Skip to content

For or Against, SNAISBURYS MONSTER is a no-brainer.

April 11, 2011

Massive Jumbo Snaisburys gut-busting hypermarket, biggest in the South-west if not the country.

Ok lets do a for and against.


  1. Provides Lansdown and his team with at least ten million quid more than housing or mixed development.
  2. Extra cash then helps fund new stadium at Ashton Vale.
  3. Extra jobs shelf filling and doing the tills.
  4. Bigger range of goods in shop eg fridges, tv’s and ‘comparison goods’.
  5. Landscaping Colliters Brook with cycle path and trees.


  1. No evidence for how much extra cash to be generated by hypermarket as figures are ‘confidential’
  2. Extra cash as enabling development for new stadium suspect as no figures available due to (yawn!) commercial confidentiality. Don’t believe the cost figures for the new stadium or purchasing the land, they have been brought into question by officers already.
  3. Big section of land for the hypermarket owned by Bristol residents is given free to Lansdown by the Lib-Dem councillors (in exchange for dodgy gym membership and so-called community benefits).
  4. Big section of former allotments given free in exchange for dodgy gym membership etc etc. Part of the Stadium to Hypermarket conspiracy.
  5. Job promises by Snaisburys can’t be trusted as they reneged on job promises already on the expansion of the existing Winterstoke store by actually reducing staff numbers.
  6. Doubling the size of the store to 100 000 sq ft to one of the biggest in the country will take money out of existing nearby historic shopping streets and town centres. Bigger range of goods in the hypermarket will put more smaller shops at risk in fragile trading conditions for existing retailers.
  7. Colliters Brook should be landscaped already.  Doesn’t need a massive hypermarket to enable that to happen-just an enthusiastic band of volunteers and landowners who cared about their environment.
  8. New regional sized hypermarket will attract up to 60% more vehicle movements at peak periods. More than 20,000 cars a day. Not including the hundreds of lorries/week.
  9. Already beyond maximum capacity at peak, Winterstoke Rd will not cope with extra Hypermarket shoppers even with some road realignment. Cars will be forced down narrow residential streets in rat runs to avoid congestion.
  10. Exhaust pollution will increase NOx and particulate degrading of air quality on walking routes to two primary schools and a major secondary school.
  11. Largest petrol dispensing station in Bristol in close proximity to residential properties and community hall/scout hut will expose residents and centre users, mainly children, to possible carcinogenic fumes.
  12. Knocking down a recently rebuilt superstore to build a new one doubling in size, will result in large CO2  footprint and is an unsustainable waste of resources.
  13. Adopted local city-wide plan is against out-of -town retail parks that will damage town centre high streets. This development is contrary to local adopted plan.

That’s 13-5, and there’s a shed load more against issues. IT’S A NO-BRAINER!

  1. Richard Lane permalink
    April 12, 2011 8:42 pm


    You invite comments at the end of yet another blinkered outburst of misrepresentations, so here it comes.

    For the developments = Anyone with a brain cell and the vision to see that certain developments will unlock massive investment for Bristol and the long suffering under invested people of south Bristol.

    Against the developments = People without a brain cell.
    That’s where the no brainers are.

  2. April 12, 2011 10:54 pm

    I expose the harsh facts and call the bluff on the conspiracy. Exactly what and who benefits from this unlocking of investments for the impoverished third world country that is South Bristol?
    13-5 says it is a no-brainer for the monster-how many more no-brainer facts do you need?

  3. Richard Lane permalink
    April 13, 2011 7:05 pm


    You ask the question: how many more facts, some would do for a start.
    None of your so called facts are indeed that, they are opinions and projections, with the extreme projections emphasised by those opposing the scheme.
    As far as the traffic goes, it has now been stated and agreed that many journeys will in fact be shorter than they currently are, creating less vehicles on the road and reduced emmisions than at present.

