New Stadium

[Rich]

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"?

Nick

There is no reference to a three tier stand in that application.

It is a three story stand in that application, which implies that there are three levels within the structure.

[ciderup]

Nick,

I have to say, you have made some glaringly incorrect assumptions about my wishes or what I want for the club!

At no point have I said staying at the Gate is bad and 30k at the Gate is exactly the same as 30k at the Vale, size wise, so your 'big' comment is, once again, incorrect.

I think I will leave this attempt at debate at this point as I don't do assumptions.

[Rich]

Nick

You ask wkat is your agenda?

I would guess it's the statement in bold red letters at the bottom of each post you make.

Off to bed now, tarra.

[Rich]

Nick

You insist that you are correct when stating that our capacity was 37,000. You then give three references to exceeding that capacity, with two of those being cup matches. Now then, as we know, those cup matches were all ticket affairs. Can you explain why the club printed and then sold more tickets, then let in more people than the capacity that you claim the ground had?

I also remember tickets being like gold dust for those matches, I also remember passing ticket touts with unsold tickets outside the ground. Add into the equasion that there are always people who don't actually attend the match even after buying a ticket and it's obvious that your insistance of the capacity being 37,000 is wrong.

I have stated that the capacity was 40,000, I have deliberately understated that figure and believe it was officially 42,000, which included an area of terracing in front of the Dolman stand.

Still, as long as you're happy that you are right and will bet anything I like on your beliefs.

[Frome Valley]

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.

I do not see why Bristol City cannot have a better stadium either.

The fans consultation did not address the issues of funding, ownership and revenue. The ITK on here really cannot either, years later. There were surveys of fans, the premiss used was that it should be Bristol City FC's stadium. I did directly talk to Mr Sexstone, posters on this website evidently are privy to more detail than he was.

A crushing business case for any illusions people have regarding topics such as non-matchday revenue could easily have been put in black and white for fans to read.

This private funding you mention could mean something very different to the vision people have. If BCFC are not the sole funders, and become part owners of the stadium, or not owners at all what does that mean for the long term future of the club?

[Manon]

Success is made by the players on the pitch, not the newness of a stadium.

I think you're confused.

AG = sh*t players. AV = better players.

[Monkeh]

so the poll shows the majority are for the new ground no suprises there really

[del ete]

I think this is the stand we had planning permission for....

[Cider red]

I think this is the stand we had planning permission for...

Thats the one, really hope IF we do have to revert back to redeveloping the gate that they go for something with a bit more soul

[pongo88]

I always favoured the Ashton Vale option but now not so sure. Just started watching Bradford v Arsenal on TV and they have an old ground that has been developed. Although some parts are not as good as Ashton Gate – e.g. one old stand is not as good as the Dolman – the ground still looks pretty good for a div 2 team.

Its shows what could be done at Ashton Gate for far less than building Ashton Vale.

[NickJ]

Thats what Sexstone was creaming himself over and was totally suprised by the reception it got - which wasn't very complimentary. I think its one of Barnsleys stands which was used as a template for the new Wedlocks by Sexstone.

Not at all imaginative and roughly the same amount of seats than the current Wedlocks.

http://www.footballgroundguide.com/barnsley/

An enchanting image of Sexstone but yes, that Wedlocks together with the Williams, for which planning permission was obtained, was going to give a capacity of almost 30,000. The total cost was going to be £9 million, part funded by grants from the Football Trust.

[BCAGFC]

The stand that Sextoy was getting so excited about was going to cost 7m on its own but we fell short on funding as we couldn't agree lucrative enough catering contracts that would have gone along way to pay for it.

It would have had poor executive boxes (very hard to sell boxes behind a goal) with an extremely small executive lounge.......a 2nd rate development.

Why go for 2nd best?.

BCAGFC

[poland_red]

I always favoured the Ashton Vale option but now not so sure. Just started watching Bradford v Arsenal on TV and they have an old ground that has been developed. Although some parts are not as good as Ashton Gate – e.g. one old stand is not as good as the Dolman – the ground still looks pretty good for a div 2 team.

