Really Starting To Get P1Ssed Off

[BS3_RED]

Really? Link?

No, thought not.

CHRIS Booy believes that Bristol Rugby will soon be playing in the “biggest and best” club rugby stadium in the country – regardless of whether they end up at Ashton Gate or Ashton Vale.

The Post today revealed that Bristol’s long-term future lies in a ground-share with Bristol City – with whom they share a common majority shareholder in Steve Lansdown.

1. ​

   Chris Booy

They will play either at a new site at Ashton Vale, the building of which remains subject to an inquiry, or at a redeveloped, 26,000-capacity Ashton Gate.

And chairman Booy is targeting Aviva Premiership rugby to match the top-flight facilities they will be able to offer at either Ashton Gate or Ashton Vale.

!!Winter Gardens Wedding Show Special Prize Draw!! 17th February

Bristol Favours

View details

Print voucher

“I know it will be difficult for those who like to stand at our games to contemplate having to sit down,” said Booy.

“But I hope they stick with us, because this is a crucial step for us to get this club back into the Premiership and back to being one of the best clubs in the country.

“And the reality is that we will be playing in the best rugby stadium in the country, whichever one it is – Ashton Gate or Ashton Vale.

“We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact we will be playing in, without doubt, the best stadium in the country and also the biggest.”

Either a revamped Ashton Gate or a 30,000-capacity new stadium at Ashton Vale would be bigger than the Madejski Stadium in Reading, home to London Irish, which is currently the biggest stadium in the Premiership.

And Booy said Bristol would be investing in their squad as a further sign of their Premiership intent.

“This is part of our plan to get into the Premiership,” he said. “We clearly have a desire to do it and we are going to invest more funds to secure that goal – and we hope to do that as soon as possible.

“A new stadium is one way to attract new players – if we are trying to attract Premiership-standard players then we need a quality stadium for them to play in.”

Bristol Rugby have effectively been in limbo since losing the Memorial Stadium to Bristol Rovers when they ran into severe financial difficulties in 1998.

They have since rented the ground back from Rovers – but Booy said they would be City’s “partners” rather than their tenants.

“With both clubs having a common majority shareholder in Steve, there are obvious economic benefits of playing in the same stadium,” said Booy. “And we will genuinely be a partner in this new stadium, whereas we are a tenant at the current point.

“Going into the new stadium, whether it’s at Ashton Gate or Ashton Vale, we will be equally represented and we can develop that stadium for Bristol City and Bristol Rugby Club. All of that makes it a no-brainer for us.

“A lot of people will be disappointed about leaving the Memorial Stadium – and so will I. It has been our spiritual home for almost a century.

“But the key thing is that it’s no longer a viable option. Bristol Rovers are moving – and ever since some of my predecessors lost the ground it was inevitable that a time would come that we would have to move out.

“We have a great relationship with Rovers – I spoke with (chairman) Nick Higgs and briefed him about this, and he fully understands.

“Nick is great but if someone else had come along we could have been out – that is the reality of being tenants. But with sharing a joint majority shareholder, it gives us a lot of comfort and, in reality, it secures our long-term future.”

Booy is mindful of the need for Bristol to be in the Premiership by the time they move to Ashton Gate or Ashton Vale – not only for the sake of finances but also the atmosphere.

The match-day atmosphere at clubs such as London Irish has been criticised for being sterile, with those inside the stadium regularly being outnumbered by massed rows of empty seats.

And Booy said: “We are confident that, in the Premiership, we could comfortably get 10,000-12,000 initially – and as we become more successful that could become 15,000-20,000.

“And, if we become a top four side again, which is our aim, then we could sell out Ashton Gate as we have done in the past.”

Bristol’s contract to rent the Memorial Stadium expires at the end of next season – and, if the Ashton Vale plan is rejected later this year, they could move into Ashton Gate as early as the 2014-15 season.

Read more: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Bristol-Rugby-chairman-Chris-Booy-soon-biggest/story-18059322-detail/story.html#ixzz2KcV2aZOu

Follow us: @thisisbristol on Twitter | thisisbristol on Facebook

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Bristol-Rugby-chairman-Chris-Booy-soon-biggest/story-18059322-detail/story.html#axzz2KV2OM6f0

[Nibor]

That does not say that BCFC will rent the ground or that the ownership will be 50/50.

