Skip to content

Beep Beep we’ve lost our ground, hooray! Beep Beep, we’re going to play on the rubbish tip. Beep Beep, that’s right, Twerton Park!

March 5, 2011

Any fans got the guts to ask the beloved leader for a copy of the Sainsbury contract?

  1. Richard Lane permalink
    March 5, 2011 8:04 am

    You Prat, are you seriously trying to say, that the club have signed a contract to sell AG, without a clause in it to cover the scenario of the TVG lot delaying the new stadium build. Or is this another failed attempt (just like Georges) to stir things up with another load of bullshit? Me thinks it’s another load of bullshit from a shit stirrer. In fact it barely warrants a reply, desperate now aren’t we?

  2. Mr Craig Shortwood permalink
    March 5, 2011 9:04 am

    You lost the battle and you’ll lose the war. Get over it.

  3. March 5, 2011 9:24 am

    beep beep ask Lansdown for the contract you bunch of adoring wimps!

  4. March 5, 2011 10:00 am

    Don’t forget your new song today:

    I hear the sound
    Of distant cash-tills
    Over there, over there
    Beep Beep Beep Kerching!

  5. Deano permalink
    March 5, 2011 1:19 pm

    As for impartiality, here is a statement from the chair of the planning committee, Cllr Lesley Alexander (Conservative) in response to the Town Green recommendation. It was reproduced on the Bristol City FC fansite;

    “Posted 17 September 2010 – 05:20 PM
    posted this on another thread but just being ignored – the reply I had from Frome Vale councillor Lesley Alexander –

    This decision is disappointing for everyone and you may be aware that I was chairman of the committee that voted in favour of the stadium and I voted in favour myself. However in this case the decision will be made by the Public rights of way and greens committee of which I am not a member. I am sure that there will be barristers etc looking at this report to try and find loopholes”

  6. Richard Lane permalink
    March 5, 2011 6:59 pm

    Shock horror! a politition responding to a question with an answer the person wanted to hear.
    I suppose Tess Green would have been impartial, duh.
    Careful, you might offend the residents of Bath with your insults. I suspect you know Twerton well.

  7. Deano permalink
    March 5, 2011 7:15 pm

    “I suppose Tess Green would have been impartial, duh”

    No, she wouldn’t have been.

    Which is why she didn’t sit on the planning committee, duh!

  8. Richard Lane permalink
    March 5, 2011 8:54 pm

    which was also why Sean Benyon didn’t sit as well, duh.
    Some people had to and they thought it was a good thing planned. Get over it.

  9. Deano permalink
    March 5, 2011 10:31 pm

    Which part of

    Tess Green and Sean Beynon didn’t sit on the committee but Lesley Alexander did

    do you have a problem understanding?

    No, I won’t get over it.

  10. sacred tosser permalink
    March 5, 2011 10:47 pm

    sacred spring, u are a little shit!

  11. Richard Lane permalink
    March 5, 2011 11:19 pm

    I understand all of the situation and accept it.
    50 percent in favour never voted, and 50 percent against never voted.
    The other Impartial councillors heard the evidence, the public statements both for and against, the council officers recommenations, the applicants representations and the objectors duplicated representations. They listened, weighed up the pros and conns and made their judgement. It was to accept and vote in favour of something that would be good for Bristol.

    8 other representatives of Bristol residents sat on the committee, from all parties and from across the city representing it’s citizens. You’ll have to accept it, it happened.
    Unfortunately this decision went against your wishes, others may well go your way. That’s the democratic process we have at the moment. If you think the 200 -250 people opposed to these plans, should dominate policy for the Southville ward, rather than the 23,000 people of the ward. then change the system.
    I’ve looked at the amount of representations to the council, opposed to the plans and because of duplication they appeared more, they were only actually 250 maximum. Just above 1 percent.

  12. March 6, 2011 10:38 am

    The councillors were more representative at the last planning meeting and engaged in the debate. Because it went against the clubs plans there then ensued a massive campaign of intimidation against the democratic decision then including death threats so I’ve heard, although that is hard to substantiate without the person(s) concerned coming forward.
    Net result for the club is:
    1. Great- our campaign of intimidation worked, the panel was changed and we get the superstore on the nod. Good democracy for us. We like the democratic process now.
    2. We can now focus our intimidation on another sector of the community holding out for their civil rights.

    Not surprising people wish to remain anonymous in all this. The club and its owners have been shamefully reticent in condemning the devisive and degrading behaviour by the small minority.
    I know most fans don’t act like this and are genuine good people-they are the ones who need to get a grip on the cancer of the hooligans and boot them out of their sport.

    No news on how long sainsburys will wait before they want to hear the cash tills ringing?

