Support plans for rugby centre

“Leisure Centre, exactly my point Darius. We taxpayers are subsidising either directly or by loss of car park revenue.

In 2006 the RFU stipulated that by 2010 the minimum capacity had to be 15,000 however because of the impossibility of all clubs meeting that criteria it was reduced temporarily, not rescinded, to 10,000.

Annual permission from the CC is required for the additional land required for the terracing. It is only temporary because the CC insisted upon a permanent solution which is what the current proposal is intended to provide.

The status of the Leisure Centre was not only accepted by the CC but formalised when they required the Trustees to take over responsibility for its running.

You claimed that i had made unfounded statements regarding the rental income whereas i quoted the brochure issued by the Trust. I also consider the important details should have been included. You disagree.

I supported the survey six years ago however claims that 20,000 people including me supported keeping rugby at the rec. are false, since at that time we were not voting on a land swap, 18,000 seat stadium and retail units.

I think that there is much bigger picture than the effect on the Trust.”

“There are some inaccuracies in your current post, bath1946.

Bath1946 : The Leisure Centre itself is subsidised either directly or by car parking which represents a loss of revenue to B&NES.

This is a very strange comment as they are both on the Rec and therefore the net income belongs to the beneficiaries of the Trust. In any case if the Trust is insolvent B&NES as the custodian of the Trust will have to ensure the Trust is solvent. So the B&NES tax payer will have to fork out anyway.

Bath1946 : The payment by Rugby additional to that for the lease of £6,500 p.a. is for the additional terracing required because of the minimum capacity of 10,000 spectators now increased to 15,000 as specified by the premiership.

First of all your 15k figure is not correct. The Professional Game Board Minimum Standards Criteria (MSC) is 10k for 2012/13 season and they have not increased it otherwise Wasps are in deep trouble! Here is the criterion set out in F2 of the MSC

"Each Club's Principal Home Ground, Standby Ground or Temporary Ground must provide a minimum Total Licensed Capacity of 10,000. This must be comprised of seated and terraced standing areas."

Secondly the payment for the East Stand permission was only allowed by the CC whilst negotiations were going on to solve the abuses of the Rec and will discontinue if the Scheme is thrown out.

Bath1946 : It is the unsatisfactory annual authorisations required from the CC for the land necessary for the terracing that provoked the need for a permanent solution, namely the land swap and the stadium.

Inaccurate. The CC requested the Trust to come up with a proposal to solve the two abuses (see also the Trustee minutes below) and that is why there was the Strategic Review and where we are today. The annual permissions are only unsatisfactory for the RC who cannot make long term plans.

Bath1946 : The Leisure Centre was not and is not a detriment and because it is under cover it is not a disturbance to the neighbourhood as specified in the 1922 covenant.

The LC is a detriment as noted in section 5.1 of the last Trustee Minutes

In 2002, the High Court decided that the Recreation Ground was a charitable trust. Since then, the Trust has been required to resolve two discrepancies with the objects of the trust. These are that:
• the land leased to Bath Rugby Club is unavailable for charitable uses,
and
• the land occupied by the Leisure Centre is no longer open space.

Bath1946: I did not state that there had not been full disclosure of the rents. What i did was quote from the brochure published by the Trustees publicly available which did not disclose details of the rents. I consider this to be an important omission.

A booklet is just that and like all prospectus and explanatory statements one should read those first and look up the detail to ensure they are fully informed. The fact that you missed important documents which were referred to in the booklet does not make it an important omission on part of the Trustees but on yourself!

Bath1946: Because i supported the survey six years ago does not mean that i support the current proposal, and to infer otherwise is disingenuous.

Well as I have said before I have never regarded you as pro rugby and that is why I have picked you up on some of the inaccurate comments you have made. Not sure who you are pointing that accusation to?

As regards the big picture obviously rugby will gain but the bigger gain will be the Trust from the financial benefits gained from the swap.”

“No wild accusations Darius.

The Leisure Centre itself is subsidised either directly or by car parking which represents a loss of revenue to B&NES. I agree that it needs to be improved and i seem to remember £10 millions being allocated for this purpose although at that time there was talk of demolition to make way for the stadium or relocation, possibly to another part of the Rec.
The payment by Rugby additional to that for the lease of £6,500 p.a. is for the additional terracing required because of the minimum capacity of 10,000 spectators now increased to 15,000 as specified by the premiership.
It is the unsatisfactory annual authorisations required from the CC for the land necessary for the terracing that provoked the need for a permanent solution, namely the land swap and the stadium.
The Leisure Centre was not and is not a detriment and because it is under cover it is not a disturbance to the neighbourhood as specified in the 1922 covenant. Your comments regarding the covenant are noted, although the legal advice given to the Trustees is that their validity would need to be established by the High Court.
The bigger picture referred to by you is in fact the smaller picture of meeting the needs of Rugby.
I did not state that there had not been full disclosure of the rents. What i did was quote from the brochure published by the Trustees publicly available which did not disclose details of the rents. I consider this to be an important omission.
Several times you have referred to the overwhelming support from the residents as reflected in the 2006/7 survey. As stated, i too was in favour of retaining the status quo but there was no mention of a swap with Lambridge; an 18,000 seat stadium; and retail units. Because i supported the survey six years ago does not mean that i support the current proposal, and to infer otherwise is disingenuous.
Believe what you wish about me and Rugby although all of my posts, without exception, have been concerned with the Trustees, the other contributors and the "proposal".”