All it says is basically that the relationship will be better.

[WhistleHappy]

With both clubs having a common majority shareholder in Steve, there are obvious economic benefits of playing in the same stadium, said Booy. And we will genuinely be a partner in this new stadium, whereas we are a tenant at the current point.

Going into the new stadium, whether its at Ashton Gate or Ashton Vale, we will be equally represented and we can develop that stadium for Bristol City and Bristol Rugby Club. All of that makes it a no-brainer for us.

Sounds a lot like a Cuckoo wanting in on a Robins nest to me.!!!

[BS3_RED]

That does not say that BCFC will rent the ground or that the ownership will be 50/50.

All it says is basically that the relationship will be better.

I think it comes down to interpretation. The Rugby lot seem to have taken it at face value believing that they will have some sort of hold on the ground even asking about naming stands after their players.

[Keepers Ball]

It's Hear Hear

If you want AG/AV to be exclusive to BCFC then be prepared to pay for it................

The bill that SL has picked up is between £75 - £127Million depending on AG or AV.

If Bristol RFC pay - say - £500K** per annum in rent then that would be the equivalent of 50 quid extra on your season ticket

Happy with that are you ?

** Wasps pay £650K pa to play at wycombe, Saracens £489K at Watford. so 500K seems about right,

£50? So what are the chances ticket prices wouldnt go up that much?

But yes Id pay that. We all say we won't but we do.

Besides if the egg chasers followed the Sags to UWE we'd have still moved or renovated.

Oh and if you want to oppose my stance then fair enough but don't try to belittle me with my spelling.

[Keepers Ball]

That does not say that BCFC will rent the ground or that the ownership will be 50/50.

All it says is basically that the relationship will be better.

Does he not say "Partners rather than tenants"?

[Kibs]

Does he not say "Partners rather than tenants"?

Partners does not necessarily mean 50/50. If it said "Equal Partners" then that would obviously be different.

[BS3_RED]

Partners does not necessarily mean 50/50. If it said "Equal Partners" then that would obviously be different.

I must remember that in case me and the bird split up.

Well then he would still be a tenant then.

[Nibor]

Partners does not necessarily mean 50/50. If it said "Equal Partners" then that would obviously be different.

More pertinently, partners doesn't mean they have any sort of ownership stake at all. It's an ambiguous word and I think he's just saying there'll be a different relationship than the one they have with the blue few.

Note that the club have already confirmed there will be no change of ownership if we redevelop, but he doesn't mention that.

It also does not say that BCFC would be tenants, and we must make sure that this is not the case. Only bad things happen to clubs that get separated from their stadiums.

[TRL]

All this rubbish about them lot. And they are tenants. Them lot are us lot. They are owned by the same bloke. He will want lower upkeep of both clubs. It will be 50/50. Neither paying rent. Both taking 100% from gate receipts. There is no good reason for SL to take from one and give to another when he owns both.

Link, haven't got one. Just makes financial sense for SL and his clubs. There is no them and us, that is purely in city and bristol fans eyes.

[friendlygas]

But surely if you are going to be partners each paying a rent then neither of you will actually own the stadium and that will be owned by Steve Lansdown as "Bristol Sport". I am not necessarily saying this is a bad thing as Steve Lansdown has put and will put one hell of a lot of money into the club but is it what you as supporters really want? I note some of you say that Steve Lansdown incompancy has led to you being 41 m in debt but this isnt really true is it because you are a Championship club that very nearly got to the Premiership and without the Lansdown Money I don't think that would have been possible for you and it is questionable whether you would be a lower Championship side or a mid table League 1 side. Which would you lot prefer? The way you used to be where you owned Ashton Gate but with a less successful team or be where you are with Lansdowns money.

Obviously I couldnt care less as we are where we are and even with a new stadium will not have the sort of funds that SL has at his disposal. I just find it interesting as your fans are questioning where our funding of our stadium is coming from and how much we so say rely on the Rugby Club in this,which is not true and yet between you there seems to be no real assurances as to what capacity yourselves and the Rugby club will be.

