Here's what a stadium at Rec could look like

“Looks like you weren't so happy to offer your opinions after all!”

“Covenants are supposed to protect the interests of their beneficiaries, and as such should be open to reinterpretation should those interests change.

You seem to be hiding behind the covenant: sure, it might not allow retail outlets, but do YOU think they would be ruinous to the city? It might not allow a Sports Centre - do YOU think it should be demolished? It might not allow a Sports Stadium - do YOU think we will be better off with the whole site restored to an empty field? The first question I asked was whether you'd be in favour of ANY new stadium on the Rec. I ask it again.

The spirit of the covenant is that the beneficiaries get to enjoy the Rec as they would like to. I can't help but feel that certain individuals are hiding behind it out of sheer bloody-mindedness.”

“If you could be specific about the questions i would be happy to give my opinions, but i don't think this is the purpose of your posts. Retail units are not against my anything but they are certainly contrary to the 1922 covenant and would Montserrat Caballe satisfy ?”

“Well we're getting nowhere here - everything I say is apparently wrong, while you seem to completely ignore every question I pose.

2006 is an irrelevance now though - there IS a minimum capacity required for Premiership rugby. Something's got to give - admittedly not necessarily soon, but some kind of resolution is inevitable. Why anyone could get upset by the suggestion of retail units on a site currently occupied by one of the most decepit, unsuitable stands in professional sport, I really can't imagine. Are retail units against your religion or something?

You probably know this, but just in case anyone else reads your previous comment and mistakenly regards it as a valid one: The Three Tenors was a one-off YTL-sponsored event that certainly didn't pay for itself. And if you regard a Simply Red concert as a major event then you really are behind the times.”

“Wrong again 1MBVR. I am neither a nimby nor do i have an irrational resentment. Indeed in the 2006 survey i supported rugby at the rec. when there was no premiership requirement to increase capacity first to 10,000 then 15,000 spectators; when there was no land swap; and when there was no suggestion of retail units on the prime location in Bath.

I don't think lack of capacity has ever been a restriction on high profile concerts such as the Three Tenors, Simply Red, etc. Also because rugby have 57 years remaining on its lease they will decide the use on the land provided it is within the objects of the Trust.”

“Well, my calculations certainly aren't exact - I have no idea what the capacity of the new stadium would be, where an alternative might be built or what effect that would have on visitor numbers to the city centre. The point I'm making is that a sympathetically designed, CENTRAL, modern stadium can only be an asset to any city - even one which doesn't particularly need a high profile sports team to attract visitors. Surely you agree with that point at least?

I know some people feel uneasy about civic land being 'exploited' by a commercial enterprise, but community benefit and profit-making don't have to be mutually exclusive. Bath's wider profile would no doubt attract significant events and performers if we had a suitable venue and, properly planned, this would provide it.

There's no moral high-ground here, I'm afraid. So far as I can see, those who claim to be 'free of any commercial consideration' in this debate are either NIMBYs who live near the Rec and would rather it was an empty field where they could walk their dogs, or people with some irrational resentment of Bath Rugby RFC and/or their fans.”

“IMVBR,
Most of the rugby fanatics live in Bath and they or their spouses would visit the centre anyway. And if the stadium were relocated locally of course visitors interested in visiting would do so. Your calculations are wrong as is your understanding of my position which is free of any commercial considerations and your appreciation of the excellent published p-take from Mr. Newman.

With respect it is you who introduced the "fantastic designs".”

“No bath1946, my calculations are just fine. If the stadium is built then 17 x 15,000 people visit the city. If the stadium is at Lambridge, which was the alternative mentioned in the letter, then none of these people do. I appreciate that 17 x 12,000 already visit for home matches, but they will all be lost if the rugby club departs, which is the only long-term alternative option to a new stadium. So under one option you have 250,000+ visitors, under the other you have, potentially, hardly any at all.

In this and a number of other messages you state that a definitive proposal and design have yet to be produced. This implies that if one were to be produced, it's possible that you'd love it and be thrilled about it being built. I'll ask you directly - could ANY definitive proposal possibly meet with your approval? I doubt it, and strongly suspect that you keep throwing this accusation at the Trust/Rugby Club simply because you oppose the continuation of Bath Rugby's use of the Rec. It's a cheap diversionary tactic, and I'd suggest that you need to find a different one which is less tranparent.

You know and I know that what's at stake is the principle of whether an increased footprint on the Rec can legally be made available to the rugby club. At this stage it matters not a hoot what the exact design of any stadium looks like - and who in their right mind would invest in producing one before the legal case had even been resolved? The exact design would have to be approved by planners at the appropriate stage. Before then it's utterly irrelevant.

I'm sounding like a rugby fan again, and want to reiterate that I'm far from that. I just don't see that there's any reasonable case to deny that a central stadium on the Rec would be a huge net benefit to Bath.”

“Sorry 1MVBR but unfortunately your calculations ignore the fact that more than 12,000 spectators currently visit the home matches therefore using your figures the additional capacity will be less than 3,000. Also, despite the publicity produced by the Trustees we have not been privileged to see the definitive proposal and stadium design.”

“Well fine, it's a funny letter, which makes a change for a saga which has become anything but amusing over the years, but not many of the points it makes are particularly valid I'm afraid.

Some of the designs for a potential stadium I've seen have been fantastic - unlike anything anywhere else, and certainly unlike the monstrosities quoted in your letter. The City of Bath punches above it's weight for several reasons. The profile and history of the rugby club (I'm not a fan, incidentally) is by no means the principle reason, but it is one of the reasons.

Seventeen home matches per season multiplied by an increased capacity of say 15,000 is more than a quarter of a million additional people in the city centre over the course of a season - many of whom according to you are visitors from outside the city. If only 20% of those spent twenty quid on a meal, a drink and some shopping while they were here, that's a million pounds going into the local economy. This figure is to completely ignore the many other potential uses for a new stadium - youth international matches, more county cricket, concerts etc.

I accept that not everyone wants a stadium on the Rec, but I don't see how anyone can deny that it would be an asset to the city. A stadium at Lambridge might meet the rugby club's needs (although traffic management on the A4 would be a significant issue), but it would not attract other users in the same way that a central stadium would.

Yes, some rugby supporters are fat and go to the pub. I'm guessing the same may be true of some opponents of rugby at the Rec. It doesn't strike me as relevant.”