    On the plus points, you forgot to mention these:-
    1. New stadium
    2. New hotel
    3. New conference facilities
    4. New restaurant
    5. Development of derelict former tip
    6. New housing at Moorelands
    7. New housing at the current Sainsbury site
    8. New industrial units at the current Sainsbury site
    9. Travel plan for supporters at new stadium (not at present)
    10. Construction jobs for stadium and linked developments
    11. Construction jobs for housing x2
    12. Better safer road layout for Ashton Road and Winterstoke road
    13. passengers provided for new BRT
    14. Possible site for new arena

    As for the impoverished parts of south Bristol. You probably aren’t aware that there are areas that have some of the highest crime rates, unemployment rates, under achieving pupils, teen pregnancy rates in the country. But living in your priviliged enclave within south Bristol, protected from direct contact with the chavs (as you refer to them) that would quite like a new stadium or arena, I’m not surpised at your lack of knowledge and sympathy for those less priviliged than yourself.

  4. April 13, 2011 11:52 pm

    The only person referring to chavs living round here is Mr Lane.

    1. New stadium funding dependent on massive supermarket link is tenuous-no facts like real figures have ever been made public.
    2. New hotel could be built anywhere on brownfield site. Nothing to do with Sainsburys hypermarket.
    3. Conference facilities ditto.
    4. Restaurant-now your having a laugh. Drive-thru Mcoffalburger joint is what you mean -its crap. Astonishing degradation of greenbelt.
    5. There is no derelict former tip. It was rubble landfill and has been adopted greenbelt space for decades.
    6. Housing for the wealthy with no affordable element goes against adopted local plan. Mr Lane you promote unaffordable housing developments whilst hypocritically claiming that you champion the less privileged. There is a long waiting list for these allotments and affordable housing-the underachieving, crime infested pregnant teenagers as you like to stereotype my community could have the opportunity to grow their own food if the allotments weren’t being given to a tax-exiled half billionaire to build an exclusive housing money spinner.
    7. New and better housing could be built at ashton gate stadium rather than bulldozing a perfectly good supermarket that has only just been rebuilt.
    8. Ditto industrial and workspace could be built at Ashton Gate.
    9. Travel plan for supporters???? Why haven’t they got one now?
    10. Construction jobs for redeveloping current stadium would be better.
    11. Ditto housing.
    12. Revised road layout would reduce pavements and cycleways, massively increase traffic and make life more dangerous hundreds of schoolchildren.
    13. Passengers for BRT? Tail wagging the dog-same could be said if existing stadium was rebuilt.
    14. Possible site for new arena? Bollocks and you know it.

    Exhaustive list of no-brainer’s for the man that has lost the plot.
    Greedy monster Snaisburys is giant no-brainer

  5. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    April 14, 2011 12:40 pm

    Wow! I do live in a “shit”place. On a completely different track , if I am aloud. A very deep hole was excavated on the site of the Landfill to reach the pipe that carries water into the city. After digging down about 10ft and reaching the bottom of the “rubbish” they came across what they thought was peat. Without me over elaborating, I thought this unlikely and asked an historian friend of mine if peat was likely. He said that in a previous century, farmers from North Somerset would bring their produce into the city on carts to sell, and on their return journey, would be paid to collect the excrement from what was then the village of Bedminster, and deposit it out of town. Ashton Vale was where it was dumped and this was likely to be the “peat” they had found. Does anyone know if this is likely to be true?

  6. April 14, 2011 2:17 pm

    Sounds like a good lot of decent compost down there Paul

  7. Richard Lane permalink
    April 14, 2011 8:02 pm


    Again your comprehensive list of no brainers appear to be compiled by a no brainer, a pissy one at that.
    They are not factual, they are just opinions and predictions from a biased blinkered activist.

    Let’s get one thing straight, if the stadium is not built, then there will not be millions of pounds of other investment into the economy of South Bristol. You are opposing this investment which will help not only help Bristol have a chav stadia and arena, but also the many thousands of other people from the spin off benefits of these developments for decades to come.
    Sacredsprings first reference to chavs 25/3/11 “Lane and others like to compare Bristol to Cardiff that has all the desirable stadia arena and other chav features he craves for”
    second reference, same date : “If Lane doesn’t like it here so much he can always move to join fellow moaners in Cardiff with its chav arena”. So please don’t try to make out that I was the one referring to chavs, I was pointing out that you were the person making the condescening comments.

    Perhaps when the stadium is under way, you can ask for some of the peat for your fire.
    It just goes to show if true, that the people of BS3 have been dumping their shit on this site for a very long time and BCFC are about to get rid of the shit, including that from cows and dogs, hopefully your bullshit with it.

