Ashton Gate

[RedTop]

SteveL said at the last Q&A that the situation is this:

Whoever owns the stadium, whether it is the holding company or someone else, is obliged to continue to allow BCFC to play there for another century or so. They cannot simply redevelop it and chuck us out.

City, on the other hand, can choose to leave Ashton Gate and play elsewhere should they so wish.

That does not completely put my mind at rest, as there are probably all sorts of dodges and the detail of the lease remain secret. It worries me, for instance, that the owners might be able to force us out by upping the rent so that we can't afford to pay it (as happened to the Gas) or alternatively make the ground so unappealing or uneconomic to play at that we are forced to move out.

I don't believe for a minute that SteveL would sell the ground from under us. But it does make me a little uncomfortable that he has made it easier for any new owner to sell the stadium off. That said, I guess that seeing as it was not too difficult for SteveL to separate the ground and club, anyone buying BCFC with asset-stripping in mind would have been able to do the same thing in a short time anyway, so having the two parts together is probably no safeguard.

The only real safeguard is having someone in charge who is a City fan and has the club's best interests at heart, and who would not sell it to someone he thinks would do the club harm. And we've got that, which makes it all the more disturbing when I read people wishing we had some sugar daddy come in who has no affinity with BCFC but wants to use it as his play-thing. No thanks.