Skip to content

Bristol City’s new Stadium is nearly finished… Or so the England World-cup bid to Fifa says …

November 22, 2010

Here’s the full England bid document for the 2018 world cup.

England bid document in full

“FIFA’s bidding process is based on the principles of transparency and equality, and the Bidders received rules as well as guidance from FIFA in order to ensure comprehensive and specific documentation of their candidature.”…….

“We feel we have accomplished our work in the spirit of integrity, objectiveness and transparency.”……

Blah blah! So goes the guff from the preface of double-barrelled Harold Mayne-Nicholls Chairman of the FIFA Evaluation Group for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup™ bids.

Nothing personal against the good chap or his cronies, but when I turn to page 10 and quote: “….Numerous sustainable programmes are described,…” and the expert analysis goes on to describe exactly one programme, I think hang on, a bit OTT on the old superlatives Mr…

So there I goes looking forward to a bit of World Cup puffed up stuff on our beloved city, but dang my mangled wurzels!!!

I turn to Page 11 and sees a picture of a Lego Duplo Stadium with the accompanying text:

Host City: Bristol Stadium name: Ashton Vale

Current net/gross capacity (VIP/Media/loss of seats): 43,000/44,000, (600/400/0)

Expected net/gross capacity: 40,300/44,000

Construction status: Minor renovation

Lighting: 2,000 lux

Owner/Investors/Investment budget: Ashton Gate Ltd/Bristol City F.C. and Bristol City Council/USD 134m + USD 13m

Current use: Bristol City F.C.

Now if you see what I see, then what the $£%@ are they doing saying ‘Minor Renovation‘. Must be simple clerical error, damn those incompetent typists! Call me old fashioned, but last time I went down the Town Green (admittedly a few weeks ago), the new stadium needed a bit more than minor renovation.

Also there is the small matter of the €13million bung from the council, no doubt to put in the extra plastic seats. I’m not positive  that local ratepayers have been consulted over this .

And take a look at the map of the area as well. Ashton Gate rail station is up and running as planned (!). Vale residents will also be pleased to see the BRT fully in place and working-no more smelly Worstbus.  Few more quid in the transport pot promised then.

The rest of the document makes funny reading as apart from the football stuff a lot of column inches is taken up with ensuring all the fifa officials get 5* all expenses hotel and travel to all venues. As Harold M-N said in his closing delegation speech One thing FIFA particularly focuses on is accommodation, we need a very high number of quality rooms (must keep the other half happy!). And making sure all the media and sponsorship deals are tied up as well. Must ensure the Fifa charity-money-machine gets its tax-free billions musn’t we? Doesn’t get its billions by letting local companies have the odd advert or franchise.

Town Green stadium

Stadium requires minor renovation

Stadium update for those unable to see the document or unwilling to see the discrepancy in black and white: text direct from bid document (my highlight in bold), section 4.6 page 13 onwards.

Host City: Birmingham Stadium name: Villa Park Current net/gross capacity (VIP/Media/loss of seats): 41,478/42,788, (1210/400/0) Expected net/gross capacity: 42,400/47,300 Construction status: Minor renovation

Host City: Bristol Stadium name: Ashton Vale Current net/gross capacity (VIP/Media/loss of seats): 43,000/44,000, (600/400/0) Expected net/gross capacity: 40,300/44,000 Construction status: Minor renovation

Host City: Leeds Stadium name: Elland Road Current net/gross capacity (VIP/Media/loss of seats): 47,000/51,240 (600/300/2,170) Expected net/gross capacity: 30,310/39,410 Construction status: Major renovation

Host City: Liverpool Stadium name: Anfield Current net/gross capacity (VIP/Media/loss of seats): 41,627/45,362 (635/100/3000) Expected net/gross capacity: 40,000/45,362 Construction status: Built, with no further renovation indicated

Host City: Liverpool Stadium name: New Anfield Current net/gross capacity (VIP/Media/loss of seats): 71,826/72,334 (308/200/0) Expected net/gross capacity: 68,500/72,334 Construction status: To be built

Host City: London Stadium name: Emirates Stadium Current net/gross capacity (VIP/Media/loss of seats): 59,888/60,400 (400/112/0) Expected net/gross capacity: 55,141/60,400 Construction status: Built, with no further renovation indicated