  8. Richard Lane permalink
    April 14, 2011 9:42 pm

    Alternative view of sacredsprings latest opinion poll list. Only one person was asked in his latest poll.

    1. £21m plus from sale of ground is public knolwedge going towards stadium. Will you publicise your spending plans for the year?
    2. New Hotel only being built because of stadium, conference facilities and probably it’s location to the airport. Others are being built on brownfield sites, they would not provide onsite facilities for the delegates attending the new facilities.
    3. New conference facilities only being built because of stadium development.
    4. New Restaurant being built because of other facilities, the fact you look down your nose at whoever will own and run the restaurant is yet another indication of your snobbery towards the expected users.
    5. The tip is full of derelict former buildings under the surface at the former tip.
    6. Housing for whoever is good for south Bristol, there is insufficient housing and in my opinion, we need to encourage more wealth into south Bristol, which would go alongside and compliment the massive amount of social housing already here, you don’t want this.
    7. Only one site would be developed for housing in your utopia, whereas two sites would be developed with the new stadium and supermarket plans, you don’t want extra housing.
    8. Ditto, workspace goes with mixed development at Sainsbury site, you don’t want this.
    9. No travel plan is required at present, so there is sometimes disruption. With the new stadium, you get travel organised, you don’t want this.
    10. Biassed opinion about jobs, with no consideration from you about the other construction jobs created temporarily, alongside the permanent employment created in the new facilities, again you obviously don’t care about providing jobs for people if they are not in the well paid bracket.
    11. How can you say, less construction jobs for building less housing would be better?
    12. Revised road layout would make roads safer. You claim roads will be congested with gridlocked traffic, then claim children would be at risk from that stationary traffic.
    13. No provision would be made for stop at existing stadium on BRT route. The stop is planned for the stadium and PRIDE site.
    14. Why has there been interest in the site from an arena developer, if it’s bollocks?

    Summing up. You don’t want housing for wealthy people, you want affordable housing for low paid workers. You only want one site for affordable housing and a few jobs for the low paid workers within that housing development. You don’t want two sites for housing, (one that does include mixed use, (that you do want), and you don’t want six sites that produce jobs, even if they are low paid, including many temporary jobs that are well paid.
    Bit mixed up aren’t we?

  9. April 14, 2011 10:56 pm

    No-brainer hypermarket is about pure profit,

  10. Tony Dyer permalink
    April 15, 2011 7:34 am

    Hi Paul

    It probably was peat.

    There is a stratum between 3-8m thick of peat intermixed with “clayey silt” in the aluvium desposits across much of the Ashton Vale area. The boggy/marshy conditions of the area combined with other factors make it almost perfect for the production of peat.

    Peat is one of the first stages in the transformation of plant material into coal, and earlier deposits of peat in the area have completed that transformation process which is why the area was once the centre of a major coal-mining industry. In fact, the Bristol-North Somerset coalfield competes with the Liege area in Belgium for the title of earliest recorded instances of coal-mining with references going back to the 13th century.

    Can’t really comment on the idea of Bedminster’s excrement being dumped in Ashton Vale except to say that for most of English history excrement was simply dumped into the unpaved street outside where it would either be trampled by passing traffic into the underlying earth or periodically washed away by the rain into local streams and, in Bedminster’s case, eventually the Avon.

    Bedminster and Bristol was lucky for most of its history because the Avon was a powerful tidal river and the result of this combined with the normal flow of rivers meant that all the muck and such like was naturally washed away twice a day by the tide. As a result Bristol had a reputation of being a relatively healthy city.

    This changed when the business community created the floating harbour in a vain attempt to compete with other port cities like Liverpool and Glasgow. Although well-intentioned, it failed to allow for this naturally cleaning process and Bristol quickly became one of the most unhealthy cities in the kingdom with some of the highest mortality rates. The richer citizens were able to move out of the centre of the city to the surrounding hilltops such as Clifton (and even Upper Knowle) where they were able to enjoy the benefits of the floating harbour whilst avoiding the negatives. In the end however, the floating harbour failed to maintain Bristol’s competitiveness, proving to be a costly white elephant, and the docks moved to a more suitable location at Avonmouth.

