Ashton Vale V Ashton Gate

[Cider red]

In all seriousness, what difference would it make?

How would things be different, right now?

For one landsdown is a city fan, someone with no affinity to the club would not give the assurance of not calling the debt in. Yes sl has got us into debt by chasing the dream, a dream we all bought into. He has used his money and it hasn't worked, which he has admitted himself. But is know rebuilding the club in a more sustainable way, people need a scapegoat after relegation thats understandable. But all this over the top demonising sl is hypocritical imo.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

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!?

No 2 facts actually, AV will surely benefit BCFC/SL in every way, for a start it will make SL far more wealthy (according to the pro AGer's) how could that be bad for the club?.

of course I don't want a foreign oil baron in charge, I want what I consider is best for the long term future of the club and I believe that is AV and always will, AG has served it's purpose and now is unfit for purpose.

[Flaxbourton Red]

AV is over. Let it go...

[NickJ]

For one landsdown is a city fan, someone with no affinity to the club would not give the assurance of not calling the debt in. Yes sl has got us into debt by chasing the dream, a dream we all bought into. He has used his money and it hasn't worked, which he has admitted himself. But is know rebuilding the club in a more sustainable way, people need a scapegoat after relegation thats understandable. But all this over the top demonising sl is hypocritical imo.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that Steve was a Rovers fan longer than he has been a City fan, assurances about not calling the debt in are irrelevant. The debts are now largely owed to himself, so "calling the debt in" would mean Steve Lansdown paying Bristol City £40million, the same as would apply if the debt was owed to a foreigner or a man from Mars.

In one sense absolute respect to Steve for "chasing the dream" with his money, and nobody has criticised him for the sole act of putting money into the club. However in doing so the club which once had wide share ownership - for very sound historical reasons - is now owned largely by one individual. I see more downsides to that than I see benefits.

[Manon]

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 .

Hang on a minute. It's but necessarily EITHER of those.

Let's not lose sight of what actually happened. We were ready to build at AV, and were it not for the tvg, we would by now be in it.

The club have been backed into a corner, if AV does fail (which looks likely)there is no where to go. There are no alternative sites in bristol suitable, so we have to be prepared to just make the best of what we have got and hope it is enough.

I really don't believe AV is quite as dead as people are thinking though - and even if it is as much as, say, 70% likely to overcome the Tvg - surely it is still prudent to have a plan b ready to go the minute the news breaks, to minimalise further costly delays.

I think to say the club got it completely wrong - or even lied - is just maybe slightly unreasoned.

I'm sure there were half-truths thrown in, and exaggerations made by the club, but that's par for the course for any organisation PR is it not.

[NickJ]

I'm sure there were half-truths thrown in, and exaggerations made by the club, but that's par for the course for any organisation PR is it not.

Ignoring for the moment that a half-truth or exaggeration is by definition a lie, why would a football club want to be less than truthful with its own supporters?

[Guest]

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!?

Foreign investors and foreign players form the basis for top clubs in this country so why not? and if he wont call in his debt for his mistakes why not write it off now?

[Manon]

Ignoring for the moment that a half-truth or exaggeration is by definition a lie, why would a football club want to be less than truthful with its own supporters?

They'd need to find an angle to sell the fans the new stadium, that's natural. The fanbase has an attachment to the gate for obvious reasons. You can't just say 'ok guys, we're leaving. Like it or lump it'. That would be suicidal.

[Kibs]

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

I'm not sure what you're getting at?

You said:

"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."

I was just pointing out that we will still have the £100m so called debt whichever route we go down. There is no way AV is going to give the club a debt free start. SL will finance both.

It seems the club are now saying that the same revenue can now be generated by staying at AG as it could from AV which I'll admit, I find hard to believe.

[NickJ]

They'd need to find an angle to sell the fans the new stadium, that's natural. The fanbase has an attachment to the gate for obvious reasons. You can't just say 'ok guys, we're leaving. Like it or lump it'. That would be suicidal.

So it's natural to be deceitful to the supporters in order to sell them a stadium they wouldn't otherwise want.

