Redevelopment

There is every chance the League will allow 3G in due course. They are considering this Summer with implementation in a year or two?

pete mac wrote:There is every chance the League will allow 3G in due course. They are considering this Summer with implementation in a year or two?

I'd say it's definitely a question of when, not if.

Now that Champions League matches can be played on artificial grass, the direction of travel is clear. We're just a bit slow at change in English football.

rncfc wrote:As an outsider, I would have to ask that if you install a 3G pitch then what is the point of existing as a club? Is one promotion the height of your ambition? Bath is a decent sized place and it would only take 1 good season, 1 good cup run, etc, to be knocking on the door of the top 7 in the Conference.

A side at the level you're playing at, and seeming in decent shape for next season installing a 3G pitch is just mental. Selling your soul and futures for an easier existence at the level you're at.

Here's a slightly wacky alternative way of looking at it.

Say you're visiting Rome, and you absolutely need to get to St Mark's Square in Venice in the middle of the night. You know you can't drive all the way to St Mark's Square, because they use gondolas rather than cars there. But there are no trains, buses or flights at that time of night, so how else are you going to do it ?

Would you therefore say 'If I can't drive right up to St Mark's Square, there's no point hiring a car' and then do nothing ? Or would you hire a car as it's the best option available to get you as close as possible to where you need to be ?

As BenE mentioned, we've been around for 125yrs without reaching the Football League. We are kidding ourselves if we think Bath City is currently in a condition to either get promoted there, or to stay there even if we were. We couldn't even stay in the Conference Premier for more than two seasons recently (one good one, one appalling one). Artifical grass has its issues, and if we ever were to get to the Football League we may have to replace it (though the FL may well have changed their rules by then anyway). Regardless - just like the hire car example, at least artificial grass helps get us closer to where people like you think we should be travelling. I can't see how we'll be troubling the Football League any time soon otherwise, as it will take a lot of time to get this club into a positon where it can genuinely compete and be sustained at 2 levels above its current standing.

So I see artifical grass as an enabler of our prgression up the leagues, rather than a barrier. As it will enable us to more quickly increase revenues and build the fanbase that are both essential to compete at a higher level. We're kidding ourselves to think we can magically get to the Football league anytime soon otherwise.

P.S. Artfiical surfaces have to be changed every 5-10yrs anyway, so it's not like we'd be casing the playing surface in reinforced concrete that we'd be stuck with for all time either.

SteveBradley wrote:As it will enable us to more quickly increase revenues and build the fanbase that are both essential to compete at a higher level. We're kidding ourselves to think we can magically get to the Football league anytime soon otherwise.

I think some pretty tenuous things are being linked to the pitch proposal?

A few years since I was in St Mark's Square. Didn't realise it was now 3G.

Peter Newman wrote:A few years since I was in St Mark's Square. Didn't realise it was now 3G.

They call it 7G over there, and it's blue and wet

Peter Newman wrote:Although the vote may be in favour of the board recommendation if, at a later stage, there is concern over the financial implications of  the project  surely members could put a motion to the AGM/IGM  requiring  its termination. One of the selling points of the new structure is its open democracy so it does seem strange that we are now appear to be advocating no further general membership involvement.

Oliver has made a good point that, of course, any motion could be put to an AGM for any reason. That is actually one way that this referendum was different to, say, Brexit. The vote on 3G was not the gift of the Club Board or Supporters' Society but came from a motion at the IGM.

Peter Newman wrote:With regard to someone with different views getting themselves elected to the committee surely that would be a positive. Although they would be likely to be outvoted it would allow minority opinions to be heard and perhaps result in some modification to a proposed course of action.