Host City: London Stadium name: Olympic Stadium Current net/gross capacity (VIP/Media/loss of seats): 79,200/80,000 (400/400/0) Expected net/gross capacity: 72,000/80,000 Construction status: Under construction (to be ready for the 2012 Summer Olympics)

Host City: London Stadium name: New White Hart Lane Current net/gross capacity (VIP/Media/loss of seats): 57,150/58,000 (740/110/0) Expected net/gross capacity: 53,000/58,000 Construction status: To be built

Host City: London Stadium name: Wembley Stadium Current net/gross capacity (VIP/Media/loss of seats): 88,200/90,000, (1,300/500/0) Expected net/gross capacity: 84,700/90,000 Construction status: Built, with no further renovation indicated

Host City: Manchester Stadium name: City of Manchester Stadium Current net/gross capacity (VIP/Media/loss of seats): 46,344/47,717 (506/500/367) Expected net/gross capacity: 43,350/47,717 Construction status: Built, with no further renovation indicated

Host City: Manchester Stadium name: Old Trafford Current net/gross capacity (VIP/Media/loss of seats): 74,377/75,797 (1,300/120/0) Expected net/gross capacity: 67,000/75,797 Construction status: Built, with no further renovation indicated

Host City: Milton Keynes Stadium name: Stadium:MK Current net/gross capacity (VIP/Media/loss of seats): 22,000 (planned extensions to 31,000 and 44,000) (450/70/0) Expected net/gross capacity: 40,300/44,000 Construction status: Minor renovation

Host City: Newcastle Stadium name: St James’ Park Current net/gross capacity (VIP/Media/loss of seats): 50,457/52,000 (970/190/383) Expected net/gross capacity: 48,500/52,000 Construction status: Built, with no further renovation indicated

Host City: Nottingham Stadium name: New Nottingham Stadium Expected net/gross capacity (VIP/Media/loss of seats): 41,500/45,300 (1,504/328/0) Construction status: To be built

Host City: Plymouth Stadium name: Home Park Stadium Current net/gross capacity (VIP/Media/loss of seats): 16,316/19,500 (500/400/2,884) Expected net/gross capacity: 40,000/43,874 Construction status: Major renovation

Host City: Sheffeld Stadium name: Hillsborough Stadium Expected net/gross capacity (VIP/Media/loss of seats): 40,000 43,946 (200/100/0) Construction status: To be built

Host City: Sunderland Stadium name: Stadium of Light Current net/gross capacity (VIP/Media/loss of seats): 47,987/48,707 (1210/400/0) (600/120/0) Expected net/gross capacity: 44,207/48,707 Construction status: Appears to be ready to be used

Advertisements
49 Comments
  1. Will permalink
    November 22, 2010 12:40 pm

    You are the one printing the “clerical error”, damn those incompetent bloggers!

    Obviously these documents are for the possibility of World Cup football. In other words what the stadium will require for the world Cup, It will be a “Minor renovation” to increase the ground to the necessary capacity.
    This is not a planning application for Ashton Vale its a proposal for the future in that future, the stadium has ALREADY been built and selected for the world cup.

    Will you print a retraction because this article is the “Blah blah! So goes the guff”

  2. BobS permalink
    November 22, 2010 12:57 pm

    Er.. No Will. Why dont YOU read the document.

    The Olympic stadium is said to be “under construction”. FIFA is under the impression that the Bristol stadium is already built.

  3. Will permalink
    November 22, 2010 3:28 pm

    Quote from the document.

    “In addition to the Olympic Stadium, which will be completed in time for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games, the new stadiums (New White Hart Lane, New Anfield, Ashton Vale, New Nottingham) would be completed from 2011 to 2016, with the design phase starting in 2010”

    I have read the document obviously YOU have not!

  4. Richard Lane permalink
    November 22, 2010 6:26 pm

    Will
    Fair play.
    Another wet fish slap in the face for the Misrepresenters UTD FC team.
    And the fish probably came out of the drainage ditch at Ashton Vale, my arse.

  5. Will permalink
    November 22, 2010 6:34 pm

    so, now we have found this article to be misleading and false. will you be posting a retraction?

  6. Richard Lane permalink
    November 22, 2010 6:53 pm

    Will
    don’t hold your breath, it aint happened yet.

