After stadium vote, club chairman has every right to feel pleased
By Despite not winning recommendation from development control officers to sell off green belt land at Southlands to help pay for his new stadium, Steve Lansdown has every right to feel smug right now.
Rescuing Ashton Gate from greedy Tesco – courtesy of harmless, already-there-anyway Sainsbury’s – was the superlative response to the Tesno and Berate campaigns, and a PR man’s dream by anyone’s standards.
Steve Lansdown: Bristol City FC chairman
Even Mother Teresa would look churlish complaining about the plans for Ashton Vale now that we’ve been saved from the red, white and blue monster, making it easy to steamroller over any green campaigners who might point out that the purported win-win scenario delivered in the nick of time has never, in fact, been to everyone’s liking.
Not being privy to any of the conversations among the more influential stakeholders, one can only speculate on the tricks employed by City’s owners and their Merchant Venturer friends, but if I were hired to persuade Bristolians and their councillors to Back the Bid, I’d orchestrate a sequence of events remarkably similar to the story that’s unfolded in recent months.
Of course, many people do want the stadium at Ashton Vale, but then again they’ve been amply persuaded. Apparently the whole of Bristol (well, half of it at least) will experience a momentous headrush of civic pride when City get into the Premiership and we orchestrate a successful World Cup bid (apparently a handful of group games in 2018 will raise awareness of our fine city the world over, though I thought Brunel did that some time ago).
Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the need for the thing: Bristol’s indoor and outdoor large event facilities are an embarrassment. But I cannot see why building the thing at Ashton Vale was ever the only solution — a scenario that City and the local media are keen to impress upon us.
It’s not hard to see why: if I were to build myself a stadium I’d want it in the most prestigious location available, close to the city centre where my conference facilities would attract the highest premiums. Yet the rationale behind site selection presented by City tells a very different story:.
Among the main contenders, Hengrove Park was deemed no good due to poor transport links and insufficient room to build ancillary facilities like restaurants and pubs – isn’t that what’s already at Hengrove Park anyway? Severnside is outside the supporters’ heartland, but so what? The days of football grounds nestling cosily in city centres among terraced houses, factories and pubs are rapidly passing us by — we all know that. (It was also deemed to be too near a potentially dangerous chemical plant, though that didn’t seem to be widely reported when Rovers were planning on going there).
All of the sites had their drawbacks — that’s life, but are we really meant to believe that building on green belt land at the most attractive end of our uniquely picturesque city is really the only option? Steve Lansdown clearly wants us to think so but it’s important we at least ask ourselves why, and what lengths he and his colleagues could have conceivably gone to to serve up Ashton Vale as the only viable way of providing Bristol City fans with the stadium they deserve.
We have to accept in this day and age that projects like this will inevitably upset someone no matter where they are built and that, consequently, a few eggs will have to be broken for the greater good which will need careful handling by those in charge of its PR.
However, in this instance, Lansdown’s investment won’t even be tied to the fortunes of the club he loves so much: the stadium will belong to him — it won’t belong to City no matter which league they end up playing in. So if it isn’t a win-win outcome even for the fans, who is the real winner?
The only thing Lansdown didn’t get is the Southlands development, which certainly makes it look like he’s had to compromise on something — or has he? The first rule of bargaining is to ask for more than you know you can possibly get, and Lansdown is no beginner when it comes to striking a deal. The £5.5 million shortfall reported by City was £10m until very recently, so maybe it’ll magically shrink to zero by Christmas?
That has to be a more appealing prospect than going to appeal, with the prospect of a judicial review subjecting their figures to independent scrutiny. However the gap is plugged, there’s nothing to stop it being reported as coming straight from Lansdown’s pocket, and the local media can print headlines making him look like the best thing for Bristol since Brunel. I’m sure they’ll be happy to do that.
Tim Crump
via email
Your Comments