Skip to content

No World Cup=No New Stadium=No Monster Hypermarket

December 3, 2010

Way back when the conspiracy to open up the greenbelt was made public,it was presented by the greed merchants that the World Cup bid was an essential part of the whole plot. Enabling development was the key word then. The monster Hypermarket on the old ground enabled the financing of a new stadium which enabled the city to bid for and host the World cup. The world cup being the ultimate dream for the star struck council. And fans alike-who could resist the temptation of football’s ultimate prize of untold riches and top games in our home city-instant fan support for a convoluted planning process and greenbelt land grab.. The pressure was built up by the unscrupulous Mike Norton of the Evening Lost who puffed the world cup at every opportunity no doubt sniffing large advertising and marketing revenue.

In the push that has followed not many of this gang has contemplated life without the World Cup. For sure if England had won the bid then the monster hypermarket and land giveaway and greenbelt destruction would have been pressed even harder and would have been difficult for councillors to resist.

Fact is now the whole saga has been booted down to earth with a large dose of FIFA foul play. You play by fifa’s dodgy rules then you get what you deserve, in this case 2 votes one of which was our own fifa rep.

So the new stadium can no longer claim to be an essential part of England hosting the world cup. Where does that leave it?

Exactly where we left off with Lansdown and Sexton already making bullish statements saying they will press on regardless, as though the world cup ‘bribery’ wasn’t part of their wooing of the council and fans.

The council and the taxpayer have splashed out hundreds of thousands on the process already. Local residents are still fighting to save their community’s from the double-whammy of regional huge hypermarket, hypermarket appeal of discredited sainsburys, and greenbelt destruction.

I say time for the city council and the people to fight back and not be dictated to by the greed merchants.

The land grabbing elite and multi-national greed merchants, like the Tsars in the Fifa hall of fame, are the tail wagging the dog.

  1. Country Cousin permalink
    December 3, 2010 9:59 am

    Spot on Sacred Spring,
    Back when the Tesco malarkey was king, the link was being made in the BEP.
    In June 2009 it said “The timetable is tight. Planning permission for the redevelopment of the Ashton Gate site will be submitted at the end of July, leaving the planning committee until late October to make their decision.

    It will be an independent decision. But Bristol’s World Cup ambitions, £100m of investment, eight years of promotion and a festival of previously unseen proportions in this city hang completely on that decision”

    What happended to that plan, even though it had the FIFA force behind it? Booted out by planners and then withdrawn by the club to avoid the embaressment of refusal. And the plan by Sainsburys too? Recommended by planners, but booted out by DEMOCRATICALLY elected councillors (to quote metres of copy from the OTIB).

    Now without the pressure of all that FIFA foul cash behind it, the Councillors have no excuse. Boot the whole plan into touch and ask the club to start from scratch with a new stadium plan in a sensible site and a re-development for Ashton Gate that leaves a legacy to be proud of rather than a soul destroying hypermarket.

  2. Still Waters permalink
    December 3, 2010 7:10 pm

    Aaahhh… but you haven’t met The Syndicate’s NEW weapon of misinformation yet..!

    Gentlemen, may I introduce to you ‘Plan B’ (not the cd) – THE ARENA OF ULTIMATE PUBLIC OPINION PERSUASION!

    Yeah, that’s right.. EP’s new focus, imho, because the football fans were useless at ‘selling the dream’, so they’ll be expanding their focus to target and brainwash.. er, I mean ‘inform without prejudice’.. the general event-loving public of Bristol.

    Never mind that it’ll be in direct competition with any event the stadium might want to host to gain some filthy lucre as payback for those ‘millions’ SL invested (current figure seems to be about 7 mill of his 500m fortune: land purchase costs less loan repayments received, etc.)

    Mr Cook(ed Goose) seems to think that SL has gifted him the right to build an arena next to the stadium, despite interviews that show SL providing that wonderful ‘missing confirmation’ that he’s become famous for.

