DancinDannyD Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 " the funding is in place and has been for some time" nick Higgs. Is this the same nick Higgs who was prepared to let rovers fans travel to Cheltenham to tour the ground and pick out their season ticket seats despite knowing full well rovers wouldn't be playing there? Just a snippet Danny I happen to know someone who worked on the mem project he reckons Higgs and dunford were told from the very start the project was unworkable and unaffordable but they carried on spinning lies and bullshit till they could no longer carry on pretending.true or not I don't know but make of what you will. I have to take your word on that. As I understand it, the Cheltenham trip was organised because whilst Opal were about to pull out, potential alternative investors were still being negotiated with. Had the club publically announced that Opal had withdrawn then that would have significantly reduced the negotiating power with the alternative investor (as it proved when Vital Gas broke the news). I have no way of knowing what is the truth and what isn't. Whatever, it certainly damaged relations with the fans big time and was a huge own goal from which the Board still has to recover with a large sub-section of fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 I have to take your word on that. As I understand it, the Cheltenham trip was organised because whilst Opal were about to pull out, potential alternative investors were still being negotiated with. Had the club publically announced that Opal had withdrawn then that would have significantly reduced the negotiating power with the alternative investor (as it proved when Vital Gas broke the news). I have no way of knowing what is the truth and what isn't. Whatever, it certainly damaged relations with the fans big time and was a huge own goal from which the Board still has to recover with a large sub-section of fans. Parkender is spot on with what he says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real_bristol Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 I'm by no means a Planning expert, but I undersand Mr Pickles can only 'call in' the application if there's significant deviation from Local or National policies. the reason it had to go to him, as I understand it, was twofold: a change of use from a Sporting facility (in contradiction from a local policy) and it was a significant "out of town centre" retail application. Unless objectors can prove material mistakes were made by the Planning Committee in approving the scheme and the Planning Inspectors in recommending for approval then there is no case to answer. If I recall, the Planning Committee Chair said that whilst it 'wasn't the perfect plan, on balance the benefits outweigh the negatives' (or something similar to that). If I was opposed to the scheme I would write in and object. But in reality, given that this will unlock £m's in development projects with the country on brink of recession, I (personally) don't feel that the Secretary of State will agree that the the plan is so far away from being the "perfect plan" to call it in. This SHOULD go through unopposed. Agreed as should the development on the landfill at Ashton Vale. I just thought straight away when I heard it that the development committee have opened themselves up to appeal as they said the plans were not perfect. Acknowledged that there is no perfect plan but are decisions not meant to be made on the basis of the plan, and its accordance with the Local Plan Don't get me wrong its the right decision IMO. Just interested in the legals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeble Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Point taken but is the fact that they have made a "bigger picture decision" not a legal flaw as the bigger picture is to do with South Glos not BCC. On that basis whats the point in having split local authorities (possibly another issue entirely). Absolutely gutted that BCC didn't make a "bigger picture decision" and grant the whole AV site developable, but instead tried to make everyone happy. The real problem was Lansdown not taking the village green lot seriously enough the first time. If all the "new" evidence had been collected and presented at the first inquiry then the ongoing circus might never have started. AV would be under construction, UWE ready to go in the summer and we could all go back to slagging off each others teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pace Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Youth system shambles??? Academy prosperous??? When the hell was the last time you brought through a half decent player all I ever hear from sheeds is whats gone wrong with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Cloud Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 It's strange the claim from the gash that without SL we'd be nothing... and without the Dunfords they would have gone bust long ago! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakes Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 another sag on our board making a cock out of herself, i'd laugh my cock off if the planning meeting on feb 15th stopped their potential empty stadium going ahead, that would be mint! