lockleazer
Tarki Micalleff
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 411 
|
Post by lockleazer on Nov 24, 2015 12:51:39 GMT
Appologies if this has been noted before , surely this could cause more delays if we found a new buyer (if/when sainsburys is confirmed as all over)and possibly lower the value? www.bishopstonsociety.org.uk/news/our-news/754-bristol-city-council-accepts-nomination-of-memorial-stadium-as-an-asset-of-community-value-by-tbsBristol City Council accepts nomination of Memorial Stadium as an Asset of Community Value by TBS Published on Monday, 09 November 2015 21:49 The Memorial Stadium has now been granted the status of an Asset of Community Value. The background to this request by TBS is set out here ACV status is a timely and welcome recognition by the council of the significance to Bristol of the historic war memorial sports ground. It was almost the first war memorial to be built in the city after the Great War – and it predates the Cenotaph in the centre by many years. It had enormous public support, both heartfelt and financially. Every day is a day of remembrance and every mention of the name of the Ground memorialises the fallen rugby players. It is through sport that the soldier sportsmen are remembered. The Ground remains the city’s largest and, in many ways most effective and poignant, war memorial. It has been an under appreciated jewel in the crown of the Horfield/Bishopston area. Under the Localism Act (2011), ACV status means that if the Memorial Stadium comes up for sale, eligible “community interest groups” (who may wish to ensure that sport can carry on being played there) would have a six week window to put in a bid to purchase the site, and a six month opportunity to raise the money. Bristol City Council declared in their letter to TBS that the reasons for accepting the nomination are that there is a “sporting, cultural and recreational interest” in the “community stadium”. The ACV listing offers the local and wider Bristol community a stake in determining the future of the Memorial Ground. This is a sensible change of direction – recent experience has seen plans to surround the Memorial Ground with towering blocks of flats, or replace it altogether with a huge supermarket with all the noise and air pollution that entails. ACV status points more at sporting or recreational uses, for the health and well being of Bristolians, as intended by the founders of the Memorial Ground. A better, and possibly glowing, future for the distinctive war memorial sports ground is now possible. Next year, thanks to generous hosting by Bristol Rovers FC, the city’s Ceremony of Remembrance parade and service is to be held at the Memorial Ground, on Remembrance Sunday. Furthermore, the President of Bristol Rugby Former Players, has stated that “The memorial is not only for those who wore the famous blue and white jersey, but for all rugby players who died for their country.” The case for the Mem to be formally adopted as the national rugby war memorial is made here (link to blog by the World Rugby Museum, Twickenham). How will Bristol’s newest asset of community value fare? While Sainsbury’s may no longer wish to buy the land, Rovers’ directors are thought to be still seeking to sell it. Many local people and sport fans hope that the Memorial Ground carries on being a major and historic team sport venue for Bristol. However, any proposed re-development of the site should: 1) respect the war memorial status of the site 2) be appropriate to its residential setting and 3) conform to the Covenant on the land which states that it must be used for sport or recreation in perpetuity. Councillors Daniella Radice and Tim Malnick, welcome imaginative ideas about possible alternative future uses, which keep (at the very least) the playing pitch area for sport, games, or recreation, such as a school, or retirement homes, sport rehabilitation, or even a velodrome. |
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Nov 24, 2015 13:13:25 GMT
Bit confused by par 3) of the Covenant that states " it must be used for sport or recreation in perpetuity"....,,,does that include building houses on one half of the land as already has been done? Or is it selective use as and when it suits?
|
|
|
|
Post by lympstonegas on Nov 24, 2015 13:14:15 GMT
Not good news as if the pitch has to stay - would mean a supermarket or other building s like houses can't be erected on it - so we can't sell it and we won't be able to redevelop the stadium dur to ROSE and Trash opposition so does that mean we are stuck now - this must be great news for Sainsbury prior to court ?
|
|
dave107
Joined: January 2015
Posts: 2
|
Post by dave107 on Nov 24, 2015 13:18:46 GMT
If they wish this status then back payment of funds should be made available by they council for maintaining and investment for the stadium. To invoke such clauses on property at such a late stage in its history will devalue the estate. If locals wish to have control over the grounds development they should be required to pay for it as well so the club should be reimbursed for the losses made by such an action.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 24, 2015 13:23:05 GMT
my thought years agog was if it was ever sold you would keep/move the pitch and build flats houses around it, similar to the Higbury project
I can see how the ACV could effect a future sale as groups would have first dibs to buy it and do whatever (but at what price determined by whom? surely 'us' as owners?)
but how can it effect a deal that could be in place if we did win the appeal?
|
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Nov 24, 2015 13:30:56 GMT
BCC have already given pp for a supermarket so I can't see they can suddenly withdraw, although there may now be issues if we try and extend pp once it comes up for renewal (after 3 years?) if work hasn't started by then? Although it does show the difficulties we may have get pp for any future developments at the ground? I could never understand why the convenant wasn't an issue with Sainsbury's plans but it seems it was just ignored as the Memorial Gates were being perserved.
