Leave Rec as it is
Perhaps the following is a different aspect re The Recreation Ground and Bath Rugby.
Whilst I am not a follower of rugby, their present occupation of a part of The Rec is quite acceptable to most Bath citizens
However, it should be remembered that our forebears gave their shares in The Rec to the then Bath City Council for free on the understanding that the terms of the covenant were honoured in perpetuity for recreational purposes as well sporting activities, with no one sport dominating and for the enjoyment of the citizens of Bath.
This must surely be honoured or are we to expect reparation in respect of the donations made on our behalf?
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Wednesday, May 22 2013
I am absolutely sure that our forbears did not expect their generosity to be substituted for a field on the outskirts of the city.
How about the rugby club having a new superb custom- built stadium and premises on the ex-MOD land at Ensleigh, including ample parking, leaving The Rec as the original covenant?
TONY COMLEY Lansdown Lane Bath
Comments
by miles_offside
Friday, October 05 2012, 11:11AM
“Unfortunately, "...their present occupation of a part of The Rec is quite acceptable to most Bath citizens..." is the only part of Mr Comley's letter that is either factual or accurate. We may disregard the rest.
We know that there are a number of people who are so infuriated with the prospect of the Recreation ground being improved that they feel that they should offer their opinion in the media. Why though do successive Chronicle editors persist in publishing them, despite their obvious factual errors, fallacious utterances and persistent logical inconsistencies? Is it to humiliate the writers in public? To amuse the editorial staff? Please end this nonsense.”
by DariusMehta
Thursday, September 06 2012, 3:45PM
“Quite right Mike. The Corporation paid £11,155 (£230k in today 's money) in 1956. Hardly free!
The other incorrect fact is that the Rec is for the general public not only Bath Citizens (paragraph 48 of the 2002 judgement).”
by Mike_the_Taxi
Thursday, September 06 2012, 2:42PM
“"gave their shares in The Rec to the then Bath City Council for free "?
I am pretty sure you will find Bath City Council paid 'our forebears' for the ground!”