Its shows what could be done at Ashton Gate for far less than building Ashton Vale.

another great example of bringing an old ground in line with current times is Charlton, who I think have done a fantastic job on the valley. st andrews as well retains it's spirit while having the bells and whistles that the AV supporters rattle on about.

one quote I've just read in the Guardian, rgds Cov's plight, seems apt for this topic: "A move to the Ricoh Arena that was hailed as a new dawn seven years ago has turned into a desperate and desolate nightmare. Their plight was recently epitomised by a statement from the Sky Blue Trust. It simply said: "What is to become of our club?"

[NickJ]

another great example of bringing an old ground in line with current times is Charlton, who I think have done a fantastic job on the valley. st andrews as well retains it's spirit while having the bells and whistles that the AV supporters rattle on about.

one quote I've just read in the Guardian, rgds Cov's plight, seems apt for this topic: "A move to the Ricoh Arena that was hailed as a new dawn seven years ago has turned into a desperate and desolate nightmare. Their plight was recently epitomised by a statement from the Sky Blue Trust. It simply said: "What is to become of our club?"

Norwich. Wolves. Blackburn. West Ham. Blackpool. Newcastle. And on and on.

These are all teams that should no longer exist. Their stadiums are old. Their stadiums are on small sites. Their stadiums were not viable.

[Dorset_Cider]

I blame the council.......... over the years & the nimby's + the council now + nambie (spl) laws to allow objections that are a farce (In my opinion)

[NickJ]

I blame the council.......... over the years & the nimby's + the council now + nambie (spl) laws to allow objections that are a farce (In my opinion)

The council gave Bristol City permision for a 30,000 stadium. The stadium which Bristol City requested. The stadium which a handful of directors of Bristol City, on behalf of tens of thousands of Bristol City fans, decided not to proceed with.

[ciderup]

e

Norwich. Wolves. Blackburn. West Ham. Blackpool. Newcastle. And on and on.

These are all teams that should no longer exist. Their stadiums are old. Their stadiums are on small sites. Their stadiums were not viable.

That would be West Ham that are planning to move due to expansion needs after spending multi £Millions developing their current site and Newcastle Utd that want to expand but cannot because the buildings behind the one stand that hasn't been developed are listed then Nick?

I'm not saying we need more than 30K now but you never know.

The Gate might be the better place to stay but it's limited for the future, there is no expansion option whereas at the Vale, there is. Who's to say we could develop the Gate, hit the Prem and need more than 30K? We can't do that on the present site but can if we move?

[NickJ]

e

That would be West Ham that are planning to move due to expansion needs after spending multi £Millions developing their current site and Newcastle Utd that want to expand but cannot because the buildings behind the one stand that hasn't been developed are listed then Nick?

I'm not saying we need more than 30K now but you never know.

The Gate might be the better place to stay but it's limited for the future, there is no expansion option whereas at the Vale, there is. Who's to say we could develop the Gate, hit the Prem and need more than 30K? We can't do that on the present site but can if we move?

West Ham - a move which the majority of their fans oppose.

Newcastle - not correct so far as I am aware, unless you have details of the planning application?

The Ashton Vale proposal is 30,000, the approval for Ashton Gate WAS (not taken up) 30,000. Whats the difference?

[poland_red]

Norwich. Wolves. Blackburn. West Ham. Blackpool. Newcastle. And on and on.

These are all teams that should no longer exist. Their stadiums are old. Their stadiums are on small sites. Their stadiums were not viable.

indeed. It's maddening that there are so many precedents set for successfully redeveloping a ground, and yet so many people appear hell bent on us upping sticks and following some yellow brick road to cuckoo land. But arguing with these people is like banging your head on a brick wall. I've yet to hear one convincing argument for a new stadium that is backed up by anything more than hot air and shiny architectural renderings and this mental belief that a new stadium will magically unlock the gates to glory. If only it were that simple. Cor blimey, I'm at my wits end listening to this collection of madmen and morons.

[del ete]

Norwich. Wolves. Blackburn. West Ham. Blackpool. Newcastle. And on and on.

These are all teams that should no longer exist. Their stadiums are old. Their stadiums are on small sites. Their stadiums were not viable.

All of which has room to rebuild (excluding maybe Norwich) so completely irrelevent. If Ashton gate had the required space then I am sure this would be everyones preffered option. Unfortunately we have only one stand that we can rebuild easily due to restrictions on the other 3.

Atyeo is already as big as we can build.

Dolman is already as big as we can build, and we may even get a reduced capacity if we develop this due to changes in planning since it was originally built.

