It seems ridiculous to me that both Rovers and City are looking to spend more than £30 million each to build two stadiums in Bristol.
Rovers have shared with Bristol rugby, they are not there at the same time, the only problem has been the state of the pitch. Surely it makes finanical sense for two teams to share a stadium. It happens in Milan, why not Bristol?
perhaps hardie5 should realise that after the Great War the ground was left free to the rugby club, but it has already built houses on half of the land and sold the stadium part of the site to Rovers for £2.7 million. Hasn't the rugby club made enough profit out of the land? If it wasn't for the Rovers stepping in there would be houses on the whole site by now.
Wow welland that touched a nerve end. Guess your a Rovers supporter still looking for your new stadium? My piont is that if as you originally suggested the two football teams share a ground it would be impossible to include Bristol rugby due to fixture clashes and ground (pitch) conditions so the Mem would become their ground again i.e.two stadiums in Bristol.
I know nothing of the past but I guess there would be a considerable number of people living around the Mem that wished Rovers hadn't stepped in and houses built on the whole site.
I understand your point Hardie5 about still needing a second stadium if City and Rovers shared. But in the current economic climate where City and Rovers are both struggling to find the revenue to build their grounds you would have to be in cloud cuckoo land to think that Rovers could afford to give the stadium back instead of selling it at its market value.
Well I am a Rovers fan and would not have any issues at all with a joint stadium ... surely only small minded thugs could object ? There must me a neutral territory that the two clubs could settle on (perhaps on the site of Frys ? contentious I know, but why not ?) ... no issues with the Rugby club having the Mem ... it is a rugby ground after all !
When NickHibbs says he has no problem with the rugby club having the Mem I presume he means they will buy it back off Rovers.
The Gas extended themselves to the financial limit to buy the stadium to save it from the bulldozers. Rovers paid for the floodlights, the considerable improvements to the pitch, Gasheads paid to cover the Blackthorn End. Rovers would need a lot of money to move away from the Mem and it would be only right for the rugby club to pay for it.
In my humble opinion we (Bristol) will be lucky to get one new stadium in Bristol and if we do - my money is on Ashton Gate. It does makes good sense to let both football teams share the ground but this won't be possible because
(a) Planning permission for AG has limitted events to only 30 per year with crowds of 15,000 or more. Is this short sighted or not? and
(b) The blue side of the city couldn't put up the 50% of costs to build the new stadium even if they sale the Mem to the rugby club at a reasonable price. The current market value for a sports ground would be low but a new housing estate could be a different story? Perhaps Bristol Rugby should share with Bath Rugby and a new rugby stadium for both built at Somerdale put forward?
Anybody know what's happened to the New Eastville Stadium?
Sweet dreams to all sports fans
Hardie5 is not anticipating any cup runs at AG if they can only have 30 events a year. And it is optimistic to think they are going to get gates of more than 15,000.
Rovers could put up 50 per cent of the cost for building one stadium by selling the Memorial Stadium for housing.
One more expensive stadium for Bristol would be best, with a roof to stage big concerts which we are sadly lacking in this part of the world.