New Stadium

[Hillzider]

Dont know what all the fuss is about.

Looking at the aerial photo theres enough room to redevelop up to 60,000.

http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/image/epw034461

[NickJ]

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.

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

Yes I have been to them, years ago when they were all mainly standing, an more recently since redevelopment. None of them have more space available than Ashton Gete. Norwich is surronded by 3 roads and a river. The rest are all surrounded by roads. Ashton Gate by contrast is positively spacious.

Norwich doesnt look a mess to me:

http://www.footballgroundguide.com/norwich_city/

and interestingly they have plans to expand to 39,000, on a site that is smaller than Ashton Gate.

I won't respond to the other assertions you've made in respect of the other grounds, as they are similarly incorrect, however your final couple of comments need to be challenged on the grounds of absurdity.

In recent years, clus such as Blackpool and Burnley have made it to the Premiership on capacaities and/or attendances lower than ours. So what rule applies to us that doesn't to them when it comes to promotion?

So far as your comment about non-matchday income is concerned, you make that comment with the air of confidence that the relevant figures are at your fingertips, so please, do share.

[Rich]

Nick

So far you have managed to refer to different planned developments, none of which were carried out. You have mixed up those planned developments timewise.

ie; claiming that the new single tier Wedlock stand (2005) you also referred to as a three tier stand. You claimed it was as a joint development with the Williams stand, and costs were £9m with grants from the football league available.

You are mistaken. The (single tier) stand alone was costed at £7m with no grants available.

I think the development you refer to with grants available, was as you say a joint development with the Williams which wrapped around the corner of the ground. It was not the more recent planned development (2005) which no grants were available for.

So, the earlier plans (even with grants) did not go ahead and the more recent plans did not go ahead, because funding could not be arranged. Those decisions were made by the directors and chairman of the club on financial grounds.

Therefore two planned expansions of Ashton Gate were planned and then dropped, because they were not finacially viable.

Instead, a new plan has evolved, presumably based on those past experiences to build a new stadium and more importantly, funding has been arranged, meaning that it will go ahead.

You don't agree with this and want to go down the path of past failures to redevelop AG.

I have asked you on several occasions to provide a finacial comparison between the two options ie: redevelopment inc loss of revenue during that time, or a new build stadium.

As I understand it, you are an accountant. If so, I would have thought this was well within your capabilities, given that the figures are available. So far you have chosen not to go down that avenue.

I'll let the other posters come to their conclusions about that.

Link to capacity of AG http://www.footyhomes.co.uk/Bristol_City_-_Ashton_Gate a small terrace was added in front of the Dolman stand increasing this further. The capacity was reduced due to means of escape from the ground, not what it could hold. There were problems meeting the requirements from the rear of the Dolman stand, the corner of the East End and the uncovered end, which were retsricted (and still are). The club tried negotiating with the Bowls club and the trading estate but failed to gain exits and the capacity was reduced.

[bucksred]

sooooooooooo are we actually any closer getting this bloody ground then, or are we doomed to the clapped out Ashton Gate, and lower league obscurity?

[Rich]

Rich, with Grants was a possibility So says this article

Also re the 2005 design

Erm see above and below

That sir is bullocks, As per the initial link Sextone confirmed that was promotion dependent, and previous plans had been cancelled because of lack of funds, not because they were not viable

We have been banging on redevelopment of AG and a new stadium on and off since 1998, 14 years later, the grand total of nothing has been given the go ahead, it puts some town planning to shame. As mentioned above, bugger all about AG not being cost effective. afaik and will be happy to stand corrected that, AG income following redevelopment will still be increased, just not as much as AV's (potential, though there are no figures for it, and we have had a zillion recessions and the nature of buisness and retail has changed beyond recognition since then)

Erm, bit hard when there are no figures for either dude. Some might say impossible even.

That's a dead/incomplete link. Capacity was capped because of the Rovers/City Debacle afaik and the lock out at the back of the Atyeo (Hence the gates etc), rather than Dolman issues or other negotiations. again if you can show different would be all ears

Some further stuff of note

Re dev costs of AG in 1998- Roughly 25 Million as per Here

PS It's a pain that the official site has changed and none of the old stuff is archived as it means no press releases etc are available, very frustrating

1, If any funding was available through founbdation grants it was not anywhere near the same level of the earlier percentage, when something like 40% was given. I can't remember now when that level of funding finished but we as you say, we never proceeded through lack of funds. Which is the same as not finacially viable which was what I said. Bare in mind we couldn't agree a catering sponsorship/contract, we couldn't sell the boxes and we couldn't sell enough bricks, remember? That in my opinion makes it not viable finacially. So only bullocks in your opinion.

2. Lots of things have been given the go ahead, they've just never been done. The plan according to the article you posted was to go ahead but, presumably the better plan of building a new stadium was a more finally viable option so the original plan was shelved.

3. I think it's more to do with how much each development costs, rather than matchday income that tips the balance, though the income would be more for other events. The costs stated when the new stadium was in the planning process for the redevelopment of AG, was £60m. The new build cost was £92m, a difference of £32m. Take off the sale of AG £20m, the sale of Building site with pp for housing £10m, the sale of the hotel and restaurant site £5m plus the naming rights, which would be more for a new stadium and you end up wth a new stadium, bigger better facilities than at AG, at less overall cost. You would also end up with a conference centre, increased parking, a hotel and restaurant on site, and the scope for increasing capacity if the club proved more successful or the venue was to be used for future international matches, which would most likely not happen at the restricted capacity of a redeveloped AG. You also have not had the disruption and possible loss of income from redevelopment whilst staying at AG.

