BRISTOL CITY BLOG: Why missed opportunity consigns our city to second-class status. By a_stockhausen please log in to view this image Bristol City owner Steve Lansdown has had his vision and ambition frustrated at every turn by a minority group of protesters. Only in Bristol could a handful of dog walkers wreck a major infrastructure project in the interests of preserving a former landfill site. When I speak to friends of mine who live in other parts of the country and relate the sorry tale of Bristol Cityâs bid to build a new stadium at Ashton Vale, their response is invariably the same. Total disbelief is quickly followed by humour and a tendency to belittle this wonderful city of ours and ascribe to it backwater status. Well, I for one, am fed up to the back teeth of having to settle for second best. And make no mistake, that is what Bristol City Football Club are doing by deciding to abandon plans to build a 30,000 all-seater stadium and instead stay put and redevelop their Ashton Gate home of more than 100 years. Donât get me wrong, in Steve Lansdown, the football club has an owner with vision and ambition aplenty. If remaining at Ashton Gate represents a blow for ambition, the blame certainly does not reside at his door. That responsibility lies with the latest minority to put a spanner in the works of a proposed major infrastructure building project in a city that still lacks an indoor arena or a decent football stadium and lags behind many smaller towns and cities in the UK. Football club employees are putting a brave face on it but, no matter how splendid and gleaming the blueprint for a new Ashton Gate, there is no avoiding the fact that the wider south Bristol community has been robbed of a marvellous opportunity. The self-interest of a few has trumped the ambition and hopes of the many, ensuring Bristol will remain a sporting backwater for the foreseeable future. Of course, there are a number of short-term benefits to staying at Ashton Gate. First and foremost, the football club can finally draw a line under the ill-fated Ashton Vale affair, a project that has yielded six years of bitter strife and taken up millions of pounds of valuable resource that, in hindsight, could have been better spent elsewhere. The entire Ashton Vale scheme has been an exercise in frustration for Steve Lansdown, who has pumped millions of pounds of his own money into the project only to be undone by circumstances beyond his control. Redeveloping Ashton Gate brings a long-overdue and welcome closure to the kind of wrangling that has undoubtedly proved a distraction. If nothing else, staying put brings certainty. City supporters are emotionally tied to their spiritual home of more than 100 years and redevelopment is an attractive proposition to many fans. A revamped Ashton Gate will also be a good deal cheaper than building a new stadium and the work carried out over the next few years will cost around £40 million. That compares to £90 million, the estimated cost of purchasing the land, building a new stadium and installing an infrastructure around it. Redevelopment will be funded by bank loans underwritten by Cityâs wealthy majority shareholder. This project represents sound economic sense in the short term. I hear these arguments put forward and I cannot disagree with them. But there is a part of me that feels cheated and, no matter how hard I try, I cannot but feel that this is yet another opportunity lost for Bristol. There is no doubt that the decision to stay put represents a lost commercial opportunity of the kind that has helped Wigan, Reading, Hull, Cardiff, Swansea and Brighton all punch above their weight in recent years. Those clubs have each benefitted from the increased interest, enthusiasm and commercial opportunities naturally generated by new stadia. For example, Brightonâs tie-in with Amex yields in excess of £1 million per annum in naming rights alone. I would also question whether a 26,000 all-seat Ashton Gate will be big enough in the event the Robins one day make it to the Premier League. Lansdown spoke in terms of his vision for the future when first announcing plans to move to Ashton Vale in 2007. Certainly, the scheme had potential if you were prepared to look forward to the next 50 to 100 years. One of the chief arguments in favour of a new stadium was that is gave the club the ability to increase capacity relatively quickly. An initial capacity of 30,000 could have been increased to 42,000 by building upwards. People may look at current attendance at Ashton Gate and scoff, but who knows where the club may be 50 years from now? Southampton, Reading, Cardiff and Brighton are all looking to increase capacity to beyond 30,000, but it is difficult to see how you can grow Ashton Gate beyond 26,000. My argument may seem notional to Bristolians at this moment in time. But ask yourselves the following question: Would you describe any of those clubs I have listed as being bigger than Bristol City in terms of their potential? Providing there are no unforeseen delays, work on redeveloping Ashton Gate is scheduled to begin in May. This in itself will present a number of short-term issues which could have a negative effect on the clubâs revenue streams. Capacity will necessarily drop while building is taking place and, in the event City have a good season in 2014/15 and challenge for promotion, they could suffer a loss in potential revenue given that one of their four stands will be closed. I am assuming that the work will commence on time and that there will be none of the expensive and frustrating hold-ups that dogged the Ashton Vale project and are currently delaying Bristol Roversâ move to a proposed new stadium in Stoke Gifford. After all, Bristol City already own the land and it is under their control. They are not dependent upon the kind of outside forces that can halt a scheme. There are no nasty secrets lurking around the corner. That being the case, now is the time to draw a line under what has gone before and look forward to the writing of a brand new chapter in Bristol Cityâs history. Rather than dwell on a missed opportunity for the city and its inhabitants, we ought to accept what has happened and allow ourselves to become excited at the prospect of a revamped Ashton Gate. By no means the worst stadium in League One, the Gate has nevertheless been neglected for far too long and cash-paying customers deserve better facilities. The plans are pleasing on the eye, guarantee vastly improved amenities and offer the chance to build a facility that City supporters can rightly feel proud of. We may be settling for second best, but there seems no alternative and we should all just get on with it and be thankful for the continued support of Steve Lansdown, without whose generosity, this latest project would not be possible. Read more: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/BRISTO...tory-20487744-detail/story.html#ixzz2rJ5A3STu
Not sure why people slag off A Stockhausen as he usualy writes it up as it is and he is absolutely spot on in this instance.......... It IS plan B but its the only plan we have at the moment so lets just get on with it and as he said lets put this whole sorry saga behind us.
I don't agree with the following statement That compares to £90 million, the estimated cost of purchasing the land, building a new stadium and installing an infrastructure around it. Surely SL owns the land at Ashton Vale anyway, having bought it years ago ? I'd also question why we've opted for 26,000 capacity when AV was going to be 30,000 ? Surely it's not beyond the ability of designers/architects to increase The Gate to 30,000 as part of the redevelopment plans ?
This would be down to height restrictions, the ground will have to be higher to seat an extra 4000 so that's my take on it. Because the people who moved into the houses after a football ground being there contested the height on the Atyeo etc. Bit like moving into Port Talbot and complaining after that there's a steel works in your view
It isn't previous plans were for a larger capacity. The re-development is not based on capacity but including ancillary amenities/services etc. The capacity of the Ashton Vale design initially was below the later capacity figure until the South and North Stand designs were altered.