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Youth system shambles??? Academy prosperous??? When the hell was the last time you brought through a half decent player all I ever hear from sheeds is whats gone wrong with it. You obviously haven't kept 'pace' with developments or watched our youth teams play. All have performing extremely well and we've had a number of youth players breaking through to the first team in the last year. A first team that plays in the Championship, not in the basement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Youth system shambles??? Academy prosperous??? When the hell was the last time you brought through a half decent player all I ever hear from sheeds is whats gone wrong with it. Opps someone's a couple of years behind the times. Still that's good going for a sag, normally it's decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sglosbcfc Posted February 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Wes Burns played and scored for Wales under 21s just this week. Gas under 21s are more used to playing against Wells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS34Red Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 What have you got to chuckle about? Other than having a mega rich Chairman who is the ONLY reason you are even existing? Why criticise our new stadium when yours will be TOTASLLY owned by Steve Lansdown who will be taking the same rent from you as Bristol Rugby. Where is the once proud Bristol City who actually OWNED their ground. Harry Dolman will be turning in his grave.. With all your money what can you actually crow about when you sit one from the bottom of the Championship which only goes to show that without Lansdown money you would be at the very best mid League one. In fact everything about you is Steve Lansdown. Do you in fact have a club? Any owner that owns any club owns the stadium also. The owner doesn't just own the club. Bristol Rovers fc don't own the men, The owners own it. Harry wouldn't be turning in his grave as once he also owned Ashton Gate. The way City do it is by having the football club and the stadium separate. Considering Lansdowns experience in finance then I'm sure there is a benefit to doing it this way. But ultimately whatever way it is done owners own not only the club but also all of the clubs assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS34Red Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 The UWE get naming rights, teaching space, linked academic courses (media / marketing etc), use of the car park so they can reuse the land used by an existing car park for commercial gain, use of the stadium for their sports teams and the prestige of such a facility on the national perception of the university (especially in these days of fee paying students) - and you really think there's no inherent value in all of that!? I would guess (but I'm not party to the contracts so can't provide evidence, before I'm asked!) that all that comes at a price i.e. very favourable (or free) land leases. Otherwise Higgs must be a mug to offer all that for free, give up naming rights and still PAY for the land. Higgs may be many things, but he is an astute businessman! I also know Higgs has stated publically (as I definitely read it!) that the lease would be paid in full 'up front' but I can't find it in Google..Do you not understand what people are trying to explain to you? Obviously as a rovers fan you have to be missing a few brain cells. But basically you have said it all yourself, you are giving uwe all of that but in return alluvium receiving is some land that you won't even own. On the face if it uwe are getting the much better deal. Giving them your naming rights will mean you directly lose out on millions that a company would have paid you. I don't know how much naming rights are worth, 500k-million a year? Yet all your getting out of it is permission from uwe to build a stadium on their land and also you must provide them with free use of the stadium and rooms in the stadium and also the car park. Sorry but uwe are taking the right Mickey Bell out of your lot!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS34Red Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 Oh, forgot to add that in many ways it was actually a blessing in disguise that Higgs 'royall f*cked up' as 18,000 was the absolute limit a 'New Mem' could go to with appaling parking and transport links. The UWE is superior in every way, 21,700 initially, expandable to 26,000 without impacting the external shell, and ultimately expandable to 35,000 by taking the roof off and expanding into the car-park. Fantastic access just off the ring-road from the M4, M5 and M32, loads of parking and walking distance from Bristol Parkway and Abbeywood rail stations! I honestly can't think of many better located and appointed stadia in the country. One last thing, do you honestly think the location of your new stadium is a good location? The railway stations are within walking distance if you like long walks. Parkway is a good 25 minutes walk. Have you ever been down the ring road in rush hour? At present the traffic is a nightmare on a daily basis. I live around here and every day all the local routes are madness. Travelling to the her stadium on a Tuesday night by car would be something I would suggest to avoid. I've been stuck in traffic from the top of Filton roundabout down to uwe for a hour on many occasions and that's without a stadium there. There is no traditional pubs nearby, you will be surrounded by a Sainsburys a half abandoned retail park and a mcdonalds, oh and also our academy and to top it off it's not even within walking distance of the memorial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icegas Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013   Some fair points mixed in with some dubious ones there: Our Youth system may not have the funding of yours but this year the U-18 group looks very promising and we have invested in some good coaches (ex-City boys in Alan Walsh