The Rec Letters


By Glen Leat
September 2 2005

The Rec debate is hotting up and on this page you can find the letters various rugby supporters have had published in the Bath Chronicle.

The Rec Debate Letters

Here is a catalogue of letters that have appeared in the Bath Chronicle of late as part of the debate on whether Bath Rugby should be allowed to sympathetically develop its ground  on The Rec.

Pro Bath Rugby At The Rec Letters Page 1

GO BACK WHEN GROUND IS RETURFED

04 June 2005

Recently in your letters pages there have been a few letters bemoaning the use of the Recreation Ground by Bath Rugby. One such was accompanied by a photograph of the area where the Virgin Mobile stand formerly stood (soon to be re-named).

Of course, this picture was somewhat exaggerated by the angle of it, but as this person's perspective was one of emphasising the damage, I can understand that.

But I would hope this same person will go back down to the Rec after it has been re-turfed which Bath Rugby does every year and take another photo.

Perhaps this person would also like to take a few photos of the hotchpotch of buildings currently being used by Bath Rugby and realise why it is felt that the club needs to redevelop the current buildings.

Am I alone in thinking that a horseshoe arena on the Rec would enhance the area?

The people of Bath would have an arena to be proud to invite top artists to perform in one as well as having an arena worthy of one of the country's top rugby teams.

Now I fully understand there are other issues, such as the gates etc, but with a little communication, between the interested parties including the rugby club, I am sure these can be dealt with.

MIKE SENIOR
The Paragon
Bath

RUGBY WILL KEEP THE REC GREEN

27 June 2005
When DG Drew (Letters, June 22) says that however one values Bath Rugby exploits, "they are not worth the Rec" ,he is standing among illustrious company. Why? Because the Bath Recreation Co, which first purchased the Rec in 1894 for the purpose of (inter alia) rugby football, actually invited the Bath rugby club in 1955 to bid for the Rec.

And why did Bath not purchase the Rec?

The answer is simple: because the then Bath committee believed that the Rec should be available for use by all sports, not simply rugby. Pretty charitable stuff.

The result is that other sports are indeed played on the Rec (cricket, hockey, lacrosse, tennis, bowls).

I notice too that other sports are played at Royal Victoria Park (tennis, bowls, a children's playground too). I see they play golf on the High Common. Oh yes, and they play cricket on the North Parade. And horror of horrors, they even row on the Avon.

But then Bath is a remarkable city. It actually makes use of those green spaces for sporting activity. So why, one asks, is it that the Bath rugby club alone is singled out for increasing, and sometimes scathing, criticism? Well DG Drew, why?

What is more, are we not now being told by the 'great and the good' to get our younger generation off their hind-quarters, away from those mobile phones and those computer games, and to instead get them to actually play sport?

Well, what better way to give encouragement than inspiration from a leading rugby club like Bath? As for the suggested horse-shoe stand around the outer edge of the Rec, well it has got to look better than the present west stand for starters, now hasn't it?

Finally, may I repeat an earlier claim, which is simply this: if you want to keep the Rec green, then keep the rugby boys playing on it.

HARRY W BARSTOW
Kidston Way
Rudloe
Box

WHO DO 'FRIENDS' OF REC REPRESENT?
25 June 2005
Following the publication of Mr Ferol's photograph of the Recreation Ground and his challenge to me to respond (Letters, June 21), I am happy to do so. However , I have taken the above photograph showing the whole of the Rec - a great expanse of green turf, rather than a narrow, 20-metre strip taken in close up.

Precisely why this strip is so important to any activity the Friends of the Rec might wish to see pursued, one can only speculate.

They never enlighten us to the "games and sports of all kinds, tournaments, fetes, shows, exhibitions, displays, amusements, entertainments or other activities of a like character" specified in the original document to the corporation when it was bequeathed that they would like to see pursued.

At least other opponents of the rugby club, like Mr Drew (Letters, June 22), argue their case in a specific manner, even if they have no idea of rugby's international nature. I note from the article (Chronicle June 21) that they now style themselves The Friends of Bath Residents' Recreation Ground Group.

There was no street name with Mr Ferol's letter. Could this be in response to the suspicion, raised by me and other correspondents, that their motives for attempting to remove the current popular sports from the Rec (cricket now needs to be added to rugby if this latest letter is anything to go by) are primarily to create a municipally funded local residents' garden?

That this would be completely at odds with the wishes of the vast majority of Bath's citizens is really not in doubt. Even the Great Pulteney Street Residents' Association (those residents most closely affected) has a majority in favour of retaining the rugby club on the Rec.