    There’s a moral in there somewhere but I will let others figure it out.

  11. Richard Lane permalink
    April 15, 2011 8:11 am


    Not quite as simple as that, because with the more successful docks came a larger population, with more excrement being produced and dumped. There was as you know still a tidal flow through the docks to allow for the river Frome flowing through. This must have removed the excrement from the docks to some degree. I believe there are still some sewage outfalls into the Avon within Bristols boundary to this day, unless they’ve been removed recently.

    I wonder if the docks are considered a white elephant now with the benefits to the leisure and tourism industry? I’m sure they weren’t when they were competing with those other docks in the triangular trade and it was only in the later years that they really struggled to compete due to the restricted access of the Avon, for the larger ships.
    Funny really because the royal Portbury dock was also considered a white elephant when it was constructed but not now, although it appears to be soon superceded by a larger facility at Avonmouth.

    Isn’t it strange how Bristol always seems to be playing catch up with other cities?

    Beware a rollicking and threat of banning for going off topic.

  12. April 15, 2011 8:47 am

    Instant ban if shit/crap talk from Lane continues.

    Interesting facts from tony- note how upper Knowle residents live a healthy life compared to the swamp, excrement and rat infested refuse tip that me and my fellow residents are subjected to.
    The Giant Snaisbury hypermarket and Drive-thru McShitburger wasteland will soon put paid to the centuries of impoverishment and poor health. Donuts all round.
    Fast-food emporium next to community funded gym and wellness centre at the Town Green Stadium? This is a no-brainer. If the council were serious about health they would not give precious allotment land away to help fund a fast-food and junk meal bonanza for the greed merchant multinationals.
    Sick joke no-brainer

  13. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    April 15, 2011 10:55 am

    Hi Tony
    Thanks for that comprehensive response, and I think what Rich says has some merit. Peat does now seem likely, and this was what the workers thought. I will be surprised however if the shifting of shit(sorry, could not resist) was not also true, taking account of whom suggested this, and this account could also explain the ill health because the same carts for carrying the excrement were the same ones as used for the food produce. I do get the moral and Richs’ response. What it proves is that nothing stands still and what is good or bad one day can quickly change. Football is no different. Top division one season, administration the next. If a new stadium guaranteed permanent Premiership football there would be a strong argument, but many have made these claims before, and to their cost!

  14. Robin Swain permalink
    April 15, 2011 10:59 am


    Interesting points from Richard and Tony, Why are you threatening a ban on one but not the other? Rather hypocritical don’t you think?

  15. bobS permalink
    April 15, 2011 12:10 pm

    Well done Robin Swain. You have concealed your secret identity very well.

    The difference between your points and Tony’s is that yours are entirely invented because you will say anything which will help BCFC rent a new stadium on green belt land.

  16. Richard lane permalink
    April 15, 2011 4:31 pm


    Tell me the difference between mine and Tony’s points, we weren’t discussing the stadium or Supermarket, we were talking about the docks and peat.

  17. Richard lane permalink
    April 15, 2011 7:01 pm


    Are you suggesting that people should not try to achieve success, for fear of failure?
    There are many people that have failed to achieve anything at all with that outlook on life.

    Obviously risks have to be taken and assessed. Of course in the competitive world of sport, if you are seen as not trying, then you lose support and can’t attract better players or keep the better players you might have. It’s all down to judgement.
    Do you keep an ageing stadium which has poor facilities and little room to offer decent facilities, whilst at the same time limiting the ability to increase it’s use on a daily basis and it’s profitability with it. And at the same time costing more to develop or run?
    Or the other option?
    What’s the old saying? Better to have tried and failed, than not to have tried at all.

  18. Deano permalink
    April 15, 2011 9:04 pm


    Tell me the difference between mine and Tony’s points, we weren’t discussing the stadium or Supermarket, we were talking about the docks and peat.”

    Thats’ it Rich, you just ignore the fact tht BobS has shown you up as an hypocrite.

    Richard “I never lie” Lane caught out pretending to be somebody else, the very thing he has previously accused others of doing.

