Bradley Stoke Bowls Club has written to South Gloucestershire Council to ask for help in its row with Bradley Stoke Town Council over a new rental agreement.
The letter accused the town council of expecting the club to “sign it [the new deal] without question” and of “bullying tactics”.
We’ve included a full copy of the letter below.
BSTC are still spreading their propaganda. They say negotiations have been going on for over one year. Untrue. They didn’t meet with us or reply to letters for one year. They gave us a draft new agreement in the first week of March and expected us to sign it without question. This was just a continuation of their bullying tactics - leave everything until the bowling season was about to start.
They don’t understand the difference between, subsidise, profit and loss. We are prepared to sign an agreement that will give them full recovery of the costs associated with our occupation of the building and as we pay in full for the maintenance of the green, there is no subsidy. Yet they say we are the most subsidised user. The cricket club will be paying between £4k and £5k and the maintenance of the cricket field and square alone costs between £15k and £20k per annum. Now that is subsidy and BSTC has entered into an agreement with the cricket club on this basis.
It is not our problem if the Bailey’s Court centre is run at a loss at they make little effort to find users, as they prefer to offer their other sites to customers. And, of course they cannot make a profit on our occupation under the terms of their lease with South Glos.
They built an extension costing £775k with no business plan for a return on that investment (the only regular user is the youth club which has been given a peppercorn rent) and effectively want a contribution from us when we don’t enjoy any of the new facilities.
Any help you can give in resolving this will be appreciated.
9 responses so far ↓
1 Mark Wilson // Apr 22, 2008 at 2:36 pm
To Northavon Bowling Club
I don’t wish to judge on the ‘discussions’ between NABC and BSTC. I hope you can all resolve the issues somehow and get back to enjoying your sport. But don’t publicly use the cricket clubs situation in your arguments.
There is a vast difference between the two activities/facilities and thus what other benefits any ’subsidy’ of Baileys Court brings to the wider community, not just a cricket club.
The bowls green is completely enclosed with locked gates and only accessible to members or official bookings.
The majority of the cricket ground and its surroundings, with the exception of during matches, are available/used 24/7 for football matches (official and unofficial), golf practice!, dog walking, bike riding, family picnics and many other uses, which anyone in the world can come and use.
As a member of the cricket club, I have no problem at all with this. It’s great to see people enjoying the space for all sorts of things and I’m sure that a lot more people than just the cricket club would miss the field at Baileys Court if it was left as brambles OR built on.
Recently the cricket club and BSTC jointly invested money and a lot of time in providing safety netting at the car park end of the ground, the prime reason being to protect people using the car park and children’s play area whilst matches are taking place. Just one example of how we want the Baileys Court area to feel welcoming and for the benefit of anyone, not just cricket club members.
(By the way, people of Bradley Stoke, if you know anyone that keeps vandalising this, could you ask them to stop. Its there primarily to protect young children. Thanks)
Of course there is a cost in providing a cricket facility as there is with any other facility, but unless the people of the town would rather see more houses built there, without cricket at Baileys Court, would this subsidy (cost of grounds maintenance) suddenly become £nil ??
No.
So it’s not giving the full picture to shout across the playground that the cricket club get this and that, because as I’ve described, subsidy to the cricket club will in many cases benefit people outside of its membership.
Please try to construct your arguments without bringing into it the business of other groups in Bradley Stoke.
2 Billy // Apr 22, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Mr Barge can kiss his political career goodbye. We have means of kicking him out next election time
3 Billy // Apr 22, 2008 at 10:49 pm
We want to declare Sadly Broke an official part of France.
We want you the pensioners to join us in taking Bradley stoke away from the UK to a place where there is proper food, boules and nice ladies.
We will declare Sadly broke a part of france. If you feel led to join us please place the French Flag from your roofs and we will get rid of that nasty Mr Barge and others who set greedy council tax rates and make even piggier expenses rises.
I declare Sadly Broke to be part of the republic of France.