    But hey, this is the EP we’re talking about – the nearest they get to facts and truth is only anything that happens to be accidentally left in the articles they copy and paste from PR consultants into their column inches.

  3. Richard Lane permalink
    December 5, 2010 10:06 am

    Nothing changes, the stadium is still needed, has planning permission(if you had forgotten), the loss of the possibility of wc matches has gone, but so has one of your arguments against the stadium.
    I should look again at your statements because they are not true, or put another way, they are lies.
    The stadium was planned before the bid for WC was made.
    You’ll probably threaten to or ban me for that, but some reality needs to come onto this self appreciation bullshit blog site.

  4. December 5, 2010 2:47 pm

    Sour grapes.

    New stadium has lost its main propaganda call, trumpeted from day one as city council chose to gamble £1/2million on world cup failed bid. Planning consent only granted because of world-cup and new arena ‘bribes’. Keep calling everyone liars-your arguments have lost any credibility they may once have had.

    Loss of world cup bid is good for the city despite huge cash sums wasted. It can focus on real issues like balancing the budget instead of corrupt world-cup fantasy land.

  5. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    December 5, 2010 7:18 pm

    As this is a site for information, can somebody explain why, when we have been told that all councils had to pay £250,000 towards the cost of the bid, some have registered their total spend as less than this amount?

  6. Richard Lane permalink
    December 5, 2010 9:11 pm


    The bid leader of the council stated that the total cost including £250,000 for the FA bid was I think £ 385,000.
    Perhaps the other councils haven’t classed the £250,000 as spent, possibly just for registration. We all know it has gone though.

    The stadium has lost no propaganda, as there was none. It was a bid for the world cup by Bristol council, with BCFC providing the stadium if needed. That is no longer the case as the bid failed. The stadium is still required for the football club to progress and compete with other clubs that have better facilities. That is not propaganda.
    Propaganda is stating things that aren’t true to portray something different from the reality, eg:- You made claim after claim that there were daily press releases from Mr Lansdown pushing the stadium and WC, with no evidence whatsoever to back up those claims.
    Now you come out with the claim that, it was after all, Mike Norton pushing the WC for advertising revenue.
    It was exactly the case of the local media pushing the bid and not Mr Lansdown, though I doubt Mr Norton was doing it for the advertising money. More likely that he knew it was good for Bristol. Your whole campaign argument is based on propaganda.

    It is far more cost effective to build a new stadium, sell the existing one, still inhabit the existing one during construction, receive £20m from Sainsbury’s for the existing site and at the same time release some £90m into the local economy in one form or another.

    There will be far more for the community with the new stadium than without it.
    From what I’ve heard there could even be a new doctors surgery, for Ashton Vale and Long Ashton residents included. As well as the Gym, Hotel, Restaurant, Conference hall and the other general benefits a stadium gives to the community.

    The new stadium passed all the required criteria with both councils, based on the 30,000 capacity. The world cup capacity would have been temporary and presumably both councils new there was a big question mark over that result being favourable, when coming to their decisions.
    As one of those councils was not even bidding for the WC, what benefits would there have been to entice or convince them approve? Surely if it did not meet the requirements they would have refused it?

  7. Richard Lane permalink
    December 5, 2010 9:36 pm

    Country Cousin

    What on earth are you talking about with your references to FIFA cash and FIFA force?
    There has been no cash or force from FIFA behind these plans.
    There has been the prospect of much needed investment and the prospect of a massive benefit to the whole region from it.

    The only people that might have lost and that is questionable apart from the investors are, the people living on the periphial of the city, living off the back of that city, using that city. Yet at the same time, worried that his or her property may be adversely affected by a development near their idylic semi rural retreat.
    So what do they do faced with this possibility? Answer= Oppose all developments which may have a detrimental effect to any rural retreat in the area. Promote developments on brownfield sites, which at the same time results in added pressure on the local authorities who are forced into selling off green spaces to cater for the population increase. Which then in turn results in the density of housing increasing in the city, to the detriment of all those city dwellers and further increasing the need for more large scale retail developments.
    All this pressure comes from people that are not part of the city, don’t pay any rates at all to the city, yet feel they have a right to influence and impose their will on that city’s ratepaying inhabitants.