So the question has to be asked again. Who does this group represent, what is the size of its membership, and where does it believe it derives the mandate to impose its will on the majority?

Its overblown rhetoric, wild threats and ludicrously self-interested stance should be a source of ridicule. One has to wait and see what advice the Environmental Law Foundation has given it and whether it will take the council to court with a barrister funded by this charity.

I note that their latest "club" to beat the council with is the damage suffered by the turnstiles and the Friends' solution to pedestrianise the area, thus cutting off the rugby club.

It is ironic that they are anxious to preserve a presumably Victorian symbol of paying money to attend an event on the Recreation Ground while denying current sports from doing the same.

Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but when a group uses letters and questionable photos of the same narrow strip of land, continuous wrong headed assertions as to the profitability of the professional sport played there and wild allegations set in pseudo legal terms, should anyone take it seriously?

IAN PARLEY
Rivers Street
Bath

DON'T DENY DEMOCRACY PART 1

2 July 2005

So DG Drew wants a public vote on the future use of the Rec to be restricted to people who live in Bath. Perhaps he hopes that this will swing the vote in favour of the anti-rugby brigade.

As a Bathonian (born and bred) who lives outside the City but within BANES, I feel that any vote should include all BANES residents until a time that my Council Tax payments are not used for any services within Bath.

Live outside the confines of the City old son, paying a City rate of tax for rural services then you'd have something to campaign against!

GLEN LEAT
Spencer Drive
Midsomer Norton

DON'T DENY DEMOCRACY PART 2

 

14 July 2005

 

Well done Mr Drew you've outed me as a Bath Rugby supporter: I'm sure I can live with the shame! Mind you, had the Chronicle printed all of my last letter you would have seen that not only am I a supporter I also edit an independent supporters website for Bath Rugby. So democracy dictates that it is right that I pay the same Council Tax living outside Bath as Bathonians but, according to your previous letter I don't have a right to vote on any debate about the Rec? Hmm,interesting concept.

If a vote was forthcoming you're confident the anti-rugby brigade would win. Maybe, maybe not. At least I know we start the contest with the many thousands of BANES residents who formed a major part of the 30,000 who travelled to Twickenham earlier this year.

As for the name calling? My reference to you as "old son" was what we in rugby circles call "banter", when two adversaries are having a friendly verbal scrap. Clearly my radar was out of kilter on that one. Not to worry, at least I don't get offended by your attempts to deny me my democratic rights. Puts a bit of "so called" name calling into perspective don't you think?

GLEN LEAT
Spencer Drive
Midsomer Norton

RUGBY IS A VITAL PART OF THE CITY

28 July 2005

As a fan of Bath Rugby and a resident of Brighton I like to keep up with events through your website www. thisisbathco.uk

I have been reading with interest recent articles and letters relating to the desire of the rugby club to develop its facilities and a small but vociferous minority that is apposed to it.

I have been wondering for sometime who the Friends of the Bath Residents’ Recreation Ground actually are. Surprisingly, according to Worthy Gilson, they “don’t keep a register of members, and the reason for that are that we don’t need to” and they refuse to say “how many members the organisation had”.

Yet they claim to represent “96 or 97% of the opinion of residents” though whether this is 96-97% of Bath or Mr. Gilson’s street is unclear.

In Mr. Gilson’s opinion it is unhelpful that I, as a non-resident, should contribute to the debate. However, if it were not for the rugby club I wouldn’t visit Bath ten times a year, I wouldn’t take a room in a local hotel for the weekend; I wouldn’t eat in the local restaurants; I wouldn’t drink in the local pubs and I wouldn’t be spending money with other local traders. And nor would thousands of other rugby fans. Bath Rugby is a vital part of the city’s heritage and its heartbeat. It is a valuable revenue generator. In France the rugby club is seen in this way and the local council owns the ground and sponsors the club.

I am always amazed as I walk round Bath on a Sunday that the Rec resembles the Marie Celeste. The only sight of any “friends” is a couple of people walking a dog. If the Friends of the Bath Residents’ Recreation Ground get their way the Rec will wither and die and the rugby fans will spend their cash elsewhere.

Tim Gwynne

Over Street

Brighton

SUPPORT FOR RUGBY DOES COME FROM CITY

08 August 2005

May I respond to Mr Drew's question in his letter (Letters, August 4) with a resounding yes? Much of the support for the rugby does come from the city centre and not just from the match attendees. I have said this before, but he does not seem to extend me courtesy of actually listening. I would also like to take issue with his letter in which he says: "But again the implication is that the Rec's purpose is to be selfishly occupied for a predictable 14 afternoons a year rather than for all its citizens. Can Mr Smith justify Royal Victoria Park being used in the same way?".