Getting anyone elected onto the board is a positive and I especially welcome those with different views. Indeed, there are many with very different views on the board presently, not least on this subject (one other Committee member and I were saying that we actually voted the same way recently which only seems to happen once a year but that doesn't stop us working together on the committee). Indeed, there are many on what is the anti-3G contingent that I would love to see in the Supporters Society not necessarily due to their views about this subject but because they are passionate about the club, they are now extremely engaged about what it is to be a member of a community club and they have the energy to robustly put their voice forward. We are still at the very early stages of being a community club and I am not sure that many realise the potential that we could all fulfil as members of the Supporters Society, the Committee and the Club Board. I hope that, whatever the result, those that have debated, campaigned and worked so hard on both sides of the issues would consider putting themselves forward for any of the elections in June.

What I was suggesting is that, were one to join the board solely to be a one-issue disruptor, not only would they find it difficult to do that but they would also find that much of the Supporters Society Committee work is not about such high-profile matters but rather more prosaic but still important matters. I was speaking more from the perspective of an ex-parent governor at a school rather than speaking about anyone at the club who potentially wants to be on the Supporters Society. I found that parents would often join because they had an issue with one aspect of the school e.g. uniform only to realise that not only could they just get their views accepted as there were democratic processes to get through but also that meetings were also more involved in signing off photocopying paper budgets than they were the larger issues.

Football league is two promotions away. With play offs now extended to top 7 in both Conference Premier and Conference South I fail to see why it’s such a pipe dream.

We’re not aiming for the champions league  

Everyone knows Bath City won’t be a Man Utd or Chelsea but to compete with the likes of Boreham Wood, Dover, Forest Green etc seems achievable to me!

I am glad the club is now democratically run but the board at present seem to put the football as less of a priority..

This is Bath City FOOTBALL club!!

Always thought the aim of any football club was to win as many games as possible and climb the leagues.

I can’t support a club that doesn’t want to win and the idea that the football league is beyond the club doesn’t bode well for many football fans in Bath.

The bottom line is this. Conference South football is unattractive to most football fans in Bath.

Football is when you try to BEAT an opponent, WIN competitions and not just make up the numbers.

I agree with an earlier post. I can’t see the point of the club existing either if it doesn’t want to compete.

Saying that it will take us years to get into football league and so by then the league would have automatically  changed its mind by that time on 3G is a lack of ambition

Sutton are paying a price for installing 3G right now as they have to fork out hundreds of thousands to rip it up again!

At the very least the 3G plan is taking an almighty gamble here. I think the stakes are too high

cbtroman wrote:

Always thought the aim of any football club was to win as many games as possible and climb the leagues.

I can’t see the point of the club existing either if it doesn’t want to compete.

I don't think there is any question of the club not wanting to compete, of course it wants to compete. The idea behind getting a 3G pitch is to help provide the means for the club to compete on the best terms possible and anything that helps get it on a firmer financial footing surely has to improve its chances on the pitch.

Result of the vote, as announced to Society members this evening....

YES 226 (89%)
NO 28 (11%)

Considering that Sutton may even be relegated by not accepting promotion to football league according to talksport I think this is s major major mistake.

But that’s democracy and we’ve all had a say

I was one of the few who voted no, but in a way I'm glad that the vote was so decisive and that the board can move forward with a clear mandate.

Like Marc, I encourage those who have organised in favour of grass to stand for the Society Committee in at the AGM - not to block 3G, but to make sure the plans are scrutinised as fully as they can be (and as Marc says, for all of the other things that they would bring to the Committee).

Twerton Parker wrote:

cbtroman wrote:

Always thought the aim of any football club was to win as many games as possible and climb the leagues.

I can’t see the point of the club existing either if it doesn’t want to compete.

I don't think there is any question of the club not wanting to compete, of course it wants to compete. The idea behind getting a 3G pitch is to help provide the means for the club to compete on the best terms possible and anything that helps get it on a firmer financial footing surely has to improve its chances on the pitch.

