Getting Left Behind?.

[Wurzel City]

Ashton Gate can be improved but only to a certain extent. Then we need to think about the costs. The East end will cost 8 million and likely not to be done until we are in the Championship. So not only would we have to pay 8million+ Interest we would lose out on income because of a reduced capacity.

So next will be the Williams which with the EE being 8million+ I can only assume a bigger stand will cost 10 million+, Again we would also lose money with a reduced capacity. Next would be the dolman. Again 10-15 million.

So in total that's 30 million+ interest and then add on all the losses then it would be closer to the 40 million mark and take 10-15 years to complete.

Now a new stadium would IMO cost less money than that and provide greater non match day income as things like a hotel, Casino, Offices etc could be included. At Ashton Gate that isn't possible due the constraints of the site.

There is a a slight flaw in your argument when considering Citys gates as reduced capacity would not come into as we have not averaged more than 13,000 a season for twenty five years [ i think].Premiership might take some time & non match day revenue can till be generated at Ashton Gate.

[andy g]

To be fair, Shrewsbury Town haven't just decided to build a new stadium overnight. They've been wanting to do this for over a decade (and a lot of people thought they'd never see it happen). Like many clubs, theyve been faced with a council which would rather see nothing happen at all, and local residents who didnt want it built in their back yard. But, they eventually managed to wear the opposition down and win the arguement.

Ok, they do have a more pressing need for a new ground. Not only did the old one flood every year (it was right next to the river severn) but it was showing its age and didnt have the modern facilities to attract corporate visitors. But, it was the persistance of the club (and the fans) at the end of the day which made the move happen.

If we REALLY want to move, then we have to put everything into the campaign. But, i get the feeling the club is happy expanding the old ground and not pushing the boat out too far at the moment (perhaps sensibly given our current financial position)

[Wurzel City]

[Nibor]

[Wurzel City]

Yes it's clear to you because you're not making a decision, your mind was already made up. You've said as much. There's no information on which to make a decision.

Their chairmen wouldn't have put money in unless they could build new grounds to increase the turnover of the clubs. There are plenty of other examples of clubs who've moved past us with new stadiums. Bolton, Barnsley, Derby, and Hull for starters.

The east end is not being redeveloped because we couldn't find finance at the right terms. The catering deal was in place. The reason we couldn't find finance at the right terms was because the banks wanted higher interest than we were prepared to pay. There will be no major redevelopment work at Ashton Gate unless we somehow get to the Championship and stay there for a few seasons. Meanwhile many of our rivals will be living it large on nice fat incomes from new stadiums.

The state Belle Vue was in is irrelevant.

In terms of increasing the revenue of the club from non matchday activities Ashton Gate has nothing going for it at all.

"BARNSLEY" are still at Oakwell!

Ashton Gate has lot going for it as any revenue earned is not shared with Rovers, the council or in the name of god never Asda. Ashton/Bedminster knocks the living Granny out of being stuck alongside pizza hut/kfc & a bowling rink surrounded by knowheresville.Football belongs in it's community!

Belle Vue is a bombsite which was very relevant and the club are moving to a site a mile away which is not going to happen here.

New stadiums are not a premiss for success and i could be reeally glib and point out that a few crap stadiums passed City this season.

My mind was made up quite easily because yes to me many of the out of town stadiums are poison to "MY" mind but when a stadium does appear like St Marys sat two things become obvious, one it cannot happen here and will not be anywhere near our present ground and two we will only part own it.

[Reg Hill]

Planners are currently working on proposals to expand Bristol enormously over the next 10-20 years to the south on land which is currently untouchable green belt. This will provide an opportunity to develop a new stadium and related conference/hotel/community/leisure facilities fit for a 21st century club and city. It will be close to our heartland of south Bristol (the new development - mainly housing - will spread out from Ashton Vale between the A370 and A38) and so won't be far from our traditional home in a souless location like Severnside.

