Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 13:54:05 GMT
The owners know. An 18,500 stadium with other facilities will fit on the site. An 18,500 stadium with other facilities was given planning consent. They have most likely asked their stadium advisors/designers some basic outlines of what can realistically be achieved on the site. Would these outlines require any other considerations that were not taken for the original plans. Wael commented that the Mem site is exactly the same as that for Evertons 40,157 Goodison park. which has a record attendance of over 78,000 !....imagine that on Filton avenue . Goodison has housing right around the ground. And has always been a very large ground. Waste of time comparing sites stadium buildings approx. 10m from houses at Everton ...15m at ashton gate. currently west stand about 15m from houses. Ikea a much higher building than the previous south stand of eastville and close to housing behind. Many old stadiums when going from terrace to seated stands with a roof increase in height drastically.
The height passed for the previous Mem plans can remain as so but still have deeper ranks of seating especially if the pitch is lowered. Its more than possible a 30,000 stadium "could" be built on site......it wont be though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 13:57:39 GMT
The owners know. An 18,500 stadium with other facilities will fit on the site. An 18,500 stadium with other facilities was given planning consent. They have most likely asked their stadium advisors/designers some basic outlines of what can realistically be achieved on the site. Would these outlines require any other considerations that were not taken for the original plans. Wael commented that the Mem site is exactly the same as that for Evertons 40,157 Goodison park. which has a record attendance of over 78,000 !....imagine that on Filton avenue . Goodison has housing right around the ground.But Everton are moving and have been trying to do so for the past 10-15 years. They've had nearly as many problems as us in doing so (not quite as many but then I doubt if anyone has!). UTG! Are you suggesting a 40,157 capacity wouldn't be enough for Rovers ! :0) Everton could probably make a beautiful 30,000 stadium on the Goodison site ....but they want a bigger stadium...to keep up with Liverpool.
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on Aug 11, 2017 13:58:04 GMT
With all the grandiose statements this week about the " regeneration " of the Memorial Stadium, do you think Wael/Family/associates have approached Bristol City Council and give them a broad outline of their plans before going public to get a feel for any response ?? maybe time for us all to approach our councillors and ask the same question............. a very valid point Ian. I have had some long and interesting twitter exchanges, via the direct message function on twitter and mail, I obviously won't divulge what is said to me in private BUT I can say that this has not been mentioned once. I put forward my views on ROSE, Carstairs and the photographer and then the level of non Bristolian NIMBYS and asked that thenclub prepare BEFORE we go to,planning this time. It's the least we can do and given our past experiences with this. I thought Marvin Rees would be better and much different but, sadly, we still have that core of people who live in that area and surrounding who are very quick to act and you can bet your last penny tnat they are already organising one only has to look at the Colston hall fiasco, to see it took less than 2000 of them to get their way. Bristolians, well, we seem to like to moan after the fact and the apathy is very poor amongst our fanbase in particular. I wonder if Dave Thomas would be prepared to get involved ? Poor sod, his "prize" for all of his hard work in the petition, was a 5 yr or maybe longer ST at UWE !!! I did say at the time that I didn't think he'd get to use that but that's going off point we now need to be preparing and not waiting to counter. Its not like we don't know what's coming eh
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on Aug 11, 2017 14:04:21 GMT
With all the grandiose statements this week about the " regeneration " of the Memorial Stadium, do you think Wael/Family/associates have approached Bristol City Council and give them a broad outline of their plans before going public to get a feel for any response ?? maybe time for us all to approach our councillors and ask the same question............. They might need to work out what their plans actually are before they make any approach to council. Catchphrase time. We already have evolution, now we have regeneration. My own view is that the visits to MK were all about this in anycase & that the UWE was dead in the water much further back but just my opinion on that. I'd love to see maybe our Mayor look at this as an opportunity to put the arena and a football/sports centre of excellence, together. I know it would cause the Teds to feel anger but it would make sense but imagine trying to sort that out given how Bristol city council have acted on past projects. Good idead aren't really well done in this area eh
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 14:12:50 GMT
I know nobody listens to me but..... what are the chances of walking into the members bar tommorow and being greeted by some artists impressions of the 'new mem' hanging gloriously on the overbar? Ok your right the uwe ones will still be there! Were they there on Tuesday night? Not sure Bideford I wasn't there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 14:23:12 GMT
Were they there on Tuesday night? Not sure Bideford I wasn't there. Was in the Dribuild for hospitality, did not notice anything there relating to UWE.