“Bath1946 you yet again bring up the so called fact of the solvency of the Trust because they are taking on the Leisure centre. Yet again you have missed the response to this very question at the last Trustee Meeting which is as follows:

"The Leisure Centre, including the car park, below has tended to break even in recent years. That has been the average experience at outturn taking into account client and contractor costs in recent years, with variations of about £75k between years, up or down. The Leisure Centre would benefit from improvement and neither the Trust nor the Council has so far provided this."

If the swap didn't take place and no additional income was available the B&NES tax payer would be called upon to subsidise the Trust if the LC is a financial burden.

You keep on harping about Premier Rugby requirements being the major factor for this scheme. The major factor is to rectify the abuse and I can do know better than to quote from David Dixon's letter to the CC published at the last meeting.

"The trustees welcome the powers to be given to grant a new lease at the Recreation Ground to Bath Rugby Club and to accept replacement land at Lambridge. This will enable the principal and most intractable breach of the Trust's objects to be resolved in a way that brings substantial net gain to the beneficiaries."

All I ask of you is to appraise yourself of all the facts available on this issue before making wild comments such as the LC is subsidised by the public and the fact that disclosure has not been made of the rents to be paid by the RC under the scheme.

I have never cited that your vote 6 years ago "as representing overwhelming support for this proposal", quite the contrary I have put you firmly in the anti lobby. My opinion of your reasons for this is that you are failing to see the bigger picture because of an extra 2000 put on the capacity and three retail units on the riverside which would much enhance that area.”

“Again Darius you are twisting my words. You stated that my comments were unfounded, however this is not true. I used the Trust proposal leaflet as my source - FACT. Also i have never used the term "not available"; i have on many occasions shown my appreciation for your contributions however you do not need to embellish your cause with wild accusations.

Also many times we have disagreed, An example on this thread is for the solvency of the Trust which, because they will have to take responsibility for the Leisure Centre will depend upon a subsidy from us, the taxpayer. You of course emphasise the no brainer of the payments from rugby. Perhaps our major disagreement concerns the need for the stadium which you claim is to remedy the detriments whereas i claim that the motivation was to comply with the premiership requirement for increased capacity.

I am not anti - rugby, in the survey six years ago i was in favour of rugby at the rec. however this was before an 18,000 seat stadium was proposed and before a land swap was proposed, and before retail units on the site were proposed, therefore could you and many others please stop citing my yes vote as representing overwhelming support for this proposal.”

“A booklet written for children in your words is hardly likely to have the complete details of every clause of the scheme but for the adults that wanted more information you only needed to see the comment at the foot of the text that "a copy of this booklet, and further information about the rec, is available at: http://tinyurl.com/a4txums I did and got the information that you said was not available. There are many examples of my refuting comments you have made on these letter pages which are unfounded. Do a search!”

“Darius, i explained the source of my comment however i am not in the least bit surprised that such important information was not included in the Trust proposal document which much to your astonishment was the prime soutce of my information. I note that it was also included in the submission by the Trust to the Commissioners, however we were denied access to this and supporting documentation - remember! Please clarify "unfounded statements", plural.

Also, if you re-read my post you will note that i did not say that an independent valuation had not taken place.”

“I am amazed, bath1946, that you can make unfounded statements on this subject and now admit that you hadn't read the Heads of Agreement "because they were indicative". Probably the most important document on the Rec Trust board website. Now you beg the question of independent valuation. Clearly another document you have not read! I refer you to the minutes of the Trustee Board of 11 April 2012 in response to a question from my good friend Peter Downey

"Independent land valuations and proposed heads of terms for leases in respect of the Sports and Leisure Centre and Bath Rugby were also included (in correspondence to the CC about the proposal)" My brackets!”

“Darius, i got my information from the Trust proposal document however thanks for the link to the Heads of Agreement which i had not read because it is indicative. The base rent is proposed to start at £110,000 per annum; the commercial rents are proposed in part to be based upon turnover and in part from the rents received from the retail units deferred for five years from commencement. This of course will beg the question regarding independent valuation.”

“Trust better off by £8m over 57 years + extra income from use of additional land + Sporting and entertainment arena worth £30m +. Deal or no deal, Bath and Beyonders? Answer = deal!”