Ashton Vale V Ashton Gate

[TRL]

It seems SL himself is unaware of these circumstances. Unless he goes bankrupt, which he won't, I'll sleep easy tonight.

That's okay then. Sweet dreams

I will give you a scenario. I hope it never ever comes to fruition.

Steve and his family all go on holiday. Plane crashes. All gone. The will and estate goes to probate. Then relatives fight over it ensuring no money is released... we owe millions.... who pays?

I mention this as I have seen a business go under in very similar circumstances.

[NickJ]

There’s a bit of me that thinks Nick has his tongue in his cheek (or cider in his veins) when relying so heavily on a comment from the Club that supports his argument. As Kibs states in this thread, it makes perfect sense for the Club to initially argue that AV is the only option when needing to get planning permission. Having so far failed to overcome the TVG hurdle and created a Plan B it now also make sense that the Club would want to convince us that this option is just as good financially.

Personally I suspect that AG will be less income generative but it’s certainly my preferred option. It’s not all about the money. The overwhelming show of hands for AG was a repeat of an earlier overwhelming show of hands in favour of AG at a Supporters Club & Trust meeting a month or two ago. It was on the basis of 95% of supporters in our survey wanting a new stadium that the Supporters Club & Trust backed AV.

As one of a very small minority that consistently questioned the alleged ability of a 30,000 stadium in location A to generate more income than a 30,000 stadium in location B - which is what the club claimed - and being continually pilloried and possibly slandered for my views, I'm enjoying the moment, Milo.

The phrase you use "the Club would want to convince us" is quite apt - it;s not what the fans want that they care about, but what they want us to have. There was a massive agenda regarding AV and the majority were hoodwinked into believing the hype.

I also questioned and continue to question the validity of the loaded survey, loaded because the complete range of choices - one of which could have explicitly included, but didn't, a vote for a redeveloped AG - was not offered. From my conversations with dozens of City fans, I would have put a vote at more like 95% for a redeveloped AG.

All of a sudden, since the planned redevelopment of AG was announced, the majority are now saying something along the lines of, "well yes I kept quiet before but secretly I would have prefererd to stay at AG all along, I just didnt think (due to the spin) it was possible".

What it amounts to is this. IF the statement by Martin Griffithis is correct then,

EITHER the club were wrong about AV and have acknowledged their mistake

OR the club lied about AV, in order to achieve the result they wanted.

Now, IF it was the second scenario, what gives them the right to do that, to attempt to influence the most significant fundamental decision to be made in living memory, to an outcome they want, by misleading us, the supporters?

On the other hand, IF it was the first scenario, and they just got it a bit wrong, how does that leave their credibility in terms of financial analysis and decision making?

However you look at it, this latest revelation does not reflect well on "the Club".

I'm happy as larry about it as it's proved me and a few others right, but also it's what I wanted - and clearly, it is now being recognized, did the majority .

[Kibs]

That's okay then. Sweet dream

I'm not going to bed yet, it's not 8:00.

:-)

[Esmond Million's Bung]

It seems SL himself is unaware of these circumstances. Unless he goes bankrupt, which he won't, I'll sleep easy tonight.

The whole point of AV was to give the club a virtually new debt free start and put the club in a healthy position to move forward but now there will be over 100 mil of debt and playing in a patch work quilt of a stadium.

The only real good news would be, with that amount of debt it puts us out of reach of dubious foreign owners who might want us to change colours etc. but to be honest we will have same amount of debt as Cardiff anyway.

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

And the other option is to sit still and do **** all.

Exactly....they would probably then be criticised by plenty of people on here saying that the board aren't putting their hands in their pockets especially when the Gas are getting a new ground.

Damned if the do and damned if they don't.

[TRL]

I'm not going to bed yet, it's not 8:00.

:-)

I edited it by the way.

And you will go to bed now, or there will be no birthday or christmas presents for you this year!!!!

[Esmond Million's Bung]

As one of a very small minority that consistently questioned the alleged ability of a 30,000 stadium in location A to generate more income than a 30,000 stadium in location B - which is what the club claimed - and being continually pilloried and possibly slandered for my views, I'm enjoying the moment, Milo.

The phrase you use "the Club would want to convince us" is quite apt - it;s not what the fans want that they care about, but what they want us to have. There was a massive agenda regarding AV and the majority were hoodwinked into believing the hype.