An interesting viewpoint, I'll give you that.

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

and if he wont call in his debt for his mistakes why not write it off now?

Why should he?

One day the club might find themselves in a position to pay it back, if he wants to remain involved in the club it makes no sense to write off the debt.

The fact the debt exists is surely extra financial motivation for SL to help us progress as a club. If he meant what he said about not calling in the debt then he needs us to be successful otherwise he's done his money.

Maybe Im too trusting.

[SecretSam]

Sigh

I put together a reasoned response to some of the issues and no-one appears to have read it

I ask again: where is the robust comparison of the three possible states on offer, namely no change, new AV or new AG?

[Bristol Rob]

So it's natural to be deceitful to the supporters in order to sell them a stadium they wouldn't otherwise want.

An interesting viewpoint, I'll give you that.

Hardly call it deceitful, there are good arguments for having a new stadium, and with the revenue generated from the sale of Ashton Gate to partly fund the build, it made perfect sense to sell the idea to all of sundry that this was the 'only' way forward.

[Nogbad the Bad]

We could have redeveloped AG many years ago so how much revenue have BCFC lost out on by not having executive boxes, restaurants, better facilities all round etc. in all that time?

[NickJ]

Sigh

I put together a reasoned response to some of the issues and no-one appears to have read it

I ask again: where is the robust comparison of the three possible states on offer, namely no change, new AV or new AG?

Very good question. Only the Club can answer that as only the Club are in possession of all the facts to do so - information which the Club failed to share despite numerous questions to do so, when people such as myself challenged the validity of their claims.

Doesn't matter now though - the Club have admitted they had it wrong all along.

We could have redeveloped AG many years ago so how much revenue have BCFC lost out on by not having executive boxes, restaurants, better facilities all round etc. in all that time?

Exactly. We could have done that - and what's more it would have been funded by Bristol City without Steve's money, using Ashton Gate as security.

[ciderup]

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.

Nick. as one who thought you had an 'agenda', stated it on here and criticised your viewpoint, I'm man enough to offer my apologies. I still don't agree that staying is 'the best option' but was wrong to criticise you and hold my hands up.

Sorry.

[BS34Red]

AV is over. Let it go...

No I don't think it is. I think this whole Ashton Gate redevelopment is a smoke screen aswell as being a good alternative. Ashton Vale remains the preferred choice.

When making a decision about if we should move or stay what you need to do is try to detach the emotions from the decisions as emotions can influence the decisions. People like nick clearly can't do that. A decision needs to be a business decision and not a emotional decision.

Ashton Vale is the much better option. I could list all the pros and cons but that be worthless as anyone who can think logically about it will already know the Vale makes much more business and financial sense.

[NickJ]

Nick. as one who thought you had an 'agenda', stated it on here and criticised your viewpoint, I'm man enough to offer my apologies. I still don't agree that staying is 'the best option' but was wrong to criticise you and hold my hands up.

Sorry.

Wow, dont see that very often, respect to you for that.

I will cross you out of my little black book!

When making a decision about if we should move or stay what you need to do is try to detach the emotions from the decisions as emotions can influence the decisions. People like nick clearly can't do that. A decision needs to be a business decision and not a emotional decision.

Ashton Vale is the much better option. I could list all the pros and cons but that be worthless as anyone who can think logically about it will already know the Vale makes much more business and financial sense.

This thread isn't about whether AV or AG is beter. Its about the fact that the club have admitted that it never was the case that AV would generate more income than AG.

I'm an accountant, there are too many accountants in this world making "business" decisions over "emotional" ones. Emotions have a value, you just can't put a number on it.

[Jordan Tansley]

Oneupmanship. What fun.

In seriousness, after the crap we've given Nick he's entitled to a bit if self congratulation.

At the end of the day, there are benefits from both options. All I care about is one of them actually happening and soon!

[Manon]

This thread isn't about whether AV or AG is beter. Its about the fact that the club have admitted that it never was the case that AV would generate more income than AG..

Better = generates more income.

