stadium expansion

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33508089

 

 

Oh dear me Mr.Cavendish.

[/quote]Its deja vu all over again[:D]

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="Scout_hut"]So they don''t need to buy the land ? If that is so why is the university chancellor talking about the club having to buy the land. Who is wrong, you or him ?  Also could you post up a link to that statement from the university today.http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/University-West-England-won-t-rescue-Bristol/story-22015352-detail/story.html[/quote]The club was to receive a 125-year lease (plus lease renewal options) for the land and the Uni were to pay the club £8m for the naming rights etc.The Uni statement includes "We still believe that the region deserves a state-of-the-art stadium and that the proposal that won planning and community support is still an excellent way forward."The problem the club has is funding the actual build costs.

[Syteanric 1]

I''m confused as to how Bowkett comes up with 30 million to build a new stand when St Marys cost Southampton 32 million to build an entire stadium?

http://www.stadiumguide.com/stmarysstadium/

Is it pie in the sky figure somewhat, as the ground is low on the clubs agenda at this stage and it stops questions?

[TimDim 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Scout_hut"]So they don''t need to buy the land ? If that is so why is the university chancellor talking about the club having to buy the land. Who is wrong, you or him ?  Also could you post up a link to that statement from the university today.http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/University-West-England-won-t-rescue-Bristol/story-22015352-detail/story.html[/quote]The club was to receive a 125-year lease (plus lease renewal options) for the land and the Uni were to pay the club £8m for the naming rights etc.The Uni statement includes "We still believe that the region deserves a state-of-the-art stadium and that the proposal that won planning and community support is still an excellent way forward."The problem the club has is funding the actual build costs.[/quote]So were Bristol Rovers going to have to buy the land, as the university chancellor stated, or were they being given it for a peppercorn rent as you claimed ? And where is the link to what you are now claiming the uni is saying ?

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

I''m confused as to how Bowkett comes up with 30 million to build a new stand when St Marys cost Southampton 32 million to build an entire stadium?

http://www.stadiumguide.com/stmarysstadium/

Is it pie in the sky figure somewhat, as the ground is low on the clubs agenda at this stage and it stops questions?

[/quote]Jas, If I remember correctly, the £30 million figure came up at the 2013 AGM. Bowkett said that we would require a £30 million loan to finance the building of a new stand to replace the present City stand and it would cost £2.5 million per year for 25 years to service the debt. (so a total cost of £50 million inc interest).I wouldn''t swear to it but if my memory is correct this was for an 8k capacity stand. It was at this point that I detected a distinct cooling in the Boards hitherto bullish attitude to stadium expansion.

[Donkey dangler 0]

Utterly ridiculous that a University would pay £8m. for naming rights.

[TimDim 0]

The whole plan as outlined by Tom Cavendish was ridiculous. Because he misread what was actually planned. The peppercorn rent he constantly talked abour related to the football club''s renting of their former ground, whilst the new ground was being built. The amount received for the sale of their ground (Memorial Ground) £30m, would not have paid for the new ground (£40m). The whole idea that the university would hand over a piece of land for free then pay to rent in back, also pay for use of facilities and further paying for it to be named, after the land it was sitting on ! I should imagine this is why Tom Cavendish has be unable, or reluctant, to provide any links to his rather extraordinary claims.A link that explains the real story is here,http://www.uwesu.org/news/article/uwesu/5/

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="Scout_hat"]The whole plan as outlined by Tom Cavendish was ridiculous. Because he misread what was actually planned. The peppercorn rent he constantly talked abour related to the football club''s renting of their former ground, whilst the new ground was being built. The amount received for the sale of their ground (Memorial Ground) £30m, would not have paid for the new ground (£40m). The whole idea that the university would hand over a piece of land for free then pay to rent in back, also pay for use of facilities and further paying for it to be named, after the land it was sitting on ! I should imagine this is why Tom Cavendish has be unable, or reluctant, to provide any links to his rather extraordinary claims.A link that explains the real story is here,http://www.uwesu.org/news/article/uwesu/5/[/quote]The club had agreed to sell their existing stadium to Sainsbury''s and then rent it back from Sainsbury''s for a peppercorn rent whilst the new Uni stadium was being built.The club did a deal with their local uni so that the club wouldn''t need to purchase the land for a new stadium. The deal involved the Uni paying for the stadium naming rights etc. In return, the club was to use some of that money from the Uni to pay up front for a 125 year lease (so only paying a peppercorn rent for the lease of the land).The plan for a new stadium on Uni land has achieved planning permission and the Uni say they still want to go ahead with it. However, Sainsbury''s are now cutting back on opening new large stores and so have tried to get out of the deal they have with the club to purchase the existing stadium site.

