Ashton Vale V Ashton Gate

[Bowie]

I'm not missing any points about the income comparisons for each ground, you tell me if you can raise as much income from 27,000 seats or 30,000 seats.

As for who's involved in the parliament, there's obviously people from the Trust and some interested reps from the EE and other parts of the current ground, all of whom are interested in the redevelopment of AG. They are being talked to by people from the club that want to keep fans happy.

You are missing the point.

Neither me or Nick are stating that the some money can be made from different grounds.

THE CLUB are stating that, that the income will be the same.

[NickJ]

1. I'm not missing any points about the income comparisons for each ground, you tell me if you can raise as much income from 27,000 seats or 30,000 seats.

2. As for who's involved in the parliament, there's obviously people from the Trust and some interested reps from the EE and other parts of the current ground, all of whom are interested in the redevelopment of AG. They are being talked to by people from the club that want to keep fans happy.

1. Ask the club - they are the ones now saying the income from redeveloped AG will be the same as AV.

2. Wrong again because the Supporters Trust were 100% behind AV and even organized that ring-a-ring-a-roses thing.

[Rich]

Unfortunately for you Rich the club themselves have destroyed your arguments because whereas before they were saying we could not survive at Ashton Gate, now they are saying that AG can generate as much income as AV.

So it's not a question of IF I am right - the club have confirmed I was, and a few others, all along.

No, wrong again, its the Fans Parliamant officially endosed by the club, comprising fans from a wide cross section.

And to be fair, because I will give credit where its due, the FP does appear to be developing into a little bit more than just the talking shop that I thought it might be.

Unfortunately for you Nick, I can tell when your smugness is getting in the way of common sense. The club will spin anything to get their way and keep fans happy. You now believe what the club are saying when you agree that the stadium redeveloped can raise as much income as a new larger AV. Now cut the bullshit and tell me how it is possible for that smaller capacity stadium with smaller facilities all round, able to raise the same revenue as the larger one with more parking and better all round facilities, using your new found beliefs and accountancy skills. Or are you just using the clubs statements and this current scenario to argue your case for no AV, which you've done all along.

Don't side step the question again please.

[BS15_RED]

I hope he delivers what has been planned and if he does I would have no issue with him adding that to the outstanding debt, especially as he has stated that he will not be calling in the debt (presumably unless we are in a position to pay it back...surely that's an incentive for him to try and push this club forward).

I'm not saying that being in debt to anyone is a good thing but we clearly cannot pay for all this on our own.

If this IS all just a load of rubbish designed to keep us quiet then my opinion of their management of the club would be very similar to yours however I still believe that SL has the best interests of Bristol City at heart.

Fair play, that's all reasonable what you're saying.

[NickJ]

Unfortunately for you Nick, I can tell when your smugness is getting in the way of common sense. The club will spin anything to get their way and keep fans happy.

RICH QUOTE:

"THE CLUB WILL SPIN ANYTHING TO GET THEIR WAY AND KEEP FANS HAPPY".

You said it pal, not me.

[Rich]

1. Ask the club - they are the ones now saying the income from redeveloped AG will be the same as AV.

2. Wrong again because the Supporters Trust were 100% behind AV and even organized that ring-a-ring-a-roses thing.

You are agreeing and championing the see I told you so argument and as you put it "So the alleged minority in opposition to a new stadium were right along then" So you are saying that you are right and have been all along and now the club confirm this So please use your own words and explain how it is possible, this thing that you believe..

[TBW]

If you rip everything out of Ashton Gate and replace it with new it doesn't make it the same place just because it's in the same location.

Go to Vale for ***** sake.

[Rich]

RICH QUOTE:

"THE CLUB WILL SPIN ANYTHING TO GET THEIR WAY AND KEEP FANS HAPPY".

You said it pal, not me.

And you said sweet FA in reply to my question about comparible finances of the two stadiums.

Tell me how it's possible to raise as much revenue from a smaller stadium with inferior facilities.

[BS15_RED]

If you rip everything out of Ashton Gate and replace it with new it doesn't make it the same place just because it's in the same location.