and Marcus Stewart) - this year we have seen the very promising duo of Eliot Richards and Ellis Harrison break into the first team with good effect and Shaquile Hunter (provided he can sort his attitude out) is not far behind. At other age ranges as well I understand (from third party accounts) that the set up is good and there is some quality there. What is missing is a state of the art training facility like you have just opened at Failand, but that's not to say that won't follow in the future. Management of the club - much like City there have been some shambolic Team Management appointments by the Board and I hope Ward turns the playing side around (he's off to a promising start, but there's a long way to go). In terms of off-field governance ongoing losses and increasing debt are a worry, but not on the scale of yours. As stated above, you are lucky to have a (very) rich benefactor to cover the losses but, like yourselves, most of our debt is owed to Directors who are wealthy multi-millionaires and lifelong supporters of the club and so, like Lansdown, are unlikely call them in and cripple the club. Indeed Higgs recently converted part of his debt to equity. We have an excellent stadium manager in Ian Holtby who does a fantastic job given the limited resources at the Mem - I think he will really thrive given the facilities in the UWE. From a Community Development viewpoint Peter Aitken is again doing a good job given the limited resources compared to yours. I must admit I don't know much about our Community side so I can't really comment on how effective it is or it isn't. The reality is that both clubs could do better. City's problems get masked as you have Lansdown to keep pumping money in. Under FFP though you will have to cut your cloth accordingly and it seems to me that City supporters think you have massive potential and will fly given a new stadium (e.g. you'd get 30,000 in a new Ashton Vale Stadium) yet Rovers won't (stuck at 5,000 in the UWE). The reality is we'd both probably get an initial boost (City to about 18-19,000, Rovers to about 11-12,000) and then have to build from there.  An amazing,logical and rational post there my friend and I'm not just saying this because you a gashead... Theads like these are ridiculous.Both on here, and on the gas forum. There are a percentage of fans from either side of the river that talk complete and utter crap and theres no reasoning with them at all.I'm all for banter,but come on grow up for **** sake! The City side will say - "You stole the mem" then the Gas will say "you stole off creditors and players in 1982"... "Our ground is this"... "your ground will be that"...etc..etc. Bottom line of it is - BOTH SIDE'S IN BRISTOL HAVE HUGE POTENTIAL! and its about time we started to fulfil it,and the ONLY WAY that either are going to be able to do this is by building new stadiums and it LOOKS like we BOTH could be in better arena within five years and I for one can't wait. If anyone thinks that Rovers will be getting 5500 in the UWE then there's no reasoning with you.And if any Rovers fans think that just because we're getting the UWE we are automatically going to do a swansea then again,I ask reasoning....? Bottom line is that both Rovers and City have the potential to grow enormously as clubs and one of the key parts of that is getting a new ground. Swansea,Brighton,Hull,Wigan,Cardiff..etc are all from smaller cities and have all grow once in new stadiums, and I think that it would be fair to say that none of then have the untapped potential of either Rovers or City. I await this new Era! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 The difference is, we've got the nitty gritty work done. We've started from the bottom with the academy, community trust, recruitment etc. Rovers have papered over the cracks with this new stadium as the rest of their club is a shambles!They need to start from the bottom and work their way up which they haven't. Well, to be fair, they are starting from the bottom. Credit where it is due lad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 I never did get this hatred between the two clubs but then I did not grow up in Bristol. That said the older generation would say it was nowhere near as vitriolic many moons ago. As far as I am concerned I would be delighted if Rovers were a success as long as they were always one place behind us. And that, my friends, is good business for BCFC and good business for the city of Bristol and that is ALL that matters in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 The UWE get naming rights, teaching space, linked academic courses (media / marketing etc), use of the car park so they can reuse the land used by an existing car park for commercial gain, use of the stadium for their sports teams and the prestige of such a facility on the national perception of the university (especially in these days of fee paying students) - and you really think there's no inherent value in all of that!? I would guess (but I'm not party to the contracts so can't provide evidence, before I'm asked!) that all that comes at a price i.e. very favourable (or free) land leases. Otherwise Higgs must be a mug to offer all that for free, give up naming rights and still PAY for the land. Higgs may be many things, but he is an astute businessman! I also know Higgs has stated publically (as I definitely read it!) that the lease would be paid in full 'up front' but I can't find it in Google.. Yes so as I said looks like you're missing out on revenue from naming rights...none of the above is going to help your turnover and help you meet FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.