Skip to content

Enabling the new stadium: sums don’t add up.

May 11, 2011

The owner of Ashton Gate stadium says he must sell the land (and the council owned chunk gifted for free) to Sainsburys to enable the finance of the new stadium. Only a massive hypermarket would give him enough money for the site so that he can finance the Ashton Vale new stadium. Looks like the supermarket greed merchants have offered about £21m. If the site were sold for much needed housing it would only fetch about £10m so the story goes.

That makes an £11m extra boost so we’re told to the new stadium coffers, so the developer Mr Lansdown, can afford to build his £90m (unverified figure from the developers but may include the conference centre and all the other money spinners) big red box at Ashton Vale. This money is vital according to the owner Lansdown otherwise he can’t afford it.

Now if I go to the council and submit a set of plans to convert my greenbelt smallholding into a velodrome for retired sustrans workers so they don’t have to pedal all over the country, and claim the only way I can afford to do it is by turning my city centre house and garden shed into the biggest massage parlour in the South west (I’ve researched  this extensively -my mates down the pub say there is a demand as the current establishments are overtrading), what would be the answer? They may say ‘show us the figures to back up your enabling argument?’ I say to them up yours! I’m not revealing how skint I am, you just have to believe me-“No giant massage parlour=no new velodrome for Sustrans.”

This hypothetical scenario begins to make sense when you look at two sums that have hit the headlines this week.

Stephen Lansdown is behind his partner in the money stakes but still jumped from 150 to 90 in the Rich List. His wealth is now £750m up £298m on 2010.

So thats a cool £298m earned in the last year. How he gets his hard earned cash and what he spends it on is his business, fine.

But this becomes our business when this man, wealthy beyond the dreams of most people in the world, is so intent on forcing the massive hypermarket on his and council owned land. The Enabling Argument

There is a big problem with this particular planning process-the enabling argument. This mega-rich mogul has claimed all along that he needs the extra £11m cash from the supermarket to enable the new stadium to go ahead-remember “NO FOOD STORE=NO NEW STADIUM”. The council have gone along with this pleading, invoked the enabling argument and chosen to burden the communities around Ashton Gate with the Monster Sainsburys. But when you look at the slightly nauseous rich-list figures for Lansdown you see enough money to build a new Wembley. Somewhere along the line the sums don’t add up.

Advertisements
36 Comments
  1. Blogger permalink
    May 11, 2011 1:54 pm

    It reminds me of another wealthy business man trying to build a sporting venue in the face of local opposition.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/26/donald-trump-scotland-golf-protest

    In Trump’s case, he declares himself bankrupt every so often so he doesn’t have to pay his debts, but can stay extremely rich himself and even promote his many unsustainable developments.

    Although its very different, it is still perplexing to me how a man with Lansdown’s wealth can successfully argue he needs the extra income from Sainsbury’s, with all the associated damage, to fund his development, when he has made so much cash in the last year (mostly as a result of improvments in his stocks portfolio than extra work on his part.

  2. bobS permalink
    May 11, 2011 7:52 pm

    And that £295 million profit is tax free.

    That would be like £500 million what we would have to earn to earn the same amount as him.

    – I can see why he needs £4.5m land from us for free to build houses and petrol stations on.

    -I can see why he needs to demand that the council build a BRT route through the outdoor spaces of Ashton Vale Youth Club and Ashton Vale Social Club (who is paying for this by the way ?)

    – I can see why the residents of Ashton Vale must lose their statutory right to recreation on 42 acres of the only open space in their neighbourhood.

    Given his tax payment on £295 million would be what £120 million (40% CGT) ? I can see why he is such a hero for his financial support for the community.

    – Its not like at the end of all this he won’t own the land and the stadium himself.

    -Its not like the club will gain nothing but a tenancy at the new stadium.

    -Its not like the club is building up debts paying for something it will never own.

    Its not like that is it ? Maybe I should ask Peter Abraham.

  3. Richard Lane permalink
    May 11, 2011 8:38 pm

    Sacredspring

    Yaaaaawn.
    The land for housing is valued at up to £5m I believe and continuing to fall in value, due to the property market crash. I think you continually quote a higher than reality valuation of the site in an attempt to make your claims more credible.
    BRFC cannot develop their stadium because of this drop in property values, they would love to have a supermarket to sell to, instead of trying to develop student lets, for which there is a diminishing demand, due to other forces.

