|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Jan 18, 2016 12:02:49 GMT
So this might just be dotting the 't's and crossing the 'i's of existing deals in light of the ACV order. But, I guess we can buy it if we like (and can match the going price). I can put three quid in. www.bishopstonsociety.org.uk/news/other-news/773-memorial-stadium-for-saleBristol City Council have been served notice by solicitors for the owners of the Memorial Stadium, that its owners wish to give notice of their intention to sell the war memorial sports ground. The Memorial Stadium was listed as an Asset of Community Value (ACV) due to an application by the Bishopston Society, so Bristol City Council have informed the Society of the owners’ intent to dispose of the Asset. ... |
|
|
|
Post by lpgas on Jan 18, 2016 12:22:29 GMT
See Radish wants some "suggestions". I could giver her one, but lets get this straight, the whole ground is not a Memorial. If it was then why did a builder get permission to build houses on it. No one was interested in it when it was owned by the rugby club, but now the evil football club took over everyone wants to go back to the past. If we are so sensitive about war memorials then why are so many around the country left to rot, or be stolen and melted down?
Personally I think a statue and a plaque is all that is needed at the ground, or perhaps a garden, one that is approved by the British Legion (irony)
But I did see that as long as their is "some" sporting activity then the order has little effect. Welcome David Lloyd!!
|
|
|
|
Post by chippenhamgas on Jan 18, 2016 12:31:28 GMT
I'm guessing that we've set this in motion cos we have a buyer waiting if we lose in court next week, just avoids delays.
|
|
|
|
Post by gasheadbatesy on Jan 18, 2016 12:33:21 GMT
Busy week next week then.
Will we hear or have access to details of any offers next Monday then.
Been a while since our buddy Mr Carstairs has said anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Langford Gas on Jan 18, 2016 12:34:50 GMT
See Radish wants some "suggestions". I could giver her one, but lets get this straight, the whole ground is not a Memorial. If it was then why did a builder get permission to build houses on it. No one was interested in it when it was owned by the rugby club, but now the evil football club took over everyone wants to go back to the past. If we are so sensitive about war memorials then why are so many around the country left to rot, or be stolen and melted down? Personally I think a statue and a plaque is all that is needed at the ground, or perhaps a garden, one that is approved by the British Legion (irony) But I did see that as long as their is "some" sporting activity then the order has little effect. Welcome David Lloyd!! Its easy just take the memorials to the new stadium , which is what it was intended for the sportsmen who had fallen, musch better placed at a sporting venue. |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Jan 18, 2016 12:48:04 GMT
See Radish wants some "suggestions". I could giver her one, but lets get this straight, the whole ground is not a Memorial. If it was then why did a builder get permission to build houses on it. No one was interested in it when it was owned by the rugby club, but now the evil football club took over everyone wants to go back to the past. If we are so sensitive about war memorials then why are so many around the country left to rot, or be stolen and melted down? Personally I think a statue and a plaque is all that is needed at the ground, or perhaps a garden, one that is approved by the British Legion (irony) But I did see that as long as their is "some" sporting activity then the order has little effect. Welcome David Lloyd!! Its easy just take the memorials to the new stadium , which is what it was intended for the sportsmen who had fallen, musch better placed at a sporting venue. Indeed, it has been suggested (by some Bristol Rugby supporters) that the memorial gates be moved to Ashton Gate. All rivalry aside, if the Mem is eventually to be developed for non-sporting purpose, I would support this proposal, with two caveats: 1. Any new development of the current Memorial Ground site incorporates a suitable memorial, e.g. the proposed memorial garden in the Sainsbury's plan. 2. If Rovers move to the UWE, that a similar, suitable memorial to the fallen is included in the development. There is no reason why all parties cannot act with grace and dignity from now on. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jan 18, 2016 12:52:15 GMT
Its easy just take the memorials to the new stadium , which is what it was intended for the sportsmen who had fallen, musch better placed at a sporting venue. Indeed, it has been suggested (by some Bristol Rugby supporters) that the memorial gates be moved to Ashton Gate. All rivalry aside, if the Mem is eventually to be developed for non-sporting purpose, I would support this proposal, with two caveats: 1. Any new development of the current Memorial Ground site incorporates a suitable memorial, e.g. the proposed memorial garden in the Sainsbury's plan. 2. If Rovers move to the UWE, that a similar, suitable memorial to the fallen is included in the development. There is no reason why all parties cannot act with grace and dignity from now on. And they won't have to travel across town to deface them, thereby lowering their carbon footprint. Win/win. |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Jan 18, 2016 12:54:32 GMT
There is no reason why all parties cannot act with grace and dignity from now on. Apart from Carstairs, Radice and all the Horfield NIMBYs. Coz they're only interested in getting what they want on their doorstep, and not interested at all in what other residents of Horfield want, or the wider Bristol community. They don't even care that they've saved their arch nemesis 35 million quid and cost a local The Gloucester Road business millions of pounds. |
|
|
|
Post by northsidegas on Jan 18, 2016 12:55:43 GMT
consortium may have brought the site..??
