Logic (ha ha) says that Bristol City and Bristol Rugby will get all the net revenue from match days. And also Women's Academy if they play at the stadium. Bristol Sport would get other commercial revenue for use of stadium outside of match days. Advertising revenue within the stadium shared or all taken by Bristol Sport. Stadium costs, pitch floodlights, stewarding, ticket sales costs ?? I suspect it will be difficult for non chartered accountants to be able to decipher from the various annual accounts.
So we are all in favour, it must remain, Ashton Gate...and I agree, Steve Landsdown is not the sort of man to want the ground named after him.
^^^^ THIS! Whatever corporate name is added to the stadium, we will all carry on calling it the Gate anyway.
Or we go the way of Sunderland and Rotherham and either name it after an illustrious European team (Stadium Of Light) or after a large city in North America (New York) So our choices should be either the Ashton Bernabeu or something like The Seattle Ground
Yuk! It is Ashton Gate. Although if a sponsor were to put in a few million every season for naming rights, I would accept; Ashton Gate Stadium supported by "Company name".
I think all supporters need to think about what they are prepared to accept in the name of progress. I have great sympathy with the Cardiff and Hull situations in that the owner should have the right to decide what to do with their own businesses. Somebody once told me that with BCFC it cost each director £30k to put on each home game and as such I had little sympathy for supporters who coughed up £30. The fact is that with Steve Lansdown we appear to have a true local benefactor who actually cares about Bristol and its supporters and I would be quite happy to go along with whatever he decides. The situation is that without SL there would be no BCFC so lets be happy we have a sponsor who appears to operate in best interests of Bristol and not purely on a "profit at all costs" basis. I think in the past SL did simply write cheques but now is running the whole show on sound commercial lines. Gone are the days of its the supporters club, it is a business just like any other and if that means renaming the ground so be it. Don't like it but I realise we don't have much choice
Somebody once told me that with BCFC it cost each director £30k to put on each home game and as such I had little sympathy for supporters who coughed up £30 ... City's directors receive salaries. One or two are not football fans e.g Doug Harman. The situation is that without SL there would be no BCFC ... City existed for ninety plus ears without Mr Lansdown, and would exist without him unless he decided to sacrifice the club for some bizarre reason. His support of the academy - Ashton Vale academy [proposed] and turning his debts into equity suggests it would be beyond bizarre. I think in the past SL did simply write cheques but now is running the whole show on sound commercial lines ... Mr Lansdown does not run the whole show on sound commercial lines, and will almost certainly be again having to write off debts he chooses to create. Gone are the days of its the supporters club, it is a business just like any other ... Football clubs are businesses unlike any other. A "successful" FC in England almost certainly will lose money. Conversely some of the most successful clubs in the world are in the ownership of their fans but can play in stadiums named after their sponsors e.g Dortmund or Bayern.