    Mr Lansdowns wealth is subject to market fluctuations also, (it could possibly go down as well) and is seperate from the stadium development. No doubt though he will be injecting a major part of his personal wealth into the project, along with the proceeds of the sale of Ashton Gate.

    Ashton Gate is the legacy of it’s supporters, past, present and future, it is their contribution towards a new home, it’s all they have to offer.
    For generations those fans, their fathers, grandfathers, great grandfathers, sisters, mothers, uncles and every other fan that’s walked through the gates, have paid their hard earned money to make Ashton Gate the stadium it is today. You pay scant regard to this valuable heritage when trying to down value it. Ashton Gate stadium and it’s past patrons has helped to make BS3 the area it is today. You, along with others believe that the history of the stadium holds little or no value. You advocate that even more of the personal wealth, of somebody that is willing to subsidise a major part of the new stadium should be further tapped into, to provide a develpment on the site of Ashton Gate, that you would prefer.

    The new stadium will not be owned by Mr lansdown, it will be owned by the shareholders of the stadium company. It will be paid for over a long period of time , by the very same people and descendants of those past supporters, the same way the existing stadium has.

    Don’t underestimate the supporters input in it’s valuation, without that input, the stands would not have been built to accomodate them. Those very same stands provide the precident for the site having existing structures. Structures that mean equally large structures can be built, (according to law) on the site. So in effect, if the fans had not come to Ashton gate the buildings would have been smaller and as such, the site would have been less valuable.
    That’s also why the car park has a lower valuation. Only vehicles will use it, as they do now.

  4. harryT permalink
    May 11, 2011 8:57 pm

    This is not Richard Lane. This is a ghost writer. Has someone bought the rights to Richard Lane ?

    Anyway, ridiculous post. Because the Stadium Company is owned by Lansdown (and his son). He will own the land (through Vence Ltd) and the stadium (through Ashton Gate Holdings or another corporate vehicle of his choosing).

    All that hard earned cash paid by the fans goes to him. BCFC and its fans don’t own Ashton Gate. They swapped it for Lansdown debt years ago. They are also paying for the lansdown debt at 2% above base rate.

    BCFC fans won’t have any stake in the new stadium. All the money they are paying for the stadium is paying for an asset they will never own and BCFc will never own.

    Interestingly written emotive propoganda. But lies and deception.

  5. Richard Lane permalink
    May 11, 2011 9:07 pm

    BobS

    Have you been wearing blinkers when walking around Ashton vale?
    ” I can see why the residents of Ashton Vale must lose their statutory right to recreation on 42 acres of the only open space in their neighbourhood”

    What about the green by the shops, the bowling club and it’s football pitches, or the many fields through black bridge (I think that’s it’s name) how many acres are there? and the wide grass verges. You make it sound like the housing is from the the glasgow slums, with no gardens.
    The reality is, that the area is one of the least densly populated areas of Bristol. It has ample green space, even after excluding the stadium site and the remaining land which will not be developed.

  6. harryT permalink
    May 11, 2011 9:15 pm

    “The wide grass verges”

    Maybe this is in fact some David Brent piss take.

    Perhaps an art student impersonating a Daily Mail reader.

  7. Richard Lane permalink
    May 11, 2011 9:22 pm

    Harry T

    Sorry to upset you, that’s all my own work.
    I am saying that it is the fans legacy. The ownership is only temporary, the value has been established by the supporters.
    The only deception here is your take on the situation. You are deceiving yourself.
    He may be the major sharehoder in those ventures but he won’t be the only one.
    Could you list the owners of vence and their respective holdings please and the shareholders of Ashton Gate holdings. I can’t be bothered to find out.

    All that hard earned cash, you write off, will go to repaying the debt created by building the styadium and underwritten by Mr Lansdown. I doubt very much if he’ll ever see that investment again. Or are you another that thinks it should be a gift by a wealthy person to keep a small band of anarchists happy. Get back to dreamland.

  8. Richard Lane permalink
    May 11, 2011 9:27 pm

    Harry T

    Yes the wide grass verges. They are evident at Risdale road, Silbury Rd and by the shops. You have ignored the bowling club and football pitches and the acres of land at Blackbridge and of course the gardens, which seem to be evident at every single house. Nothing unusual there though. That is, you ignoring the relivent parts, because they are relivent.