What I can't understand is how this was approved without it seemingly being discussed at a council meeting or announced following a meeting.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Nov 24, 2015 13:51:27 GMT
Have I misunderstood this?
"ACV status means that if the Memorial Stadium comes up for sale, eligible “community interest groups” (who may wish to ensure that sport can carry on being played there) would have a six week window to put in a bid to purchase the site, and a six month opportunity to raise the money."
So does this mean they have to buy the whole site? If so how is it valued, and how would they raise the funds?
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Nov 24, 2015 14:00:34 GMT
Just another nail in the coffin by the looks of it unless this is part of plans B C D etc. Seems to have Radice stamp all over it.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 24, 2015 14:02:45 GMT
Have I misunderstood this? "ACV status means that if the Memorial Stadium comes up for sale, eligible “community interest groups” (who may wish to ensure that sport can carry on being played there) would have a six week window to put in a bid to purchase the site, and a six month opportunity to raise the money." So does this mean they have to buy the whole site? If so how is it valued, and how would they raise the funds? Presumably as owners 'we' could look to sell it to Sainsbury's for £30m and agree a deal at which point other groups would have 6 weeks to match it.
How this would affect the current deal if declared binding who knows
|
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Nov 24, 2015 14:07:14 GMT
Well there was an offer for £30 mill so come on then they have 6 weeks to raise the funds
Simples
|
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Nov 24, 2015 14:30:55 GMT
The sooner Bristol Rovers get out of BCC area the better we will all be
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Nov 24, 2015 14:38:47 GMT
BCC have already given pp for a supermarket so I can't see they can suddenly withdraw, although there may now be issues if we try and extend pp once it comes up for renewal (after 3 years?) if work hasn't started by then? Although it does show the difficulties we may have get pp for any future developments at the ground? I could never understand why the convenant wasn't an issue with Sainsbury's plans but it seems it was just ignored as the Memorial Gates were being perserved. What I can't understand is how this was approved without it seemingly being discussed at a council meeting or announced following a meeting. This makes no sense whatsoever.
BCC has already granted planning permission to Sainsbury are they now being told that the planning permission should never have been granted?
This need a lot more clarification, such as:-
1 - How has this arisen at this late stage 2 - Has this been discussed by the full Council. If so by whom? 3 - Sainsbury would pull out of the deal had they known this and if they lose the Court case and had to pay us £28m, they would sue the Council for incorrectly granting planning permission 4 - The Consortium, weather you believe there is one or not, will pull out of any negotiations as they have there own plans for The Mem and that does not involve keeping it as a stadium. 5 - I cannot believe the ratepayers of BCC would be happy to pay £10m(?) just to keep this as a stadium 6 - I cannot believe that the Duke of Guernsey is in the background hoping to buy this for £10m and keep it as a stadium 7 - It would be interesting to hear George Fergusons opinion on this and the local MP 8 - There are many more questions I could add
This whole thing stinks of a desperate measure by probably the bloke who fought for the stadium to be a Memorial, with maybe the blessing of Daniella Radice.
I think the whole agenda for the Q & A on Thursday will be changed as clearly BRFC and/or the Consortium will be of the same opinion that this is a nonsense and could cause irreparable damage to BRFC. If this is allowed to happen BRFC could be sunk as the value of The Mem could be diddly squat and we still have outstanding loans of £10m(?) with no chance of it ever going to being repaid.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2015 14:40:46 GMT
Have I misunderstood this? "ACV status means that if the Memorial Stadium comes up for sale, eligible “community interest groups” (who may wish to ensure that sport can carry on being played there) would have a six week window to put in a bid to purchase the site, and a six month opportunity to raise the money." So does this mean they have to buy the whole site? If so how is it valued, and how would they raise the funds? Presumably as owners 'we' could look to sell it to Sainsbury's for £30m and agree a deal at which point other groups would have 6 weeks to match it.
