not be owned 100% by Bristol City.

At one time there was a realistic opportunity to provide a 30,000 stadium at Ashton Gate, 100% owned as it always has been by Bristol City.

Why you think that latter scenario is bad or why you think I do not have the interests of Bristol City in my views baffles me.

You want Big for its own sake failing to realise that because Bristol City will have lost its most valauble asset, one day there is a fair chance that it will all come come falling down like a house of cards.

Darlington had a lovely new stadium built for them. Darlington now play in the Northern Counties league and their new stadium is to become a housing site.

Norwich have a smaller site than Ashton Gate yet have developed Carrow Road and have plans to develop some more. They seem quite content in the Premier League. According to the supporters of Ashton Vale that shouldn't have been possible.

[Rich]

Thats right Jordan I made that up and put it in wiki myself....

... not, of course.

You can try looking at Bristol City Council planning applications if you like, it just takes longer to access.

Oh another one for Rich, tickets for the 1974 FA Cup games were like gold dust and I will bet you anything you like both attendances were 37,000 and something. Sort of proves an inconsequential point about capacity nearly 40 years ago, and BTW the website you quote gives no historical information about historic Ashton Gate capacities. As for the other stats you quote, well I know I am right so its up to people who they believe. Not that many if any will be interested but my main point is everything I say I can back up with fact....

.... so therefore your comment about planning applications is inaccurate because it was most definitely planning permission.

The point about this being we could have had a 30,000 stadium years ago, and yet again you are wrong about what a banker might say, I would think a bankers view would be highly relevant. At the time, Bristol City's relatively low bank borrowings were with Barclays. Maybe you'd like to dispute that as well, so in advance get your old copies of Annual Accounts out.

Simple example of a city and a football club I know well, Norwich. What have they done that we couldn't? Do they look like a football club in disarray? Do their fans look unhappy with Premier League football? Would you say they are a better run club than Bristol City? Would you say that developing a site which is actually smaller than Ashton Gate has been an impediment to their success?

Nick

You seem confused. I did not say a bankers views are irrelevent, I said that you referring to the banker is irrelevent.

As are your statements about past planning applications which are outdated and were never developed,

The term Planning applications that I used was correct, they were approved applications. That you highlighted that, only goes to show your pettiness and desire to deflect from the actual issues.

I did not say that the website showed historic capacities, I said it showed the average attendances.

The book I obtained the attendances from, also showed the average attendances. It was written by David woods and confirms the figures I quoted are correct. You use a book written by him for your references, that you claim proves you correct yet, when I question your figures and show you more figures which prove you wrong, using the same author for reference, you claim that you know you are right. Have a look in the book for average attendances.

Your point that we could have had a staium of 30,000 years ago, is yet another pointless deflection from the issue. We did not do any of those developments for one reason or another, so obviously it proves that we couldn't or didn't want to go down that path.

So when you claim that you can back up everything you say with facts, this is in fact incorrect. Those facts re: the attendances are flawed and proven to be. You don't accept the average attendances but have not proven them wrong, (they are there for all to see) in the book written by the author of your source but you don't accept the figures. So the only fact is that you use a smokescreen by emphasising the irrelevent, to give your argument credibility.

Your analogy with Norwich is a good one on the surface. Unfortunately it does not take into account that we went bust during the period of their development into a reasonably successful club, and suffered years of mediocracy when compared to them.

Perhaps you should make a comparison with Wigan or Reading, both clubs that had years in the lower leagues on poor crowds and now play in the premiership to good crowds comparatively, in new stadiums.

I have asked you several times to make a comparable financial study between the two options of redevelopment of AG, to the building of a new stadium at AV, incuding loss of revenue during the redevelopment. So far you have declined to do so, instead you have reverted to the childish approach of " I'm right and I know it", while actually proving nothing.

And you claim that I think I'm some sort of superior being. what a laugh!!