  9. May 11, 2011 9:33 pm

    Ahhh! The wide grass verges and tree lined sleepy avenues..

    The land for housing is valued at up to £5m I believe and continuing to fall in value, due to the property market crash. I think you continually quote a higher than reality valuation of the site in an attempt to make your claims more credible.

    Thats right Mr Lane, the supermarket price is also grossly overestimated due to property crash-not even the greediest of greed-merchants would value it at that ridiculous sum.

    For generations those fans, their fathers, grandfathers, great grandfathers, sisters, mothers, uncles and every other fan that’s walked through the gates, have paid their hard earned money to make Ashton Gate the stadium it is today. You pay scant regard to this valuable heritage when trying to down value it.

    Ahem Lane, pay attention. I’ve advocated all along that the club should stay at its historical home-its you that wants to flog it off to the spivs, greed-merchants and tax dodging fly-by-night multinationals.

  10. harryT permalink
    May 11, 2011 9:35 pm

    Yes

    Vence is entirely owned by Steve and John Lansdown.

    I’m not sure about Ashton Gate Holdings but I think it was created in 2005 as a pure Lansdown company to take ownershipo of the stadium in exchange for debt. Nice deal !!!

    What do you mean he won’t see that investment again. He is getting millions of pounds of land from the a council, a huge gain on the stadium site through the windfall of planning permission for the largest supermarket in the west of england and in a residential area. He also has a huge windfall from buying low grade agricultural greeen belt land and getting planning permission for a huge retail/corporate/leisure development. He is gaining at every turn.

    No one is asking him to gift anything (although he talks as if he is). I would just like for him not to be given millions of pounds of our money and lost resources straight into his ownership.

    And what do you mean “the ownership is only temporary”. Is he saying he will give it all back to the club for nothing. Is he bugger

  11. Richard Lane permalink
    May 11, 2011 9:41 pm

    HarryT

    The club as you say have not owned Ashton Gate for a few years now.
    They are as you say in debt to Mr Lansdown.
    You are implying that Mr Lansdown is gaining from this development and his ownership of Ashton Gate holdings and Vence LTD.
    How can BCFC repay their debt to Mr Lansdown, and if there is no BCFC because of this debt, what value does the stadium hold? Where is Mr Lansdown going to profit?
    Please answer these questions as I have no idea where he is going to gain.

    You could then answer the question I once posed you about your suggestion for building a stadium at Severnside, and the financial effects that would have on BS3 and the environmental effects on the region, due to everyone having to use some sort of fossil fueled transsport to get there.

  12. May 11, 2011 9:44 pm

    Good points Harry. Why can’t the generous benefactor set up a trust to secure the future for the club and its fans? Now that really would be worthy of the fawning praise heaped upon the man.

  13. Richard Lane permalink
    May 11, 2011 9:50 pm

    HarryT

    I think you’ll find that the land for those retail units and the housing are being sold off to go towards the stadium build costs. It’s something like £15m plus £21m for Ashton gate, making up to, somewhere near £40m towards the stadium, Where is the rest coming from?

    If the land was bought cheaply (somewhere between £7 and £11m) this also has to be added to his investment/debt, when carrying out your financial assessment. Where is his profit?
    He’ll own a stadium, yes. But what good is a stadium without a user?

  14. Richard Lane permalink
    May 11, 2011 9:53 pm

    Sacreedspring

    “HarryT good points” Lick my arse.
    He’s paying for the stadium you donk, how much of a trust do you want the wealthy man to provide?

  15. harryT permalink
    May 12, 2011 7:52 am

    Lane

    When will you get it into your thick head that he is paying only a small %age of the stadium costs but owning 100%. By the time you add in the council gifts, sainsbury’s money, housing sales, gain on the enabling developments, the money paid by BCFC itself, there is not much more to pay.

    He is no benefactor. He is a businessman.

    Severnside has train links, bus links, cycling lanes. How do you think people get to BS3 ? They sit in cars in traffic jams. There is no environmental downside to moving to Severnside.

    You just keep making up all sorts of crap Lane.