I personally think BOTH clubs deserve to have New Stadiums and thereby have at least a chance of being successful.

[The Gasbuster]

But surely if you are going to be partners each paying a rent then neither of you will actually own the stadium and that will be owned by Steve Lansdown as "Bristol Sport". I am not necessarily saying this is a bad thing as Steve Lansdown has put and will put one hell of a lot of money into the club but is it what you as supporters really want? I note some of you say that Steve Lansdown incompancy has led to you being 41 m in debt but this isnt really true is it because you are a Championship club that very nearly got to the Premiership and without the Lansdown Money I don't think that would have been possible for you and it is questionable whether you would be a lower Championship side or a mid table League 1 side. Which would you lot prefer? The way you used to be where you owned Ashton Gate but with a less successful team or be where you are with Lansdowns money.

Obviously I couldnt care less as we are where we are and even with a new stadium will not have the sort of funds that SL has at his disposal. I just find it interesting as your fans are questioning where our funding of our stadium is coming from and how much we so say rely on the Rugby Club in this,which is not true and yet between you there seems to be no real assurances as to what capacity yourselves and the Rugby club will be.

I personally think BOTH clubs deserve to have New Stadiums and thereby have at least a chance of being successful.

Pure fantasy I know and SL would never fund it, but the ideal situation for me would be you lot at U.W.E., us at A.V. and the rugby club get A.G.

Not going to happen though is it ?

[friendlygas]

Unfortunately not but agree with you it would be the ideal situation for Bristol Sport. I think if Life was perfect we would now be in a modern stadium at Eastville Stadium,you in a modern one at Ashton Gate and the Rugby Club in a modern stadium at the Mem. I still think your Ashton Vale scheme will get the go ahead eventually although it does seem,and I can fully understand why a lot of you would prefer the Ashton Gate redevelopment anyway. I don't know enough about it but is the area at Ashton Vale going to be larger than Ashton Gate or is it to limit the amount of money that SL has to put into it if Ashton Gate is sold?

[Kid in the Riot]

As i have previously said the UWE Stadium was never set up on the basis of sharing with Bristol Rugby and since we started on this project Bristol RC have said nothing and most were sure that they would end up at Lansdown Toytown. The Rugby has clearly stated recently that both they and yourselves will rent the ground on a 50/50 basis.

Bristol Rugby is a clear loss to the UWE stadium and Higgs would have been desperately hoping the rugby chose UWE as the rent would have been very welcome given the dicey financial situation in funding the stadium. Unfortunately for you Lansdown ****** you on that one.

If we stay at AG then Bristol Rugby will be our tenants as confirmed by Bristol Sport.

[Kid in the Riot]

As i have previously said the UWE Stadium was never set up on the basis of sharing with Bristol Rugby and since we started on this project Bristol RC have said nothing and most were sure that they would end up at Lansdown Toytown. The Rugby has clearly stated recently that both they and yourselves will rent the ground on a 50/50 basis.

Bristol Rugby is a clear loss to the UWE stadium and Higgs would have been desperately hoping the rugby chose UWE as the rent would have been very welcome given the dicey financial situation in funding the stadium. Unfortunately for you Lansdown ****** you on that one.

If we stay at AG then Bristol Rugby will be our tenants as confirmed by Bristol Sport.

[Nibor]

All this rubbish about them lot. And they are tenants. Them lot are us lot. They are owned by the same bloke. He will want lower upkeep of both clubs. It will be 50/50. Neither paying rent. Both taking 100% from gate receipts. There is no good reason for SL to take from one and give to another when he owns both.

Link, haven't got one. Just makes financial sense for SL and his clubs. There is no them and us, that is purely in city and bristol fans eyes.

Could you explain how it makes financial sense? How does taking the stadium ownership away from Bristol City Holdings and vesting it in a different company benefit SL exactly?

If Bristol City fans allow our club (and it is OUR club) to be split from ownership of it's stadium then frankly we're ******* morons and we deserve everything we get. It cannot be allowed.