Go to Vale for ***** sake.

It's two new stands, and the others refurbished, of course it's the same place. What a ridiculous thing to say.

[NickJ]

And you said sweet FA in reply to my question about comparible finances of the two stadiums.

Tell me how it's possible to raise as much revenue from a smaller stadium with inferior facilities.

I don't need to reply.

CAN YOU NOT READ - THE CLUB HAVE SAID SO.

They've made you and your unconditional support look rather stupid, haven't they.

[kevinmabbuttshair]

I don't need to reply.

CAN YOU NOT READ - THE CLUB HAVE SAID SO.

They've made you and your unconditional support look rather stupid, haven't they.

Amen brother

[Rich]

Have you seen the revised plans than were discussed at the meeting? I'm guessing not?

The boxes will prove signicantly improved income, not so much in league one but at Championship level they are of a massive income,

Do you also realise that we are the only club in the football league without a single corporate box?

The planned boxes will not be as good/big as they could be, they will also reduce capacity by 500 and the access will be poor. I do know that we are well behind the times with corporate facilities, that's why I've been championing the case for boxes at the rear of the stand for years, prior to the new stadium plans being proposed.

I'm still waiting for specific plans to be sent to me re: the boxes.

I've done more than my fair share towards the clubs plans over the years which have resulted in many personal difficulties as a result. I now no longer have the time or funds to commit any more of my time to attending meetings and other events.

I would hazzard a guess that the rugby will provide more income from corporate facilities more regularly than football and that, when calculating comparable income streams, the club are compairing a redeveloped AG including income from the rugby club, while with AV excluding the rugby club. Ask yourself this, if they are seriously considering AG redevelopment, why then calculate income streams for AV as a comparison, when the original are already available, which probably don't include the rugby income. In that instance the figures might be comparable.

[Nogbad the Bad]

I'll be sick as a pig if City now end up at Ashton Vale, bloody horrible thought.

Long live Ashton Gate.

[Rich]

I don't need to reply.

CAN YOU NOT READ - THE CLUB HAVE SAID SO.

They've made you and your unconditional support look rather stupid, haven't they.

I can read, you have quoted what the club representative has said. You agreed with it and used it as some sort of proof that you and like minded people are correct in your beliefs and have been all along.

Now it's you that is being stupid because I asked you to explain your beliefs that a smaller stadium with inferior facilities can produce the same revenue. You believe it, you prove it.

You are an accountant, you use the clubs statement on finance to claim victory in your argument, as in your original post.

So far you have not even attempted to answer the question posed, because you know it is not possible but it suits your argument to refer to the statement.

If you believe the statement, then answer the question, if you don't believe it then you argument against the new stadium is fundamentaly flawed regarding the financing.

This is an opportunity for you to blow me out of the water and prove your argument but you choose to ignore the question, I wonder why.

[Rich]

I'll be sick as a pig if City now end up at Ashton Vale, bloody horrible thought.

Long live Ashton Gate.

I also would love to stay at the gate, I just believe that the best chance of long term success lies away over the road.

I also want the chance for Bristol to maybe hold international matches, as it stands there's no chance.

[Manon]

I don't need to reply.

CAN YOU NOT READ - THE CLUB HAVE SAID SO.

Are you serious? So you take it as gospel, whatever the club say? Tad naive.

There is no way in hell that AG can ever compete with AV in revenue...

I think what they are trying to say is that AG will suffice when redeveloped - that in essence we can survive there after all, whereas at AV we would have the opportunity to prosper.

That's how I am reading it anyway, but they've either worded it poorly, or worse, just thought that we'd believe any old crap they toss us.

[NickJ]

Rich, I am now in agreement with the club, or at least with what they say this week.

So why would I want to write a friggin essay proving something I concur with.

As its you that now disbelieve what the club say, what with their spin and all, why dont YOU go and prove them wrong, same as I did.

[NickJ]

Are you serious? So you take it as gospel, whatever the club say? Tad naive.