  16. Lance permalink
    May 12, 2011 9:05 am

    Who or what is Ashton Gate Holdings? I assume this is intended to refer to Ashton Gate Limited which is wholly owned by Bristol City Holdings Limited?

  17. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    May 12, 2011 11:23 am

    Many other clubs have built new stadia, how have they been financed? I saw an interview with Dave Whelan, owner of Wigan and a man who made his money through JJB Sports. He built them a new stadium which did bring about Premiership football. As he is now getting on in years, he said he hoped someone else could be found to take over financing the club as it had cost him tens of millions but he had no regrets because he loved this football club. He is infact the only owner who played at the top level ( Man. City) and to him it was his very expensive hobby. Are there many others like him? Southampton of course were in the Premiership, built a new stadium and were relegated, and then went into administration and were relegated again. How was their stadium financed? Is there a pattern which brings success or failure. It would be interesting to see.

  18. May 12, 2011 3:47 pm

    Bristol City Football Club has revealed record losses of £11.8m in the year up to the end of May 2010.
    The club, which plays in the Championship, blamed the losses on its attempt to become established in the league.
    The chairman, Steve Lansdown, said the losses “reflected the investment made in the playing squad”.

    bbc

    Paying stupid money to over-hyped ball hoofers seems to be the downfall of many a club. That and over-hyped ambition.

    “The stadium is key to a lot of things because if we’re suddenly in a situation where we can’t build our 30,000-seater stadium then we have no option but to look at plan B which is to re-trench to [current ground] Ashton Gate.
    “The figures you’re seeing now and the sort of income shows that Ashton Gate can’t sustain the levels we’re aspiring to at the moment.”

    Living beyond your means- bigging up the debt, gambling on the good times. Any fool can do that like run up your credit card. Aspirations my backside. More like straight gambling, like going to the bookies and sticking a wedge on the Saudi Arabian beach volleyball team. And when the gamble goes titsup you become a Leeds, Portsmouth or Southampton pretty quick. The rest of us are stuck with ruined greenbelt and a massive hypermarket in our midst, we pick up the tab.

  19. BobS permalink
    May 12, 2011 7:23 pm

    The bowling club – 150 dogwalkers cannot walk their dog on the bowling club lawns. Nor can kids make dens on it or ride bikes, nor joggers jog nor ramblers ramble.

    Similarly the foot pitch, which is leased out to clubs from outside Ashton Vale.

    Yes – the houses have gardens. Mostly. – perhaps every Bristolian with a garden should give up the right to have any open space or park by their land.

    The council conflates the two by the way. It defines any “open green space” to be formal parkland as a defence to town green cases.

  20. Richard Lane permalink
    May 12, 2011 8:45 pm

    T

    Basic maths lesson for you.
    £21m from Sainsbury’s.
    £15m from sale of moorelands and retail/hotel site.
    £37m Total possible income.

    £92m Stadium costs = £55m defecit

    There could/should be further revenue from naming rights, plus advanced sales of boxes and season ticket sales.
    The true figure for the stadium build costs is unknown, who would let bidding contractors know the other prices?
    Even if the stadium costs were £65m as first stated there would still be a defecit of £28m plus the cost of the land purchase, so a minimum of £35m defecit.

    If it hasn’t escaped your notice, the majority of supporters of BCFC are from the south side of the city. Only a numbskull would advocate making the vast majority of supporters travel seven miles further to watch a football match and not expect that extra travel to have a harmful effect on the environment.
    Plus if you hadn’t noticed, an awful lot of supporters frequent the shops, pubs, cafes, restaurants, both before and after a match. You advocate losing that revenue for the area.
    I think it is yourself that needs to open your eyes and ears. This might enable something to filter through that thick skull you have, and into the tiny bit of grey matter you might have. This then might prevent you from spouting out all the ludicrous crap, you do.

  21. Richard Lane permalink
    May 12, 2011 9:05 pm

    Sacredspring

    You seem to ignore the fact that BCFC might well be in debt to Mr Lansdown. Could you tell us how they themselves could repay that debt?
    He has personally underwritten that debt, the gamble/investment has been his. You are trying to undermine things at every attempt by portraying things and events which are miles from reality. Sadly some of the readers/posters are taken in by your rubbish.

    You keep trying to say that this is for the benefit of the rich, I’ll ask again, where is the benefit or profit to Mr Lansdown?