I also questioned and continue to question the validity of the loaded survey, loaded because the complete range of choices - one of which could have explicitly included, but didn't, a vote for a redeveloped AG - was not offered. From my conversations with dozens of City fans, I would have put a vote at more like 95% for a redeveloped AG.

All of a sudden, since the planned redevelopment of AG was announced, the majority are now saying something along the lines of, "well yes I kept quiet before but secretly I would have prefererd to stay at AG all along, I just didnt think (due to the spin) it was possible".

What it amounts to is this. IF the statement by Martin Griffithis is correct then,

EITHER the club were wrong about AV and have acknowledged their mistake

OR the club lied about AV, in order to achieve the result they wanted.

Now, IF it was the second scenario, what gives them the right to do that, to attempt to influence the most significant fundamental decision to be made in living memory, to an outcome they want, by misleading us, the supporters?

On the other hand, IF it was the first scenario, and they just got it a bit wrong, how does that leave their credibility in terms of financial analysis and decision making?

However you look at it, this latest revelation does not reflect well on "the Club".

I'm happy as larry about it as it's proved me and a few others right, but also it's what I wanted - and clearly, it is now being recognized, did the majority .

What the club knew was that AV would give SL a chance of getting all his money back and leave BCFC in a healthier position, but now we are set to double our debt, that's good.

[Kibs]

The whole point of AV was to give the club a virtually new debt free start and put the club in a healthy position to move forward but now there will be over 100 mil of debt and playing in a patch work quilt of a stadium.

The only real good news would be, with that amount of debt it puts us out of reach of dubious foreign owners who might want us to change colours etc. but to be honest we will have same amount of debt as Cardiff anyway.

So who is funding Ashton vale?

[Barrs Court Red]

The option is to initially wait and see what happens in October is it?, because as far as I am aware the club hasn't pulled the plug on AV just informed the fans that for once they have a plan b and I think that was to face off any criticism about the gas getting their new stadium before ours.

I think the stomach went for av awhile ago. Why do I thibk this? My personal feeling was that it was a vehicle to open the land up to redevelopment. As there will now be a continued planning battle the mask has slipped and even if we "win" in October, no stadium will be built there.

I will be very disappointed if this is tbe case, but I do like the sounds about the AG rebuild, especially the safe standing aspect.

[Bristol Rob]

We hope.

There are many variables that could require him having to call it in even if he doesn't want to. Be it administration and taking a massive hit or by selling off to the highest bidder.

Life can be unpredictable sometimes. Eggs in one basket of someone is always a dangerous game.

Fingers crossed it doesn't happen.

I enjoyed reading your comments in an earlier thread and whilst I disagree with your view on SL and how the club is being run, I do wonder why you are so vocal about it, given that you've said you won't be attending anymore.

You've withdrawn your support, which is fair enough, you've the right to do so, but to keep banging on about what a bad job you think the owner is doing is a bit strange. You're effectively trolling the owner with your constant whinging, without actually having the ongoing investment that is a regular match ticket, it's a bit like people complaining about the government but never bothering to vote.

If you want to effect change, apply to be on one of the supporters boards that get to question and challenge the club, do it in person or via one of the elected channels of representation and raise your questions in the appropriate manner.

To just keep posting the same negative opinion isn't remotely helpful to anyone, least of all you, as you are starting to sounds increasingly upset.

[CodeRed]

The whole point of AV was to give the club a virtually new debt free start and put the club in a healthy position to move forward but now there will be over 100 mil of debt and playing in a patch work quilt of a stadium.

The only real good news would be, with that amount of debt it puts us out of reach of dubious foreign owners who might want us to change colours etc. but to be honest we will have same amount of debt as Cardiff anyway.

Sorry - I don't understand why AV would have made BCFC debt free ?

Have I missed something?

I understand there was additional money to be made from the other (non stadium) developments of the AV site but my understanding was that the benificeries of this would be Vence (the partnership with JP -&SL/JL).

I havn't seen anywhere - but may have missed it - that says we go into AV debt free................where does the debt go?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

So who is funding Ashton vale?

There were other building projects scheduled for the land lots of them, 500 houses for a start wasn't it?