[Nibor]

But surely if you are going to be partners each paying a rent then neither of you will actually own the stadium and that will be owned by Steve Lansdown as "Bristol Sport". I am not necessarily saying this is a bad thing as Steve Lansdown has put and will put one hell of a lot of money into the club but is it what you as supporters really want? I note some of you say that Steve Lansdown incompancy has led to you being 41 m in debt but this isnt really true is it because you are a Championship club that very nearly got to the Premiership and without the Lansdown Money I don't think that would have been possible for you and it is questionable whether you would be a lower Championship side or a mid table League 1 side. Which would you lot prefer? The way you used to be where you owned Ashton Gate but with a less successful team or be where you are with Lansdowns money.

Obviously I couldnt care less as we are where we are and even with a new stadium will not have the sort of funds that SL has at his disposal. I just find it interesting as your fans are questioning where our funding of our stadium is coming from and how much we so say rely on the Rugby Club in this,which is not true and yet between you there seems to be no real assurances as to what capacity yourselves and the Rugby club will be.

I personally think BOTH clubs deserve to have New Stadiums and thereby have at least a chance of being successful.

Our chairman has already confirmed that in the case of redeveloping AG this definitely will not be the case, and we haven't heard what the intention is either way if AV goes ahead.

It's perfectly possible to get into the championship without overspending massively, Lansdown chose to spend recklessly but that doesn't mean it was required. It's not an either or.

In any case the debt is money he owes to himself effectively so it's a non issue.

[Maesknoll Red]

Having one man who holds, if not all, but most of the cards, concerns me, but only because of what happened to Gretna FC. Financed from the lower leagues to the SPL and then wiped out because, IIRC, at the time the owner became ill and subsequently died, his family withdrew all funding to the club.

Hopefully, Steve will have a long and happy life spending his hard earned on BCFC and the egg chasers and should the worst happen, we can hope that Jon will want to carry on the dynasty.

[Lrrr]

Having one man who holds, if not all, but most of the cards, concerns me, but only because of what happened to Gretna FC. Financed from the lower leagues to the SPL and then wiped out because, IIRC, at the time the owner became ill and subsequently died, his family withdrew all funding to the club.

Hopefully, Steve will have a long and happy life spending his hard earned on BCFC and the egg chasers and should the worst happen, we can hope that Jon will want to carry on the dynasty.

As he's already at City you'd imagine so in some fashion. If he didn't have in interest in City doubt he'd work there.

[friendlygas]

It just means that you and SL have to live happilly ever after or what??????? Steve Lansdown CONTROLS your destiny and you have no choice whatsoever in the matter. Fall outs occur everywhere so to say all the debt is owed to himself so its a nonissue is very niave of you Nibor. Can you honestly put hand on heart and say that if you get relegated and then fail to do well in League 1 and the rugby team dont improve that SL will continue to fund you. Just can't see it.There comes a time where a prudent businessman say's enough is enough and wants out. To say all the losses are down to him is also ridiculous. Without his funding you would definitely not be a Championship team and possibly would struggle in League 1. Had we had 41m pumped into us there is no way we would be where we are but of course there is no way that could happen to us so we just have to persevere and build up again slowly and accept where we are at this time.

[Nibor]

It just means that you and SL have to live happilly ever after or what??????? Steve Lansdown CONTROLS your destiny and you have no choice whatsoever in the matter. Fall outs occur everywhere so to say all the debt is owed to himself so its a nonissue is very niave of you Nibor. Can you honestly put hand on heart and say that if you get relegated and then fail to do well in League 1 and the rugby team dont improve that SL will continue to fund you. Just can't see it.There comes a time where a prudent businessman say's enough is enough and wants out. To say all the losses are down to him is also ridiculous. Without his funding you would definitely not be a Championship team and possibly would struggle in League 1. Had we had 41m pumped into us there is no way we would be where we are but of course there is no way that could happen to us so we just have to persevere and build up again slowly and accept where we are at this time.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about do you?

The debt is a non issue because it's owed to the owner of the business. He has in the past written it off by taking loan stock. All it is, is a barrier to finding a buyer. That's fine because we don't need one. Will SL continue to fund? You've missed the point again - he is looking to invest in the stadium so that underwriting losses isn't required every year. He's been quite clear about that.

