Bath Rugby Comes a Courtin'

Bath City fans had something to talk about other than snow yesterday. The Times broke a story about Bath Rugby's plan to build a new 20,000 seat stadium in the centre of Bath. The frenzied online discussion that followed was not just polite interest in the plans of another local sports club. The Times article cites Bath City Football Club as a potential partner in the scheme. But why would Bath Rugby want to involve City in their new home? Were they just showing some neighbourly concern? In this respect the Times article raises more questions than it answered.

If you were not familiar with the Bath sporting scene it might not seem strange at all for the two largest sports clubs in town to cooperate in a joint venture to create a new modern venue. In reality, though, Bath Rugby dwarfs Bath City in terms of support and financial muscle. Bath Rugby are one of the leading rugby clubs in the Northern hemisphere, if not the world. They not only play in the top tier of English rugby, but also compete almost annually in rugby's version of the Champion's League. They draw fans to their current home, 'the Rec,' from all over Somerset and Wiltshire. Bath City are a football club in the sixth tier of English football. Other than after the occasional FA Cup upset, City never get any national media coverage. Most people who do not live in Bath (and many who do) have never even heard of Bath City. Put it this way: if I stood in front of the Pump Rooms in the centre of Bath I would easily see several people in Bath Rugby shirts within a few minutes. I might wait a day or two before I saw anyone wearing anything with the Bath City badge on it (and when I did see them it is likely they would be someone I know). It is at first glance strange that Bath Rugby would want to involve a relative minnow in their stadium plans, or even that it would occur to them to think of Bath City in the first place.

Before revealing why Bath City are so important to Bath Rugby's proposal, let's take a moment to examine why Bath Rugby are even thinking about moving. After all, Rugby enthusiasts the world over would rank the Rec as one of the most attractive and historic grounds in the sport. There are two problems with Bath Rugby's continued existence the Rec. The first is that it is too small and old-fashioned. With less than 12,000 seats it has less than half the capacity of some of Bath's Premiership rivals. It also lacks the modern facilities to generate non-Rugby revenue from corporate events. Because television revenues are split evenly across the league, the income clubs generate from their stadium will determine their relative financial muscle in the long term. In other words, if Bath Rugby want to remain a top club in Europe, they need to move.

The other problem is that Bath Rugby do not own the Rec. It is rented from a local charity called the Recreation Ground Trust. Not owning the ground outright is bad enough, but it gets much worse. The Recreation Ground Trust not only has an obligation to preserve the Rec as an open space in the centre of Bath for the good of its citizens, it also not allowed to let any sport or organisation dominate the Rec. The exact wording is:

the corporation ... shall not show any undue preference to or in favour of any particular game or sport or any particular person club body or organisation.

Back when rugby was amateur, justifying the presence of Bath Rugby at the Rec was easy enough. Now that they are a world-famous professional sports team, and very little else of sporting consequence happens on the land, the Trust find themselves unable to fulfil their obligations and at the same time fully support their main occupant. It is an untenable position for both parties.

So where do Bath City fit into all of this? Fairly centrally, it turns out.

Bath Rugby have considered building a new stadium on several sites, including venues as far away as Keynsham and Swindon. They have looked so far afield because, being a World Heritage Site, there isn't a lot of free space in the centre of Bath. This new plan appears to have identified such a plot, an area known as the 'Western Riverside.' This area had previously been ruled off limits as the government had pressured the local council to set it aside for new housing. Now, according to the Bath Chronicle, the council might consider allowing a stadium development to take place on the land as long as a comperable area for new housing could be found nearby. There are no large, empty plots of land in Bath anymore, of course, but there is Twerton Park.

Bath City has been playing football at Twerton Park for over seventy-five years. It is a beloved and historic ground, but even its fans (including myself) will admit it is a bit on the shabby side. Redeveloping it to a higher standard has been a dream for many years, but with substantial debts hanging over the club it has always been nothing more than a dream.

Although a substantial amount of money (£2 million or more?) could be raised by the sale of Twerton Park, it is the political cover that City could bring to the table that would be the real asset. If the reported £50 million price tag is correct, whatever financial contribution Bath City could chip in would be appreciated but not essential. With enough graft, Bath Rugby can eventually source whatever money they need. What they cannot do is magic up more land for housing within the city limits of Bath. In this respect, at least, the land of Twerton Park is truly priceless.