|
|
|
Post by gaslife on Aug 11, 2017 14:27:56 GMT
It's not just about the number of seats. The accessibility, building limitations and logistics make the old rugby ground site a very poor alternative to UWE. Apart from the excellent location, facilities and transport links, the prospect of collaboration between Rovers, UWE and South Glos could have taken the club towards a prosperous and exciting future, certainly giving City realistic competition. But collaboration with local institutions seems to be unpalatable to the new owners, apparently because they had to 'own' a 'beautiful' bit of England. So we have an unsuitable site that isn't beautiful at all and puts a lid on the football clubs ambitions for the foreseeable future. The UWE & South Glos offered the club and fans 100 years (secure lease, probably renewable) of dreams and possibilities. They and the stadium would certainly be around long after most of us have gone. If the deal was so bad, why not publish the the details for us all to decide? As for the Al-Qadi’s and the rejuvenated Mem, the prospect now is continual scrapping around in the lower leagues whilst Lansdown and his cronies power on, ridiculing their lesser neighbours. This is the future as it was the past. To me, collaboration with institutions South Glos and UWE is potentially more stable and more reliable than being owned by a sole billionaire or a little known family. These respected local institutions will certainly be working for the benefit of Bristolians for a lot longer than the Al-Qadi’s will be around for sure. I fear that this will not end well for Rovers and history will show that a golden opportunity was missed.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 11, 2017 14:40:08 GMT
It's not just about the number of seats. The accessibility, building limitations and logistics make the old rugby ground site a very poor alternative to UWE. Apart from the excellent location, facilities and transport links, the prospect of collaboration between Rovers, UWE and South Glos could have taken the club towards a prosperous and exciting future, certainly giving City realistic competition. But collaboration with local institutions seems to be unpalatable to the new owners, apparently because they had to 'own' a 'beautiful' bit of England. So we have an unsuitable site that isn't beautiful at all and puts a lid on the football clubs ambitions for the foreseeable future. The UWE & South Glos offered the club and fans 100 years (secure lease, probably renewable) of dreams and possibilities. They and the stadium would certainly be around long after most of us have gone. If the deal was so bad, why not publish the the details for us all to decide? As for the Al-Qadi’s and the rejuvenated Mem, the prospect now is continual scrapping around in the lower leagues whilst Lansdown and his cronies power on, ridiculing their lesser neighbours. This is the future as it was the past. To me, collaboration with institutions South Glos and UWE is potentially more stable and more reliable than being owned by a sole billionaire or a little known family. These respected local institutions will certainly be working for the benefit of Bristolians for a lot longer than the Al-Qadi’s will be around for sure. I fear that this will not end well for Rovers and history will show that a golden opportunity was missed. oh dear I offer a free bus trip to the bridge (one way) if required For what its worth i agree with you
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Aug 11, 2017 15:30:39 GMT
It's not just about the number of seats. The accessibility, building limitations and logistics make the old rugby ground site a very poor alternative to UWE. Apart from the excellent location, facilities and transport links, the prospect of collaboration between Rovers, UWE and South Glos could have taken the club towards a prosperous and exciting future, certainly giving City realistic competition. But collaboration with local institutions seems to be unpalatable to the new owners, apparently because they had to 'own' a 'beautiful' bit of England. So we have an unsuitable site that isn't beautiful at all and puts a lid on the football clubs ambitions for the foreseeable future. The UWE & South Glos offered the club and fans 100 years (secure lease, probably renewable) of dreams and possibilities. They and the stadium would certainly be around long after most of us have gone. If the deal was so bad, why not publish the the details for us all to decide? As for the Al-Qadi’s and the rejuvenated Mem, the prospect now is continual scrapping around in the lower leagues whilst Lansdown and his cronies power on, ridiculing their lesser neighbours. This is the future as it was the past. To me, collaboration with institutions South Glos and UWE is potentially more stable and more reliable than being owned by a sole billionaire or a little known family. These respected local institutions will certainly be working for the benefit of Bristolians for a lot longer than the Al-Qadi’s will be around for sure. I fear that this will not end well for Rovers and history will show that a golden opportunity was missed. The trouble is those well respected local institutions (as we have seen) don't see the benefit of Bristolians and the benefit of Bristol Rovers Football Club as being the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Aug 11, 2017 16:36:15 GMT
But Everton are moving and have been trying to do so for the past 10-15 years. They've had nearly as many problems as us in doing so (not quite as many but then I doubt if anyone has!). UTG! Are you suggesting a 40,157 capacity wouldn't be enough for Rovers ! :0) Everton could probably make a beautiful 30,000 stadium on the Goodison site ....but they want a bigger stadium...to keep up with Liverpool.
Fair enough! They also want to increase the chances of breaking into the top four. UTG!