Have you actually seen the plans for AV? There is absolutely ZERO chance that a redeveloped AG will generate as much revenue as AV. You don't need to be an accountant to see that.

[Kid in the Riot]

This thread isn't about whether AV or AG is beter. Its about the fact that the club have admitted that it never was the case that AV would generate more income than AG.

Pretty sure Martin Griffiths has only been involved in the stadium project in the last year or so. Therefore I don't think you can neccessarily take his comment to mean it was NEVER the case that AV would generate more income than AG.

Maybe he's been a fresh pair of eyes in the process and come to a conclusion that we can in fact generate the same income from AG as AV?

Maybe something has changed recently that means AG could be just as profitable as AV? The initial feasibility study concerning AV was done what 5 years ago and included plans to host WC games?

Once again, there's more questions than answers to be honest and if this latest comment teaches us anything it's to not jump to conclusions on soundbites coming out of the club!

If AG can generate as much cash as AV (and I must admit, I find it difficult to understand how that is possible) then GREAT and my preference would of course be to stay at AG.

For the record, I think the landowners will eventually win the battle at AV and I understand the club haven't ruled out doing both AG and AV if it comes to it...

[The Gasbuster]

Pretty sure Martin Griffiths has only been involved in the stadium project in the last year or so. Therefore I don't think you can neccessarily take his comment to mean it was NEVER the case that AV would generate more income than AG.

Maybe he's been a fresh pair of eyes in the process and come to a conclusion that we can in fact generate the same income from AG as AV?

Maybe something has changed recently that means AG could be just as profitable as AV? The initial feasibility study concerning AV was done what 5 years ago and included plans to host WC games?

Once again, there's more questions than answers to be honest and if this latest comment teaches us anything it's to not jump to conclusions on soundbites coming out of the club!

If AG can generate as much cash as AV (and I must admit, I find it difficult to understand how that is possible) then GREAT and my preference would of course be to stay at AG.

For the record, I think the landowners will eventually win the battle at AV and I understand the club haven't ruled out doing both AG and AV if it comes to it...

Interesting concept.

Whether S.L. would be keen to spend £100M plus is obviously open to question. But in an ideal world A.G. would be developed soon. Then, after a protracted legal fight (again !) A.V. would go ahead (5 years time maybe?).

We could then move into A.V. leaving A.G. to the rugby.

Bristol then has 3 very good stadia (Gassholes home included).

Cardiff has an abundance of stadia, so why shouldn't we ?

[bcfcsouth]

Cardiff has an abundance of stadia, so why shouldn't we ?

As a city, we have no need for them.

[phantom]

The only thing that I don't understand was when the AV stadium was presented to us we were told staying at AG was not financially viable, now years down the line we are told that it is.....

Miscalculations by someone, or just saving face?

[Gazred]

The only thing that I don't understand was when the AV stadium was presented to us we were told staying at AG was not financially viable, now years down the line we are told that it is.....

Miscalculations by someone, or just saving face?

Well 4 pages in and im still asking myself the same question.

AG was always stated as 2nd choice, the fall back option. If today they could start work on either AV or AG, i would be staggered if they chose the latter, regardless of the u-turn statement from the Fans Parliment mins.

[The Gasbuster]

The only thing that I don't understand was when the AV stadium was presented to us we were told staying at AG was not financially viable, now years down the line we are told that it is.....

Miscalculations by someone, or just saving face?

Maybe the fact that the Braby Silo factory was there 5 years ago, with no apparent plans to move ? They are gone now, of course.

[Philly The Kid]

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.

SL would've made adequate provision for BCFC in his will.

Forest's late owner created a trust for the club, and on his passing, an amount of money which cannot be used for anything else than running the club came into being. You can bet that SL would have much the same thing in the planning. His circumstances regarding his wealth mean his will is probably a very complex affair, regarding inheritance tax, Capital gains tax etc, so he would have made many different provisions for different situations, like, for example, the scenario you illustrate (obviously, god forbid)...