  7. Deano permalink
    November 22, 2010 7:01 pm

    Will refers to four new stadiums in his post. Let’s read what the document has to say about them all;

    New White Hart Lane

    Construction Status: To be built

    New Anfield

    Construction Status: To be built

    New Nottingham Stadium

    Construction Status: To be built

    Ashton Vale Stadium

    Construction Status: Minor renovation

    Conclusion: As far as the Ashton Vale Stadium is concerned the document contradicts itself, at one point referring to the stadium as a new stadium whilst elsewhere referring to it as an existing stadium requiriing minor renovation to make it ready for the World Cup.

    Obviously it is a clerical error in the document, just as The Ashton Gate blogger stated.

    Will’s explanation fails to understand the purpose of the FIFA evaluation document which is designed to assess the current status of the bid (not some hypothetical future status!) in order to assess the risk of awarding the World Cup to a potential host.

  8. Will permalink
    November 22, 2010 8:08 pm

    No you are wrong the reason it is “minor renovation” is because that is what it would need.
    The other New stadiums are listed like this due to the fact that they will not need any renovation to get them to World Cup Standards, as they are being built big enough already.

    It does not contradict its self. It is quite plainly printed in numerous places that it is to be a “new build” requiring “minor renovation” to get it to FIFA World Cup standards.

    In addition this document was written using information from the end of May 2010, Just after the stadium had got planning and the access road had been given planning permission everything was going to plan and the stadium was in a much more steady and advanced possition than most of the (new build) stadiums in the bid. This of course has slipped when 4 months later The “village” “green” claim got a inspectors note.

    So just to clarify bobs stated “The Olympic stadium is said to be “under construction”. FIFA is under the impression that the Bristol stadium is already built.”

    – This is wrong as FIFA have read/ written the document and and not this false blog post. not to mention visited the city many times.

    The above article is wrong and based on one line in a 40 page document, it is also clear to anyone it is aimed at (Not SacredSpring who just wants to stir up trouble) why this line is presented as it is.

  9. BobS permalink
    November 22, 2010 9:57 pm

    Yes right will. That’s really convincing argument. No mistake here people. Walk on.

  10. Deano permalink
    November 22, 2010 10:09 pm

    bet u that Will can’t give the page numbers from the FIFA doc for where “It is quite plainly printed in numerous places that it is to be a “new build” requiring “minor renovation” to get it to FIFA World Cup standards”…..go on Will give us the page numbers, doc is only 40 pages, shouldn’t take long……maybe Brian Tompson can give u a hand?

    Or ar you just making it up?

    FIFA only did one inspection visit, and they didn’t come to Bristol…

  11. Still Waters permalink
    November 23, 2010 12:19 am

    I suspect that the bid document may be hedging it’s bets by muddling the situation over the Bristol stadium.

    As has been pointed out above, FIFA have never visited Bristol and may therefore assume AG current is AV planned (apart from one looks like a Lego bowl designed to attract kerbcrawlers, and one looks traditional)

    BCFC already had PP to renovate AG (‘minor renovation’) agreed by BCC, and would have many supporters in doing so – is The Bid slipping in a Plan B from Lansdown and attempting to ‘switcheroonie’ the stadiums in order to please FIFA either way?

  12. Still Waters permalink
    November 23, 2010 12:29 am

    Also, the ‘owner’ isn’t Ashton Gate Ltd, the ‘investors’ (until proven otherwise) aren’t BCFC and BCC – unless you count that gift of land from BCC and that ‘fee covering’ £2mill from BCFC coffers that they could hardly afford.

  13. Richard Lane permalink
    November 23, 2010 12:50 am

    Will
    Keep up the good work, Sacredspring refers to a fictional bung of £13m, while another poster refers to the figure of £10m, which one is correct? Answer none, they are both misrepresentations of reality.
    If you get too clever for them they threaten you with bans, or remove your posts so be careful.

  14. bobS permalink
    November 23, 2010 9:44 am

    What we see here from Agent Rich and Will is the classic problem which is getting the club into so much trouble. This document is an embarassment but not a big deal. FIFA have clearly got confused and think that Ashton Vale Stadium is already built. So what.

    But Agent Rich and Will have to claim that the document does not say what it plainly says. Why ?

    This is the sort of conduct that ends with BCFC serving new evidence to the Town Green Inspector from local witnesses saying “I can see the land clearly from my bedroom” when they either live two streets back from the land or live in a house surrounded by Leylandii hedge.