  19. Richard Lane permalink
    April 15, 2011 9:38 pm


    Could you please explain how Bob S has shown me up to be a hypocrite?
    Bob can’t differentiate between comments I’ve made about Bristol and it’s history, or comments about a new stadium and supermarket. He’s always jumped the gun and put mouth in gear before brain, while assuming that someone is saying something, without actually reading it before commenting. Now where is this FACT?

    You pratt, I’ve used an obviously made up name, with tongue firmly in cheek, that sounds like robbing swine. I’ve used the same email address which will obviously be recognised and shows up the same hovercard. But you rise to the obvious and have yet another childish dig, you must be very proud of your achievements. It must have all gone over your head.
    I have as you rightly point out, never lied. A lie is when you say something, or write something that you know is not the truth. I’ve never tried to hide behind a made up name and never tried to be hard, by abusing people from behind that made up persona.
    My name is Richard Lane I’ve always used my real name (until that little fun post) and have nothing to hide by using a made up name, or part of a name. Others apparently achieve braveness with anonymity.

  20. Deano permalink
    April 15, 2011 9:53 pm

    You are a liar Lane.

    You are now embarrassing yourself by trying to pretend that you weren’t really trying to deceive.

    BobS caught you out. You came back with your tail between your legs and tried to pretend it never happened. Everybody can see that you didn’t immediately respond to BobS to say that of course it was you, and didn’t BobS get the joke..

    Of course you didn’t, because you hadn’t thought up your excuse until now.

    Only now have you suddenly decided to claim that it was all a bit of fun and that you weren’t really lying for real. You pathetic saddo.

  21. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    April 16, 2011 10:46 am

    Rich. Ambition is fine providing it’s matched by realism. We’ve had the World Cup, Rugby World Cup, Premiership football, average gates to suddenly reach 23,000, Internation acts, Regional Stadium, etc. etc. If these had been portrayed as “ambitions”, then fine, but they were not and that’s my objection. Gerry Gow was speaking in Bristol last evening, one of the Ashton Gate Eight. There’s also a moral there!

  22. Tony Dyer permalink
    April 16, 2011 12:33 pm

    Just to feed back on some of the points Rich makes.

    Yes, the city’s population did increase, but so did that of other cities like Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester, Leeds, etc and, as most of them had populations that were expanding even faster then Bristol’s that population growth alone does not explain why Bristol went from being one of the healthiest cities in the 18th century to one of the least healthiest in the 19th century. Other cities did not see such a massive relative change in their levels of health.

    As you know, the purpose of the floating harbour was to make the docks non-tidal. In other words it removed the tidal effect that had previously removed the city’s sewage. All that remained was the non-tidal river current and this was not enough to remove the sewage. In fact, the Frome quickly became the most stench-ridden part of the system as many eyewitness (nosewitness?) accounts from the time confirm.

    The “docks” is not synonomous with the “floating harbour”. Bristol has been a port from at least early Saxon times, and as early as the 13th had completed major engineering works to divert the Frome to its present course in order to expand the capability of the “docks”. It was those medieval “docks” that, with relatively little changes, provided the basis for the expansion of Bristol’s trade including that of the triangular trade until the 19th century. So the 13th century “docks” served Bristol very effectively for almost 500 years and repaid their investment several times over for the burghers and merchants of Bristol. They cannot be described as a “white elephant” as they made Bristol the foremost provincial city in England.

    The “floating harbour” is a different matter. It was constructed in the early 19th century when Bristol’s triangular trade was already in decline (it was, as you know, underpinned by the slave trade which was abolished whilst the floating harbour was still under construction). However, as you have yourself highlighted, Bristol’s real problem was the increasing size of ships which made access up the Avon problematic. The “floating harbour” did nothing to address this.

    Furthermore the expense involved in building and maintaining the floating harbour led to higher port charges which led to even more businesses relocating to other ports. In short the floating harbour failed to do what it was intended to do whilst becoming a financially troublesome drain on resources. In other words, a “white elephant”.

    By the end of the 19th century most of Bristol’s sea trade had moved downstream to Avonmouth where new docks were built avoiding the need for larger ships to sail up the restricted Avon.

    “I wonder if the docks are considered a white elephant now with the benefits to the leisure and tourism industry?

    Personally I somewhat doubt that if the new stadium becomes a “white elephant” that you will be consoled if it was to enjoy a second life for some other purpose that it wasn’t originally intended for.