[birchfest 397]

Oh Jesus, it''s the pepper corn rent again...

I''m still trying to figure out how much of this is just pure fantasy. Perhaps with we all pop down sainsburys and do our weekly shop we can push this one through

[TimDim 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Scout_hat"]The whole plan as outlined by Tom Cavendish was ridiculous. Because he misread what was actually planned. The peppercorn rent he constantly talked abour related to the football club''s renting of their former ground, whilst the new ground was being built. The amount received for the sale of their ground (Memorial Ground) £30m, would not have paid for the new ground (£40m). The whole idea that the university would hand over a piece of land for free then pay to rent in back, also pay for use of facilities and further paying for it to be named, after the land it was sitting on ! I should imagine this is why Tom Cavendish has be unable, or reluctant, to provide any links to his rather extraordinary claims.A link that explains the real story is here,http://www.uwesu.org/news/article/uwesu/5/[/quote]The club had agreed to sell their existing stadium to Sainsbury''s and then rent it back from Sainsbury''s for a peppercorn rent whilst the new Uni stadium was being built.The club did a deal with their local uni so that the club wouldn''t need to purchase the land for a new stadium. The deal involved the Uni paying for the stadium naming rights etc. In return, the club was to use some of that money from the Uni to pay up front for a 125 year lease (so only paying a peppercorn rent for the lease of the land).The plan for a new stadium on Uni land has achieved planning permission and the Uni say they still want to go ahead with it. However, Sainsbury''s are now cutting back on opening new large stores and so have tried to get out of the deal they have with the club to purchase the existing stadium site.[/quote]

All that is widely known. What is questionable is your claim that Bristol Rovers would receive enough money from the sale of the Memorial

Ground (their current home) to not only pay for the new stadium, but

to clear their debts and ''have some left over'' ! Which was incorrect. The deal was an odd one, brokered a spiv, which has now come unstuck (just as you appear to

have). It was previously pointed out repeatedly by others, that with so many

variables it was always a risky venture. One driven by the football club''s

dire financial position rather than any reasoned or balanced view of things.And since

this scheme''s conception Bristol Rovers have been relegated, and then promoted, and the supermarket business model has changed dramatically. Yet we were

told that these possibilities did not matter as this stadium (and one

in proposed by you in Norwich) could be built without cost to anyone and with every one

ending up a winner.  As it is, both Sainsburys and Bristol Rovers have

lost money in legal fees (crippling for the latter). The university has

been messed around for four years plus, with the certainty that this

venture is not now going ahead. And NCFC were supposed to go down this fruitcake route ?

[tom cavendish 0]

The deal for a new stadium on uni owned land was agreed and has received planning permission. The uni had also agreed to pay the club millions of pounds for the naming rights etc. It is a great deal for the club. However, the problem the club has is raising the money to cover the actual build costs.Norwich City are looking to spend tens of millions of pounds on a new stand. If Norwich could get the land for a new stadium for practically nothing then a new stadium becomes an attractive option to consider in comparison to spending a huge amount of money on a new stand.In the longer-term it would be good for the image of the whole city to have an iconic modern stadium with a much larger capacity.Consider too that local councils are looking to new railway stations, building the NDR etc. There will be huge new developments requiring provision to be made for local amenities...In the short-term the club''s priority is to become established in the Premier League.The TV revenue from being in the Premier League is so enormous that ticket revenue isn''t as vital as it once was. Being in the Premier League also gives people more opportunities to see the team play albeit via a screen, so whilst stadium expansion would be a nice thing to do it isn''t a priority (unless someone else will pay for it).