On the wider debate raging about AG or AV, if, and it's a huge IF, we did achieve some success in the upper ends of the championship and even the premiership, our potential to secure additional revenue from ticketing, corporate and any other commercial stream are obviously greater with AV.

At the moment with the position we're in, there's probably not much in it for either venue, but if you take a long term view, given the potential, the only answer is, in my opinion, AV.

I don't believe people are looking at the bigger picture and are understandably basing their opinion on a club which has historically under achieved and failed.

As has already been said, where would Cardiff, Swansea, Wigan, be if they were still at their old grounds? Dave Whelan said building the JJB was absolutely central to attracting players and corporate partners, and that is a club which on the basis of logic has no right to be in the premiership. That fact they've been there as long as they have, and had the recent success they have shows what can be achieved.

[phantom]

Maybe the fact that the Braby Silo factory was there 5 years ago, with no apparent plans to move ? They are gone now, of course.

Excuse my ignorance but how does this affect the redevelopment of AG?

[downendcity]

Seems to me that as with so many issues recently the question of AV v AG is being used by many as yet another stick to beat SL with. There is little doubt that with hindsight Sl has made some decisions that he would make diferently given the time again, and has admitted so himself.

As far as I am concerned the key fact as far as the stadium issue is concened, revolves around the impact of ffp. From reading this forum over the last few years, it is blindingly obvious that a large number of fans have never grasped the impact it is going to have, or still believe that there are clever wheezes that will enbale devious clubs to get around the rules, enabling rich owners like Sl to continue to underwrite financially inept management.

Forget about whether SL saw Av as a way of recouping his investment into the club ( that might be the case, but if the new stadium was part of the plan for a push to the prem then the financial rewards of promotion would have given him that anyway) they crucial fact is that when the AV plans were first announced the club was not generating sufficient income to support it's costs - in particular players wages, as they alone exceeded the clubs income going back 2/3 seasons. Ffp restricted the ability of wealthy owners to put their own monmey into a club, as they had been able so to do prevbiously. However, ffp did allow owners to invest in stadium and academies ( I think I'm right).

As others have pointed out , we are the only club in the league without executive boxes, and we really only generate income on match days. On another thread recently there was a chart showing the income of all the championship clubs and we were right at the bottom, not for matchday income, but also commercial revenue. SL saw that ffp did allow him to invest in a new stadium, and that a new stadium would give us the opportunity to have increased commercial income and not just on match days, from hotel and conference facilities, exceutive boxes and the like. That additional revnue would boost the club's income and that could be used to cover wages and other costs. Selling AG to Sainsbury's would offset the building costs, reducing the amount SL would need to invest , i..e keep the debt to him lower.

The village green issue has changed those plans. However, the clubs financial position is little changed and through last season the strong possibility of relegation made the financial situiation more acute, as ffp rules in league 1 are even more swingeing. If anything, this has made it even more important that the club finds additional revenue, so that we can afford a half decent playing squad. If AV is off the agenda then common sense determines that we have to look to redevelop AG as the only way of boosting match day and non match day income streams. This is not the club saying one thing but doing another, but is a sensible business reaction to events over which they had no direct control ( unless the conspiracy theorists think that SL engineered ther village green objectors as part of his cunning plan to screw BCFC financially) How can pursuing AV make sense when we have no idea how long a positive outcome will take to achieve, if at all, while our financial position gets tougher, not better?

I hope AV is not dead in the water, and if that is the case then spending a fortune revamping AG would be foolish if it is still planned to seel the site to fund the new stadium at a later fate.

Some are moaning that AG will be redeveloped on the cheap, but given that we have lost the proceeds of selling AG to Sainsbury's then the whole costs falls to the club i.e. SL. Fans are moaning that we already have £41m debt to SL so would they be happy with that debt rising to £130m+?

Whether a redeveloped AG will generate as much income as AV would is irrelevant, because , for the tme being AV is not on the agenda. That a redevloped AG will generate more income than the old AG is key to our immediate future. If the board and SL see it the same way then I have no problem with that.

[The Gasbuster]

Excuse my ignorance but how does this affect the redevelopment of AG?

More space for new Williams stand ?