4 Tarka the Blowpig // Apr 23, 2008 at 10:37 am
Billy - how could you say such a thing on St.George’s Day? It is time to slay dragons not town councils and I’m afraid to say that it would appear that with their fire breathing antics North Avon Bowls Club should watch out for Saints on chargers coming their way!
5 Anonamon // Apr 23, 2008 at 12:31 pm
As Tony Allcock of Bowls England said on Radio Bristol, it’s a real shame that the Council haven’t been proactive in promoting community sport in this case. There are many constructive actions they could have taken, but instead they chose the confrontational route.
For example, they could have worked with the club to win some lottery funding - the Council’s February newsletter proudly boasts of a £55,000 grant for a new children’s play area in Bradley Stoke (or was that the result South Glos Council’s efforts?).
As we know, when the bowling facility was first created, it was intended to serve a much wider area than Bradley Stoke. So why, when Bradley Stoke took it over, didn’t the Council negotiate with the neighbouring parishes to obtain financial support from them? Given the history, it’ not fair for the Council to complain that most members of the club are not residents of Bradley Stoke. That accusation is a bit rich coming from a Council where a significant number of the councillors are non-residents, including some of those on the working group that was formed to address the Baileys Court rental issues.
And why are the Council saying it is so important to get an extra £700 p.a. from the bowls club when they are seemingly happy to dish out annual ex gratia payments of £400 p.a. to the likes of Sole Sisters running club at the drop of a hat (see recent Council minutes). That £400p.a. is a reward for the club staging the annual Community Festival Fun Run - an event which lasts barely an hour and is all over by the time most Bradley Stoke residents have got out of bed. We don’t read about the Council demanding to know how many of the Sole Sisters live in Bradley Stoke. Considering that the running club charges entrants between £7 and £10 to enter the race (which had 199 entrants last year), I would have thought it’s difficult to justify giving them any money at all.
For the record, I have no connection with Northavon Bowls or Sole Sisters.
6 Anonamon // Apr 23, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Taking my last point a step further:
Town Council co-operates with Bowls Club to stage a Community Festival Bowls Competition. Gives club a £400 grant (or reduces rent increase from £700 to £300). Competition attracts (just) 30 bowlers at £10 each. Bowls Club now able to pay remaining £300 rent increase. Job done. Now the Council can get on with some real work instead of wasting their time being confrontational.
7 Chris (editor) // Apr 23, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Karen from Sole Sisters wanted this posted in response to Anonamon’s posts:
Further to the comments of the anonymous writer regarding the £400 grant awarded to the Bradley Stoke 10K.
This grant is awarded in respect of the cost of staging this race and by no means used by Sole Sisters as Club funds.
We are North Bristol/South Glos only all women, UK Affiliated Athletics running club with 161 members, of which 95% reside in South Glos and of those 95% most reside in Bradley Stoke.
This race attracts not only runners from Bradley stoke but runners throughout the country and promotes Bradley Stoke in a very favourable light.
As a requirement of the grant, we report to the Town Council the facts and figures of the race together with how many Bradley Stoke Residents participated.
From the proceeds of this year’s race we will be making donations to the Mayors charities and The Nicola Cory Foundation.
I am very proud of the dedicated organisation of this race coupled with the dedication of those who give up their time to help on the day. I am also very proud of all of our members and all of their achievements. I am therefore, very much aggrieved at the disparaging remarks regarding Sole Sisters the writer has made.
I am fully aware of the frustrations of running a club and feel the writer should not cast stones without full knowledge of all the facts.
I also note the writer has no connections with the bowls club.
8 tonyblair // Apr 23, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Just evict them, they’re not doing anything for the Bradley Stoke town. Let’s use the site for those of us who actually live here!
9 Matt // Apr 24, 2008 at 11:59 am
Sorry - but I think that for all the fuss they’re (the bowls club) making - they broke the law and trespassed and should expect the law to come down on that. How would they feel if we all turned up to play on one of their lawns?
As long as the rates are fair and reasonable, why shouldn’t they expect to pay them? Surely they don’t expect the non-bowl playing majority of Council Tax payers to subside their hobby?
If they don’t want to pay, don’t let them play!
Leave a Comment