But hey if you believe more than 100 mil of debt is the way forward hey ho.

[TRL]

I enjoyed reading your comments in an earlier thread and whilst I disagree with your view on SL and how the club is being run, I do wonder why you are so vocal about it, given that you've said you won't be attending anymore.

You've withdrawn your support, which is fair enough, you've the right to do so, but to keep banging on about what a bad job you think the owner is doing is a bit strange. You're effectively trolling the owner with your constant whinging, without actually having the ongoing investment that is a regular match ticket, it's a bit like people complaining about the government but never bothering to vote.

If you want to effect change, apply to be on one of the supporters boards that get to question and challenge the club, do it in person or via one of the elected channels of representation and raise your questions in the appropriate manner.

To just keep posting the same negative opinion isn't remotely helpful to anyone, least of all you, as you are starting to sounds increasingly upset.

This isn't trolling. This is pointing out why I think individual ownership is not good.

People think Steve will bail us out no matter what. Great if he does. If he can't then what.

This particular point is nothing to do with Steve, it is relying on a individual in general. It is a situation I don't like.

[screech]

Please somebody answer me, where will the money to re-deveolpe AG actually come from?

The money is coming from Steve Lansdown as you well know.

The difference in this is AV was an estimated £90m project, the sell off from the gate was about £25m some reported. This left a staggering short fall of £65m.

And a redeveloped AG is in the £40-£45m region. With the club saying the projected income being nearly the same, you have to ask why AV is considered a better option.

[Kibs]

There were other building projects scheduled for the land lots of them, 500 houses for a start wasn't it?

But hey if you believe more than 100 mil of debt is the way forward hey ho.

Ashton vale current projected cost is £92m.

SL would be funding at least half of that himself and the other half from AG sale and private investment- or so said the news stories at the time.

That still leaves us with virtually the same debt doesn't it?

What's the difference ?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Sorry - I don't understand why AV would have made BCFC debt free ?

Have I missed something?

I understand there was additional money to be made from the other (non stadium) developments of the AV site but my understanding was that the benificeries of this would be Vence (the partnership with JP -&SL/JL).

I havn't seen anywhere - but may have missed it - that says we go into AV debt free................where does the debt go?

Let me put it another way then, AV is just about the only hope SL has of recouping his 41 mil of debt from the club and I suspect that at this moment in time he would view as a win/win/

[Bristol Rob]

This isn't trolling. This is pointing out why I think individual ownership is not good.

People think Steve will bail us out no matter what. Great if he does. If he can't then what.

This particular point is nothing to do with Steve, it is relying on a individual in general. It is a situation I don't like.

And what I'm saying is, 'you've made your point, there's no need to labour it'.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Ashton vale current projected cost is £92m.

SL would be funding at least half of that himself and the other half from AG sale and private investment- or so said the news stories at the time.

That still leaves us with virtually the same debt doesn't it?

What's the difference ?

So you are saying that the associated projects scheduled for AV, would only benefit SL and not the club?.

[Kibs]

So you are saying that the associated projects scheduled for AV, would only benefit SL and not the club?.

No, im saying we would still be near on £100m in debt to SL - whichever route we take.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

No, im saying we would still be near on £100m in debt to SL - whichever route we take.

So where will the other profits go to? charity? somebody will benefit and that will be presumably be SL? or the club.

[CodeRed]

Let me put it another way then, AV is just about the only hope SL has of recouping his 41 mil of debt from the club and I suspect that at this moment in time he would view as a win/win/

Ah! - sorry I thought you had some info we missed

Yes he would have made money from the wider AV development (housing hotel etc and of course the hope for him that eventually the site could expand giving scope for further development) .- all of which would have made him a happier bunny.

But he certainly hasn't ever given the impression that this extra revenue for himself, JL, and JP was somehow going to come BCFC's way or that it would mean he would write off the loans.

You have to see the AV site (owned by Vence) as a separate entity from BCFC. SL builds a stadium and the income from it goes to AV Ltd ... BCFC pay rent to AV Ltd......The rest of the site is developed by Vence for profit - nothing to do with BCFC

[CodeRed]

So you are saying that the associated projects scheduled for AV, would only benefit SL and not the club?.

Well I am anytway

[Bristol Rob]

So where will the other profits go to? charity? somebody will benefit and that will be presumably be SL? or the club.