    Why do it ? Its just rediculous. You may convince yourself it is true and perhaps convince the BEP. But when we are dealing with EU investigations and independant Inspectors, it just makes you look stupid and desparate. It is the sort of conduct which has lost the club the day. Arrogance and bluster will not win out.

  15. Will permalink
    November 23, 2010 11:20 am

    -“FIFA have clearly got confused and think that Ashton Vale Stadium is already built”
    -“But Agent Rich and Will have to claim that the document does not say what it plainly says. Why ?”

    I’ll post what the Document says again shall I
    “In addition to the Olympic Stadium, which will be completed in time for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games, the new stadiums (New White Hart Lane, New Anfield, Ashton Vale, New Nottingham) would be completed from 2011 to 2016, with the design phase starting in 2010″

    FIFA is not confused, and clearly does not think Ashton Vale is already built. You are a liar.

  16. BobS permalink
    November 23, 2010 12:33 pm

    As Deano states above:

    “Conclusion: As far as the Ashton Vale Stadium is concerned the document contradicts itself, at one point referring to the stadium as a new stadium whilst elsewhere referring to it as an existing stadium requiriing minor renovation to make it ready for the World Cup.

    Obviously it is a clerical error in the document, just as The Ashton Gate blogger stated. ”

    Next Will your going to tell me that you can see the new stadium from your window !!!

  17. Will permalink
    November 23, 2010 1:23 pm

    And as I said to deano; “this document was written using information from the end of May 2010, Just after the stadium had got planning and the access road had been given planning permission everything was going to plan and the stadium was in a much more steady and advanced position than most of the (new build) stadiums in the bid. This of course has slipped when 4 months later The “village” “green” claim got a inspectors note.”

    You have said repeatedly;
    ”FIFA have clearly got confused and think that Ashton Vale Stadium is already built”

    on one part of the document it is listed as “minor Renovation” which as we all knows refers to the extra seating the stadium will need retro fitted to reach World Standard. It is also made clear (if you read the rest of the document) that Ashton Vale is a NEW BUILD. You have pounced on one part of the document and claimed incompetence, where in reality the only incompetence is in you and the blog writer who are desperate to find “shady goings on” and failing to understand the document in front of you. It is admittedly, not aimed at you so this is understandable ( however most people would keep quiet and not make an embarassing blog post), Your comment that FIFA do not know the status of the Ashton Vale stadium is contradicted many times in the document and is false.

  18. BobS permalink
    November 23, 2010 3:41 pm

    Oh dear Will. you are getting over excited. Wheere do I say this is evidence of “shady goings on”. All I pointed out was your desperation to explain everything away with unbelievable leaps of logic. If fact what I stated was this was “no big deal”.

    You are going to wet yourself when you hear all about BCFC “new” evidence. I can’t wait to hear your justifications as to why people can see around corners and through buildings.

  19. November 23, 2010 7:41 pm

    I’ve updated with the extracts for each stadium as listed in the stadiums section 4.6 of the England bid, (see following update in above post).

    Stadia are clearly marked as:

    1. Minor renovation
    2. Major renovation
    3. Built, with no further renovation indicated
    4. To be built
    5. Under construction (to be ready for the 2012 Summer Olympics)
    6. Appears to be ready to be used

  20. Richard Lane permalink
    November 23, 2010 9:46 pm

    BobS

    You make this claim: “What we see here from Agent Rich and Will is the classic problem which is getting the club into so much trouble”, and here ” But Agent Rich and Will have to claim that the document does not say what it plainly says. Why ?”

    I have made no comments whatsoever about this document, you are wrong again.
    I expect you to do the honourable thing and retract your statements about me.

  21. Will permalink
    November 23, 2010 10:45 pm

    You forgot to add the paragraph from just underneath those entries; It goes thus: “In addition to the Olympic Stadium, which will be completed in time for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games, the new stadiums (New White Hart Lane, New Anfield, Ashton Vale, New Nottingham) would be completed from 2011 to 2016, with the design phase starting in 2010″

  22. November 23, 2010 11:36 pm

    The Bristol stadium status is clearly listed as ‘minor renovation’ whilst the other stadiums to be built are listed as ‘to be built’.

    The question needs to be asked as to how and why this has happened.

    Detail in black and white that any fool can see is incorrect.

    Quote from England bid chief Andy Anson:
    “England’s bid is based around stadiums and facilities that are already in place,”
    “so there is minimal construction and planning required. We believe our bid book reflects a strong proposal to Fifa from a country that can deliver on facilities, commercial opportunities and general infrastructure.”