|
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Jan 18, 2016 12:57:33 GMT
Indeed, it has been suggested (by some Bristol Rugby supporters) that the memorial gates be moved to Ashton Gate. All rivalry aside, if the Mem is eventually to be developed for non-sporting purpose, I would support this proposal, with two caveats: 1. Any new development of the current Memorial Ground site incorporates a suitable memorial, e.g. the proposed memorial garden in the Sainsbury's plan. 2. If Rovers move to the UWE, that a similar, suitable memorial to the fallen is included in the development. There is no reason why all parties cannot act with grace and dignity from now on. And they won't have to travel across town to deface them, thereby lowering their carbon footprint. Win/win. As I say, there is no reason why all parties cannot act with grace and dignity from now on.  |
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Jan 18, 2016 12:57:52 GMT
A truly amazing news article. Had me grinning all the way through!
|
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Jan 18, 2016 12:58:46 GMT
There is no reason why all parties cannot act with grace and dignity from now on. Apart from Carstairs, Radice and all the Horfield NIMBYs. Coz they're only interested in getting what they want on their doorstep, and not interested at all in what other residents of Horfield want, or the wider Bristol community. They don't even care that they've saved their arch nemesis 35 million quid and cost a local The Gloucester Road business millions of pounds. I think that was contained in my meaning as we all suspect that Carstairs, Radice et al, have always only acted in their own self-interest. If remembering the fallen is truly the objective of the "Bishopston Society" in this respect, then what complaint could they have that one memorial becomes three sites across Bristol for remembrance. |
|
|
|
Post by Parrot on Jan 18, 2016 13:00:27 GMT
consortium may have brought the site..?? Just putting everything in place, in case they do ! |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 18, 2016 13:01:04 GMT
I'm guessing that we've set this in motion cos we have a buyer waiting if we lose in court next week, just avoids delays. Or we just want to set the clock ticking in case we have to sell the ground shortly? |
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Jan 18, 2016 13:29:19 GMT
I'm guessing that we've set this in motion cos we have a buyer waiting if we lose in court next week, just avoids delays. Or we just want to set the clock ticking in case we have to sell the ground shortly? I would guess this is more likely. We win case and Sainsbury have to buy it or we sell it for housing . Either way it looks like we're moving somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by gassince1957 on Jan 18, 2016 13:42:32 GMT
I asked NH about this at the SC AGM and to sum up the answers briefly:
1. The Bishopston Society now have 3 weeks to decide if they wish to make a bid
2. They then have 6 months to raise the funds - the selling price is up to BRFC, so the Bishopston Society can't for example, buy the land for £20,000 or whatever silly figure they come up with
3. If the Bishopston Society decide they want to bid, the process takes 6 months BUT if at the end of that time they don't raise the funding (i.e. the price set by BRFC), they have to pay compensation to BRFC (but will probably do a "TRASH" and disappear rapidly!)