There is no way in hell that AG can ever compete with AV in revenue...

I think what they are trying to say is that AG will suffice when redeveloped - that in essence we can survive there after all, whereas at AV we would have the opportunity to prosper.

That's how I am reading it anyway, but they've either worded it poorly, or worse, just thought that we'd believe any old crap they toss us.

If there is one thing I'm not, when it comes to the club, it's being naive with what is said.

Not so long ago AV would generate substantially more income for BCFC than AG. Now it's going to be the same. That doesn't sound very much like "AG will suffice" to me.

They can't have it both ways.

[Rich]

Rich, I am now in agreement with the club, or at least with what they say this week.

So why would I want to write a friggin essay proving something I concur with.

As its you that now disbelieve what the club say, what with their spin and all, why dont YOU go and prove them wrong, same as I did.

So what you are saying is that the redeveloped AG will be able to produce as much revenue as the new AV stadium.

I don't believe that is true, I don't believe that you think it's true, I think you're only highlighting this statement as a propoganda excerscise. You have avoided answering my question and avoided the chance to once and for all prove that the redeveloped AG can offer the same revenues as AV. I believe that the reason you won't answer is because you know you'd be lying and you can't bring yourself to do that. It's simple really here's the question : If you sell 30,000 tickets at £25 is that more than selling 27,000 tickets at £25. According to you they should return the same amount of income. Some accountant!

[Guest]

I'll be sick as a pig if City now end up at Ashton Vale, bloody horrible thought.

Long live Ashton Gate.

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The dream is AV reality is AG and finding a team to fill it

[weeble]

So what you are saying is that the redeveloped AG will be able to produce as much revenue as the new AV stadium.

I don't believe that is true, I don't believe that you think it's true, I think you're only highlighting this statement as a propoganda excerscise. You have avoided answering my question and avoided the chance to once and for all prove that the redeveloped AG can offer the same revenues as AV. I believe that the reason you won't answer is because you know you'd be lying and you can't bring yourself to do that. It's simple really here's the question : If you sell 30,000 tickets at £25 is that more than selling 27,000 tickets at £25. According to you they should return the same amount of income. Some accountant!

It all depends on how you view it. Selling out every week it would be difficult to argue with your opinion. On the other hand, even in the Championship the average gate is comfortably below the 27,000 capacity.

If the club assume the same number of fans would turn up to either AG or AV, then they can say both grounds have equivalent revenue generating ability because the extra 3,000 seats at AV are unlikely to be filled by paying customers.

[Gazred]

If that was the case from the start, then the only reason i can see for trying to build at AV is because it would of been cheaper.....anyone able to confirm that?

To answer my own question. £40m to redevelop Ashton Gate and £92m to build Ashton Vale. If both projects are capable of generating the same income then why were they ever considering spending an extra £52m to reach the same end?

[Timbo7]

"... But MG explained that Ashton Gate can produce as much income as a new stadium at Ashton Vale"

I think it is perhaps a little unfair to read to much into this reassurance.

It is of course a fact that the potential maximum income available from 30,000 seats will exceed the maximum available from 27,000 seats, that a larger conference venue (if fully utilised) can earn more than a smaller one and 50 executive boxes can potentially earn more than 25.

However, how much will be earned (as opposed to the maximum which could be earned) will depend at least as much on demand as it does on supply.

As far as I know the club did not publish its revenue projections for Ashton Vale and hence we were left to speculate on the scale of benefit claimed. I thought then, I still think now and comparison with other clubs indicates that 27,000 seats will be more than enough. If there is huge demand for large capacity conference facilities in south-west Bristol I remain unable to understand why others are not tapping it. Others on this forum have indulged in wishfully thinking that Ashton Vale's non-football revenue potential might somehow be enough on its own to fund a premier league squad which of course it could not.

Truth is that any realistic revenue projection for Ashton Vale will not be based on 100% utilisation and hence the impact of a marginally smaller capacity at Ashton Gate will also be at most marginal.

