We have identified a site

I really, REALLY hope that their idea isn't a carbon copy of the South Stand

I can't understand why they're not going to do anything about the West stand either, surely there's room there to get the stadium to over the 18,000 mark,it will also look really odd if three sides look like a football stadium and one like a cricket/rugby/horse racing pavilion. Maybe they want to keep a monument to our Mickey mouse past or something.

And yet somehow, I love it.

In a weird way, yup.
It 'sort of' mirrors the Union Berlin ground. Their capacity is around 22,000 with only 3,500 seats.
Currently playing in the Bundesliga. Qualified for Champions League football (well struggling in that competition right now, but that is not the point).
Get the supporters behind you. Involve the community. Do it differently. Keep the terraces / safe standing. Keep the soul of the Club. 
A sterile bowl is just not Bristol Rovers FC.
I am hopeful for the future.

OK, if you want to keep it, I think I can do it.

First I will take the roof off. Then I need to build structures of the same profile attached either side. Then we need to re route the egress and exits through vomitories that go towards the back, probably getting rid of the existing bar area in favour of multiple smaller ones. I can build smaller seating in front, now that the walkways have gone, again serviced by vomitories routed to the back. Then I can put a roof over the whole thing. I hear we like stanchions round here, so we can do that on the cheap.


This sounds suspiciously like "too much work", building a new one would still be easier and cheaper. 

The alternative alternative is to put structures in either side that are small enough not to affect the sight lines. Rather like that tent thing that  was in the North East Corner. This would probably reduce capacity versus terracing and have no additional benefit, but it fits our idiom.

Planning permission might be a bigger challenge for that side of the pitch? Much closer to neighbouring properties than the east or north stands. Maybe he likes to pick his battles.

Planning permission granted for South stand and new manager Monk a good day for club

The West Stand is the size it is because it has the same footprint as the wooden structure it replaced, the Centenary Stand only straddles either side of the half-way line because at the time both structures were built, many rugby club members lived directly around the ground. It was this that dictated how these stands finished up the way they did, as those people had a great deal of influence over rugby club affairs before it went professional, I learned that in 1996 from local residents who were rugby fans and dead against Rovers playing there. They didn't want the Centenary Stand running the whole length of the pitch and they didn't want the West Stand any bigger than the original, it's main purpose was to generate income from the corporate boxes, hence the design.

They all objected to the original application for new floodlights in the summer of 1996 using it as a stick with which to beat both the rugby club and the Council claiming it to be a vehicle by which Rovers would be able to play there, arguing it to be an intensification of use that required a change of use in planning terms. The trouble for them was that it was a designated sports ground and you could play any sport on it. That application (for the floodlights) although allowed was never implemented and subsequently once in complete control of the ground Rovers made their own application for the lights that are still there today. That is why the Mem looks the way it is and as an architect once said to me "the whole place smacks of compromise" and that was before the Thatchers roof had gone up and that was the reason he was there that day. When I approached the rugby supporters club to see if they would help with the fund raising for "Raise the Roof", their reaction was that it wasn't needed (a roof on the Club House Terrace)! Had it still been a members club in 1996 Rovers never would have played at the Mem and the Thatchers End would probably still be open to the elements.

There is probably a few lessons that could be learned from those of us who lived and worked through that period for the Supporters Club and Football Club because we dealt with the locals. I must say that I found the South Stand planning debacle wholly avoidable because the Club hadn't done it's homework and dealing with the local residents should have been the first step.

Personally I am delighted that we are staying at the Mem because I have a deep emotional attachment to it caused largely by my involvement in that summer of 1996 and beyond. I learned much about the history of the place and how it evolved in the way it did. The club could well do with looking at Colin Williams redevelopment plan which involved the provision of student accomodation in each corner (along the lines of Orient) drafted in 2005 if memory serves me right. Of course that was abandoned in favour of the UWE plan, but someone was determined to become a hero come hell or highwater and here we are back at square one.

I was getting really concerned about the lack of communication from the new owners and whisper it quietly, beginning to agree with Swiss Gas on a number of issues. At least we have a little more clarity about the long-term future of Bristol Rovers even though a lot of questions remain un-answered.

Kind regards

John Malyckyj

Brilliant news if true. Sounds like the new owners have identified problems and have been able to move this project forward.