    Ahem, Sacredspring pay attention now. BCFC will be in no different a position than they are now, except that they will be playing in a new stadium with better facilities for its supporters.
    The extra revenue gained at the new stadium will enable that new stadium to be maintained, it would produce income which won’t be needed to be taken from the playing budget. Although the two sides are different businesses, they need each other to co exist. Without BCFC there is no need for a stadium, so why would the owners kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

  22. Richard Lane permalink
    May 12, 2011 9:17 pm

    BobS

    You have conveniently focussed your answers to the smaller greenspaces available to dog walkers, (150?).
    This results in you totally ommiting the acres of land at blackbridge, plus the land available in the southern area of the site which will not be built on.

    Are you telling me that people risk their limbs jogging on ashtonvale and kids ride their bikes! scramblers you mean don’t you?
    Obviously the greens of the bowling club are not available for dog walking, I wasn’t suggesting they were. I was referring to the large tract of land where the football pitches are, the hedgerows are(for den making) and the land adjacent to the ends of the pitches. All accessable, as are the fields through the railway bridge, plus, god forbid, the pavements.

  23. BobS permalink
    May 13, 2011 7:51 am

    There remain plans to build houses on the southern part of the AV land. Permission was turned down once. But you can expect another application. Then another. Then another – until it is granted.

    The remaining land will be underwater for most of the year as it forms the drainage run off from the statium site (the club call this a wetlands but it is a large drainage ditch)

    The allotments are being turned into housing

    The football pitch remains licenced out. you are right. There is a small verge of grass around it.

    Further, the BRT route will run through the outdoor space of the Youth Club and Social Club, so destroying yet more open space.

  24. harryT permalink
    May 13, 2011 7:53 am

    Lane

    you forgot the £5 million that BCFC have surprisingly paid towards stadium fees, despite only being tenants.

    I’m not denying that Lansdown will put a %age of the cash towards the project. Its just that he will then own 100% of the project. The City and the Club who are both donating millions, will own nothing. Why ?

  25. May 14, 2011 2:04 pm

    Why would BCC invest millions with free land and BCFC pay millions in a fees to a project with no share of the capital value? All the capital goes to Lansdown. Even if he is bankrolling the debt he’s making sure its ring-fenced.
    Is this normal in a capitalist world-giving away your capital?
    Maybe a few other private companies should be doled out massive sums or assets.

  26. Richard Lane permalink
    May 16, 2011 8:36 pm

    T and Spring

    You are both missing the point somewhat, when claiming that BCFC have paid millions towards the stadium fees so far. The point being that, they have no capital themselves and it is Mr Lansdown and the other directors that are covering those costs.
    It’s another of those cases where the club don’t actually have any capital or property to borrow against, so the directors efectively cover it. As would be the case at the new stadium, unless the football club started making money. It’s probably a good accounting procedure.
    Harry.
    You already know that the club don’t own anything at the moment, so there’s no change there and the advantage to the club was explained before.
    As for the council and what they get, let’s try and understand it when viewed a different way.
    The new stadium is bigger and will attract more people to the city, bringing with them more money. This will be spent in shops pubs cafes and possibly accomodation in the area.
    The club are expected to be more successful with more support and better facilities ( I know there are exceptions).This is also good for the city in terms of visitors and prestige.
    Better facilities will be available for conferences with hotel facilities adjacent, again more visitors and revenue.
    The different projects will increase the amount of housing in the area which is sorely needed, (cue the lack of affordable housing moans) Sometimes better housing brings more wealth, we have an unhealthy imbalance of affordable/social housing in south Bristol.
    I have to mention the jobs, because although most will be in the lower paid brackets, they will be there for a long time to come. Unfortunately south Bristol is not known as a place to invest money on hi tec campus style developments, as yet. But you never know, provide a successful base and better housing and the qualified people might like to live and invest here. Like some have done in Southville.
    All these things are a benefit to Bristol along with the large increase in business and domestic rates income, all of which go into the big pot to support the social state.

    Bob

    There are two pitches and a large triangular tract of open land at the notheren end, let’s also not forget again, the acres and acres of land at blackbridge.
    As for the housing plans for the southern end of the site, is this the area of land you claim will be under water for most of the year? If not, to accept it as part of the TVG would seem to be sensible. Of course nobody has confirmed either way as yet, whether this land is part of the 22 acres offered, for the TVG by the landowners. Perhaps the stadium was offered.

