BCAGFC Posted November 25, 2005 Report Share Posted November 25, 2005 I can remember a couple of years ago it was stated that Ashton Gate Stadium needed around £1m per year to keep it up to scratch (eg. safety rules, maintaince etc). Last years accounts state that Ashton Gate Stadium (non football) income was roughly £200k so it seems the stadium looses us (BCFC) around £800k+ per season.BCAGFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Codfather 0312 Posted November 25, 2005 Report Share Posted November 25, 2005 I can remember a couple of years ago it was stated that Ashton Gate Stadium needed around £1m per year to keep it up to scratch (eg. safety rules, maintaince etc). Last years accounts state that Ashton Gate Stadium (non football) income was roughly £200k so it seems the stadium looses us (BCFC) around £800k+ per season.BCAGFC Which makes me think that its possible that the Stadium Company could go into administration and some propert developer takes over and leases it to the club untill city find a new stadium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ashtonyate Posted November 25, 2005 Report Share Posted November 25, 2005 I thought in 1982 after bankruptses that the stadum was made a differant company to the football so the ground would never be put at risk again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thornbury Red Posted November 25, 2005 Report Share Posted November 25, 2005 So were a selling club now are we?Yep - same as every other club in the country bar Chelsea and Man U. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted November 25, 2005 Report Share Posted November 25, 2005 I can remember a couple of years ago it was stated that Ashton Gate Stadium needed around £1m per year to keep it up to scratch (eg. safety rules, maintaince etc). Last years accounts state that Ashton Gate Stadium (non football) income was roughly £200k so it seems the stadium looses us (BCFC) around £800k+ per season.BCAGFCThe Club will now pay rent to Ashton Gate Stadium Ltd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukejones2 Posted November 25, 2005 Report Share Posted November 25, 2005 The Club will now pay rent to Ashton Gate Stadium Ltd. Rent and an annual service charge.The ground was not separated before Ashton Yate. The ground is also likely to generate fairly hefty profits followingthe redevelopments that will be undertaken including the refurbishment of the Dolman Exhibition Hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 25, 2005 Report Share Posted November 25, 2005 Rent and an annual service charge.The ground was not separated before Ashton Yate. The ground is also likely to generate fairly hefty profits followingthe redevelopments that will be undertaken including the refurbishment of the Dolman Exhibition Hall.I'd say substitute the word "likely" for the word "hoped".Nibor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest redphilc Posted November 25, 2005 Report Share Posted November 25, 2005 No. As Steve put it, all money generated by the football club will be spent on football ie ST sales, player salers etc. The insinuation was that all the concerts etc will not be spent on football although this was obviously not explicitely stated.So our football ground is no longer to be used outside of football to benefit the playing squad we all pay to support?That is worrying and I for one am not happy at all about it if this is to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 25, 2005 Report Share Posted November 25, 2005 So our football ground is no longer to be used outside of football to benefit the playing squad we all pay to support?That is worrying and I for one am not happy at all about it if this is to be the case.From watching SteveL's presentation on world I don't think that's the case. Here's what I gleaned from it...Currently the stadium does not make money, it's a burden on the club. It costs more to run than it makes from non football activities even if you take away match day costs.I get the impression the stadium and non footballing staff are being split off so they can be run relentlessly as a profit making organisation.The football side will be non profit making in that any money it raises through tickets, player sales, TV gets spent on football players and development. It will pay an annual rent/service fee to the stadium company I guess more for the sake of clarity than anything else.What the parent company decides to do with profits from the stadium company is up to SteveL, I guess it will be 1) cover shortfall in football side 2) payoff debts 3) invest in footballing side.It seems fairly sensible to me provided that the debts get paid off by the stadium company. Nibor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukejones2 Posted November 25, 2005 Report Share Posted November 25, 2005 From watching SteveL's presentation on world I don't think that's the case. Here's what I gleaned from it...Currently the stadium does not make money, it's a burden on the club. It costs more to run than it makes from non football activities even if you take away match day costs.I get the impression the stadium and non footballing staff are being split off so they can be run relentlessly as a profit making organisation.The football side will be non profit making in that any money it raises through tickets, player sales, TV gets spent on football players and development. It will pay an annual rent/service fee to the stadium company I guess more for the sake of clarity than anything else.What the parent company decides to do with profits from the stadium company is up to SteveL, I guess it will be 1) cover shortfall in football side 2) payoff debts 3) invest in footballing side.It seems fairly sensible to me provided that the debts get paid off by the stadium company. Nibor Your points are fair, and I can see this side of the argument aswell. As I have stated elsewhere, I am still formulating my opinions because unfortunately I can also see a whole bunch of negatives. I seems to me that Steve L has (as you would expect) fiocussed on the positives but that we all need to think about everything else.You will be aware from my other posts that I am a fairly level headed and positive person so I am by no means trying to scaremonger. I would go so far as to say that I think Steve fully believes that this is not going to harm the club. There are just a lot of "what ifs" for me. I'd say substitute the word "likely" for the word "hoped".Nibor I would disagree. If you wanted, we can say nboth words. I would be happy with that So our football ground is no longer to be used outside of football to benefit the playing squad we all pay to support?That is worrying and I for one am not happy at all about it if this is to be the case. That is the point you see, this may or may not be the case. Everything made by the stadium could well be put back into the football side of the club. It is an argument with two sides but I think it is a debate that needs to happen.On the flip side to my previous post, the splitting of the stadium away from the football side may well mean that someone else could come in and invest in the stadium. This money could be used to repay debts and mean that we end up in a great position. The negative would be that we wouldn't have 100% control over our stadium and its use. Like I say, a flip side to all arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.