Rec group welcomes positive talks

“it'll probably be that ugly to boot.”

“Its fair to say that the size of any proposed stadium- whenever we ever get to see an actual proposal- will be on the scale in relation to the Rec as a whole, shown in sejhfkjsdhg's sketch.”

“I am certainly an amateur, but I am trying to do my best. If you have an issue with the images I produced then please state it clearly and I will try to learn from my mistakes.”

“The image makes a very strong care for amateur enthusiasts not being let loose with Google maps and CAD!!! Seriously? Is that your argument?!”

“I just think it odd that in all the talk about the REC nobody actually has come up with any artists' impressions of what it would look like. When somebody wants to build a travelodge we always get the drawing making it look great, and the station re-development looks like a dream on paper. How come, nobody seems willing to sketch what a stadium would look like? Thus I cut and pasted the a 3D model most generic 25,000 seater stadium I could find. I am coming out for or against anything other than more information.”

“sejhfkjsdhg - The image in you link makes a very strong case.”

“I always think it useful to see what a 25k stadium would actually look like on the rec:

http://tinyurl.com/buxb4r2
http://tinyurl.com/d8yyt5s”

“Yes this is a rehash of an earlier article stating the same thing. Minus our comments.

Luckily for everyone though, i keep a record of my contributions, as this has happened before on this site.

So here's my own rehash:

"The particular arrangement that Bath Rugby is pushing for relies on Bath sacrificing one of its publicly held assets in order to reduce the costs involved in its development as a club. In other words, what is being suggested is a transfer of wealth (in the form of land) from the People of Bath, to Bath Rugby Plc. This, to me, seems immoral for the reasons he has already pointed out; does a private enterprise of any stripe deserve anything like this amount of special treatment and financial backing? Why is this different to the taxpayer supporting the banks, for example? What have any of these commercial enterprises done to warrant this kind of wealth transfer? Why can't they stand on their own two feet? Indeed, they probably CAN stand on their own two feet but are simply trying to reduce their liabilities for the sake of profit.

But on top of that, I want to go back to what I was saying before, about developing a bigger, higher spec stadium in a more expensive location in Bath (like Pinesway or the riverside) with a host of ancillary facilities like car parking, media centre, a hotel maybe, restaurants, sponsorship and corporate facilities, and a conference centre- none of which would even get a look-in at the Rec.
The point about this is that despite the fact it is more expensive to construct initially (excuse the capitals but i really want to emphasise this fundamental point) IT IS ALSO MUCH MORE REVENUE GENERATING WHEN IT IS BUILT. So any additional expense at the construction phase is more than compensated for by the fact that the facility, once built, will generate far greater revenue over time than would ever be required to build it- even in a more expensive location.

What would be the result? Well, the following: 1. A city with an extremely good, future proof rugby stadium 2. Additional facilities that Bath currently lacks to encourage employment and investment 3. A rugby club with a stadium complex that contributes heavily to its revenue stream 4. Investment in an area of Bath that desperately needs it (think Stratford) 5. An opportunity to integrate the Crest Riverside Development more successfully into the fabric of Bath and mitigate its current "alien" feel and appearance and 5. A Recreation Ground that stays in the hands of the public of Bath - as was intended by its original benefactors- that can then be free to reach its full potential."”

“This is a rehash of the October 5th article with nothing new added except for the deletion of the comments. I think that it is time for the Council to step in and insist that irrespective of the plans of the Trustees all land swap details should be publicly available and reviewed prior to any further development.

Could the secrecy which replicates the secrecy surrounding the signing of the 1995 lease granting Bath Rugby the current pitch at a peppercorn rent of £6,500 per annum for 75 years be an attempt to steamroller this through and avoid a judicial review ? I think the silence of the Friends of the Rec. speaks volumes.

Remember that the reason for the adjucation by the Charity Commissioners and the need for a land swap was that not only is the "Rec." rugby land inadequate for their future ambitions but also this is charitable land held in trust which should be available for general access by the public, and the 1995 lease did not include that requirement. The compliance with the 1922 covenant will be interesting.”

“Clearly such a land swoop for areas of land with very different land values would allow Bath Rugby a financial advantage and as such would fall foul of EU competition rules.”