The fact that the argument is where the 'profit' will go is surely encouraging!

We never hear the argument that 'Maybe the club should get someone else to pay the millions every year maintaining the current facility.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Ah! - sorry I thought you had some info we missed

Yes he would have made money from the wider AV development (housing hotel etc and of course the hope for him that eventually the site could expand giving scope for further development) .- all of which would have made him a happier bunny.

But he certainly hasn't ever given the impression that this extra revenue for himself, JL, and JP was somehow going to come BCFC's way or that it would mean he would write off the loans.

You have to see the AV site (owned by Vence) as a separate entity from BCFC. SL builds a stadium and the income from it goes to AV Ltd ... BCFC pay rent to AV Ltd......The rest of the site is developed by Vence for profit - nothing to do with BCFC

OK , we finally got there, thanks for making TRL's point about 1 person owning the club so succinctly.

[TRL]

And what I'm saying is, 'you've made your point, there's no need to labour it'.

Maybe I should it seems people keep repeating he is a saviour. But I can't reiterate flaws I see in single ownership.

If I go quietly he can get on with moulding city in his own view. Then I will never get back to AG or AV. Which will make me a tad disappointed.

[Bristol Rob]

Maybe I should it seems people keep repeating he is a saviour. But I can't reiterate flaws I see in single ownership.

If I go quietly he can get on with moulding city in his own view. Then I will never get back to AG or AV. Which will make me a tad disappointed.

But you've already said that whilst the Lansdowns are in charge, you won't be going again, you've not said 'if they run the club to MY exactly specifications, I'll return'

To be honest, if I was SL and was foolish enough to read this forum, I'd be rapidly losing patience with some on here who won't be happy whatever he does, and I'd be minded to think... 'flip 'em, I'll call my debt in and kill the club off, it's what these people want so they can say they were right'.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

But you've already said that whilst the Lansdowns are in charge, you won't be going again, you've not said 'if they run the club to MY exactly specifications, I'll return'

To be honest, if I was SL and was foolish enough to read this forum, I'd be rapidly losing patience with some on here who won't be happy whatever he does, and I'd be minded to think... 'flip 'em, I'll call my debt in and kill the club off, it's what these people want so they can say they were right'.

Well you can't have it all ways can you?, firstly we are being told SL has no intention of calling in the debt and then you describe a circumstance where he might. Then we are being told SL has the interests of BCFC as his first priority and then the same people are saying AV is more about earning SL more shekels and not about a new ground.

[TRL]

But you've already said that whilst the Lansdowns are in charge, you won't be going again, you've not said 'if they run the club to MY exactly specifications, I'll return'

To be honest, if I was SL and was foolish enough to read this forum, I'd be rapidly losing patience with some on here who won't be happy whatever he does, and I'd be minded to think... 'flip 'em, I'll call my debt in and kill the club off, it's what these people want so they can say they were right'.

Just because I will not be going to home matches doesn't mean I cannot have an opinion. If that was the case many here would not be able to post.

Is my opinion still valid when I travel away from home? If that is the case I will remember to only give commentary on the days I come back from away games.

And yes I may be a little happier if he left. I can't remember being consulted when he chose to take over and mould the club in his vision. Of course if he is as great as people think he is, then he will leave it with no debt...

Like I said earlier I can only hope. Now if he gets in others for some sort of joint running, I may be swayed back onside. But never while he is the sole owner.

[Cider red]

Well you can't have it all ways can you?, firstly we are being told SL has no intention of calling in the debt and then you describe a circumstance where he might. Then we are being told SL has the interests of BCFC as his first priority and then the same people are saying AV is more about earning SL more shekels and not about a new ground.

The thing is though esmond the only fact in what youve said is lansdown won't call in the debt. The rest is forum speculation. You say with the redevelopment we will be 100 mil in debt, thats actually substantially less than av! Seems like sl cant win! Would you rather have a foreign oil baron in charge!?

[NickJ]

The thing is though esmond the only fact in what youve said is lansdown won't call in the debt. The rest is forum speculation. You say with the redevelopment we will be 100 mil in debt, thats actually substantially less than av! Seems like sl cant win! Would you rather have a foreign oil baron in charge!?

In all seriousness, what difference would it make?

How would things be different, right now?