[TimDim 0]

You talk as if handing over valuable building land as as easy and uncomplicated as getting a light for a cigarette from someone. You are wrong about the millions the university was handing over. They weren''t. Why would a new stadium be iconic ? Read Russel Martin''s comments about Carrow Road (published today). You have also changed you mind about the funding, and now admit that there was a shortfall. in contrast to your previous claim that not only would the sale of the former pay for it all, but that there would be ''some left over''. You have got this badly wrong, through posting incorrect information and making wild assumptions based on almost impossible scenarios''. I would stop digging if I were you. Much like Bristol Rovers - who have not even started digging.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]The deal for a new stadium on uni owned land was agreed and has received planning permission. The uni had also agreed to pay the club millions of pounds for the naming rights etc. It is a great deal for the club.

[/quote]

Do you honestly, hand on heart, 100% believe that the UEA has millions of pounds and would give it to the club?

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="Scout_hat"]You talk as if handing over valuable building land as as easy and uncomplicated as getting a light for a cigarette from someone. You are wrong about the millions the university was handing over. They weren''t. Why would a new stadium be iconic ? Read Russel Martin''s comments about Carrow Road (published today). You have also changed you mind about the funding, and now admit that there was a shortfall. in contrast to your previous claim that not only would the sale of the former pay for it all, but that there would be ''some left over''. You have got this badly wrong, through posting incorrect information and making wild assumptions based on almost impossible scenarios''. I would stop digging if I were you. Much like Bristol Rovers - who have not even started digging.[/quote]The Bristol deal with Sainsbury''s involved the club selling the existing stadium to fund the new one and would leave the club debt free. However Sainsbury''s have since decided to cut-back on openings of large stores. The club could still sell their stadium to someone else but may get less money for it so there would be a short-fall to fund.If they were able to cover the difference then they would have a new stadium for relatively very little money.In stark contrast, Norwich City are considering spending tens of millions of pounds on a new stand to raise the capacity by a small amount. If the club could get land at little cost (such as the uni example), football grants for new stadiums, sell Carrow Rd stadium then it could be better value for money to do that than building a new stand.Norwich is the biggest city in East Anglia and Norwich City are the biggest club. A great new stadium would help to improve the image of the whole region. That is what will probably happen in the long-term but for now the club is right to prioritise the challage of becoming an established Premier League club.

[chicken 0]

Tom - I think you miss the point, by quite a long way.

The club have clearly looked into various options. Economically, we probably don''t need anything more than a 35k stadium.

It probably isn''t viable to purchase a new site, which will not come cheap in or around Norwich anymore. Especially the Southern side of Norwich which is rapidly being developed for more housing.

Then there is also the transport consideration - there is nowhere better in terms of location for accessibility via public transport routes as well as road access from the A11 etc.

So the reality is, if you are talking about a new stadium, the best option would be somewhere that is located near to the planned Northern bypass route. At which point you are about as far away from the rest of the country as you can get in and around Norwich.

You are then looking at the club purchasing a piece of land and developing it whilst it either owns the current ground or it sells it and rents it back off whoever they sell it to.

The maths of "Brand new stadium" Vs "expanding current stadium to 35k" I would hazard a guess, stacks against the new stadium theory.

Carrow Road, as it is, would only really suit residential. Sainsbury''s is just around the corner - ten minutes walk, you have Morrisons over the road. Tesco''s Harford Bridges is further away but also probably close enough for them to not warrant opening a new one there.

The retail outlets at Riverside have seen their ''boom'' period I would argue, considering one side of the L is effectively budget shops with £land, B&M, and the other outlet places.

Finally, you also have to look at the business part of the club and what makes money from it''s current situation. The likes of Delia''s etc, which is one of the more profitable aspects of the business side - would it make as much money if it was out of the city altogether? Would it be seen as a good venue to hire for meetings/training events etc?

Again. I would like to think that those at the club have done all of the maths and were not just throwing the idea of stadium expansion around lightly, and that it was backed up by figures to be the best option.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"][quote user="tom cavendish"]The deal for a new stadium on uni owned land was agreed and has received planning permission. The uni had also agreed to pay the club millions of pounds for the naming rights etc. It is a great deal for the club. [/quote]

Do you honestly, hand on heart, 100% believe that the UEA has millions of pounds and would give it to the club?