I cannot see how 10,000-plus people, out of a city with a population of around 80,000, making good use of the Rec, for a fraction of the year, as he himself points out, at a time when few others would find much use for it, could possibly be selfish?

I also fail to see any other way such a number of people could make use of the area.

Great Pulteney Street is 100 yards wide, at the other side is Henrietta Park, around the corner are Sydney Gardens, so it is far from the case that the rugby is taking up all such facilities nearby.

I'd also like to add that I support the times when Royal Victoria Park is indeed used for such cultural events, the music festival, the Three Tenors concert as well as its use for tennis courts, golfing facilities and bowls and so on. Not that I often use any of them.

I would say that I too look forward to the resolution of this argument, though I don't believe he will be in favour of the outcome of which I am confident.

But I cannot say I have ever really grasped Mr Drew's objection to Bath Rugby playing rugby in Bath.

Does he often make his way over from Southdown on a winter's Saturday to use the Rec?

DANIEL WILEY
Harrington Place
Bath

 MOVE THE FUNFAIR DOWN TO THE REC

09 August 2005

Mr Drew writes in a recent edition of the Chronicle asking if the people of Bath would stand for use of a section of Royal Victoria Park for 14 afternoons a year. I can only assume that Mr Drew does not live anywhere near Royal Victoria Park or he would be aware of any number of disruptive events which take place there, not least the flower show and the fair but there are many others all taking considerably more time than the rugby uses the Rec.

As a former Marlborough Buildings resident, I can assure him that the regular noise and disruption around Vicky Park makes 14 afternoons a year on the Rec look like nothing.

Still it's an interesting thought - perhaps we could move the fair to the Rec instead - it's a much more central location.

And perhaps those nice quiet hot air balloons could use the Rec as their primary take off location on a Sunday morning.

That would really give the Rec nimbys something to moan about.

STUART ANDERTON
Bolters Lane
Shepton Mallet

ANONYMITY IS A TWO-WAY AFFAIR

10 August 2005

MR Inman in his letter (Letters, August 8) complains that a letter written supporting the Rec development for rugby and concerts like the recent Jamie Cullum one shouldn't be published anonymously.

In fact I agree with him but at the same time Mr Worthy Gilson and his so-called "Friends" of the Rec hide behind anonymity as we do not know the constitution of this group, how many members it has or anything about it. So anonymity is a two-way affair.

I am sorry that Mr Inman is getting unpleasant and anonymous mail as a result of his comments in the past, but surely he can complain to the police who, I am sure, will take his case up and try to apprehend the miscreants?

Please let us get back to the debate without these unnecessary smoke screens as this is important for Bath's livelihood and sporting culture.

DARIUS MEHTA
The Common
Broughton Gifford

WHO ARE THESE FRIENDS OF REC?

10 August 2005

Firstly, may I say that there are many reasons why the writer of the letter referred to may wish to keep his name secret, and he has every right to do so? Secondly, if Mr Inman is receiving unpleasant mail, he may wish to refer this to the police as I believe it is an offence to send such through HM post.

Thirdly and going back to anonymity may I ask, through your letters pages, the same question your newspaper itself asked a few weeks ago - just who are the Friends of the Rec?

Have they a formalised constitution and how does one join?

I love the Rec and would consider myself to be a friend of it.

There is also the little point of Mr Gilson's claim to speak for 90 per cent plus of Bath residents.

Where is the evidence of this?

As a Bath resident, I have never been questioned on this so can only assume that if such a survey was ever done, it was of a small sample group and as such is incredibly inaccurate.

And before anyone asks, no I did not write the letter referred to. I do, however, agree with it.

MIKE SENIOR
The Paragon
Bath

RUGBY SUSTAINABLE IN BATH CITY CENTRE

18 August 2005

I Think that the proposed solution to draw inspiration from John Wood's ideas for Bath, while developing excellent facilities for all sports in Bath, would answer many problems. Mr Drew would gain another excellent view of our beautiful city, the grass-covered area of the Rec looks as if it would actually increase and Mr Drew could potentially gain space to enjoy his game of hockey even on match days. Plus all the local sporting facilities would be given a much need boost.

These proposals are nothing to do with me and I agree it would be nice to know who these people are, but I have been assured that this question will be answered shortly and I understand that some confidences do need to be respected, so I am quite prepared to wait.

However, there are other solutions if this one is truly unpalatable that can be discussed. Indeed, I would be more than happy to discuss options with anyone with constructive ideas.