    Mayne-Nichols and his Fifa cronies visited manchester, sunderland and newcastle, after London.
    Shame they didn’t visit Bristol. They certainly met with a delegation from Bristol’s bid who surely must have given them the facts about the new stadium.

  23. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    November 24, 2010 11:25 am

    There is also the confusion over “the new White Hart Lane” and the Olympic Stadium which could still be one and the same as a new home for Spurs.

  24. Will permalink
    November 24, 2010 2:56 pm

    “They certainly met with a delegation from Bristol’s bid who surely must have given them the facts about the new stadium.”

    –yep > “In addition to the Olympic Stadium, which will be completed in time for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games, the new stadiums (New White Hart Lane, New Anfield, Ashton Vale, New Nottingham) would be completed from 2011 to 2016, with the design phase starting in 2010″

    “Detail in black and white that any fool can see is incorrect.”

    —looks accurate to me > “In addition to the Olympic Stadium, which will be completed in time for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games, the new stadiums (New White Hart Lane, New Anfield, Ashton Vale, New Nottingham) would be completed from 2011 to 2016, with the design phase starting in 2010″
    Oh I see the “detail” you refer to Consists of “Two words”. not very detailed and not the impression you get from reading the WHOLE document.

    “England’s bid is based around stadiums and facilities that are already in place,”“so there is minimal construction and planning required. We believe our bid book reflects a strong proposal to Fifa from a country that can deliver on facilities, commercial opportunities and general infrastructure.”

    –Yep this is accurate none of the proposed stadiums are being built purely to gain the world cup, they are Club Stadiums which will also have the possibility to benefit by housing cup games. Bristol City needs a modern stadium so that it can gain from non match-day income (conferencing etc…) It is not being built for the world cup ( if the world cup comes to England it will be renovated “minor” to reach that standard)

    “The Bristol stadium status is clearly listed as ‘minor renovation’ whilst the other stadiums to be built are listed as ‘to be built’”

    — None of the other stadiums will require renovation to get their capacity up to FIFA rules, They have simply missed out “To be built” how ever at the bottom of the page you are left in no doubt when it says…>“In addition to the Olympic Stadium, which will be completed in time for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games, the new stadiums (New White Hart Lane, New Anfield, Ashton Vale, New Nottingham) would be completed from 2011 to 2016, with the design phase starting in 2010″

    “The question needs to be asked as to how and why this has happened.’

    — not really, it doesn’t create confusion unless you are thick, it is quite clear when you read the document the status of Ashton Vale, and the basic outline of Englands World Cup bid.

  25. November 24, 2010 9:15 pm

    Accidental misinformation or deliberate omission?
    The omission of the words ‘to be built’ is in the main technical detail section of the full England bid document is very significant-obviously paints a more rosy picture of the stadium situation.
    Whatever is said later in the ‘small print’ creates more confusion-which one should you believe?

    England bid cost massive sums of public money-simple error in the fifa document smacks of ineptitude or dishonesty: either way the person(s) concerned should sack themselves.
    If they cant put a simple bid document together without ballsing it up what hope is there for the event itself.

    If you’re a city fan you should be ranting about it not trying to find excuses for them.

    Bid Fail.

  26. Will permalink
    November 25, 2010 12:49 am

    ” ‘small print’ ”
    –sits in the same size font under Title : “Analysis and comment” that is not small print. and (as it Is written by FIFA) suggests they are not confused about Ashton Vale stays. I urge people to actually look at the document, SacredSpring is lying.

    “England bid cost massive sums of public money-simple error in the fifa document smacks of ineptitude or dishonesty: either way the person(s) concerned should sack themselves.
    If they cant put a simple bid document together without ballsing it up what hope is there for the event itself.”