  8. Still Waters permalink
    December 6, 2010 12:32 am

    “From what I’ve heard there could even be a new doctors surgery”

    I believe that was one of the *cough* ‘incentives’ offered should the village green application be voluntarily withdrawn – which it can’t.

    Restaurant? McDonalds drive-thrus are still classed as ‘Restaurants’?

    Hotel? Conference Centre? Are these available free of charge to the community? AFAIK it was only Gym membership (and only a subsidy at that) when we already have a gym smack bang in the centre of AV.

    And let’s face a bit more reality; Mike Norton’s daily promotions of the stadium were virtually all posted by BCFC in advance, so either he was giving them preference on the ‘breaking news’ written by his pet hack Onions, or he was on the PR mailing list and merely pasted up the press releases as ‘news’.

  9. Tony Dyer permalink
    December 6, 2010 8:50 am


    According to the BBC;

    “In many areas the council paid part of that cost and the rest was paid by others, such as tourism organisations and local businesses”

    In other words, many of the councils persuaded local businesses to make a greater contribution to the marketing costs rather than relying on public funds.

  10. December 6, 2010 9:37 am

    All this pressure comes from people that are not part of the city, don’t pay any rates at all to the city, yet feel they have a right to influence and impose their will on that city’s ratepaying inhabitants.


  11. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    December 6, 2010 3:21 pm

    Perhaps our council should have approached Business West or Destination Bristol for a donation and all those businesses who have put there names to the recent petitions. Afterall, we have constantly been told how vital it was for local business so why has the tax payer footed all of the bill? I’m always confused as to why, when Nick Leeson gambled with other peoples money, he was sent to prison, yet when our top bankers do the same, with far more catastrophic results, it’s all forgotten. It’s a strange world!

  12. Richard Lane permalink
    December 6, 2010 9:12 pm

    Mr Lansdown pays hundreds of thousands of pounds in business rates to the city, from BCFC and Hargreaves Lansdown.
    And there is also a difference in that, Mr Lansdown is trying to invest his money in the city not stop an investment.

  13. Richard Lane permalink
    December 6, 2010 9:31 pm

    Your opinion does not matter in relation to the facilities offered, they are there for people to use or not, no matter how you class them.
    Since when have Hotels and Conference centres been free of charge? These are just some of the facilities which business users will use when bringing their business and money to Bristol. When referring to the community, it is of course the community of Bristol including Ashtonvale I refer to. Because this is not just about you and Ashtonvale, It is about all of us.

    The reality as you put it when referring to the daily updates, were virtually all worded the same as they were promoting the city’s WC bid by focusing on individuals and groups supporting the bid.

  14. Richard Lane permalink
    December 6, 2010 10:27 pm

    You forgot to mention other non Bristol residents or ratepayers, Ron Morton, Tony Dyer and the members of HOLA, DRAG, and other groups in the SOGS alliance, who only want to save their special places, yet will scratch each others backs for a scratch back themselves.

  15. December 7, 2010 12:14 am

    Funny that, businesses in Bristol %100 behind the bid was the slogan. Why didn’t they put their money where their big mouths were? Lots of the business leaders at the world-cup announcement bun-fight in council house looking as though it was their £1/2million housekeeping money they’d squandered. Lansdown wanted the world-cup status for new stadium that badly he left BCC ratepayers to foot the bill. Not a top bean-counter for nothing.

  16. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    December 7, 2010 1:07 pm

    Helen and Dawn knew the writing was on the wall. They both wore black!

  17. Richard Lane permalink
    December 7, 2010 8:54 pm

    You seem to forget that big business, is putting it’s money where it’s mouth is, by paying £90m plus to have a stadium built, which could then have been used for the event. The council were bidding on the back of that private , not public, investment.

Comments are closed.