Of course the losses are down to SL, since he authorised every penny that was spent. We have made it to this level and above without funding like SL has provided in the past and our club generates enough turnover to fund itself at this level from money the fans spend. You can look that up in the accounts. Struggle in league one my arse, we didn't struggle in league one before SL was on the board - in fact we got promoted.

If I was you, I'd divert your considerable business acumen (!) to worry about how your new stadium project, which has a greater than £20m funding shortfall after you have sold your ground, will leave you debt free. It's quite a conundrum that one. It must be a real comfort to know that you have a reliable, honest and trustworthy board in charge - not like that shyster Steve Lansdown! I'm sure you haven't been misled at all.

[friendlygas]

I am not at all worried about our finances but from reading this thread through there are very few of your fans who share your optimism with your grounds arrangements. You seem to be one of few who have been completely convinced that you are not actually losing control of your ground and that the ground share with the Rugby is based on you both being tenants of Steve lansdown. Anyway I will leave you in your satisfaction that all is well and your belief that your club can fund itself at Championship level which I am sure is not proven with your annual figures. As regards past funding well I am sure 1982 spoke for itself and without SL you would be in an even worse position now.

How can you say that you would have maintained this level even if Lansdown hadnt poured in the 41m? Amazing!!! The big trouble with football is that you CAN'T get by without the funding unless you are very lucky and this is proven by the fact that your club has spent millions but cannot compete football wise with most of the clubs in your division. Your problem is that you need success in order to maintain your turnover and if success doesnt come then you are not going to find that you can cover your losses and of course cannot buy your way out of trouble. As i understand it you are already way outside the wages barrier that applies next season so you will need to release players and replace on less wages-less wages less quality-simples. We have seen just how difficult it is to stay within the budget and still keep a reasonable team.

[Nibor]

You really aren't very good at this. Try reading what's actually written and replying to that rather than something you imagined.

We definitely aren't losing control of our ground if it's redeveloped. We know this since the Chairman said so last week, it's minuted on the official website. Our board have a track record of telling the truth, unlike yours.

We don't know what will happen if AV goes ahead, however I would bet on AV ownership being held by the same legal entity that owns the football club with the rugby club separate to that since the rugby club is not contributing any funding and we are putting in £20m and already have a stadium. We were lucky enough to resist south gloucester gypsies' attempt to steal our home you see, the rugby club sadly weren't. There is no reason for SL to change the ownership, just wishful thinking on your part, and about 30,000 irate reasons not to.

Our annual figures show a turnover of over £11m, which we know is enough at this level since we've seen teams get promoted from the Championship on half that. I didn't say we would have maintained this level without Lansdown's money, I said we generate enough turnover to fund ourselves at this level - that is based on what we know other clubs survive on in the Championship. Nobody can know what would have happened in some other circumstances. Our accounts show that we do not need success to maintain our present turnover, since it's been stable without any. Reducing wages will do us a great deal of good as will the fact that other clubs will have to do the same.

As for your finances, your debt is already £6m, and you have no turnover to speak of. You are embarking on a project with a total bill of more than twice (probably more than three times) the sale price of the stadium you stole from the rugby club, and you have no backers so will be borrowing privately against the development itself. UWE will own all the non match day revenue and the land you are leasing from them. And yet somehow your board has you all convinced this is going to make you "debt free". It's what is technically known as a confidence trick. I suspect Higgins will try and sell you all bonds or something next.

[TRL]

Could you explain how it makes financial sense? How does taking the stadium ownership away from Bristol City Holdings and vesting it in a different company benefit SL exactly?

If Bristol City fans allow our club (and it is OUR club) to be split from ownership of it's stadium then frankly we're ******* morons and we deserve everything we get. It cannot be allowed.

No rent paid by Bristol city or Rugby takes costs away from the clubs. They get to keep gate reciepts minus operating cost on match days, the Stadium company get to make profits from commercial activities awy from the sport (if marketed correctly).

