Redevelopment

Attendances may not be as high as the Bodin era but the last two seasons when the 1000BC group have been involved in publicity and marketing have been up with this season's being up on last, I think. The Football League may not accept 3G presently but we have to get in the National League and consolidate there first before we getting promoted. By that time, the League may very well have changed their position.

By the time the club has to make the decision the Football League may have voted to accept 3G pitches. If that is the case would it change your mind?

#factsnotflags

I assume this wasn't directed to me?

cbtroman wrote:I think the worse thing a club can do is to be uncompetitive and as the football league won’t accept 3G it would be a big signal to the Bath public I fear that we just don’t have the stomach for any kind of success.

I wonder if many Maidstone or Sutton fans thought that of their clubs when they opted for 3G. I'd guess the majority thought the very opposite...

Marc Monitor wrote:I assume this wasn't directed to me?

No. Your post sneaked in ahead of my reply to cbtroman!

I am a traditionalist and like grass but will be voting for 3G because lots of effort has gone into developing income streams and we are still losing money. We need the steady income that 3G will bring plus the obvious community benefits. I want a competitive squad on the pitch.

What I want is not to have to put my hand in my pocket to contribute to the revenue shortfall, which works out at about £180 per community shareholder at the moment per season.

I am assuming that those orchestrating the Romans against 3G movement will assist with my annual contribution should their campaign be successful.

BenE wrote:What I want is not to have to put my hand in my pocket to contribute to the revenue shortfall, which works out at about £1800 per community shareholder at the moment per season.

I am assuming that those orchestrating the Romans against 3G movement will assist with my annual contribution should their campaign be successful.

Spot on!!!

Steve Whites Missus wrote:Why oh why do we have to spin the “student accommodation will free up current student houses for family use”. Speak to any letting agency in the city and they’ll tell you the owners do not want to give up their hmo allowance.

The UK population is allowed to increase unchecked as this suits big business - the bigger the numbers the bigger the potential turnover. This has created a situation where demand for housing (and healthcare) always outstrips supply. If students vacate an HMO it is easy enough to fill it with other tenants.

Student accommodation would probably be empty during their summer and other breaks.

If BCFC really want to be a community club then couldn't any accommodation be much needed social housing?

yuffie wrote:By the time the club has to make the decision the Football League may have voted to accept 3G pitches. If that is the case would it change your mind?

#factsnotflags

I would be more willing to consider it if that was the case but I do think that a totally perfect surface would change the nature of the game. On many occasions Maradona’s 2nd goal in 1986 against England has often been voted the “goal of the century”. That required much more skill due to the surface that the game was played on so goals like that would be a thing of the past I would say.

On a marketing note (even though I’ve mentioned on many times that it can be overdone),  one thing that I always thought appealed to floating fans was that Twerton Park represented football traditions with terracing, big floodlights etc. an artificial pitch would also change that side of things.

All that said the efforts made for Bath City should be applauded even though I disagree with some of the proposals

comrade powell wrote:

cbtroman wrote:I think the worse thing a club can do is to be uncompetitive and as the football league won’t accept 3G it would be a big signal to the Bath public I fear that we just don’t have the stomach for any kind of success.

I wonder if many Maidstone or Sutton fans thought that of their clubs when they opted for 3G. I'd guess the majority thought the very opposite...

Not 100% sure but I think Sutton are making contingency plans to turn it back to grass if they get promoted?

Yes I believe that is the case with Sutton and should a 3G pitch be installed at Twerton the same contingency plan might be considered if we were pushing for promotion to League 2. Of course the EFL's members may well have made the sensible decision to allow such pitches by then. What I find odd is that you are suggesting that the club is being seen as uncompetitive by recommending that we go down the 3G route.

BenE wrote:What I want is not to have to put my hand in my pocket to contribute to the revenue shortfall, which works out at about £180 per community shareholder at the moment per season.

I am assuming that those orchestrating the Romans against 3G movement will assist with my annual contribution should their campaign be successful.

My issue at the moment is that I am struggling to believe the projected £60k profit. Unfortunately, too many of the groups that were consulted in the feasibility study were pro-3G and there wasn't enough opposing views to challenge the figures. It was only at the recent Support Society meeting where people had the opportunity to raise concerns, but too often the response was "We haven't thought of that, yet".

I can't vote in favour of 3G when the full logistics haven't been taken into consideration. I would rather the vote was delayed until we can make a more informed decision, but, unfortunately that won't be the case.

2weirdtown wrote:

Steve Whites Missus wrote:Why oh why do we have to spin the “student accommodation will free up current student houses for family use”. Speak to any letting agency in the city and they’ll tell you the owners do not want to give up their hmo allowance.

The UK population is allowed to increase unchecked as this suits big business - the bigger the numbers the bigger the potential turnover.  This has created a situation where demand for housing (and healthcare) always outstrips supply.  If students vacate an HMO it is easy enough to fill it with other tenants.

Student accommodation would probably be empty during their summer and other breaks.

If BCFC really want to be a community club then couldn't any accommodation be much needed social housing?

As I understand it there will some social housing provision as well.

BenE wrote:
“What I want is not to have to put my hand in my pocket to contribute to the revenue shortfall, which works out at about £180 per community shareholder at the moment per season.”

I take it there are no IMMEDIATE plans for Society members to be asked to contribute to meet any losses!