I truly believe this is a wonderful - admittedly long term - opportunity, and that the club's decision to pull back from the major East End redevelopment and go for a lower-level projects in the Williams and Dolman to bolster the finances in the meantime) are a sign that the Board know this is so.

Red Top's point about the role of local politicians is unfortunately spot on because all this will take a huge amount of patient negotiation. Whether the location of the land in North Somerset rather than within Bristol City Council's boundaries is good thing remains to be seen, but their councillors could hardly be worse to deal with - could they? And the club would of course need to maximise revenue from the sale of AG - which would involve decisions about planning by BCC.

[Nibor]

"BARNSLEY" are still at Oakwell!

Oakwell, the 23,000 all seater stadium housing a complete academy setup as well as extensive corporate facilities for non matchday revenue that was almost completely rebuilt in the 90s?

The clubs with worse stadiums that have passed us, how long do you think they'll stay up?

I've not suggested sharing, or moving far away, which seem to be your principal objections. I think they're both very bad ideas.

I've suggested putting a rocket up the council to actually achieve something and you've said that it should be a non starter.

Ashton Gate has nothing going for it in terms of making more money that can be spent on the team. It's already maxed out. Just look at the rush on to get a couple of gigs in in the close season.

If we don't improve that situation, we will be left further behind - no doubt whatsoever - and it's all very well saying redevelop what we've got but we've already hit the brick wall of it being too expensive.

Reg's information is very interesting, and certainly sounds like an opportunity. I imagine that any development like that will have central government support as well.

[Milo]

Milo as you are stating the trust represents Bristol City supporters what proof would you provide that City fans really do want to move away from the Gate and possibly miles from BS3? I am not being pedantic here even though i wish to see City stay where they are but without any proven significant support from Citys fanbase it has to be a total non starter doesn't it?

I suspect that the vast majority of City fans would prefer to stay at AG. Next favourite would be our own purpose built ground in South Bristol and least popular by a landslide would be a ground share with the sags in a new built stand.

These are all my suspicions, no proof. If a new ground or ground share ever became a realistic possibility we would undertake a very thorough survey of supporters to find out exactly what fans wanted.

Out of interest, the survey that we're working on at the moment does have a question related to ground share with Bristol Rugby - two games next season, but how many games if Dunford shuts the memorial down for 18 months as detailed in last week's papers?

[Dan C]

A ground share at a new stadium with the sags are a no go for me, However I would welcome the opportunity to share with Bristol Rugby at a new stadium.

Things like the state of the pitch can easily be sorted to accomodate both with a new stadium.

[Redland]

Spot on, Redtop.

[Wurzel City]

I suspect that the vast majority of City fans would prefer to stay at AG. Next favourite would be our own purpose built ground in South Bristol and least popular by a landslide would be a ground share with the sags in a new built stand.

These are all my suspicions, no proof. If a new ground or ground share ever became a realistic possibility we would undertake a very thorough survey of supporters to find out exactly what fans wanted.

Out of interest, the survey that we're working on at the moment does have a question related to ground share with Bristol Rugby - two games next season, but how many games if Dunford shuts the memorial down for 18 months as detailed in last week's papers?

Thank you as that is exactly the answer i was hoping for.

Now this survey what is the possible timescale as unless i am totally off the mark some topics would relate to the way Ashton Gate is being deveolped?

[Flaxbourton Red]

Is ground sharing viable? locating the ground to suit both club's fanbase would be difficult, transport and commercial opportunities would dictate that it is built on the edge of the city. Do city fans want to trudge into north bristol/south glos, would the sags want to come to north somerset/south bristol.

Given the differences between the clubs, with city going forward maybe into the championship, i suspect it would be city that would end up subsidising the cost of the new ground and the long term survival of bristol rovers.

Both of which i am not in favour.

[Milo]

Thank you as that is exactly the answer i was hoping for.

Now this survey what is the possible timescale as unless i am totally off the mark some topics would relate to the way Ashton Gate is being deveolped?

The challenge is to get as many questions covered as possible without making it too cumbersome. We'll do this by having a series of surveys. We should have the first survey in time for the start of the new season.