  13. bobS permalink
    March 6, 2011 12:56 pm

    Just seen this comment on Charlie Bolton’s blog. That might explain a few things.

    Anonymous said…

    No one is allowed to reveal what clauses Lansdown sought from the TVG applicants which were so objectionable.

    However, it would be completely unacceptible if he sought clauses that:

    1. forced the TVG applicants to speak out in favour of the stadium at any public meeting Lansdown organsed and asked them to attend

    2. allowed Lansdown to sue for damages if they refused and obtain court orders compelling their attendance at such events.

    This would be the behaviour of a mad meglamaniac dictator and not a nice person seeking the best for Bristol

    6 March 2011 04:27

  14. harryT permalink
    March 6, 2011 1:02 pm

    The BEP have suggested that the landowners offered the applicants TVG status on the South of the land. I don’t believe this is true.

    It is difficult to find out what is true due to the confidentiality. However, what the applicants would be unlikely to accept is an offer of TVG status only on the sections of the land which will be permanently under water with housing still permitted to be built on the remainder.

    Can you imagine – the UKs first under water green.

  15. Richard Lane permalink
    March 7, 2011 10:56 pm

    How can four councillors on a committee of six be representative of the city? They debated the width of pavements, the times of buses and the possibility that someone could plant a bomb under the store. Only three councillors debated the traffic and retail impacts.

    Where on earth is this housing planned that you talk of? There are no plans for any housing on the 42 acre sight.
    The land to the south is not permanently under water, unless you are referring to the drainage ditches. If it were permanently under water, there would have been a misrepresentation of the land use by the TVG applicants. There would be no access for the hundreds of people that so say use it. That is unless they carry out water sports there, as well as kite flying, cricket and football.

  16. harryT permalink
    March 8, 2011 8:27 am

    The only part of the land offered by the landowners to the TVG applicants as part of a deal is the bit they intend to dig out for the drainage/wetlands. This bit (in the future when dug out) will be entirely under water.

    The Southlands site was not offered as TVG, leaving it open for further housing. The landowners still plan to build on that land.

    The landowners “deal” also apparently requires the TVG applicants to speak in favour of the stadium whenever called upon by the landowners to do so, on threat of damages if they refuse.

    The above is my understanding of the landowners offer, which the applicants waited 6 weeks to receive, having been told by the landowners that it would be a much much better offer thatn this. This is why the talks are in trouble.

  17. March 8, 2011 10:12 am

    The landowners “deal” also apparently requires the TVG applicants to speak in favour of the stadium whenever called upon by the landowners to do so, on threat of damages if they refuse.

    Seriously, would the applicants really want to be at the beck and call of Napoleon Lansdown and his generals? Instant targets for whoever when the call came from the propaganda department?
    What an arrogant bunch of landowners.
    I’d tell the bully-boys where to stuff it as well. The boot’s on the other foot this time. They’d do well to show some humility and respect cos Sainsburys want those monster cash-tills running like …NOW!

  18. BobS permalink
    March 8, 2011 11:47 am

    It sounds as if there was not really an ongoing mediation at all.

    They met day 1, when the landowners set out an offer they intended to make in writing.

    The applicants then waited for 6 weeks to see the written offer. When it came in, it bore no relation to what the landowners said at the meeting.

    All the lies and propoganda in the BEP and on Otib won’t change the FACTS (as they like to say).

  19. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    March 8, 2011 12:31 pm

    I think the question as to whom should sit on the planning ctte. is an interesting one. Tess Green not allowed to sit because she has previously expressed a view against, Sean Beynon because he is a season ticket holder at Ashton Gate. But I thought all ctte. members were supposed to attend with no preconceived views. Fair enough. But what if Tess, in the days before the meeting claimed to have become undecided, or if Sean was infact a season ticket holder who actually wanted to stay at AG., or if another member had preconceived views but kept them to themselves, or if a member of a ctte. was infact a City fan but used another persons ticket so was not required to stand down. Then there is the issue of Cllr. Leslie. Is she any different to the others? And what if a cllr. had previously said to me that they were in favour of the stadium. Should I report them? It’s like the question, if you say something rascist are you worse than someone who thinks something rascist? My guess would be that very few could honestly say that they had no opinion before they took part and I think if Tess and Sean were both due to stand, they should have been allowed.

  20. Richard Lane permalink
    March 8, 2011 10:59 pm

    You say: “It is difficult to find out what is true due to the confidentiality”. You then follow this statement up with others, that are spoken with the authority of a person that does know. Which is it, inside knowledge or speculation?

