“Spiny, come on I was only defending the sad embittered men of Bishopston, just some good tempered rivalry! Maybe I was a bit harsh but then I have always had emotional response inadequacies since getting picked last for playground football at school.”

“@geoffers & SpinyHedgehog: Just for the record (hair-splitting?) I love sport and actively participate. I just happen to believe that grass roots participation should be given at least as much importance as elite sport. JFTR organised football games were played by Sefton Park Scorpions on Brunel Field until it was torn up. It's sad to lose local facilities like this because anything that makes it harder to take part, such as cost and distance, means fewer will participate. Bishopston is one of the most populous wards yet has a severe shortage of recreational space.

As I repeatedly say, I support the club's stadium development as long as it doesn't impose heavy burdens on its neighbours. I hope a friendly millionaire is not out of the question. I can understand BCC not wanting to pour money into the club when it can't control how it's going to be spent. After all, if GCCC can't finance bonuses out of increased income when the club does well then it's as bad as the banks.”

“@Arthur_T

"Well this is a first for the BEP website , a reasoned debate, well articulated and interesting points from both sides of the net. (apart from Hedgehog's sports psychology guff)"

Thank you for those kind words - I merely speak as I find.”

“Well this is a first for the BEP website , a reasoned debate, well articulated and interesting points from both sides of the net. (apart from Hedgehog's sports psychology guff)

geoffers, have you thought of applying for a place on the board at GCCC? They could certainly do with someone passionate with their feet on the ground. You might get a discount on the penthouse flat for your troubles!”

“There's something that baffles me here. There's a debate about the number of cars that the new flats will attract, which I understand. However, has anybody considered the number of cars that will be attracted if GCCC moves to Filton and is replaced by even more flats and, probably, a supermarket?”

“@geoffers

"Anybody with a knowledge of sport in this region would be aware of it"

And that's the nub of the matter. For some reason, sport-haters are far more fanatical than any banner-waving football or cricket lover. They tend to be male, and have failed to "get" sport at school. Many of those opposed to the developments at Nevil Road and Ashton Vale fall neatly into this category.

As a result, they feel cut off from the freemasonry of sports fans, which cuts across sports and allegiances. The result is sad, embittered men who show their inadequacy by opposing any sporting development and by taking every opportunity to tell the rest of us that they are "not as other men are".

I often meet a stranger in the pub and talk about my sporting preferences. If he supports a rival team (or even a different sport), I can expect a certain amount of good-tempered rivalry and then an interesting discussion; if he is a sport-hater, I can expect to be cut dead, as if I had insulted his honour. Curious, but there it is...”

“It's difficult to argue with a person who splits hairs about the precise location of St. Andrews Park and worries that flat-dwellers would have "a much longer walk" to get there (about five minutes longer), but I'll do my best.

The inference of your comment about Tom Richardson & the loss of Brunel Field was crystal clear, and it was deliberately phrased in that way. Building the school on the existing car park was never a realistic proposal and was quite rightly rejected for many reasons, but not just or even mainly because Tom Richardson appealed. In any case, organised football games have not been played at Brunel Field for many years. The kick-around I used to see being enjoyed by a few lads, was nothing that could not have been done elsewhere, including the two locations I mentioned previously.

I don't know why you felt my reply revealed that I'd consulted the club's website to provide me with information about its recent results. Anybody with a knowledge of sport in this region would be aware of it, and the picture is not as black as you paint it. For example, during the last five years they've won the Pro40 Division 2, narrowly lost in the final of the Twenty/20 cup, were beaten semi-finalists in the FP Trophy and twice missed out on promotion to division one of the CC by a handful of points. All this, despite not being one of the rich clubs, and losing several key players.

And, since you mention it, yes, I would like the council to subsidise the club. Why not? It's precisely what is enjoyed by various other county clubs, whose councils rightly see their local County clubs as being an asset to the region and part of the sporting and cultural heritage of the city, just as much as a museum or concert venue. After all, the cricket club does not have shareholders with deep pockets, unlike the football and rugby clubs, and exists to provide entertainment for the local population and encourage the development of potential cricketers. Whether this continues to take place in Bristol is the key question.”

“While at Sefton Park Juniors in '50s, I can remember playing organised
games of rugby and cricket for 2 school years on some very steep ground
behind the orphanage buildings. If this is the land referred to by
Bishop_Stoner in his 2nd paragraph, then he is mistaken.

In his last paragraph, the same writer says "success on the field is
required to guarantee finance". It is a matter of record that GCCC made
losses in their successful Limited Overs years. Not through profligacy or
mismanagement, but because of the cost to the club of bonuses to successful players in
the absence of income from Internationals. Why do you think the likes of
Harvey & Ball chose to stay? Snape moved, and went on to play for England.