Now to consider Mr Drew's other points. Of course his voice is equally valid as mine, but I believe in this case, in the extreme minority. Surely it can't support his argument that people outside the city centre - as I would call Southdown, incidentally - support my argument?

He seems to suggest something about traffic being a problem but I'm sure that it can be shown that most people either arrive by train, bus, park and ride or on foot. Those who do arrive by car are clearly fewer than those attracted by any summer weekend or the working population of Bath. Is he suggesting there is additional parking facilities provided just for rugby matches or that there are more unused spaces on a July Saturday?

Pushing the rugby away from the city centre would only encourage more people to travel through Bath by car.

Furthermore, it is my view that Premiership rugby will not even get close to matching Premiership football in terms of crowd sizes and is therefore unlikely to expand beyond its current size.

Therefore, the club is quite sustainable in the centre of a city with the population and infrastructure of Bath.

DANIEL WILEY
Harrington Place
Bath

GET ON WITH REC PLAN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

19 August 2005

As a regular daily subscriber to your paper for many years, I have noticed that the same few anti-rugby-on-the-Rec people manage to get on to your letters pages time and time again. I have no problem with regular contributors in general, but there seems to be a monopoly by some in telling us what the citizens of Bath think, as though we have elected them as our representatives on the future of the Rec.

Some of them deny the right of others to even voice an opinion because they do not live in Bath, they only work, or visit and spend money in Bath.

Well, I live in Bath, am very proud of our city and, if allowed, would like to give my opinion.

I am in favour of preserving any green space in the city and am in total agreement with the sentiments of the benefactor regarding use of the Rec.

Opponents to Bath Rugby on the Rec have come up with a wide range of alternatives over the years, from building a concert hall, an indoor bowls facility, a concrete car park, to razing it to the ground.

When I think about the future of the Rec I consider the following.

1. Bath Rugby in the city centre boosts commercial revenue, especially during the low season. Small independent retailers are vulnerable to tourist slumps caused by factors such as 9/11, foot-and-mouth, and the bus gate. Anything that helps prevent Bath being totally taken over by chains and multi-nationals is essential to preserving the character of the city.

2. Rugby on the Rec always makes Bath look good in TV coverage and provides regular national and international advertising for tourism. Outside commentators say it is the best ground setting in the country.

3. Mr Brownsword, is often vilified by your anti-rugby correspondents as a profiteer of the Rec. They conveniently choose to ignore that his motives were to save the club at a time of crisis, with no prospect of ever recouping the millions he has invested. The club is a responsible lessee of the Rec and makes significant contributions to its upkeep. He should be applauded for preserving an important facet of our city's heritage.

4. Bath Rugby is heavily involved in the local community with emphasis on influencing youth. Rugby still has a culture of decency and provides a structure and role-models to help young people to respect others. That is of incalculable benefit to our society and it would be a sorrier place if Bath Rugby was ripped out of the heart of the city.

5. If Bath Rugby was forced to an out-of-town stadium, it is my opinion that city centre trade and traffic would suffer. In my experience, out-of-town stadia are soulless places that people drive to because public transport is inadequate. As a result, supporters arrive and leave over a short period of time, causing traffic jams for miles around. Conversely, crowds dissipate in all directions from the Rec mainly on foot and can spend longer in the centre before and after a match.

6. If the Georgian developers had had their way they would have built right through the Rec. The only reason that Johnstone Street, which overlooks the rugby clubhouse, is only a cul-de-sac, is because the banks went bust. Presumably, the benefactor who bequeathed the land had no problems with sport stadia on the Rec while he was alive. Even the stand that took a direct hit in the blitz was rebuilt.

A sensitively designed, horseshoe-shaped stand to replace the existing stands would be a major benefit to the city. This should provide sufficient green space and facilities to satisfy the covenant and enable Bath Rugby to remain at the Rec where it belongs.

As a citizen and taxpayer of Bath (important to some) I vote that we get on with it as soon as possible.

ROB ZIEGLER
Claremont Walk
Bath

YES GET ON WITH REC DEVELOPMENT

23 August 2005

I APPLAUD the recent letter from Mr Rob Ziegler in relation to Bath Rugby and the recreation ground.

His comments that we really must get on with it are spot on.

As a regular business traveller to Chicago - The windy city - I have noticed that Bath and its residents are in danger of taking its crown.

It's not the weather that gives Chicago its name, but all the "Hot Air" coming from residents and politicians.

So come on Bath, please let's get on with it!

MARCUS COATES

Maple Rise
Radstock
Bath
Page 2
Anti Bath Rugby Letters
Linked Stories

Bookmark or share this story with: