Kick into touch plans for new rugby stadium
So what part of "no" is it that Bath Rugby Club doesn't seem able to understand? The terms of the 1956 covenant governing use of the city's Recreation Ground are unequivocal.
The corporation (now Bath and North East Somerset Council) "...shall not show any undue preference to or in favour of any particular game, or sport, or any particular person club body or organisation..."
-
Yet the opposite is happening. One sport is being shown preference. Bath Rugby is by far the major user of the Rec, and the three serving – and non- independent – B&NES councillors who comprise the Rec board of trustees have been tripping over themselves to underwrite the club's long-running expansion plans.
They are doing this by sanctioning the use of thousands of pounds of local taxpayers' money to employ legal counsel in an attempt to overturn a recent Charity Commissioners' decision to reject the club's scheme of building a permanent stadium on the Rec because it would not be compatible with the land's charitable status.
Bath residents are collectively being used by B&NES as a ready source of public cash to promote Bath Rugby plc. Make no mistake, although the club might undertake good works for local charities, it is, nonetheless, a private business.
If B&NES set aside, say, the sum of £100,000 to donate to city centre retailers Marks & Spencer or Dixons, for example, to help them pay the rental on their premises, there would be an outcry. So why should Bath Rugby be given preferential treatment?
In support of this, the Keep Rugby at the Rec brigade would have us swallow two fallacious bits of reasoning. First, that the club brings millions of pounds to the city from the 16 Saturdays per year that it plays at home. Various exaggerated figures for the alleged income generated have been rumoured or stated as fact, but have never been substantiated.
Ground sits in a sensitive location
The second fantasy element concerns the claimed number of rugby supporters in the city.
In 2007, the upshot of a "strategic review" led us to believe that some 20,000 people had signed a petition pledging support for the club.
Even if this figure is accepted as legitimate, and does not, for example, include casual observers from London or elsewhere, it still represents only a fraction of the overall population of Bath.
Received wisdom in the rugby camp would have it that the so-called "silent majority" in Bath supports the club but, as no evidence has been provided to back up this assertion, it can be dismissed as wishful thinking and as a particularly desperate example of the tail trying to wag the dog.
I am myself a rugby supporter. I like the game, and used to play for my school and county (no. 11, right wing, since you ask). I don't get to as many Bath matches as I used to, but I follow the progress of the club keenly.
I think the social and sporting fabric of Bath benefits from the presence of the club in the city, and the last thing I want is for them to be booted off the Rec.
But that doesn't mean I have to go along with the club's stadium-building project. Far from it. Indeed, I spoke out against it at a Bath business breakfast several years ago.
In recognising that much of the pressure behind the proposed bricks-and-mortar upgrade to a 15,000-seat stadium stems from the Rugby Football Union Guinness league, I am not exonerating Bath Rugby.
I would suggest that, rather than attempting to bully, browbeat and blackmail the people of Bath, as it has been doing, it should try dismounting and approaching Guinness for an opt-out.
The Rec – hemmed in and overlooked as it is by quality Georgian architecture – is surely deserving of special case status, as it sits in a particularly sensitive location. It must rank as one of the most photogenic areas of municipal recreation land. Development which would be out of keeping and visible from all round Bath must not be allowed to ruin it.
A balanced – rather than a biased – viewpoint on the future of the Rec might also be achieved if the trustee group was widened to include at least a dozen individuals from various interested parties; representatives from neighbouring residents' associations, the rugby supporters' club, leisure and sporting users, and so on.
The most recent group to claim an interest, which it has done in the last few months, is one that calls itself the Real Friends of the Rec. The name is a clear sideswipe at protester Worthy Gilson's well-established Friends of the Rec.
This was set up from altruistic motives to save the Rec from what looked like – and, it has to be said, still does look like – the lurking threat of part-privatisation.
A glance at the Real Friends' website reveals them to be anything but.
Their "aims" are stated to be: "To help secure the support of the citizens of and visitors to Bath for the development of and improvements to the Recreation Ground which will meet the needs of sporting and other users and ensure the financial support of commercial interests including the Bath Rugby Club."
What I understand this to mean is that they are prepared to defy the terms of the 1956 covenant to bolster the rugby club's push to build. The old chestnut, then, still looks to hold true in this case; with "friends" like these, who needs enemies?
Tomorrow: Bob Calleja, the chief executive officer of Bath Rugby, explains the club's proposals for the future.
6 Comments
by JDL, N Dorset
Tuesday, February 24 2009, 12:48PM
“If the correspondent really was a county standard winger and a true rugby fan, he would know that 11 is left wing, not right wing.
Another factual inaccuracy amongst the lies.”
by Shaun, Bath
Tuesday, February 24 2009, 9:39AM
“Suzy: Congratualtions on an eloquent, well written and factual piece.
WDP: Judging by the poor quality of journalism displayed by your correspondent, I'm guessing you have a vacancy. Might I suggest you approach Suzy? Or does she display just too many scruples for your liking?”
by Suzy, Bath
Monday, February 23 2009, 10:53PM
“Jim - you want to know who wrote this; Mr Keith Davis.
Mr Davis, your 'facts' are so far off the mark it's laughable. I would love to comment on all them but there isn't enough room on this page!
"In 2007, the upshot of a "strategic review" led us to believe that some 20,000 people had signed a petition pledging support for the club."
There IS a petition with over 22,000 signatures pledging support for development - FACT. Where is the petition from the 'fiends' showing how many people are against this? Oh yes, they don't have one!
"The Rec ¿ hemmed in and overlooked as it is by quality Georgian architecture ¿ is surely deserving of special case status, as it sits in a particularly sensitive location. It must rank as one of the most photogenic areas of municipal recreation land. Development which would be out of keeping and visible from all round Bath must not be allowed to ruin it."
So you think the sports centre is a Georgian building do you? Just have a look at what's being built where the bus station was and the eyesore of that concrete car park, as to what can be achieved. I don't know what plans you've looked at but from what I've seen, the development would be completely sympathetic with the beautiful architecture of our amazing City.
"the club brings millions of pounds to the city from the 16 Saturdays per year that it plays at home. Various exaggerated figures for the alleged income generated have been rumoured or stated as fact, but have never been substantiated."
Absolute rubbish - at no time has anyone from The Real Friends of the Rec stated that rugby fans bring 'millions' of pounds to the City over one season but you can't deny that 10,600+ supporters bring a lot of money to hotels, pubs, restaurants and shops during a period of the year where tourists don't visit. In fact there are a number of pubs and restaurants who are now showing their support. And just think how much more could be generated with other activities taking place at the stadium all year round.
"The most recent group to claim an interest, which it has done in the last few months, is one that calls itself the Real Friends of the Rec. The name is a clear sideswipe at protester Worthy Gilson's well-established Friends of the Rec."
The 'Fiends of the Rec' well established - ha?? Who are they; how many members are there; what is their constitution and where is it; what do they plan to do with The Rec if Bath Rugby leaves; how will this be funded? No one knows - all we know is their 'leader' Worthy spouts off a pack of lies every time he opens his mouth. At the last meeting he accused the club of polluting the ground and produced photos to try and back this up. As it turns out these were puddles of rain water! Plus the ground is apparently littered with used 'needles' which were obviously left behind by those evil, drug pushing rugby fans?!!
The REAL FRIENDS OF THE REC was established by a group of people who have supported the development of The Rec for years and decided last year to establish a significant association who have everything above and more and currently have nearly 4,000 members. Which of the two are well established? Facts prove the latter!
"What I understand this to mean is that they are prepared to defy the terms of the 1956 covenant to bolster the rugby club's push to build. The old chestnut, then, still looks to hold true in this case; with "friends" like these, who needs enemies?"
Pathetic comment - if you don't understand the Associations constitution, which you obviously don't, then why don't you ask for this to be clarified instead of making your own judgements.
You call yourself a rugby fan; you couldn't be further from it. From reading your comments I would say you're a supporter or member of the 'Fiends of the Rec' - if that is the case, why don't you admit it?”
by Ed, Brighton
Monday, February 23 2009, 7:52PM
“"In recognising that much of the pressure behind the proposed bricks-and-mortar upgrade to a 15,000-seat stadium stems from the Rugby Football Union Guinness league, I am not exonerating Bath Rugby.
I would suggest that, rather than attempting to bully, browbeat and blackmail the people of Bath, as it has been doing, it should try dismounting and approaching Guinness for an opt-out."
The RFU have dropped the requirement of Rugby clubs to have a stadium of at least 15.000 has been dropped, so he is factually incorrect on that point.
The need for development is based on the need to make the club sustainable.”
by Jim Siddens, Bath
Monday, February 23 2009, 6:51PM
“A very strange article - definately not from a Bath rugby fan - I'm surprised the WDP ran this fraudulent storeyline - but hey, thats their problem - Please amplify the association between the author and Worthy Gilson”
by Louisa, Bradford
Monday, February 23 2009, 6:45PM
“It is very unclear who wrote this misleading column - an indication of whose personal views this is would be helpful. As a Bath Rugby supporter myself, they are certainly not my views and I would not like to be associated with them.
Phrases like "lead us to believe" and "exaggerated figures" are cast around this diatribe without proof or alternate facts. This may well be someone who is a rugby supporter. But it is no Bath Rugby supporter that I know. Not in my name please.”