Bristol City chairman Steve Lansdown has dismissed as "a waste of time" talk of a possible ground-share scheme between Bristol's two professional football clubs.

A burning issue during the 1980s and '90s, when City and Rovers discussed proposals for a potential joint move to a site on Severnside, the topic of ground-sharing has receded as the red and blue halves of Bristol's football divide have pressed ahead with their own separate plans for stadium development.

Rovers' blueprint for a new-look Memorial Stadium demonstrates a clear and long-term commitment to remaining in Horfield, while City nailed their colours firmly to the mast when first announcing their determination to sell Ashton Gate and construct a new home less than a mile away.

As such, Lansdown was more than a little surprised to be quizzed on the hypothetical subject of Bristol City sharing with their neighbours when invited to take part in a recent Inside Out interview for the BBC.

"People should spend their time more constructively by talking about what is being achieved rather than raking up an old story from the past," declared City's multi-millionaire chairman.

"Considering we are trying to build a new stadium and Rovers are pressing ahead with plans to improve the Mem, I was surprised when that old chestnut was pulled out of the fire.

"Rovers are moving ahead with their plans for the Memorial Stadium and we are moving forward with ours. We have our own way of doing things and they have theirs.

"To discuss the possibility of us sharing a new stadium is simply a waste of time."

Lansdown recalled: "Ourselves and Rovers discussed a ground sharing project at Severnside several years ago, but it turned out to be a no-go because of environmental issues.

"That topic is now dead in the water and there is no point in re-visiting it."

Of course, ground-sharing between bitter rivals is not unknown elsewhere in the world and Italy furnishes us with two well-known examples in the form of Lazio and Roma and the two Milan teams, Inter and AC.

But those clubs only share because they are forced to by their respective city councils. Ask the supporters involved for their opinion and they invariably insist such schemes are unpopular.

That would certainly be the case in Bristol, where an attempt to ground-share at Ashton Gate some years ago resulted in fans boycotting games and the plan being abandoned soon afterwards.

Let us suppose Bristol City Council did sanction a new stadium at Ashton Vale, only with the proviso that City and Rovers had to share. Who would pay for the cost of the development?

Any such proposal would inevitably give rise to potentially insurmountable financial wrangling and serve to alienate both sets of fans.

Far better that the two clubs press forward with their current schemes so that Bristol can, in the future, boast two stadiums worthy of a city of its size and stature.