|
Post by Henbury Gas on Feb 18, 2016 15:19:26 GMT
For the purpose of discussion only and based on no inside knowledge ( ), which would be the better option for us fans i) A Bristol Rovers owed reduced capacity Stadium of say 12-15K or ii) A fully built 21,700 seat stadium which we only have a part share in the ownership ? I would go for option i) as i think this is the most viable at this moment in time
|
|
|
Post by Parrot on Feb 18, 2016 15:20:51 GMT
No brainer, i)
As long as we can expand in the future if required
|
|
|
Post by amgas on Feb 18, 2016 15:22:08 GMT
Depends on the terms of the partnership, so impossible to say with the info available.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 15:23:35 GMT
I would go for 1. Even tho the finished stadium would be more than just about capacity. It would still need to have the resources for off the field revenue as well. Which is highly important. As is having the right people in place to manage said resources.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Feb 18, 2016 15:23:57 GMT
1
|
|
|
Post by holderz on Feb 18, 2016 15:26:20 GMT
1
|
|
|
Post by 2nd May 1990 on Feb 18, 2016 15:31:10 GMT
Option 1, dare I say it, is even better than the 21,000 capacity as we have a realistic chance of filling it every week.
|
|
|
Post by roverstillidie on Feb 18, 2016 15:31:55 GMT
1
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Feb 18, 2016 15:42:45 GMT
As South Gloucs Councils plan says it has to be a 21,700 capacity stadium, I prefer that wholly owned by us. The only way that could happen is for the consortium to get their act together and buy us and the option at UWE up.
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Feb 18, 2016 15:44:38 GMT
Option 2 as long as Rovers have a chance to buy out the other owners and have 100% match day revenue
|
|
|
Post by browner on Feb 18, 2016 15:46:59 GMT
No brainer, i) As long as we can expand in the future if required Agree with this one
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Feb 18, 2016 15:47:35 GMT
As South Gloucs Councils plan says it has to be a 21,700 capacity stadium, I prefer that wholly owned by us. The only way that could happen is for the consortium to get their act together and buy us and the option at UWE up. I do wonder if anybody related to this project has asked South Glos in an informal manner about a reduced capacity Stadium yet
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Feb 18, 2016 15:48:27 GMT
1 for me!
|
|
|
Post by costahotshot on Feb 18, 2016 15:55:28 GMT
1 without doubt
|
|
|
Post by lpgas on Feb 18, 2016 15:57:57 GMT
2 Think small and you stay small. Also building small than expanding is the expensive way to do it. Look at MK Dons, they built it but didn't put all the seats in for years.
AND since when have we ever built anything, big or small? Oh yes a bus stop stand at Twerton
We build a small stadium we will always have a small stadium, and with a big stadium we can attract big rugger games AND concerts
Don't think small, think BIG
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Feb 18, 2016 16:08:36 GMT
As South Gloucs Councils plan says it has to be a 21,700 capacity stadium, I prefer that wholly owned by us. The only way that could happen is for the consortium to get their act together and buy us and the option at UWE up. I do wonder if anybody related to this project has asked South Glos in an informal manner about a reduced capacity Stadium yet What would South Glos do if the stadium was built to hold 12,000 but was easily expandable to 22,000? As said before, MK Dons did it by leaving the upper tier as bare concrete. If it was built at the lower capacity with the stated intention of expanding say 5 years later, once we were in the Championship (!), would S Glos be satisfied with that or very very angry with us? And if the latter, what happens then? Do they tell the club to expand it now or tear it down. Or what?
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Feb 18, 2016 16:13:05 GMT
No choice. The only option is the full sized stadium thank goodness. Beginning to wonder if there is an issue with regard to funding even in the light of his proposed partnership.
Still, mustn't spread rumours.
|
|
|
Post by grayraydon on Feb 18, 2016 16:29:49 GMT
Got to be 1 for me, as long as there is possibility for expansion in the future, Franchise fc being the prime example, they might not have put the seats in for years but they obviously didn't need to and when it was required they added them, main thing is it being fully owned by us imo.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Feb 18, 2016 16:33:10 GMT
I'd rather have a shithole in Horfield than a brand new 21,700 capacity stadium we didn't own entirely.
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Feb 18, 2016 16:37:17 GMT
Ever feel like we are going round in circles on here?
|
|