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 11, 2017 17:30:01 GMT
It's not just about the number of seats. The accessibility, building limitations and logistics make the old rugby ground site a very poor alternative to UWE. Apart from the excellent location, facilities and transport links, the prospect of collaboration between Rovers, UWE and South Glos could have taken the club towards a prosperous and exciting future, certainly giving City realistic competition. But collaboration with local institutions seems to be unpalatable to the new owners, apparently because they had to 'own' a 'beautiful' bit of England. So we have an unsuitable site that isn't beautiful at all and puts a lid on the football clubs ambitions for the foreseeable future. The UWE & South Glos offered the club and fans 100 years (secure lease, probably renewable) of dreams and possibilities. They and the stadium would certainly be around long after most of us have gone. If the deal was so bad, why not publish the the details for us all to decide? As for the Al-Qadi’s and the rejuvenated Mem, the prospect now is continual scrapping around in the lower leagues whilst Lansdown and his cronies power on, ridiculing their lesser neighbours. This is the future as it was the past. To me, collaboration with institutions South Glos and UWE is potentially more stable and more reliable than being owned by a sole billionaire or a little known family. These respected local institutions will certainly be working for the benefit of Bristolians for a lot longer than the Al-Qadi’s will be around for sure. I fear that this will not end well for Rovers and history will show that a golden opportunity was missed. The trouble is those well respected local institutions ( as we have seen) don't see the benefit of Bristolians and the benefit of Bristol Rovers Football Club as being the same thing. Pure assumption on your past as we haven't actually seen anything? But at some point in the recent past the UWE thought the stadium was a good idea as they apparently approached NH with the plans, unless somebody from the UWE ever speaks out what we'll probably never know is why they agreed a deal with NH but couldn't then come to any agreement with the ALQ's.
|
|
|
Post by womble on Aug 11, 2017 17:34:13 GMT
They might need to work out what their plans actually are before they make any approach to council. Catchphrase time. We already have evolution, now we have regeneration. My own view is that the visits to MK were all about this in anycase & that the UWE was dead in the water much further back but just my opinion on that. I'd love to see maybe our Mayor look at this as an opportunity to put the arena and a football/sports centre of excellence, together. I know it would cause the Teds to feel anger but it would make sense but imagine trying to sort that out given how Bristol city council have acted on past projects. Good idead aren't really well done in this area eh Not going to happen KP. There simply isn't the room at the arena site for more than the arena, now that the rest of the site has been sold to the University of Bristol for its new campus. Apart from that, Marvin Rees, nice chap though he seems to be, has the art of not taking decisions down to a tee. The arena has already been put back a year for another contractor to look at costs. By the time they report back I'd bet a pound to a penny that costs will have risen not fallen.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Aug 11, 2017 17:36:04 GMT
The trouble is those well respected local institutions (as we have seen) don't see the benefit of Bristolians and the benefit of Bristol Rovers Football Club as being the same thing. But at some point in the recent past the UWE thought the stadium was a good idea as they apparently approached NH with the plans, That may be so and I see no reason to believe that it isn't but that doesn't mean their actions were for the benefit of Bristol Rovers does it? You can be offered something that you want and still get screwed.
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Aug 11, 2017 19:17:36 GMT
I very much doubt the UWE ever had Rovers wellbeing in their minds. It was always about what they wanted and it was a case of letting us have a new ground to play football in while the UWE exploited it for whatever they could get. We would have just stagnated and bumbled along. Unfortunately, NH got himself in too deep with them and it became a case of a new ground for Rovers whatever. Luckily Wael was able to appear as the new kid on the block and stand up to them.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Oct 9, 2017 10:31:15 GMT
Lets revisit this in a month or so and see how the backup plan's taking shape then. Happy to be called out on this if you're right. Woss fink then bags? How's the backup plan coming along?
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 9, 2017 11:00:47 GMT
If anyone is interested in emailing their MP and local councillors this site is really good for that: www.writetothem.com/
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Oct 9, 2017 11:22:56 GMT
Lets revisit this in a month or so and see how the backup plan's taking shape then. Happy to be called out on this if you're right. Woss fink then bags? How's the backup plan coming along? Well yes, it's all going great, it's just a case of a few signatures and we're off. Actually, that's a lie and nothing's happened. Dammit!!! Fair shout though I did say I'd apologise, so sorry fella, you were right.
|
|
|
Post by lympstonegas on Oct 9, 2017 11:35:06 GMT
Does anybody really believe that there are real plans? Yes
|
|
|
Post by lympstonegas on Oct 9, 2017 11:37:26 GMT
Perhaps not plans but consultations yes. I will rephrase. Real plans to draw up real plans? Yes
|
|
|
Post by lympstonegas on Oct 9, 2017 11:39:56 GMT
With all the grandiose statements this week about the " regeneration " of the Memorial Stadium, do you think Wael/Family/associates have approached Bristol City Council and give them a broad outline of their plans before going public to get a feel for any response ?? maybe time for us all to approach our councillors and ask the same question............. No. Do you think there was a broad outline before he went public? The only broad outline he could've found were the previous plans left by the old board. But I here there may have been a lot of papers disposed of before the Al Qs got the keys. Surely not another conspiracy in the corridors of power
|
|