So I'm guessing this is to force their hand as once this ACV bid is used, there can't be another one for 3 years. Not sure if the ACV thing applies if we win v. Sainsbury's as they have, in effect, already been sold the land.
|
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Jan 18, 2016 13:52:06 GMT
More importantly even if they raise £30 million we still don't have to sell it to them, so all bases are covered.
|
|
|
|
Post by Langford Gas on Jan 18, 2016 13:57:38 GMT
I asked NH about this at the SC AGM and to sum up the answers briefly: 1. The Bishopston Society now have 3 weeks to decide if they wish to make a bid 2. They then have 6 months to raise the funds - the selling price is up to BRFC, so the Bishopston Society can't for example, buy the land for £20,000 or whatever silly figure they come up with 3. If the Bishopston Society decide they want to bid, the process takes 6 months BUT if at the end of that time they don't raise the funding (i.e. the price set by BRFC), they have to pay compensation to BRFC (but will probably do a "TRASH" and disappear rapidly!) So I'm guessing this is to force their hand as once this ACV bid is used, there can't be another one for 3 years. Not sure if the ACV thing applies if we win v. Sainsbury's as they have, in effect, already been sold the land. Also I think I am right in saying though stand to be corrected, any individuals associated with the bid are liable personally for compensation |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Jan 18, 2016 14:08:52 GMT
I asked NH about this at the SC AGM and to sum up the answers briefly: 1. The Bishopston Society now have 3 weeks to decide if they wish to make a bid 2. They then have 6 months to raise the funds - the selling price is up to BRFC, so the Bishopston Society can't for example, buy the land for £20,000 or whatever silly figure they come up with 3. If the Bishopston Society decide they want to bid, the process takes 6 months BUT if at the end of that time they don't raise the funding (i.e. the price set by BRFC), they have to pay compensation to BRFC (but will probably do a "TRASH" and disappear rapidly!) So I'm guessing this is to force their hand as once this ACV bid is used, there can't be another one for 3 years. Not sure if the ACV thing applies if we win v. Sainsbury's as they have, in effect, already been sold the land. A couple of observations: 1. There is a 6 week interim period from the date the Council has been informed of an owner's intention to sell for Community Interest Groups to make a formal written request to be included as a bidder. 2. If no written request is received then the owner can proceed with selling the asset. 3. If a written request is received from a qualifying Community Interest Group, a six month moratorium period runs from the date the original notification was put to the Council (i.e. a further 4.5 months after the 6 week period). 4. At the end of this period (either the 6 weeks if there has been no community interest, or the full 6 months if there has) the owner is free to sell to whomever they choose and at whatever price, and no further moratorium will apply for the remainder of a protected period lasting 18 months. 5. Compensation for any loss as a result of the process is determined by the Council and comes from government funds (up to £20k from the local council and amounts above that from central government). Compensation would not be due from the Community interest group. I totally agree that this is to force the BS hand. I am also unsure of the legal position of the ACV if the appeal is successful and Sainsbury's are forced to buy as the agreement predates the granting of the ACV. |
|
|
|
Post by Parrot on Jan 18, 2016 14:10:01 GMT
I asked NH about this at the SC AGM and to sum up the answers briefly: 1. The Bishopston Society now have 3 weeks to decide if they wish to make a bid 2. They then have 6 months to raise the funds - the selling price is up to BRFC, so the Bishopston Society can't for example, buy the land for £20,000 or whatever silly figure they come up with 3. If the Bishopston Society decide they want to bid, the process takes 6 months BUT if at the end of that time they don't raise the funding (i.e. the price set by BRFC), they have to pay compensation to BRFC (but will probably do a "TRASH" and disappear rapidly!) So I'm guessing this is to force their hand as once this ACV bid is used, there can't be another one for 3 years. Not sure if the ACV thing applies if we win v. Sainsbury's as they have, in effect, already been sold the land. Also I think I am right in saying though stand to be corrected, any individuals associated with the bid are liable personally for compensation I think you are correct Langford Gas. On a side issue if you live in Langford (North Somerset), you are my neighbour (Nearly) |
|