  27. Richard Lane permalink
    May 16, 2011 9:09 pm

    Spring

    You say : “Thats right Mr Lane, the supermarket price is also grossly overestimated due to property crash-not even the greediest of greed-merchants would value it at that ridiculous sum”.
    You then go on to say: “its you that wants to flog it off to the spivs, greed-merchants and tax dodging fly-by-night multinationals”.
    So what are they, greed merchants and spivs, or fools paying over the top for the site?

    It does of course meet their requirements to build what they want. In which case, if it’s available and it improves their profits, they buy it. They then offset some of the costs by selling the existing site for housing.

    I don’t actually believe you’re as stupid as your statements make you seem. Are you?

  28. May 16, 2011 10:06 pm

    Football – bankrolled by sugar-daddies is on the road to ruin like the bank-busting bonus-fuelled fatcats in the city.
    The club needs to live within its means.
    Lansdown chooses to claw back his losses by flogging the ground at a dodgy price, (not so foolish greed merchants pay well over the odds). In the process he bulldozes a massive hypermarket through planning using the dictators favourite tool-the uniformed private army. Poor old councillors are not up to the challenge of standing up to the threats. That and all the other busted rules to get planning consent like the fictitious ‘enabling argument’, and the vanishing 1000’s of jobs and the ‘treated like a store extension’ road traffic lies.
    The Guernsey Geezer’s got enough readies to build ten stadiums without inflicting massive 24hr hypermarket misery on South Bristol. Stinks of a price fixing conspiracy -why would the fools at Sainsburys pay stupid money? They don’t get to be a top five greed merchant by being that stupid.

    Roll on the next idiotic reply from Goebbels.

  29. Richard Lane permalink
    May 17, 2011 12:22 pm

    Sacredspring/lord hawhaw

    Your statements are absolutely littered with contradictions.
    I only reply to point out that you have hilighted your stupidity once more.
    Surely it’s the sugar daddies that are on the road to ruin by bankrolling the clubs?
    Sainsbury’s made the successful planning application, not Mr Lansdown.
    The enabling argument was not allowed in the application.
    If anyone was telling lies about the traffic it was the objectors, with their exagerated claims and use of an unindependent traffic specialist. I wonder who paid for that?
    Jobs are jobs, over a period of time there will be thousands. It all depends how those jobs are calculated. You use the lowest figures in all calculaations, except when calculating traffic flow.
    You are still trying to argue that Mr lansdown pays for the stadium himself, just to please you and your desires, how selfish!
    So how did Sainsbury’sget to being a top 5 merchant? because according to you they must be stupid.

    Roll on the next broadcast from lord Ha ha. A broadcast that will include unfounded accusations and stories of lies. Yet if anyone supporting the developments dares to point out down right lies, a banning threat looms large. That’s the democracy as portrayed by Lord Ha Ha.

  30. May 17, 2011 3:29 pm

    Listen Mr Goebballz, Sainsburys pay stupid money but they’re not so stupid because they get planning consent on a football stadium sized monster-market in the city, against all the local adopted strategy and long term sustainable city plans. They’re not stupid cos they can use a supporters army of redshirts to force it through ably assisted by Herman Sexton and Rommel Lansdown. That’s the overpriced premium they pay and worth every penny as the conspiracy unfolds. If it wasn’t an enabling argument then why did the red army blitzkrieg the Council house on planning meeting day?
    Only a complete idiot wouldn’t see the connection. Brainwashed soccer fans are mobilised to cheer-lead a supermarket chain, cos Herman and Rommel say so.
    End result, Herman, Rommel and the army annexe the greenbelt, whilst the Greedy Superstore goebbals up all the remaining high streets.

  31. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    May 17, 2011 9:35 pm

    Today the Gov. announced that Mary Portas would be investigating why so many high streets and town centres are struggling and why there are so many empty shops. Should be an interesting conclusion, although it does seem pretty obvious supermarkets play a substantial part, but I doubt the Gov. would want to hear this!

  32. May 17, 2011 11:25 pm

    Interesting and very relevant point from Paul.
    Here’s a BBC link to the decline of the British high st review.