How this would affect the current deal if declared binding who knows
Six weeks (effectively) to register an interest, after which they have six months to raise the money (or not), so at the very least it's a way of stalling any deal for seven and a half months. I agree with you about it being unclear whether that would apply to the Sainsbury's deal as that has already been 'agreed' but hasn't yet gone through (Then again, I think it will be ruled that it hasn't been agreed, and won't go through, so it's probably moot). |
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 24, 2015 14:45:22 GMT
Presumably as owners 'we' could look to sell it to Sainsbury's for £30m and agree a deal at which point other groups would have 6 weeks to match it.
How this would affect the current deal if declared binding who knows
Six weeks (effectively) to register an interest, after which they have six months to raise the money (or not), so at the very least it's a way of stalling any deal for seven and a half months. I agree with you about it being unclear whether that would apply to the Sainsbury's deal as that has already been 'agreed' but hasn't yet gone through (Then again, I think it will be ruled that it hasn't been agreed, and won't go through, so it's probably moot). so question to Nick, how are you going to finance the club beyond 3-4 years?
you can't make this sh*t up can you
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2015 14:47:49 GMT
BCC have already given pp for a supermarket so I can't see they can suddenly withdraw, although there may now be issues if we try and extend pp once it comes up for renewal (after 3 years?) if work hasn't started by then? Although it does show the difficulties we may have get pp for any future developments at the ground? I could never understand why the convenant wasn't an issue with Sainsbury's plans but it seems it was just ignored as the Memorial Gates were being perserved. What I can't understand is how this was approved without it seemingly being discussed at a council meeting or announced following a meeting. This makes no sense whatsoever.
BCC has already granted planning permission to Sainsbury are they now being told that the planning permission should never have been granted?
This need a lot more clarification, such as:-
1 - How has this arisen at this late stage 2 - Has this been discussed by the full Council. If so by whom? 3 - Sainsbury would pull out of the deal had they known this and if they lose the Court case and had to pay us £28m, they would sue the Council for incorrectly granting planning permission 4 - The Consortium, weather you believe there is one or not, will pull out of any negotiations as they have there own plans for The Mem and that does not involve keeping it as a stadium. 5 - I cannot believe the ratepayers of BCC would be happy to pay £10m(?) just to keep this as a stadium 6 - I cannot believe that the Duke of Guernsey is in the background hoping to buy this for £10m and keep it as a stadium 7 - It would be interesting to hear George Fergusons opinion on this and the local MP 8 - There are many more questions I could add
This whole thing stinks of a desperate measure by probably the bloke who fought for the stadium to be a Memorial, with maybe the blessing of Daniella Radice.
I think the whole agenda for the Q & A on Thursday will be changed as clearly BRFC and/or the Consortium will be of the same opinion that this is a nonsense and could cause irreparable damage to BRFC. If this is allowed to happen BRFC could be sunk as the value of The Mem could be diddly squat and we still have outstanding loans of £10m(?) with no chance of it ever going to being repaid.
I think it 'just' means that, if the club wants to sell the land, it has to allow a local group that asks to, to match the sale price, and gives them six months to do that. It sticks a seven and a half month delay in things, but the end result should (eventually) be that a sale at that price goes through. That might put off some potential purchasers but I expect house builders would be prepared to wait. It might even push the price up a bit to try to thwart the local group. It's a balls ache though. |
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Nov 24, 2015 14:52:08 GMT
Have I misunderstood this? "ACV status means that if the Memorial Stadium comes up for sale, eligible “community interest groups” (who may wish to ensure that sport can carry on being played there) would have a six week window to put in a bid to purchase the site, and a six month opportunity to raise the money." So does this mean they have to buy the whole site? If so how is it valued, and how would they raise the funds? Presumably as owners 'we' could look to sell it to Sainsbury's for £30m and agree a deal at which point other groups would have 6 weeks to match it.
How this would affect the current deal if declared binding who knows
Peter - do you believe if Sainsbury lost the Court appeal they will pay us £28m.
Of course they will not as the original Contract was to buy The Mem WITH planning permission. If that planning permission to build a supermarket is now ruled invalid I'm sure any Court will not make them buy a football stadium without planning permission.
All I can see is that many lawyers will be rubbing their hands at the thought of Court cases to determine this ruling legality. Also, does BCC have sufficient funds to deal with any Court action as the individuals that have got this ruling will not be paying for any Court case out of their own pockets, it will be the unfortunate ratepayers of BCC.