On other points:

• rough estimates I have previously made suggest that the net capex investment required to redevelop Ashton Gate will be higher (mainly because of lost sale to Sainsbury's revenue) and all other things being equal this might swing the decision - but not so much higher as to make the redevelopment option a non-starter
• the estimate of revenue impact of loss of 500 seats at the back of the Dolman Stand (£100,000 per match) seems to have been miscalculated by a factor of 10 and will only apply in any event on the rare days we turn spectators away
• there has rarely been a development project which does not involve the team looking to reduce capex costs (euphemistically referred to as "value engineering") - there is little doubt that the same processes would/will be applied if Ashton Vale ever gets a green light
• I suspect that sharing with rugby has been in SL's mind from the outset whichever option is pursued.

The key point in all of this is that in 2008 and for some time afterwards SL sought (with some success) to silence the doubters by claiming there was no viable alternative to Ashton Vale. He chose not to back this up with any figures but many said we should simply have faith. Now we have seen an about-turn - not only is redevelopment viable - it also has no significant adverse impact on projected revenues.

I suspect that neither position is (or ever was) entirely accurate and the reality is that redevelopment is financially inferior but not by so much that the intangible and emotional benefits of staying in our historic home can be ignored.

As a direct consequence of this sorry chapter in our history, our Board of Directors has neglected its duty to ensure the adequacy of our matchday facilities for more than a decade.

One final point - if it is true that we are the only club in the League that does not have a single executive box then this offers a tiny crumb of comfort to those (like myself) who mourn the passing of the "People's Game".

[Red Exile]

I think this thread lays bare a fault line that has widened between supporters in recent years...between those with faith in SL and those who are more suspicious/cynical. After initial enthusiasm in 2008/09 I've moved firmly into the latter camp.

Strikes me that when AV was first proposed it offered SL an opportunity to get some return on his investment in BCFC. The team was on a roll and had we made it to the Prem - as he was suggesting was the realistic objective when Coppell was appointed - we could have done so occupying a new stadium. SL's options to cash in and move on would have been considerably greater than they are today at AG.

But all those fancy presentations and earnest face to face chats at fan meetings at AG and pubs before away games were risky for SL's reputation with supporters. They ultimately raised expectations which have been wholly unrealised. As Timbo says, facilities at the Gate are no better than they were a decade ago. What's worse there are prominent members of this forum who put time and considerable effort into supporting AV...it's not clear what their reward has been or will ever be.

To Rich I'd say that your efforts have been noted and appreciated but the club is run in such a way that supporters will never have a real sense of how the finances stack up. To Nick J I'd say that on the face of it your position has been vindicated.

Personally I think it would be good for all sides if the club could articulate a coherent strategy for development on and off the pitch that all supporters could share and believe in. To convince me it would have to be something that was repeated again and again month after month, and not something presented to small groups - however representative - around the time that ST sales need to be drummed up.

[Rich]

"... But MG explained that Ashton Gate can produce as much income as a new stadium at Ashton Vale"

I think it is perhaps a little unfair to read to much into this reassurance.

It is of course a fact that the potential maximum income available from 30,000 seats will exceed the maximum available from 27,000 seats, that a larger conference venue (if fully utilised) can earn more than a smaller one and 50 executive boxes can potentially earn more than 25.

However, how much will be earned (as opposed to the maximum which could be earned) will depend at least as much on demand as it does on supply.

As far as I know the club did not publish its revenue projections for Ashton Vale and hence we were left to speculate on the scale of benefit claimed. I thought then, I still think now and comparison with other clubs indicates that 27,000 seats will be more than enough. If there is huge demand for large capacity conference facilities in south-west Bristol I remain unable to understand why others are not tapping it. Others on this forum have indulged in wishfully thinking that Ashton Vale's non-football revenue potential might somehow be enough on its own to fund a premier league squad which of course it could not.

Truth is that any realistic revenue projection for Ashton Vale will not be based on 100% utilisation and hence the impact of a marginally smaller capacity at Ashton Gate will also be at most marginal.