    — You seem to be a bit confused as to what the purpose of this document is. this is an evaluation of Englands world cup bid by FIFA. Who do you believe to have been dishonest? (if they were it is not very well done as any fool can see the actual status of Ashton vale stadium from the document) and what possible advantage would they have gained? I suggest you look at the evaluations of the other bids to see just how little difference the status of stadiums makes at this stage, hell according to you Ashton vale shouldnt be built anyway so why are you concerning yourself with it? other than trying to imply ineptitude where it is pretty much all you, not reading the full doc and jumping to conclusions. Thankfully the proffesionals (FiFA) do read documents and also have the full bid book not just this one document ( basic evaluation produced mainly for the media)

  27. Richard Lane permalink
    November 25, 2010 9:41 pm

    BobS
    Yours are the sort of comments that have made the opposition look stupid and desperate, to use your words.
    You have claimed that I said this and said that about the document, yet I haven’t actually made a comment until now, as any fool can see.
    All you have done is make another hash of what could be simple debating,
    highlighted by your Ignorance and bullishness, I hope onlookers will realise this. I feel confident that the misrepresentation and manipulation of facts by yourself and other members of the opposition, will not win the day.

    First comment on document by R lane.
    I have read the document, it is misleading in a way, especially if you only read a part of it. It definately would not cause the world governing body of football to be confused. With it’s resources and knowledge of the bids, claiming this would be discrediting that organisation. But hey why not discredit them, you’ve had a go at everyone else.

  28. November 25, 2010 9:52 pm

    Excuses are lame-the document has glaring error.

    Botched bid says Ashton Vale stadium requires minor renovation.

    Lets see the full bid document then Will, you know so much about it.

  29. Richard Lane permalink
    November 25, 2010 11:23 pm

    Sacredspring
    Let’s confirm one thing at a time.
    This is FIFAs evaluation of Englands bid, not Englands bid document, as you claim. It was written by FIFA, so they do know the status of the stadium, as they have printed the statement that, AshtonVale is to be built.

    Although confusing in places, this is an evaluation at time of going to press (May 14th), by the bid chairman of FIFA.
    The new stadium has planning permission and was on course for development until recent delays. The reference to Ashton Vale needing minor renovation is I think, that once built, it will require minor renovation (increasing capacity to 44,000). Personally I would say that is a bit more than minor.
    Anyway, it definately classes it as “to be Built” later in the document.
    Perhaps the other references to stadiums, uses this term when a stadium requires planning permission, such as Nottingham, New Anfield, New White Hart Lane, which makes it even more confusing.
    It would appear you have only printed the first statement in an attempt to portray a different scenario than actually exists. You claim possible dishonesty, by who?
    This is not the England bid document as you insist. it is a FIFA document.

  30. Still Waters permalink
    November 25, 2010 11:26 pm

    What I find dishonest (others may disagree) is that England’s bid literally begs FIFA to choose the UK and take up to £160 million out of the country as profits.

  31. November 25, 2010 11:56 pm

    Cant believe I actually agree with a Mr Lane comment at last! I would put the boot into Fifa for balls-up.

    Steve Lansdown tonight compared the new stadium with Concord!

    Wait for Evening Toast ‘Stadium Concord must take off’ headline tomorrow.

  32. November 26, 2010 12:03 am

    I thought tax-free profits from South Africa over £2billion.
    Fifa require change in our law so they control all media (world cup on ‘crown jewels’ list), and exemptiion of tax from all fifa competition revenue, staff, pies, cider, EVERYTHING. Nice work for the Blattered Swiss mafia.

  33. Will permalink
    November 26, 2010 1:10 am

    oh, rich!! you ruined it!! I wanted to see how long it would take them to realise.

    sssssso… “ssssacredsssspringa”… back to where we started… are you going to retract your little blog post, based on a document you didn’t understand? The title sims it up really doesn’t it?

    sort out your blog post then we will take a look at some of yours bobs, still waters, etc… claims in the comments, eh?

  34. Will permalink
    November 26, 2010 1:26 am

    Paul,
    I believe that FIFA would decide which of the London stadiums to use ( i’m sure the is a limit on how many stadiums per city) so its possible that if spurs do move into the Olympic stadium they are doing FIFA a favour, the stadiums are really not a big deal at this stage of the process ( something this blog doesnt seem to understand) Russia for example has 13 as of yet non existent stadiums making up it’s bid with the other three requiring Major renovation. This is where this blog post falls down there is no benefit for anyone to lie on the document, if FIFA cared that much about the current state of facilities there would be no competition even if Ashton vale wasn’t in the bid.

  35. Will permalink
    November 26, 2010 1:31 am

    the PP for Ashton gate was in no way a “Minor renovation”

    Ashton Gate is to small to renovate and bring in the revenue the club needs to survive, which is probably the reason this didn’t go ahead.

  36. Will permalink
    November 26, 2010 1:42 am

    oh and… “Lets see the full bid document then Will, you know so much about it.”