Nothing wrong with the town planning process as we've achieved permission on every occasion, we just haven't followed it through.

With AV, we are not dependent on box sales, brick sales, catering contract sales, SL will cover it and charge those coming in a premium, which is a different scenario to trying to sell boxes at an end of the ground during it's redevelopment.

4. I don't have a problem with the link, try googling it, that's how I found it.

5. My references to the capacity are during the 70s. There were definately issues with the club trying to negotiate exits through the bowling club the trading estate and even possibly the flats.

That Rovers debacle as you call it was much later when the capaity was about 20,000 and we had 22,269 at the game and got rollocked by the council for it (Donowa scored the winner 5/3/1991). Please don't crucify me if the figures are not exactly correct. That was before the Attyeo was built

I to wish the official site had more information, it's a pain in the bum trying to find out anything.

We should be able to go back to the humble beginnings of our club.

[NickJ]

I have asked you on several occasions to provide a finacial comparison between the two options ie: redevelopment inc loss of revenue during that time, or a new build stadium.

As I understand it, you are an accountant. If so, I would have thought this was well within your capabilities, given that the figures are available. So far you have chosen not to go down that avenue.

I'll let the other posters come to their conclusions about that.

OK, you clearly aren't the sharpest tool so I will ignore the majority of your drivel.

But with regard to the above, you tell me where are "the figures are available" and I will gladly carry out the analysis.

[Mr Mosquito]

OK, you clearly aren't the sharpest tool so I will ignore the majority of your drivel.

But with regard to the above, you tell me where are "the figures are available" and I will gladly carry out the analysis.

Brother NickJ, I notice you're being mocked and pilloried for your views. Quite honestly, the leadership of this football club needs to get it right on the pitch before continually harking on for the need for a new 30,000 capacity stadium. The continuing home losses are becoming a joke and to think that we'll ever fill a 30,000 capacity stadium with the dross on offer !!!!!!!!

[NickJ]

I'm being mocked by half wits mate so it doesnt bother me. What does bother me is the state of this football club on and off the pitch.

[Mr Mosquito]

I'm being mocked by half wits mate so it doesnt bother me.

What does bother me is the state of this football club on and off the pitch.

In an ideal world it would be you with the financial clout to lead this club out of lower division obscurity. All that really matters at any football club is success comensurate with money spent and on that front we're failing spectacularly.

[CIDER NOT CIDRE]

Brother NickJ, I notice you're being mocked and pilloried for your views. Quite honestly, the leadership of this football club needs to get it right on the pitch before continually harking on for the need for a new 30,000 capacity stadium. The continuing home losses are becoming a joke and to think that we'll ever fill a 30,000 capacity stadium with the dross on offer !!!!!!!!

Completely agree, there is no point having a new stadium when we are playing poorly and that we will never fill

[Timbo7]

As I have said - Ashton Vale was conceived on a rising tide of optimism which has long since turned. Our supporters have made it plain that as a mediocre Championship team we rarely need a capacity in excess of 15,000 and current circumstances coupled with FFP mean that there is no realistic prospect of anything more than a mediocre Championship team any time soon (however generous our benefactor might otherwise be prepared to be).

All we can say is (as I remember thinking when I first heard the dream in 2007) Ashton Vale has excused another five years of unabated delapidation at Ashton Gate and the expiry of plans and consents for development more aligned with any rational expectations for the medium-term future of this club.

[Tales From The Front]

Brother NickJ, I notice you're being mocked and pilloried for your views. Quite honestly, the leadership of this football club needs to get it right on the pitch before continually harking on for the need for a new 30,000 capacity stadium. The continuing home losses are becoming a joke and to think that we'll ever fill a 30,000 capacity stadium with the dross on offer !!!!!!!!

This subject has always been emotive for a multitude of reasons, but my view is I would rather see the club invest in a capital project that is going to be the foundations (pardon the pun) for several generations, in the hope that is will provide the long term financial clout and facillities that can be better utilised. I personally am fed up with the funds generated by Shareholder(s) and match day revenue being frittered away on overpaid and overated playing staff year after year.

I totally agree that on field activities are desperate at the moment, illustrated all to clearly in the last two home performances, but with FFP and the inability of a number of managers to assemble a competative team I would much rather the club take a different approach and build a robust and sustainable infrastructure and take a long term view. I appreciate the drawn out Ashton Vale affiar has done little to to help the situation, but the sence of de ja vu seen over recent seasons has been a sympton of the football club long before the decision to rellocate was ever taken.

I honeslty beleive for the long term benifit this course of action and a different approach must be pursued.

[CIDER NOT CIDRE]

Part of the problem is that we arent going to get any better if we keep losing players who could or have been our star players such as Maynard and Bolasie who is now thriving at Palace. The players we bring in aren't really of the quality we need to replace these players. The only exceptions in my opinion have been Davies and Cunningham. The problem is for Davies is that we don't have the midfield to support him. We also somehow ruin talent such as Baldock who now seems dejected and unhappy in recent interviews. So we need a drastic change somewhere or I cant see us going anywhere neither up nor down becaus personally I think we are just about too good to go down and are no where near good enough to go up the table so like this there is no point in the new stadium until we start to look like we are going somewhere.