In the same paragraph, the author gives the impression that it was
unreasonable of the club to seek finance from the Council. I worked for
Cardiff CBC for a few years in the '70s and it was a matter of record that
that authority had loaned money to the local football team. I don't think it
is unusual.

Recently, the club has built up a very successful Academy that is now
producing a number of very promising players. I doubt this would have been
possible without the Internationals, and I wonder how long the Academy can now continue in its present form.”

“@geoffers: you do me an injustice. I couldn't claim anything beyond BCC having considered Tom Richardson's plea that the school not be built on the College/GCCC car park; it was quite rightly the council's decision alone. Although you may not think it a good place to have a school, BCC has hard decisions to make given the escalating demand for school places and the dearth of suitable sites.

It's certainly not a joke that Brunel Field was to have remained a public open space in perpetuity. As to local alternatives, can you imagine trying to have organised football games behind Muller House? St Andrew's Park is a short walk from Nevil Road but the residents of the proposed flats would have a much longer walk via College Mews and Ashley Down Road. St Andrew's Park is often overcrowded and is not even in Bishopston (which is recognised as having a severe shortage of recreational space). Incidentally it's not my speculation that the flats would provide a poor environment, this was the view of the NHS report submitted to the planners and committee members.

As to cars, I concede that some flat dwellers may not own cars but we have base considerations on average ownership figures. I think it is very optimistic to believe that lack of an underground space will deter car owners from buying flats. No one has suggested that the flats would completely obscure buildings, only that views would be spoilt.

It is telling that you say "when" the club recapture their one-day form, not "if". As to a "few years ago" I can see that you've taken your information from the GCCC website where it is claimed that the club "is the most successful one-day side of the last 10 years". Alas not, those 10 years were a long time ago. I agree that spectators should expect good facilities, and I hope that the club can provide them without adversely affecting its neighbours. However success on the field is required to guarantee finance, and finance is required to provide success. I note that you make no attempt to justify GCCC's call on council tax payers money to subsidise its plans.”

“This is fairly desperate stuff, @Bishop_Stoner. I realise you are keen to justify the rejection of the planning application, but attempting to claim that Tom Richardson is responsible for the loss of Brunel Field, borders on the libellous.

As I'm sure you know, back in 2006/7 Tom did voice his concerns about the location of the planned new school on Brunel Field, as did others. As a result of consultation with various interested parties, the decision was eventually made to abandon these plans and instead expand the existing Sefton Park schools.

Unfortunately, as frequently happens in Bristol, there was a change in power and the LDs took over the council. They decided to go back to the original plans to build the school on Brunel Field.

I thought then as I do now, that this is not a very sensible location for a school, particularly as the council were fully aware that a redevelopment of the County Ground was already in the planning. The playground is just a few meters from the boundary, and the school is right next to a busy car park used by the college and occasionally the cricket club supporters.

I'm sure you're joking when you refer to "the loss of the only local recreational space and one that should have remained so "in perpetuity"", but just in case I would refer you to St. Andrews Park which is less than ten minutes walk from the County ground, and the public open space behind Muller House in Ashley Down Road. I'm sure either would prove "local" enough for all but the very lazy.

You've also complained about "the needless waste of fitting thousands of seats that will rarely, if ever, be occupied," but the plans are only for 7500 permanent seats of which around a half already exist. The likelihood is that most of these seats will be necessary and filled when Gloucestershire recapture their one-day form of just a few years ago. This is *not* just about securing one-day Internationals, supporters also need decent facilities to encourage them to attend County games and so keep the club financially stable.

I note you're also concerned about a "poor environment to residents of the flats", but I think you can rest assured that potential buyers will come to their own judgement as to the suitability of the local environment.

By the way, I do take account of the fact that there would be a mixture of 1, 2, and 3 bed flats, but I don't see that as necessarily translating into many more cars than car park spaces. I feel confident that any buyers will be made aware that they only have one (or no) car parking space available and will make their plans accordingly. Have you even considered that some flat owners may not own a car?

Finally, you point out that "these historic buildings can be seen from many places both near and far". Indeed they can and they will be continue to be seen after the construction of the new flats. You are trying to give the impression that the development is going to wipe them off the face of the earth or somehow hide them, but this is not the case.

You take an altogether far too pessimistic view of everything. Sadly many of the points you make are typical of the kind of scare tactics put around by the bodies and societies who cannot bear the thought of a decent cricket existing anywhere near where they live. As a local resident I'm proud to say I'm not one of you.”