East End can be rebuilt, but will again be restricted due to the houses behind.

[Kibs]

If we were talking about purely a small to mid sized football ground, for mainly football use, I could accept the argument for redevelopment of AG. As Others have pointed out, it can be done.

The fact is, SL is talking about so much more than just a football ground and that is the crux of it. You can't get what he wants out of a stadium project on the AG site. Do you people really think we would be going through all this trouble if he could? Give the guy some credit.

I'd be delighted with a move to a new stadium but on the other hand, if it wasn't meant to be, I'd not be upset about staying at AG.

[ciderup]

The Ashton Vale proposal is 30,000, the approval for Ashton Gate WAS (not taken up) 30,000. Whats the difference?

Ashton Vale was designed with expansion to a potential 42000 for the World cup or the clubs future needs. Ashton Gate could, admittedly, go to 30K but no larger.

It seems a 'no brainer' to be honest. State of the art with easy expansion, if needed, versus a land locked redeveloped site which cannot be expanded should the need ever arise.

[BCAGFC]

Norwich. Wolves. Blackburn. West Ham. Blackpool. Newcastle. And on and on.

These are all teams that should no longer exist. Their stadiums are old. Their stadiums are on small sites. Their stadiums were not viable.

Have you been to all those grounds NIck, well I have been to all in their old states and most had space to develop or the council/club cleared the surrounding land for the club.

Norwich is a complete mess, except for their new stand.

Wolves had to have terraced housing (and a pub ) demolished to allow expansion on 2 sides of the ground.

Blackburn again had to have a row of terraced houses demolished to allow expansion to the main stand, a factory was demolished for the Darwen End expansion.

Blackpool had 2 sides of their site levelled before their expansion and how much income did they miss out on in the premiership due to a small capacity.

West Ham had a huge amount of space to expand their main stand, the ground looks a joke now IMO.

Newcastle had space on 3 sides of the ground to expand, the 4th side is not allowed to be developed as it has the listed Leazes Terrace behind half of it. This is common knowledge to anyone who takes interest in football stadia, pretty sure it is stated in Simon Englis's book 'Football Grounds Of England'.

The AG site is limited on 3 sides as has been stated so many times it does my head in, if we could buy the surrounding properties (houses/ Braby/Wickes etc, then we might just be able to squeeze an AV development in....but that ain't gonna happen.

AV is the only way we will have the capacity to make enough non matchday income to make it worthwhile developing anything.

No AV = No Championship/PL football in the future IMO.....if your happy for our club to stagnate, then fine....I want to it prosper both on and off the field.

BCAGFC

[Cider red]

Have you been to all those grounds NIck, well I have all either had space to develop of the council/club cleared the land around..

Norwich is a complete mess, except for their new stand.

Wolves had to have terraced housing (and a pub ) demolished to allow expansion on 2 sides of the ground.

Blackburn again had to have a row of terraced houses demolished to allow expansion to the main stand, a factory was demolished for the Darwen End expansion.

Blackpool had 2 sides of their site levelled before their expansion and how much income did they miss out on in the premiership due to a small capacity.

West Ham had a huge amount of space to expand their main stand, the ground looks a joke now IMO.

Newcastle had space on 3 sides of the ground to expand, the 4th side is not allowed to be developed as it has the listed Leazes Terrace behind half of it. This is common knowledge to anyone who takes interest in football stadia, pretty sure it is stated in Simon Englis's book 'Football Grounds Of England'.

The AG site is limited on 3 sides as has been stated so many times it does my head in, if we could buy the surrounding properties (houses/ Braby/Wickes etc, then we might just be able to squeeze an AV development in....but that ain't gonna happen.

AV is the only way we will have the capacity to make enough non matchday income to make it worthwhile developing anything.

No AV = No Championship/PL football in the future IMO.....if your happy for our club to stagnate, then fine....I want to it prosper both on and off the field.

BCAGFC

+1

For all those so against the move who wanted solid reasons for moving...there they are.

[ciderup]

Have you been to all those grounds NIck, well I have been to all in their old states and most had space to develop or the council/club cleared the surrounding land for the club.

Norwich is a complete mess, except for their new stand.

Wolves had to have terraced housing (and a pub ) demolished to allow expansion on 2 sides of the ground.