I'm glad I live in North Somerset from that point of view.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Nov 24, 2015 14:56:57 GMT
This makes no sense whatsoever.
BCC has already granted planning permission to Sainsbury are they now being told that the planning permission should never have been granted?
This need a lot more clarification, such as:-
1 - How has this arisen at this late stage 2 - Has this been discussed by the full Council. If so by whom? 3 - Sainsbury would pull out of the deal had they known this and if they lose the Court case and had to pay us £28m, they would sue the Council for incorrectly granting planning permission 4 - The Consortium, weather you believe there is one or not, will pull out of any negotiations as they have there own plans for The Mem and that does not involve keeping it as a stadium. 5 - I cannot believe the ratepayers of BCC would be happy to pay £10m(?) just to keep this as a stadium 6 - I cannot believe that the Duke of Guernsey is in the background hoping to buy this for £10m and keep it as a stadium 7 - It would be interesting to hear George Fergusons opinion on this and the local MP 8 - There are many more questions I could add
This whole thing stinks of a desperate measure by probably the bloke who fought for the stadium to be a Memorial, with maybe the blessing of Daniella Radice.
I think the whole agenda for the Q & A on Thursday will be changed as clearly BRFC and/or the Consortium will be of the same opinion that this is a nonsense and could cause irreparable damage to BRFC. If this is allowed to happen BRFC could be sunk as the value of The Mem could be diddly squat and we still have outstanding loans of £10m(?) with no chance of it ever going to being repaid.
I think it 'just' means that, if the club wants to sell the land, it has to allow a local group that asks to, to match the sale price, and gives them six months to do that. It sticks a seven and a half month delay in things, but the end result should (eventually) be that a sale at that price goes through. That might put off some potential purchasers but I expect house builders would be prepared to wait. It might even push the price up a bit to try to thwart the local group. It's a balls ache though. Seth - perhaps I have got this wrong. It appears to me that The Mem MUST remain as a sports stadium according to this ruling.
If that is the case no-one will want it. Why would anyone want to buy it for it to remain as a sports stadium. I'd love to hear that I am misunderstanding the meaning of this outrageous ruling.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 24, 2015 15:07:06 GMT
Presumably as owners 'we' could look to sell it to Sainsbury's for £30m and agree a deal at which point other groups would have 6 weeks to match it.
How this would affect the current deal if declared binding who knows
Peter - do you believe if Sainsbury lost the Court appeal they will pay us £28m.
Of course they will not as the original Contract was to buy The Mem WITH planning permission. If that planning permission to build a supermarket is now ruled invalid I'm sure any Court will not make them buy a football stadium without planning permission.
All I can see is that many lawyers will be rubbing their hands at the thought of Court cases to determine this ruling legality. Also, does BCC have sufficient funds to deal with any Court action as the individuals that have got this ruling will not be paying for any Court case out of their own pockets, it will be the unfortunate ratepayers of BCC.
I'm glad I live in North Somerset from that point of view.
I don’t think Sainsbury’s will have to pay us anything, but it a hypothetical (isn’t everything) if we won the appeal, the site has PP with the delivery hours. How would this ACV trump a deal that has been made. That is the question that would need to be asked. As owners of the stadium, I would take it we have been informed of this ruling?? |
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 24, 2015 15:10:38 GMT
I think it 'just' means that, if the club wants to sell the land, it has to allow a local group that asks to, to match the sale price, and gives them six months to do that. It sticks a seven and a half month delay in things, but the end result should (eventually) be that a sale at that price goes through. That might put off some potential purchasers but I expect house builders would be prepared to wait. It might even push the price up a bit to try to thwart the local group. It's a balls ache though. Seth - perhaps I have got this wrong. It appears to me that The Mem MUST remain as a sports stadium according to this ruling.
If that is the case no-one will want it. Why would anyone want to buy it for it to remain as a sports stadium. I'd love to hear that I am misunderstanding the meaning of this outrageous ruling.
Seems a bit unclear and contradictory on one hand they say "ACV status means that if the Memorial Stadium comes up for sale, eligible “community interest groups” (who may wish to ensure that sport can carry on being played there) would have a six week window to put in a bid to purchase the site, and a six month opportunity to raise the money." That in it’s self doesn’t rule out a supermarket, but then says to conform to the covenant which would |
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Nov 24, 2015 15:15:47 GMT
Carstairs(?) is the blokes name I had forgotten
|
|