Exactly!! "Ambition" has to be paid for somehow... if you don't pay for it upfront, you'll sure as hell pay for it down the line

Football does not pay for football at our level

Having a punt on the playing budget and hoping the crowds follow DOES NOT WORK at our level - or we would have been sitting comfortably in the Conf Prem since 2010

Now the vote has concluded can I request we see an accurate report showing return on investment (roi) for the 3G pitch and other options should we invest the same amount of money in those schemes.

So far the 3G pitch has been touted a panacea for club survival, but if a similar amount of club money was sunk into another project(s) would that provide a better roi?

And what would those other options be? Sorry to bring this up again, but the club and Society boards have recommended 3G as a means of bringing in essential revenues while enabling BCFC to have even closer links with the community. I have yet to read or hear of a single alternative which will achieve the same.

comrade powell wrote:Result of the vote, as announced to Society members this evening....

YES 226 (89%)
NO 28 (11%)

Probably similar percentages to the question ‘Will Jack Compton win Goal of the Season?’

comrade powell wrote:And what would those other options be? Sorry to bring this up again, but the club and Society boards have recommended 3G as a means of bringing in essential revenues while enabling BCFC to have even closer links with the community. I have yet to read or hear of a single alternative which will achieve the same.

Well in fairness you would have to be on the club board (or perhaps the Society board) and close to the redevelopment negotiations in order to be able to formulate a realistic alternative.

If we are going to borrow half a million quid and stick it in something that we want to yield £60K-90K a year in revenue (a return of 12-18% a year), it's reasonable to start exploring what the other uses of that borrowed money might be and what financial and community returns they might bring. Buy a city centre pub and deck it out in Bath City memorabilia, while making it a community space in the day? Invest it in ethical bonds or community energy? Spend more on the new stand to create super-high-end office or co-working facilities? Or luxury AirBnB apartments? Is there any way to carve out ongoing income from the redevelopment?

Maybe these have all been looked at, and the ROI is worse than 3G. Fine - but show us that, rather than putting all of the onus on individual members, who have no access to details about the club's finances and business model, or the details of the redevelopment agreement, to come up with world-beating solutions.

It’s more the principle of not challenging for promotion that bothers me rather than the actual practical considerations. I would accept a lack of playing budget provided the team even on a shoestring budget go for it

comrade powell wrote:And what would those other options be? Sorry to bring this up again, but the club and Society boards have recommended 3G as a means of bringing in essential revenues while enabling BCFC to have even closer links with the community. I have yet to read or hear of a single alternative which will achieve the same.

Is Bath City being run as a football club, or a business? As you move toward the latter, which the club has to do to financially survive, investments must be made in a manner which potentially brings in the most money. As Oliver mentions this could be from buying a pub rather than relaying a new pitch (grass or 3G)..... or even just investing the club outlay for 3G. When is comes down to generating surplus cash passion etc. has to be put to one side for simple fact and business plan.

For me the best plan BCFC have at the moment and the one which should be generating more comment is the stand / car park / shops redevelopment.... this has the potential to bring in a lot of revenue (I know the pitch is a subset of this plan)

Exactly the landslide I expected sadly, but that's that, gutted but we move on. A lot of talk about being able to improve our playing budget with the speculated profits, but I'd personally like to see any and all profits from this venture that go above covering our current budget, put aside and never touched. If the dark day comes where the Football League open the floodgates for clubs to vandalise their pitches in this way, everyone will be rushing out to lay the plastic, pretty soon the playing field will be level again for most non league clubs and we'll all be looking for another gimmick to increase revenue. Lets protect ourselves against it.

Steve Whites Missus wrote:Now the vote has concluded can I request we see an accurate report showing return on investment (roi) for the 3G pitch and other options should we invest the same amount of money in those schemes.

So far the 3G pitch has been touted a panacea for club survival, but if a similar amount of club money was sunk into another project(s) would that provide a better roi?

The understanding that I had from the meeting the other week was that we'd be looking for grants etc to lay the new pitch, so not actually investing any of the club's current money (anyone with more know than me please feel free to correct!).

comrade powell wrote:Result of the vote, as announced to Society members this evening....