    As above.Pure speculation with a hint of animosity towards the landowners based on nothing more than speculation and hearsay.
    I heard the applicants wanted £200,000 each to give up the application. Again pure speculation.
    What is the truth?
    Could you tell us what the lies and propoganda are? I’ve only seen reporting that the talks are taking place, not conjecture about the content of those talks from the media.
    There’s also speculation on this site, as there is on OTIB. Of course it could be called propoganda, just the like the headline of this topic.

  21. harryT permalink
    March 9, 2011 9:37 am

    Can we at least agree on who is Graham Onions ? (Or do you also dismiss this as speculation.)

  22. Richard Lane permalink
    March 9, 2011 5:19 pm


    Graham Onions can be whoever you want him to be.
    The only person with the surname Onions that I know, is involved in reporting news about the schemes for the Ashton area.
    I wouldn’t know a cricketer if he jumped up and hit you on the nose.

    You can try to be as sarcastic as you want, it goes with your trying to speculate. You aint very good.

  23. harryT permalink
    March 9, 2011 5:25 pm

    Yes Richard. You have got me there. I have no idea what is going on in the mediation. I admit it.

    you are the one with all the FACTS.

  24. Richard Lane permalink
    March 9, 2011 5:37 pm


    So as I said without intending to be rude, it’s all speculation, portrayed as FACTS.
    I have only one fact, which is, there is not a village green in Ashton Vale.

  25. harryT permalink
    March 9, 2011 5:41 pm

    No. You are correct. The Inspector said it was a Town Green.

    Hard luck about that by the way. I can see it is winding you up a little.

  26. Richard Lane permalink
    March 9, 2011 5:43 pm

    Harry T
    You now try to imply that you do know what is going on, with another sarcastic comment. So, are you lying when you say you don’t know whats going on? Or are you breaking confidentialality?

  27. Richard Lane permalink
    March 9, 2011 5:45 pm

    The inspector did not say it was a town green, She said in law, it meets the criteria. And as such she recommends it for being a town green. Different.
    Other people say differently.

  28. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    March 9, 2011 8:06 pm

    Whats in a name? All I wanted to know was if Mr. Onions had spoken to any of the Councillors about which way they were going to vote prior to them withdrawing. If so, why, as they should have had no preconceived idea. As for cricket, a Tom Graveney man myself, but Richard, you would know a cricketer as Stephen Lansdown, until quite recently played for Bishopston C.C.

  29. Richard Lane permalink
    March 9, 2011 8:43 pm

    Hi paul

    Harry seems to want to prolongue his petty attitude.

    I merely asked if it was Ian and not Graham you were referrring to. I hadn’t come across the name and wanted to confirm.

    I know very little about cricket and who plays the game, I’m just not very interested in it.
    Some of the one day stuff might be ok but I was brought up through the age of boring Boycott. The snobbery which engulfed the game also put me off, although I can understand the delights of a warm summers day, a gentle sport and a few drinks, very civilised.

    I would have thought the councillors were well aware of being questioned by the media prior to making decisions. I think they receive training for such things as members of the committee and would have been told not to make statements. Would you answer?
    So Ian Onions would not expect an answer and wouldn’t be likely to ask the question.

    It’s conjecture that they would vote the same way again. Even if that were the case, two asked to be removed, leaving we assume, another two that voted against at the first meeting. So out of 9 councillors on the committee, two could possibly vote the same way as in the first meeting.

  30. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    March 10, 2011 3:15 pm

    Hi Rich.
    Snobbery, perhaps in the past but not any longer, but yes, usually civilised but not always.
    “Would you answer?” No. I would tell him to p— off. Perhaps if you were already feeling the pressure though, it might be the last straw and make you withdraw. For some reason, a number of councillors have taken the unusual step in either refusing to take part or being withdrawn. Now I know this is tempting to overlook when you get the result you want and if it had gone the other way the recriminations would have come from the other side, but surely such an unusual event warrants an inquiry. An interesting question is whether these councillors should be allowed to continue as part of the Planning Committee. Probably not. I do have sympathy for Cllr. Rayner. He was made a scapegoat in the press after the first meeting. However, after seeing him at other planning ctte’s he usually asked the same intrusive questions and the Sainsburys was no different. Anyway, your football team are winning and my rugby team are although it appears neither are at there best. It’s the good thing about sport. Whoever you meet and wherever you meet them, you’r guaranteed a topic of conversation.

  31. Richard Lane permalink
    March 10, 2011 8:09 pm

    Hi Paul
    I also would have told him where to get off but I don’t think it would have happened, maybe off record.

    Simon Rayner came to the first meeting armed with facts and figures already predetermined. He then used his influence as chair to instigate the questioning, instead of acting like a chair to the meeting.
    Make no mistake the recriminations are coming from the losing side, from the outset accusations have been flying around.

    Good luck in the playoffs.

Comments are closed.