    The floating harbour failed in its original commercial objectives, it was thus a “white elephant”. The fact that it failed had unforeseen benefits for modern Bristolians in that we have a wonderful waterfront for our leisure use. I am pleased that you recognise that something that had a relatively brief period of industrial use is now enjoying a renaissance as a place where people can enjoy their leisure time.

    Similarly, the relatively small part of Ashton Vale fields that was used for a relatively brief period of time as a landfill site can enjoy a renaissance alongside the rest of the 42 acre site providing green space for their leisure enjoyment

  23. Richard lane permalink
    April 16, 2011 5:46 pm


    I don’t sit by the computer waiting to reply, I replied to BobS at 4.31, when I came back from work. I replied about the subject matter. It was obvious that the response was from me about my post. You have neither the brains nor the decency to admit you were wrong. If as you say, everyone could see that I didn’t respond straight away to BobS, then you are only emphasising how obvious the post was, and it is you that is embarassing yourself with your stupid overly offensive childish remarks. I challenge you again to prove I was being hypocritical or lying, just because you accuse someone of something does not make it true, in fact unless proven, repeating it makes it a lie and the person repeating it a liar. So you are a liar and most offensive person I’ve ever dealt with on any forum, believe me that takes some doing.

  24. Richard lane permalink
    April 16, 2011 5:54 pm


    What you refer to are promotions aimed at emphasising what could be achieved at the new stadium. It is bound to be promoted, you have obviously missed the many statements made by the club about it’s ambitions to play at the highest level possible, with the stadium, they claim this increases the chances of this, without the new stadium, extra money would be needed to develop Ashton gate, this is then not available for other things, such as players or their wages. The same can be said if the return from the sale of AG is smaller than from the supermarket.

  25. Richard lane permalink
    April 16, 2011 6:02 pm


    Perhaps the wealthy members that ran Bristols society were the reason for us being less healthy. They were also the reason for traders leaving Bristol, for cheaper dock charges in other ports in the Bristol channel.

    The docks are still used for shipping/boating as they were originally, although not now commercially. So I don’t see the comparison, I feel it’s another one made to instil the fear of change.

  26. Deano permalink
    April 16, 2011 7:23 pm

    ” just because you accuse someone of something does not make it true, in fact unless proven, repeating it makes it a lie and the person repeating it a liar”

    Coming from the man who repeatedly insisted that no cows grazed the Ashton Vale site. The manwho repeatedly insisted that the Ashton Gate car park would remain a car park. The man who repeatedly insisted that the Ashton Gate site was larger than the existing Sainsburys site. Etc, etc, etc.

    You are, by your own words, a liar.

  27. Deano permalink
    April 16, 2011 7:44 pm

    Why are you bothering with responding to my comments?

    I think it’s because they ring true

  28. Still Waters permalink
    April 16, 2011 9:49 pm

    RichyBabes; “players or their wages”

    Are you suggesting it’s better to destroy greenbelt land and associated local living standards than fix the excessive stupidity that is ‘Footballer’s Salaries’?

    You’re obviously following the OTIB mantra that ‘more cash = a better team’, but forgetting that ‘most cash generated from new stadium > Lining Investor’s Pockets (look at the accounts)’ – and current new season spend is going to be a fraction of last season.

    Just curious for your views on this particular subject.

    (PS, nice bit of history there – very enjoyable read)

  29. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    April 17, 2011 2:41 pm

    Hi Rich. I think it’s now time to conclude but I will leave you with this thought. Not the last word but my last words. If every team that builds a new stadium ends up in the Premiership, then the Premiership will have to at least double in size. All fans are told the same line, ” a new stadium guarantees greater success”. History shows this not to be the case and has in many cases been the opposite. At present BCFC own Ashton Gate, it’s traditional home. Perhaps not the greatest stadium but more than reasonable compared to many. Although I still don’t think it is clear, the new stadium will have other owners or investors than SL so does this not mean that BCFC will either be minority owners or tennants. Not in my opinion a great situation. Although I don’t agree with those who say SL is innit for the money, nothing says his judgement is any better than any other owner who has wanted a new stadium. You know the saying ” players and managers come and go but the fans always remain.” In todays world you can add to that “owners”, and remember, the grass is not always greener!