YES 226 (89%)
NO 28 (11%)

For no other motive... just interest... what percentage of votes (254) to total available to vote?

Ashley wrote:

Steve Whites Missus wrote:Now the vote has concluded can I request we see an accurate report showing return on investment (roi) for the 3G pitch and other options should we invest the same amount of money in those schemes.

So far the 3G pitch has been touted a panacea for club survival, but if a similar amount of club money was sunk into another project(s) would that provide a better roi?

The understanding that I had from the meeting the other week was that we'd be looking for grants etc to lay the new pitch, so not actually investing any of the club's current money (anyone with more know than me please feel free to correct!).

That's it in a nutshell for me. If the sale of Wembley stadium goes ahead, the FA are saying they intend putting a lot of money into football at 'grass roots' level. Only speculation at present I know but there could be money for projects like a 3G pitch.

2weirdtown wrote:If the sale of Wembley stadium goes ahead, the FA are saying they intend putting a lot of money into football at 'grass roots' level.

I'll believe that when I see it.

OliverH wrote:

comrade powell wrote:And what would those other options be? Sorry to bring this up again, but the club and Society boards have recommended 3G as a means of bringing in essential revenues while enabling BCFC to have even closer links with the community. I have yet to read or hear of a single alternative which will achieve the same.

Well in fairness you would have to be on the club board (or perhaps the Society board) and close to the redevelopment negotiations in order to be able to formulate a realistic alternative.

If we are going to borrow half a million quid and stick it in something that we want to yield £60K-90K a year in revenue (a return of 12-18% a year), it's reasonable to start exploring what the other uses of that borrowed money might be and what financial and community returns they might bring. Buy a city centre pub and deck it out in Bath City memorabilia, while making it a community space in the day? Invest it in ethical bonds or community energy? Spend more on the new stand to create super-high-end office or co-working facilities? Or luxury AirBnB apartments? Is there any way to carve out ongoing income from the redevelopment?

Maybe these have all been looked at, and the ROI is worse than 3G. Fine - but show us that, rather than putting all of the onus on individual members, who have no access to details about the club's finances and business model, or the details of the redevelopment agreement, to come up with world-beating solutions.

Thanks Oliver. To be fair I wasn't putting all the onus on individual members (or other supporters) to come up with alternatives, simply requesting some suggestions as there has been a deafening silence on this since the 3G debate started. I share in the nostalgia for proper football grounds and grass pitches loved by many, but it isn't going to take the club forward. To be honest, I don't know if the suggestions you listed were discussed by the Redevelopment working group as I'm not a member of it. But remember that the Society is represented there and it might be worth bringing up at its AGM in the summer. I assume that there will be reports from each of the reps. As it was pointed out this week by Nick Blofeld on the club's website...

As part of the Supporters’ Society 2016 Business Plan, we signalled 3G as a potential option which would be considered once the change of ownership had happened, and we are now at the next stage and it is time to consider this option. We believe it offers the vision of a broadly based community football club, catering for all ages, abilities and gender, centred in the heart of Twerton. It also helps secure the strategic priorities under Society ownership of achieving financial sustainability and having a positive community impact.

The feasibility study was the result of much time being put in by a small group who understandably concentrated on this one option rather than diluting it by investigating others. I guess that if 3G had shown to be unsuitable they would have moved on to alternatives. But the study surely demonstrated that this option did have potential, hence it being supported by the boards of the club and Society.

Finally, you have more knowledge of those examples that you listed and maybe they too can be incorporated in the redevelopment. But if deemed preferable to 3G would they carry as much weight in the application process as mentioned by Nick...

We, and our consultants, believe the intent to install a 3G pitch would be welcomed by the Council and be seen as a very positive addition for the community, and hence likely to help with gaining planning permission for the overall re-development project. And the gaining of planning permission is a trigger for a significant capital injection into the Club, which writes off all our debts