At the end of the day, both clubs are Steve Lansdown's cash holes. He will not make much of, if any profit from either (definitly nopt the football club) If he were to charge rent, he is just taking money away from one business to prop up another business. He clearly is not in sport to make money, if he is he has us by the short and curlies, as the only salable asset apart from some players is the stadium. Now if we presume that SL is not in the the sports game to make a profit, then surely what he is doing here is not to the Benefit of SL, which you suggest, but for the benefit of Bristol Rugby club and Bristol City football club. He is taking away some of the financial constraints, and making the stadium company work harder to make it's own profits away from match day. After all the stadium only has to really cover expenditure, if run correctly it should make money away from football. Cash that can be pumped back in for redevelopment/back into Steves Coffers or shared between both clubs, whatever the plan is.

Those who support everything Steve lansdowns does at every opportunity, don't seem to see what he has done, we are entirely at his beck and call when it comes to the stadium and the club. Now I have moaned a lot about this, and do not agree with what he has done. I can hope he is only doing what he is doing for the good of the club, which you have to assume with the money he chucks at it.

At the end of the day this can go one of 2 ways, he has split the companies up, to take costs away from one (football club), with the hope of making the other a profitible venture (Stadium), for the benefit of the Stadium Company, Bristol Rugby and Bristol City. Or he has split them up, so if the time comes for it, he can sell off assets if he needs to, such as the stadium to a 3rd part who will quite happily raise the rents, or to a developer to knock down, thus recouping some of his outlay. How much the actual football club is worth, I don't know, all depends if SL wanted out if he would be willing to write his own debt of to make a quick sale.

Apologies for typos, and rambling, I am on a train using my phone, and got fed up of changing mistakes every time the train lurches.

[Nibor]

No rent paid by Bristol city or Rugby takes costs away from the clubs. They get to keep gate reciepts minus operating cost on match days, the Stadium company get to make profits from commercial activities awy from the sport (if marketed correctly).

Moving the ownership does not prevent him from charging or not charging whatever rent he liked or arranging the income how he likes. None of those things change his overall financial position, so there is no financial benefit in doing any of that.

[NickJ]

Having one man who holds, if not all, but most of the cards, concerns me, but only because of what happened to Gretna FC. Financed from the lower leagues to the SPL and then wiped out because, IIRC, at the time the owner became ill and subsequently died, his family withdrew all funding to the club.

Hopefully, Steve will have a long and happy life spending his hard earned on BCFC and the egg chasers and should the worst happen, we can hope that Jon will want to carry on the dynasty.

Well said and is exactly the point of my objection to the control of Bristol City by just one person, or part of it.

It doesn't even have to be something as drastic as the demise of Steve. If Hargreaves Lansdown collapsed tomorrow - stranger and more unlikely things have happened - would Steve be as seemingly benevolent towards Bristol City and Bristol Sport? Doubt it.

[TRL]

Moving the ownership does not prevent him from charging or not charging whatever rent he liked or arranging the income how he likes. None of those things change his overall financial position, so there is no financial benefit in doing any of that.

No financial benefit for him granted, which I have pointed out already, and was not the point of my post. but plenty of benefit when supplying accounts and adhereing to FFP for the individual entities, Bristol Rugby, Bristol City and the stadium company.

I have pointed out in real terms to SL how it may benefit him if he is to ever sell up, but you haven't quoted that bit for some reason. But in terms on a on going concern in which he is interested in owning, Shifting where money is saved and gained can make a big difference

[Nibor]

No financial benefit for him granted, which I have pointed out already, and was not the point of my post. but plenty of benefit when supplying accounts and adhereing to FFP for the individual entities, Bristol Rugby, Bristol City and the stadium company.

I have pointed out in real terms to SL how it may benefit him if he is to ever sell up, but you haven't quoted that bit for some reason. But in terms on a on going concern in which he is interested in owning, Shifting where money is saved and gained can make a big difference

I didn't quote the rest of your post because it wasn't really answering the question I asked. I'm glad you agree there's no financial benefit to changing the ownership of the ground.

There isn't any difference in terms of FFP, nor is there any tax difference. Moving money around within a group doesn't improve any position. The FFP regs are clever enough to recognise groups, as are the revenue.

The structure doesn't make it any easier or harder to sell up either, it's perfectly possible to sell assets without them being split into separate companies.

So, actually there aren't any financial benefits to anybody in moving the ownership outside BCFC Holdings.