  30. harryT permalink
    April 17, 2011 5:54 pm


    BCFC don’t own their current stadium. Another of Lansdown’s companies owns it. BCFC owns nothing but its players’ contracts and a wopping debt to Lansdown paying interest at base rate + 2%.

    BCFC are tenants at Ashton Gate and would be tenants at Ashton Vale. None of the revenue from the hotels, restaurants, conferences centres etc will go to the club. None of the land gifts from BCC will go to the club.

    Its all one big con to make a small number of people alot of money. And football fans such as Mr Lane will fight you if you say its true. But it is.

  31. Richard Lane permalink
    April 18, 2011 9:09 pm

    Once I saw the cow pats I changed my statements about cows grazing on that particular field. I actually thought it too dangerous for them to graze amongst the rubble, cable, timber and plastic bags.
    Once I knew the car park would no longer be totally car park I changed my statement to read: predominantly used for vehicles.
    Once I new the two sites were simmilar in size, I changed my statements to read: able to build a larger structure because of the current buildings on the site, making it much larger in it’s capacity for development. For example: I was initially unaware that the existing Sainsbury site included the video store and the road frontage towards Winterstoke road, this would have made the site much smaller, Tony Dyer enlightened me on this.
    All these things you claim I was lying about. If that were the case, why did I change my statements to acknowledge that I was mistaken? As I’ve said before, things change and evolve and you learn things also over that period of time. Sometimes your wrong, sometimes people take what you say the wrong way. One thing I won’t change my mind about, is my opinion of you.

  32. Still Waters permalink
    April 18, 2011 9:12 pm


    You’re on record as saying “things change and evolve and you learn things also over that period of time. Sometimes your wrong”

    Thank you.

  33. Richard Lane permalink
    April 18, 2011 9:24 pm


    Like any budget, it will change due to differing circumstances and fluctuate. The truth of the matter is if you have £100m to invest in a football club and you spend £95m on the stadium , you only have £5m leaft for other things.
    If you only spend £70m on the stadium, you have £30m leaft for other things.
    As for lining the investors pockets, Mr Lansdown has personally invested many millions of pounds so far in his term as chairman and major shareholder (upwards to £30m). Do you really think he is ever going to see that money again or the shortfall that he is most likely going to pick up in the stadium development costs?
    You and others are in dreamland if you think this is about profit for him. Ask yourself the question, will he ever get enough rental return from the football club or other ventures, over his lifespan to repay those amounts? He is painted as a demon and oligarch by some, purely because he is wealthy and the figurhead of the club he’s trying to drag out of the lower realms of English football.

  34. Richard Lane permalink
    April 18, 2011 9:59 pm


    Harry is correct,
    The club have not owned the stadium for many years, it is a seperate company, as will be the case at Ashtonvale. I don’t know how many clubs are run like this (I think most are now) but one advantage is that the stadium cannot be used to underwrite loans to the football club, which leaves it open for the lenders to foreclose. I’m sure there are many other reasons though, cue the negative responses. Football clubs have to run their affairs more professionally nowadays and any deviences are severely punished.
    Could you show us where history has shown that a new stadium does not improve success.
    There are obvious cases, such as Darlington but there are many more where middle of the road traditionally lower division teams have become more successful.
    Look at the championship: Reading, Cardiff, Swansea, Hull, Middlesborough, Derby, Leicester, Coventry, all have new stadiums and have, some more than others had greater success than prior to the new stadium. There are many teams with new stadiums, there are many teams with adequate stadiums and room for expansion. Ashton Gate had a capacity of over 42,000. This was reduced under safety rules to I think 32,000, then with the taylor report still further due to all seater requirements. The present ground is archaic, with poor facilities and views in the Williams, the Wedlock and exposure to the elements in the Dolman. Poor disabled facilities all around the ground. To expand this stadium would cost a whole lot more than to build new, when taking into account lost revenue and disruption, and would still not provide the other facilities at the new stadium or the possibility that it could be expanded back up to it’s pre safety procedure capacity.
    Of course the grass is not always greener but I would like the chance to see if it is.

  35. Richard Lane permalink
    April 18, 2011 10:04 pm


    You forgot the other part of my quote: “sometimes people take what you say the wrong way”.

Comments are closed.