On other points:

• rough estimates I have previously made suggest that the net capex investment required to redevelop Ashton Gate will be higher (mainly because of lost sale to Sainsbury's revenue) and all other things being equal this might swing the decision - but not so much higher as to make the redevelopment option a non-starter
• the estimate of revenue impact of loss of 500 seats at the back of the Dolman Stand (£100,000 per match) seems to have been miscalculated by a factor of 10 and will only apply in any event on the rare days we turn spectators away
• there has rarely been a development project which does not involve the team looking to reduce capex costs (euphemistically referred to as "value engineering") - there is little doubt that the same processes would/will be applied if Ashton Vale ever gets a green light
• I suspect that sharing with rugby has been in SL's mind from the outset whichever option is pursued.

The key point in all of this is that in 2008 and for some time afterwards SL sought (with some success) to silence the doubters by claiming there was no viable alternative to Ashton Vale. He chose not to back this up with any figures but many said we should simply have faith. Now we have seen an about-turn - not only is redevelopment viable - it also has no significant adverse impact on projected revenues.

I suspect that neither position is (or ever was) entirely accurate and the reality is that redevelopment is financially inferior but not by so much that the intangible and emotional benefits of staying in our historic home can be ignored.

As a direct consequence of this sorry chapter in our history, our Board of Directors has neglected its duty to ensure the adequacy of our matchday facilities for more than a decade.

One final point - if it is true that we are the only club in the League that does not have a single executive box then this offers a tiny crumb of comfort to those (like myself) who mourn the passing of the "People's Game".

You are correct in many of your references but do not include the speculative factors of what could be. Income like demand, is relative to success, we have been held back in the modern game by our lack of decent faclilities with some references at times of players choosing other clubs over ours because of those facilities, who's to say that we might have been more successful being able to attract those players. There have been times when due to the limitations of our stadium that we have lost revenue, gone never to be recouped. that could be the same at a redeveloped AG or even AV, at least AV has the capabilities to expand, AG has not and never will.

I think too many people do not realise what could be. We have never ever had sustained success over a decent period of say ten years, or even a small amount of success over five years. What success we have had has been followed almost immediately by mediocrity and then failure, for whatever reason. We have never been able to tap into the potential of the catchment area. I believe that a firm foundation is being put into place, with investment in the accademy and training facilities, bringing those up to a decent standard for long term posterity. If that side of the club is top notch, then the only thing that let's it down, would be a poor second choice of redeveloping AG in favour of going the whole distance and going for it with a new stadium.

[Kibs]

Of course SL would say there is no alternative to AV and say Ashton Gate is not suitable etc - why wouldn't he?

AV was the first choice, it was selected for the world cup bid, the expansion opportunities are far greater and it would be more cost effective through the sale of AG.

To say otherwise could have weakened our position against the Nimbys. Saying there is no alternative also pressures the decision makers to side with us.

Our case would have been a lot weaker had he come out from the beginning and said "we can redevelop AG, but it's going to cost me a fortune, be disruptive and take longer so I want a new stadium instead"

The Nimbys would have been all over it.

We are now at the stage where it looks like the Nimbys will win so getting on with Ashton Gate is a must.

[Dolman Block B]

Whoever thinks that a revamp of the old stadium will create as much revenue as a new one is simply mental!!!

[Timbo7]

An excellent post Red Exile

I'm no advocate of modern management speak but the "Five Pillars" do seem like something we could all support. However, given the product on the park we do all need to see something tangible sooner rather than later. My fear is that based on past performance we could all find ourselves still blowing hot air on here about stadium proposals, the need for more productive youth development and improvements in recruitment in another five years.

[Show Me The Money!]

If I was SL reading lots of these comments I think I'd by saying "Sod you unappreciative lot, I'm off"

[beaverface]

If I was SL reading lots of these comments I think I'd by saying "Sod you unappreciative lot, I'm off"

Reading between the lines I think he may be!

Didnt SL say a couple of years ago that if Ashton Vale didnt happen he'd redevelop AG and pack his bags leaving City on a sound financial footing?