robins72 Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 The reason for wanting a new ground is not for wanting more seats. Ashton Gate will eventuall be increased to 30000 anyway so a new stadium I would guess would be around the same mark. 75% of ashton gate needs to be pulled down and replaced at that will cost more than 1 million and even more than 10 million. More like 20-25 million. On a par with a new stadium.We need to maximis are non match day income. A new stadium can provide that within 5 years, Doing the same at AG will take 5-10 years and still then Ag wouldn't be of the same high quality as a new stadium would be.and you reckon our council will fund it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan C Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 and you reckon our council will fund it? I havn't said anywhere in my posts that I think the council will fund it. Others may have but not me. I know what there like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
22A Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 As I stated in a previous post; my concern is that non matchday income will go to some stadium holding company and not to BCFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 As I stated in a previous post; my concern is that non matchday income will go to some stadium holding company and not to BCFC.Might be the case, especially while there are stadium development costs to pay off. From what SteveL said at the AGM it sounds like right now the stadium is actually costing the football club money, although whether that's still the case given the summer concerts I don't have a clue.I don't think that the stadium finances being separate is a particularly bad thing, because I think it's healthy and sensible for the football side of the club to live only on the money it generates from tickets, TV, prize money and sponsorship. If the club's expenditure is decided by it's own success on the field it might make it a bit more lean and mean and hopefully we eventually stop accumulating debt.Perhaps any additional revenue the stadium company eventually generates will be used to pay off outstanding debt, and then in the longer term maybe for one-off expenses for the football club like transfer fees?Like I said in the other thread, I don't think SteveL is really in this business to make money. He can do that far more successfully in his other one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tompo Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 Might be the case, especially while there are stadium development costs to pay off. From what SteveL said at the AGM it sounds like right now the stadium is actually costing the football club money, although whether that's still the case given the summer concerts I don't have a clue.No doubt someone will be able to confirm but I think it is actually the stadium side of things that is subsidising the football side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 No doubt someone will be able to confirm but I think it is actually the stadium side of things that is subsidising the football side.He did definitely mention in the AGM something about the stadium being a burden on the football club, but like I said with these concerts the situation may well be reversed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.