In reality, though, this is what we are doing at the moment. The recent comments made by Society board members  is that 3G is necessary as it will bring in some £60k each year to help offset potential losses  of £100k per annum.  I assume any 3G benefit would not accrue until 20/21 so that would mean total losses over the current, and next 2 years,  of some £300k -  around about the amount that the bid process raised.

Irrespective of one’s personal view It does seem there is little choice but to pursue the 3G option if, as stated, our additional income  streams are proving to be a long way  short of  those  envisaged in the  “Bid”  projections.  The problem is where do we go, financially, if the projected income from the 3G  project also  proves to be optimistic or if  the initial  capital  required fails to materialise.

I suppose it would be, ultimately, asking Society members to make a financial contribution.

It has to be seriously considered. Or we just keep racking up ever more debt until we go pop.

Notters wrote:

BenE wrote:What I want is not to have to put my hand in my pocket to contribute to the revenue shortfall, which works out at about £180 per community shareholder at the moment per season.

I am assuming that those orchestrating the Romans against 3G movement will assist with my annual contribution should their campaign be successful.

My issue at the moment is that I am struggling to believe the projected £60k profit.

So what do you think the board's motive is for championing 3G?

Board championing 3G as a revenue stream.

What disappointments me is the lack of a researched and realistic return on investment projection along with the general attitude of if we don’t vote 3G in the club is deemed doomed.

Steve Whites Missus wrote:Board championing  3G as a revenue stream.

What disappointments me is the lack of a researched and realistic return on investment projection along with the general attitude of if we don’t vote 3G in the club is deemed doomed.

Do you mean the board are not trying hard enough? I look forward to seeing you nomination at the next AGM.

I genuinely don’t know how i’ll vote on the pitch issue - the arguments for and against are so well balanced - but isn’t there a compromise solution? Some clubs now have a pitch which combines grass with artificial fibres, offering greater durability than grass but acceptable to the EFL. I believe it is this type of pitch that Sutton plan to install if they win promotion. No doubt they are very expensive but wouldn’t this be worth considering?

Manchester Romans wrote:I genuinely don’t know how i’ll vote on the pitch issue - the arguments for and against are so well balanced - but isn’t there a compromise solution? Some clubs now have a pitch which combines grass with artificial fibres, offering greater durability than grass but acceptable to the EFL. I believe it is this type of pitch that Sutton plan to install if they win promotion. No doubt they are very expensive but wouldn’t this be worth considering?

I believe that this is what Bristol City have installed, which I assume was deemed necessary to have the egg chasers playing there as well. I doubt very much that it is of a standard that allows hours of use every day, so therefore it would not help our finances........unless of course that mob on the wreck decide to move in with us!! I'll get my coat.

Colin Voutt wrote:

Steve Whites Missus wrote:Board championing  3G as a revenue stream.

What disappointments me is the lack of a researched and realistic return on investment projection along with the general attitude of if we don’t vote 3G in the club is deemed doomed.

Do you mean the board are not trying hard enough? I look forward to seeing you nomination at the next AGM.

Ouch... don't you just love twisting of a comment.

An large investment is planned and surely a business case should be put forward containing projected costs and expected revenue. Anything else would simply be amateur.

I think someone did bring up the possibility of a two stage vote.... where the second was based upon the details of costs etc. Seems the logical step for me.

Steve Whites Missus wrote:Board championing  3G as a revenue stream.

I assume that unlike some other opponents of the proposal I've spoken to, you have read the feasibility study. Anyone who just gets to the 3rd page will find....
BCFC’s recently adopted twin strategic priorities under Society ownership of achieving financial sustainability and community impact are both potential reasons for investing in 3G

I can assure you that both priorities were firmly in mind when the board agreed to recommend the proposal.

And please everyone, I know that this is an emotive subject and opinions appear to be polarised but can we debate without getting personal. We've had issues at the club in the past which have been divisive with very unpleasant clashes on the old forum. It's a better place here these days!

comrade powell wrote:

Steve Whites Missus wrote:Board championing  3G as a revenue stream.

I assume that unlike some other opponents of the proposal I've spoken to, you have read the feasibility study. Anyone who just gets to the 3rd page will find....
BCFC’s recently adopted twin strategic priorities under Society ownership of achieving financial sustainability and community impact are both potential reasons for investing in 3G

I can assure you that both priorities were firmly in mind when the board agreed to recommend the proposal.

And please everyone, I know that this is an emotive subject and opinions appear to be polarised but can we debate without getting personal. We've had issues at the club in the past which have been divisive with very unpleasant clashes on the old forum. It's a better place here these days!

Agreed, I sure everything is being pushed forward for the best of reasons.

My views... would prefer grass, but if the empirical evidence points to a 3G pitch (now to be known as £G pitch) raising needed funds... then the option would point to that.

comrade powell wrote: And please everyone, I know that this is an emotive subject and opinions appear to be polarised but can we debate without getting personal.

But it is encouraging that people are getting involved in the debate. I dispute that it is not possible to make an informed decision. The pros and cons have been clearly presented.

My understanding is that the Board want authority to continue with their investigation into the finances of the whole enterprise. But that the final decision will be made when they know whether we can afford it or it will be financially beneficial. I do not think it is possible to argue against the community involvement benefits of 3G.

But I would be interested to hear any.