[/quote]The UEA wants to expand. The uni in Bristol wants a stadium built on their land so that they don''t have to spend as much money building the new facilities that it could provide for the uni.They want to sponsor the stadium (it would help to raise their profile). In return the club use some of that money to pay the uni for a very long lease for the land. It could also work in reverse so for example Norwich could ask the UEA to part fund a new stand at Carrow Rd and in return the UEA could use aspects of it. It would save the UEA having to buy land and save Norwich the full cost of a new stand.It doesn''t necessarily have to be a uni. Aviva are looking to expand so perhaps they would like office space in a new stand or perhaps a new stadium close to where they are based.

[lake district canary 4,540]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]In stark contrast, Norwich City are considering spending tens of millions of pounds on a new stand to raise the capacity by a small amount. If the club could get land at little cost (such as the uni example), football grants for new stadiums, sell Carrow Rd stadium then it could be better value for money to do that than building a new stand.Norwich is the biggest city in East Anglia and Norwich City are the biggest club. A great new stadium would help to improve the image of the whole region. That is what will probably happen in the long-term but for now the club is right to prioritise the challage of becoming an established Premier League club.[/quote]

As much as your figures/finances may be accurate, the problem in the argument is that the stadium is perfect where it is.  There is nowhere that would make it any more desireable to be elsewhere, UEA or anywhere else.  It is in walking distance of the city centre and near the station.   We don''t need a massiveley increased capacity - never will, so the only argument for a new stadium elsewhere is just to say "look at us, look what we can do" - in other words an ego trip.   If we are ever to build a new stadium - build it where it is - or you risk ruining the kind of club we are, its connection with the city and the unique character of the club.   Clubs that build new stadiums away from their roots, such as Bolton, Reading etc. - lose something of their history and tradition.   If there were pressing reasons to move to a new stadium elsewhere, I would welcome the idea, to me there are no pressing reasons to move. 

[chicken 0]

Also, the biggest City in East Anglia is not exactly the greatest feat. You make it sound like there are a dozen contenders.

I think, from what I can find, it goes like this:

Norwich, Peterborough, Cambridge. If you include Towns then you can shove Ipswich in there.

But even Norwich doesn''t have that big a population comparative to other cities around the UK.

Bristol''s population, going by wikipedia (data from 2013) is three times the size of that of Norwich.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="chicken"]Tom - I think you miss the point, by quite a long way.

The club have clearly looked into various options. Economically, we probably don''t need anything more than a 35k stadium.

It probably isn''t viable to purchase a new site, which will not come cheap in or around Norwich anymore. Especially the Southern side of Norwich which is rapidly being developed for more housing.

Then there is also the transport consideration - there is nowhere better in terms of location for accessibility via public transport routes as well as road access from the A11 etc.

So the reality is, if you are talking about a new stadium, the best option would be somewhere that is located near to the planned Northern bypass route. At which point you are about as far away from the rest of the country as you can get in and around Norwich.

You are then looking at the club purchasing a piece of land and developing it whilst it either owns the current ground or it sells it and rents it back off whoever they sell it to.

The maths of "Brand new stadium" Vs "expanding current stadium to 35k" I would hazard a guess, stacks against the new stadium theory.

Carrow Road, as it is, would only really suit residential. Sainsbury''s is just around the corner - ten minutes walk, you have Morrisons over the road. Tesco''s Harford Bridges is further away but also probably close enough for them to not warrant opening a new one there.

The retail outlets at Riverside have seen their ''boom'' period I would argue, considering one side of the L is effectively budget shops with £land, B&M, and the other outlet places.

Finally, you also have to look at the business part of the club and what makes money from it''s current situation. The likes of Delia''s etc, which is one of the more profitable aspects of the business side - would it make as much money if it was out of the city altogether? Would it be seen as a good venue to hire for meetings/training events etc?

Again. I would like to think that those at the club have done all of the maths and were not just throwing the idea of stadium expansion around lightly, and that it was backed up by figures to be the best option.[/quote]Spot on Chicken.The impression I get from discussions at AGM''s is that the Board see no imperative, financial or otherwise, in moving away from CR. In fact they are always quick to remind us of all the positive reasons for staying on the present site. As you rightly say anything larger than 35k would be unnecessary  on any conceivable time frame and in my opinion would be nothing more than a vanity project.We certainly won''t be quitting CR in my lifetime and probably not in most other peoples either.