    Mary Portas is quoted:

    Previously Ms Portas has blamed supermarkets for “killing” Britain’s smaller shops by making it impossible for them to compete on price.

  33. Richard Lane permalink
    May 17, 2011 11:27 pm

    Ashton Gate calling Ashton Gate calling.
    Lord Ha Ha hear.
    My triumphant army invaded the council house for the first application, we dominated proceedings, we bullied and shouted at the councillors we used all our large artillery, like big George, chirping Charlie and wailing Alice to frighten the councillors into their decision. We submitted better propoganda than our enemy, using fabricated figures, taken from three different retail studies, massaged and compiled by herr Dyer. That propoganda completely undermined the councils own officers who capitulated under this barrage.
    We now think it is unfair that our enemy used some of the same tactics to win the war, boo hoo hoo.

    So you admit that Sainsbury’s are paying the money for the site because, it is what they want. The site enables them to build what they want, nowhere else in the area does. BCFC currently hold all the cards, so it is they that say, here is the price, do you want to buy it? Answer= yes please.
    What’s the problem for you, why don’t you like it? It’s not your money, it’s Sainsbury’s. You don’t like them. Cue the car park moans again.

    Ok here’s Ha Ha’s scenario.
    Sainsbury’s don’t move, no housing on that site.
    BCFC don’t move, no new stadium, no new housing and associated developments.
    The car park remains leased to BCFC for another 80 odd years with little return for the council for their land compared to the extra rates earned from the whole developments.
    Mr Lansdown leaves BCFC after development costs for Ashton Gate are too expensive for the projected gains. BCFC don’t have the financial ability to compete at this level and are relegated to lower division. Attendances drop, less people attend, local income drops and shops, pubs, cafes all lose income forcing some to shut.
    Not too long ago the attendances at AG were between 8 and 10 thousand. That could return without success on the pitch, it would have and has had a massive effect on the neighbourhood. It is more likely to occur under your preferred scenario. But hey ho, at least Sacredspring is happy.

  34. Richard Lane permalink
    May 17, 2011 11:39 pm

    Paul

    Take a look around the perimeter of Bristol and what developments have happened there in the last 20 or 30 years. There are massive retail parks all over the place. There are some with supermarkets such as Longwell green and Cribbs, though most don’t contain supermarkets. Yet, it’s the supermarkets that are the cause of the demise to the high st shops, according to some observers. The fact that these places prosper is ignored foolishly by those same observers. If the people did not want them and did not use them, they would not exist. This has happened to high st shops, where not enough people used or wanted them, so they don’t exist as they did before.

  35. May 18, 2011 6:49 am

    Donner und Blitzen, the Reichsminister is verbal diarrhea machine.

    You can’t compare the green task force that rightfully turned up at BOTH council planning meetings to stand up against the destruction
    of the Sainsburys greed machine with the red stormtroopers who were mobilised only at the second meeting.
    The question is there still of why the football mob were incited to attend the planning meeting of a supermarket.
    Answer: because they were directed to do so from the central command– because the only cheating way the Sainsburys greed machine could Anschluss the stadium was with the enabling argument that is central to Lansdowns and Sainsburys tactics:

    16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.

    a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat

    (From Goebbels’ Principles of Propaganda by Leonard W. Doob)

  36. Tony Dyer permalink
    May 18, 2011 7:55 am

    “We submitted better propoganda than our enemy, using fabricated figures, taken from three different retail studies, massaged and compiled by herr Dyer.”

    What fabricated figures? The figures I used, as you have yourself just pointed out, were taken from retail studies produce either by the club’s own retail consultants or by retail consultants used by one or more of the local authoritiies for their own independent retail studies. The one exception to that is when I also used the figures published by Sainsburys themselves.

    Are you saying that the club’s retail consultants, the retail consultant’s used by the local council and/or Sainsburys produced “fabricated” figures?

    If you would like to produce examples of how I “massaged” the figures, please do so. Or is this yet another throwaway claim of yours that you are unable to back up with any proof?

    I look forward to your response but suspect that it will fail to show why the figures were “fabricated” or how they were “massaged” and will simply, as has now become your norm, produce yet another set of wild claims intended to divert attention away from the fact that you have failed to back up your original wild claims.

Comments are closed.