It's quite simple. There is no reason for the stadium's ownership to be untied from the football club or tied to the rugby club. We as fans should recognise how massively important it is for the club to remain attached to it's stadium and pressure SL to make his intentions clear. If there is any move to separate the two, it must be resisted fully.

[weeble]

If I was you, I'd divert your considerable business acumen (!) to worry about how your new stadium project, which has a greater than £20m funding shortfall after you have sold your ground, will leave you debt free. It's quite a conundrum that one. It must be a real comfort to know that you have a reliable, honest and trustworthy board in charge - not like that shyster Steve Lansdown! I'm sure you haven't been misled at all.

Most unlikely for a number of reasons.

1) The project cost (including nominal land values etc) is £40m but the construction cost will be much less. E.g. Brighton's new ground has a project cost of £93m but cost £66m to build.

2) Because of its catchment area and the lack of alternative sites, the site is worth more to Sainsbury's than Ashton Gate - around £28m. (Last years shareholders report for Sainsbury's apparently shows a provision for £31m for stores in Bristol)

3) If the ratio of construction to project cost is similar to Brighton's then there isn't a funding gap.

4) Construction is what Nick Higgs knows about and UWE aren't going to get involved in something that won't work.

[BS3 GAS]

You really aren't very good at this. Try reading what's actually written and replying to that rather than something you imagined.

We definitely aren't losing control of our ground if it's redeveloped. We know this since the Chairman said so last week, it's minuted on the official website. Our board have a track record of telling the truth, unlike yours.

We don't know what will happen if AV goes ahead, however I would bet on AV ownership being held by the same legal entity that owns the football club with the rugby club separate to that since the rugby club is not contributing any funding and we are putting in £20m and already have a stadium. We were lucky enough to resist south gloucester gypsies' attempt to steal our home you see, the rugby club sadly weren't. There is no reason for SL to change the ownership, just wishful thinking on your part, and about 30,000 irate reasons not to.

Our annual figures show a turnover of over £11m, which we know is enough at this level since we've seen teams get promoted from the Championship on half that. I didn't say we would have maintained this level without Lansdown's money, I said we generate enough turnover to fund ourselves at this level - that is based on what we know other clubs survive on in the Championship. Nobody can know what would have happened in some other circumstances. Our accounts show that we do not need success to maintain our present turnover, since it's been stable without any. Reducing wages will do us a great deal of good as will the fact that other clubs will have to do the same.

As for your finances, your debt is already £6m, and you have no turnover to speak of. You are embarking on a project with a total bill of more than twice (probably more than three times) the sale price of the stadium you stole from the rugby club, and you have no backers so will be borrowing privately against the development itself. UWE will own all the non match day revenue and the land you are leasing from them. And yet somehow your board has you all convinced this is going to make you "debt free". It's what is technically known as a confidence trick. I suspect Higgins will try and sell you all bonds or something next.

"UWE will own all the non match day revenue"

complete BS mate.... Rovers will own the stadium and all that goes on within it includeing non matchday revenues, they woill LEASE THE LAND on a peppercorn rent , not the stadium parts of the stadium and its facilites will be used by the UWE ex gratia yes but all monies taken from confrencing, concerts, weddings ect ect will go to Rovers

Your very quick to tell people to get there facts and figures right and accuse people of making stuff up yet do exactly the same thing yourself.

As for AG or AV and the rugby club sharing /Part owning it.... its the best deal for Lansdown thats all that matters to him as he owns both so putting both in 1 place will save HIM money the relevance of who owns the stadium is kind of irrelevent ... City or Rugby Club matters not as the ground is owned by Lansdown in the same way UWE and most other Stadiums are owned by the club owners , fact is SL bankrolls yourselves and Bristol RC and covers the losses so its him who will make the money from the ground and will dish the money out to who he wants to... my worry if i was a red would be if Bristol RC become succesful in the Premiership and City flounder for a while, then the money making arm of Bristol Sports LTd will become the rugby club not BCFC and the worry would be that in thoses circumstances he could favour the Rugby Club... all ifs and buts and FWIW i cant see therugby club troubling the Rugby big league for a while and you lot now have a much better chance of staying up.