[tom cavendish 0]

You miss the point that if the club could get the land for little cost then a new stadium could be a more attractive proposition than a new stand.You mentioned the NDR. There is an enormous expansion happening at Broadland with the Poswick Hub, new park and ride, NDR, expanding business park, a proposal for a new indoor venue and thousands of new homes. The council wants new railway stations built there too with trains to and from Cromer, Sherringham, Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft etc. A new stadium there would be convenient for a lot more business customers during the day, have a lot more stadium parking etc.

[lake district canary 4,540]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]You miss the point that if the club could get the land for little cost then a new stadium could be a more attractive proposition than a new stand.You mentioned the NDR. There is an enormous expansion happening at Broadland with the Poswick Hub, new park and ride, NDR, expanding business park, a proposal for a new indoor venue and thousands of new homes. The council wants new railway stations built there too with trains to and from Cromer, Sherringham, Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft etc. A new stadium there would be convenient for a lot more business customers during the day, have a lot more stadium parking etc.[/quote]

If you took a straw poll as to how many people would want to leave Carrow Rd, its history and its development in recent years and the way it is now part of the city, I don''t think you would have many takers.  Parking is not a huge issue around Carrow Rd - whenever I visit I have no bother at all, usually about five minutes walk from the stadium, never ever more than ten minutes.   At the moment, it is possible to park all day in Norwich, do your shopping in the morning, take advantage of all the cafe''s and restaurants around for lunch, saunter down to the ground for the match, walk back to your car, or to one of the pubs/restaurants - and away.   That experience is priceless imo.  It''s the ultimate of the club being part of the community.   

Chances are that of we have a stadium on the outskirts, people from Norwich will have to catch buses, bring their cars or face a long walk to the stadium, disconnected from the city for the duration and changing the character of the club completely.   The only people it favours is  away fans  and people who live outside the ring road who don''t want to go into Norwich.   

It''s one of those things that corporate types and designers look at and say wow, that would be fantastic - but when they embark on what is no more than an ego trip, they find that they have changed the club forever - and not for the better.  And for an example I give you Bolton.    Why change when it is already in an ideal position?  Yes we need a new stand - we could even rebuild the stadium where it is - but we don''t need to move it into a business park where everyone has to drive to it or catch a bus.  A huge amount of local people can walk to the ground in half an hour or less.  Many more come to the city for the day and do their shopping etc.  You risk a huge amount when you move things out of town - and the risks for the club are too big imo - for not much reward.  

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]You miss the point that if the club could get the land for little cost then a new stadium could be a more attractive proposition than a new stand.You mentioned the NDR. There is an enormous expansion happening at Broadland with the Poswick Hub, new park and ride, NDR, expanding business park, a proposal for a new indoor venue and thousands of new homes. The council wants new railway stations built there too with trains to and from Cromer, Sherringham, Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft etc. A new stadium there would be convenient for a lot more business customers during the day, have a lot more stadium parking etc.[/quote]

I don''t doubt that a positive case can be put but as LDC says there is at present no overriding reason to quit CR.Many thousands of supporters living in the City can easily walk to and from CR on matchdays. Moving to the outskirts would be a big negative for these people.I honestly do not see a new stadium being any sort of priority in any reasonable time scale if ever.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]You miss the point that if the club could get the land for little cost then a new stadium could be a more attractive proposition than a new stand.[/quote]Who in their right mind would gift a multi-million business with a large amount of land for little or no cost?It really is time you stopped this nonsense Tom and concentrate on your scouting where you "never got one wrong".[:S]

[TimDim 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"]Who in their right mind would gift a multi-million business with a large amount of land for little or no cost?[/quote]Yes, I wondered who would be the first to spot that. The whole premise of this lad''s dreams have been that reality and facts should play little part. There is no way on this earth that anybody is going to hand over land for free to a business with a turn over in exess of £100m, and a huge wad of cash from selling their previous home. In the case of Bristol Rovers things are not as he misrepresents them on here. Ok. he has at last admitted that the new ground will not be funded in total from the sale of it''s own ground. So perhaps he will now admit that the club will not be earning millions from renting back office space, car parking etc to the university. In fact it is conditional on the lease that the uni has pretty much a free run in the new stadium and it''s facilities, leaving the football club to fund it''s construction and upkeep. From a club that has just got out of the Conference ! So Tom, stop telling lies, stop prattling on about peppercorn rents and understand this is the real world you are talking about. not some year 7 project. Where even that would be marked as ''a very poor effort''.