Blackburn again had to have a row of terraced houses demolished to allow expansion to the main stand, a factory was demolished for the Darwen End expansion.

Blackpool had 2 sides of their site levelled before their expansion and how much income did they miss out on in the premiership due to a small capacity.

West Ham had a huge amount of space to expand their main stand, the ground looks a joke now IMO.

Newcastle had space on 3 sides of the ground to expand, the 4th side is not allowed to be developed as it has the listed Leazes Terrace behind half of it. This is common knowledge to anyone who takes interest in football stadia, pretty sure it is stated in Simon Englis's book 'Football Grounds Of England'.

The AG site is limited on 3 sides as has been stated so many times it does my head in, if we could buy the surrounding properties (houses/ Braby/Wickes etc, then we might just be able to squeeze an AV development in....but that ain't gonna happen.

AV is the only way we will have the capacity to make enough non matchday income to make it worthwhile developing anything.

No AV = No Championship/PL football in the future IMO.....if your happy for our club to stagnate, then fine....I want to it prosper both on and off the field.

BCAGFC

Excellent post BCAGFC and thanks for the support re St James, I couldn't remember the name of Leazes terrace.

[Frome Valley]

+1

For all those so against the move who wanted solid reasons for moving...there they are.

Large parts of it were opinion, not solid reasoning.

Clubs at this level and above have prospered at re-devloped stadia. Clubs at ths level have progressed and established themselves on smaller expenditures than Bristol City.

Not one post has clearly identified the Ashton Vale business model e.g how it will be funded, who owns assets and what will happen to the revenues created.

If the above are not addressed it is impossible to make a clear business case. If a concrete business plan cannot be reflected upon, fans can also not make parallels to clubs that have moved stadium, because the Ashton Vale project could be entirely different.

Add variables like the rugby club, private funding, it all becomes very vague. It is hard to make any assertions at all.

[del ete]

Its very easy to keep throwing in examples of other clubs, but none of them face the exact problems we face with our Ashton Gate Blueprint.

How you can bring up clubs like Wolves as a comparison I have no idea as they have plenty of space around their ground so wont have problems with height restrictions etc.

We can only significantly redevelop one side (Williams stand). There will be problems building bigger structures on each of the 3 other sides.

Clubs like Preston & Blackpool have indeed redveloped their grounds, but have had to do so with restictions and therefore have small capacity stadiums, so why is this a success story to follow?

[Frome Valley]

Its very easy to keep throwing in examples of other clubs, but none of them face the exact problems we face with our Ashton Gate Blueprint.

How you can bring up clubs like Wolves as a comparison I have no idea as they have plenty of space around their ground so wont have problems with height restrictions etc.

We can only significantly redevelop one side (Williams stand). There will be problems building bigger structures on each of the 3 other sides.

Clubs like Preston & Blackpool have indeed redveloped their grounds, but have had to do so with restictions and therefore have small capacity stadiums, so why is this a success story to follow?

It is all also very good throwing around examples of clubs who have moved stadiums when those clubs could have used totally diffrent means of funding them, and the clubs in question will own their stadium.

Nick J/Timbo have asked articulately some quite simple questions regarding funding, ownership and revenue. Not one person has managed to answer them in depth. Nobody on here can answer them.

One day Steve Lansdown will move on, we are all mortal, the club may be handed down to family as part of some sporting dynasty sharing a stadium, who knows really!

It is unclear what Ashton Vale could really mean to the future stabilty of Bristol City FC.

[Kibs]

Re-Developing Ashton Gate appears to be a last resort and something that although not out of the quesiton, SL is loathe to do.

If it was easy an option and as good an option as the minority are trying to have people believe, we would have done it by now.

Do you think that SL enjoys getting messed about my NIMBY's, Councils etc....

[Jordan Tansley]

Re-Developing Ashton Gate appears to be a last resort and something that although not out of the quesiton, SL is loathe to do.

If it was easy an option and as good an option as the minority are trying to have people believe, we would have done it by now.

Do you think that SL enjoys getting messed about my NIMBY's, Councils etc....

No, Kibs. He's actually a crook and has been playing a very long game by propping us up to the tune of £40m over the last decade simply to win over a few fans so he can screw them without anyone noticing.

As ever, it's a conspiracy and NOBODY IS TO BE TRUSTED.