    I know enough about it to know it is not available to the public. I also havnt claimed to have seen it unlike you.

  37. BobS permalink
    November 26, 2010 1:41 pm

    This is hilarious. Will and Richard still turning pink over a minor screw up in a document.

    You just wait for the “compelling” new evidence the club has gathered. Just a few dozen screw ups there. It’s hilarious that stadium fans on the BEP are still accusing the nimby witnesses of lying. Just wait for the porkers the clubs witnesses have told. You are never going to be able to explain these away.

  38. Deano permalink
    November 26, 2010 3:25 pm

    “Although confusing in places, this is an evaluation at time of going to press (May 14th), by the bid chairman of FIFA.”

    Really? You want to think that through a bit, Richard? Let me give you a clue – what happened on 18th October?

    “It is quite plainly printed in numerous places that it is to be a “new build”

    Still haven’t found the page numbers for those numerous places have you William?

  39. Will permalink
    November 26, 2010 4:30 pm

    from memory it states it on page six, followed two or three times in the pages that folllow.
    “what happened on 18th October?”
    didnt the Danes defeat Saxons at Battle of Assandun?
    oh and england removed their bid for 2022, um.. and?? this is an evaluation using information from the bid book FIFA received ,May 14

    Quote; “As part of the bidding process, FIFA requested each Bidder to provide Bidding Documents containing information on infrastructure…etc..This Bid Evaluation Report evaluates the information provided in the Bidding Documents”

    This is something people on this blog don’t seem to understand, The above blog is wrong due to the author not understanding the document they “read”. The bit they have jumped on, “minor Construction” is admit-ably probably a clerical error it could be construed that this error was made due to the fact that the Ashton Vale stadium at the time of The information being gathered was in a much more forward possition to any other “new Build” having received planning permission for the site, and the access, (A fair few months before the Town Green bomb shell was dropped.)
    However this is not what bobs has been claiming ;

    “FIFA is under the impression that the Bristol stadium is already built.”
    “FIFA have clearly got confused and think that Ashton Vale Stadium is already built.”

    likewise Still Waters ;
    “I suspect that the bid document may be hedging it’s bets by muddling the situation over the Bristol stadium.” — obviously hasn’t read (understood) the document

    Sacred Spring;
    “The omission of the words ‘to be built’ is in the main technical detail section of the full England bid document is very significant-obviously paints a more rosy picture of the stadium situation.” – how they have seen Englands Full bid I don’t know, maybe they should be investigated.
    “Bristol City’s new Stadium is nearly finished… Or so the England World-cup bid to Fifa says …” — oops
    “Here’s the full England bid document for the 2018 world cup.” — followed by a link to nothing of the sort…oops

    The fact is the above Blog is wrong, and, as it is wrong, I think that it should be retracted. SacredSpring could then repost another version which cites the real origin of the information and includes what the document actually says about the stadium (not just the two words he has currently.)

  40. Deano permalink
    November 26, 2010 5:21 pm

    “from memory it states it on page six, followed two or three times in the pages that folllow.”

    why from memory? there is a link to the document at the top of this blog. Don’t use your memory look it up and answer the question honestly.

    On how many pages in the document does it refer to the Ashton Vale Stadium as a new build?

  41. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    November 26, 2010 6:59 pm

    Sacredspring. “Tonight Steve Lansdown compared the new stadium to concorde!” I’m glad you mentioned Steve Lansdown. I’m surprised nobody has commented on his interview in the Sunday Times where he says he will use some of the money from his last share disposal to set up a Private Equity Co. to invest in Biomass and Solar energy. Now I don’t see SL as an environmentalist, although I could be wrong, so I assume he sees this as a good investment. Surely this is one time when we should hope he is successful, as these two energy scources are vital to all our futures!

  42. November 26, 2010 7:05 pm

    When the England bid team contact Fifa to demand a retraction of the error and when the Blattered Fifa billionaires make a grovelling apology for the cock-up, I will happily publish the correction of their errors.
    Season of goodwill is in order and charitable in view of the increasingly unlikely new stadium at ashton vale.

  43. Will permalink
    November 26, 2010 8:32 pm

    It is YOUR error I want retracted. I am contacting you here to point out YOUR error. You now admit that the above post is wrong and misleading but are refusing to change it, This is appalling.