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

I''ve been reading the pros and cons for moving to a new stadium and I don''t believe that anyone has mentioned the fact that written into the original contract between NCFC and Colman''s was a clause that the ground must always be used as a sporting venue. Now I am not sure that this is totally accurate as the source for my information on this point is my grandfather, who has been dead for nearly 30 years now. But, I was led to believe that he was a man who had connections with people at the club.If this is the case it would severely restrict the re-sale value of the land as it would not be able to be developed into homes or retail outlets.Anyone know if my information is correct?

 

[tom cavendish 0]

Scout Hut, read for yourself that their Chairman had originally said the deal would

leave them debt free. A search on the internet shows it was also a

condition of moving into the stadium that it had to be free of debt. £30m

was to be from Sainsbury''s, plus football grants that clubs get towards

new stadiums, plus money from their local uni for naming rights and use

of the new stadium etc. Look it up for yourself.You can apologise now.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="Iwans Big Toe"]I''ve been reading the pros and cons for moving to a new stadium and I don''t believe that anyone has mentioned the fact that written into the original contract between NCFC and Colman''s was a clause that the ground must always be used as a sporting venue. Now I am not sure that this is totally accurate as the source for my information on this point is my grandfather, who has been dead for nearly 30 years now. But, I was led to believe that he was a man who had connections with people at the club.If this is the case it would severely restrict the re-sale value of the land as it would not be able to be developed into homes or retail outlets.Anyone know if my information is correct?[/quote]Your Grandfather could well be right but such an agreement probably wouldn''t count for much these days in planning law. There is retail, a hotel and restaurants established on the site and some of the land now has housing on it. The car park behind the Jarrold Stand has been sold too.

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Iwans Big Toe"]I''ve been reading the pros and cons for moving to a new stadium and I don''t believe that anyone has mentioned the fact that written into the original contract between NCFC and Colman''s was a clause that the ground must always be used as a sporting venue. Now I am not sure that this is totally accurate as the source for my information on this point is my grandfather, who has been dead for nearly 30 years now. But, I was led to believe that he was a man who had connections with people at the club.If this is the case it would severely restrict the re-sale value of the land as it would not be able to be developed into homes or retail outlets.Anyone know if my information is correct?[/quote]Your Grandfather could well be right but such an agreement probably wouldn''t count for much these days in planning law. There is retail, a hotel and restaurants established on the site and some of the land now has housing on it. The car park behind the Jarrold Stand has been sold too.[/quote]These developments have not influenced the fact that Carrow Road''s main use is as a sporting venue.

[TimDim 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]Scout Hut, read for yourself that their Chairman had originally said the deal would

leave them debt free. A search on the internet shows it was also a

condition of moving into the stadium that it had to be free of debt. £30m

was to be from Sainsbury''s, plus football grants that clubs get towards

new stadiums, plus money from their local uni for naming rights and use

of the new stadium etc. Look it up for yourself.You can apologise now.[/quote]I find no good reason to apologise for your stupidity. And I have looked it up. Shame you never did before you embarked on this farrago of lies and misinformation. There is NO money from the uni. The deal is that Bristol Rovers build the stadium, and the uni gets use of it when the football club is not using it. NO extra money from the uni. Some might also wonder why you have now only added stuff about football grants and why there is no mention of this anywhere else, as previously you claimed that the funds from the sale of the ground would be enough. Are there grants for paying off their debt ? If not, how will this be done  given that there is not enough money to even build the stadium.? As to what the chairman has said, I and many Bristol Rover''s supporters take that with a pinch of salt. As he has numerously claimed that the new stadiun would be built soon, Sainsburys would lose the court case etc

[tom cavendish 0]

Scout Hut, It even says on the uni website "The agreement represents a significant investment by

BRFC of

approximately £30m in facilities" see here:http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/aboutus/visionandmission/uwenewcampus/uwestadium.aspxwhich was the same amount of money as they were getting from Sainsbury''s for their current stadium. Plus the club was to get money from the uni for naming rights etc. (some of which was to be used to pay the uni for the lease for the land) and the club would get football grant money etc. on top. Their Chairman would have been right at that time when he said the deal would have left them debt free.