    Trolling a blog and demanding things like a spoilt child! You may get your own way at BCFC but this is a site against your damaging plans. If I were to spend the time on OTIB promoting the greenbelt I wouldn’t expect much sympathy.
    Get over it or go elsewhere.
    The facts of the glaring error on the document need no more explanation.

  44. Will permalink
    November 26, 2010 8:49 pm

    pages 6, and then the page that has offended so much 13(irony) where it has “minor renovation” next to a picture of a clearly computer generated stadium and the cost of the stadium ( only present on the new builds stats), page 15 Outlining the exact number of builds to be renovated, new build etc… (where ashton Vale is clearly stated as a new build… as if it wasnt obvious enough.)and then again on page 16. This document is not misleading to anyone that matters and knows the england bid aka: FIFA, who, lets not forget also have the thousand etc.. page bid book, and met the delegation for the bristol bid.

  45. Richard Lane permalink
    November 26, 2010 11:28 pm

    Will
    As I warned you before, get used to the rules only being used against the likes of us.
    BobS
    You haven’t retracted your comments yet, or even acknowledged that you were wrong, shame on you, no guts and even less honour.
    But we have come to expect this sort of thing from the stadium opposition posters.
    It’ll soon be the turn of the exageration and misinformation on the Sainsbury’s plans.

    Rich-you are spending a lot of time here again in order to promote your own BCFC agenda. Can I remind you of the rules and your mate (!) Will.
    There’s no demanding or retraction of comments as that is a bit sad-looking in the world of adult free speech.
    My season of goodwill charity towards BCFC commenters is being challenged and I really don’t want to start dishing out bans this close to Xmas.

    sacredspring

  46. Will permalink
    November 27, 2010 12:27 am

    In my view its fine for bobs to keep lying in the comments, if SacredSpring is willing to have their blog present lies and falsehoods they can expect the comments section to be no different.
    Its a shame that someone who, from what I have seen elsewhere on here, is so proud of their blog, and striving for the truth is so willing to present falsehoods and so unwilling to change a post they (and we) know is wrong, it undermines everything else they have posted. The 20 or so of us that read it are surely disappointed.

    The Sainsburys plans are good though aren’t they, I like what they are planning with Colliters Brook, looks like it will be a lovely off road walk from Greville smyth park to the KFC or maybe now the nice Sainsburys cafe for the kids after football practice,before they catch their busses home (some of them free, none the less). Its great that this job creating development could pay for a new World Class stadium, bring in investment and hopefully Premier league Football, and the Music venue Bristol has wanted for years.

    The truth on the Monster Sainsburys 2 will be out soon. More damaging than the last failed campaigns to inflict the disastrous hypermarket on a fragile local economy.
    Thrown out twice by the council your club should listen to the people, but the arrogance prevails.

    sacredspring

  47. Still Waters permalink
    November 27, 2010 1:43 am

    Does anyone want to know ‘the clubs’ (I mean the SL PR Campaign’s) new evidence btw?

    It’s very interesting, and rather saddening for the amount BCFC paid to SL’s agents to ‘uncover’ it.

    (sorry to go off-topic)

    Btw Will, I still read the documents as mis-guided or mis-informed. Something’s not right there.

    I’ve contacted FIFA admins for clarification – see how it pans out.

  48. Will permalink
    November 27, 2010 2:31 am

    are the documents any less mis guided or mis informed than the above blog though. whilst we wait for response from FIFA do you think it is right sacredSpring is refusing to retract his blog post ?given the fact it is inaccurate,and rather liberal with the truth. how do you think they have been misguided? you claimed that FIFA were under the impression that Ashton Gate is the stadium in the world cup bid, something with no basis in reality, it is stated in no less than 3 different places in the evaluation docs that it is a new build.

    re the new evidence, it’s not for you or me to decide how accurate it is. as I have stated before I am not convinced by the evidence FOR a village green so unless a few hundred more people have come out with hard evidence of continued use then In my eyes it’s not a village green.
    So no I don’t particularly have any interest of seeing any new evidence, unless it is un deniable proof pro-green.

  49. November 27, 2010 8:00 am

    Trolling this blog will get you in the bin and sent back to your OTIB forum.
    The error is clearly in the document and its no surprise that you haven’t recognised that.
    The millions spent on the England campaign could be even more damaged than it already is. The Fifa boffins on their massive salaries need to get their heads examined as well as their glaring error.

    sacredspring

Comments are closed.