What do Bath City have to gain from all of this? A lot, actually. Twerton Park is historic, and has a wonderful view, but thanks to a bulky railway viaduct it is geographically separated from the main part of Bath. Because of this, many Bath residents probably go their entire lives without setting foot in Twerton. City fans often speak enviously of the way Bath Rugby is situated right in the historic heart of Bath. Bath City has suffered a substantial, long term decline in attendance and many supporters blame the club's location in Twerton as the main culprit. The club must escape, they say, or eventually be doomed.

Although I personally love Twerton Park (if a psychiatrist ever tells me to imagine a 'happy place' I will think of being on the Popular Side terrace on a cold Saturday afternoon), I find it hard to deny the logic that the club must eventually find a new and better home. Here are some potential problems that could arise, though, that I think everyone should be aware of:

1) Bath Rugby want a bigger home because they have the fans to fill it. This is not a problem Bath City have. City's average attendance this year is 607, or 3% of the new venue's proposed capacity. It is unrealistic to think that being in a bigger stadium will in itself boost crowds to fill it. Even if City managed to get promoted to a higher league their crowds would likely get lost in rows of empty seats. The average attendance for a League 2 (two levels above Bath City's current level) match this season is 3,820, or only 19% of the new venue's proposed capacity.

2) One of the main reasons that Bath Rugby will want to move is to increase non-match revenue by renting the stadium out for conferences and corporate parties. Bath City will, of course, want the same. After all, City do raise a substantial percentage of their current revenue from renting the facilities at Twerton Park. Having two clubs sharing a ground does not double the amount of non-match revenue, though. Both clubs would have to divide this income, and if Bath Rugby are going to compete with the best clubs in the world it is doubtful they could afford to give up much of it. After escaping from their current fraught relationship with the Recreation Ground Trust the last thing they will want to do is enter another agreement that will put a break on their commercial growth.

3) Any joint venture with Bath Rugby would be difficult for Bath City to extract itself from if things did not go well. Presumably City would end up as a minority partner (hopefully with some very strong protections in place). Whereas now City own Twerton Park outright, and can do with it what they want, a 20% stake in a stadium will not be nearly so liquid. Who would they sell their share to if the need arose? Bath Cricket Club would certainly have no interest. Even if a buyer was found, where would Bath City go? The would be few options. Any departure from Twerton will be effectively permanent. I find that kind of scary.

Althought this news has caused a lot of excited discussion amongst the Bath City faithful, any fears we might have look unlikely to be faced anytime soon. Although it cites no evidence why this would be so, the UK Press Association article on the proposal ends, 'any move to a new site... would be unlikely to happen for some time.' It is a complicated issue involving many organisations and possibly two levels of government. Previous new stadium plans have come and gone. A fan known as 'Stillmansenior' on the Bath City Message Board sums it up well when he says, 'I could fill a scrap book with news items like these, none of which have yet come to fruition.' Eventually, it stands to reason, one will. I just hope it is the right one for Bath City.

Not All of Bath's Sportsmen Can Afford Cocaine

Exposing Bath's drug shame - Times Online

While Bath City's new campaign has started off with a delightful six points out of a possible nine, the bigger sports club in town is facing up to a real catastrophe. Bath Rugby is in the midst of a drug taking scandal of the likes of which have never been seen before in British rugby. And the really scandalous thing about this scandal is that it is happening to a rugby club. Footballers are the ones the media expects to struggle with the pitfalls of modern life. In England, despite being more popular, football is looked down on as the sport of the masses (the working class). The elite play sports that depend on good character. This explains why it was so extraordinary when Tony Blair pledged his love for Newcastle United. The fact that it appeared to be a very shallow love was not important. No prime minister within living memory had admitted to being a football fan before.

Rugby and cricket claim to have much loftier standards. Both sports are still imbibed with a Victorian morality that has lived long after the Victorians have fled the scene. You do not just play cricket or rugby. You are, supposedly, transformed by it into a better person. Likewise, players of these sports are expected to be a cut above the poor unfortunates who are cursed to play less noble sports. It seems like a nice tradition when first encountered, but in both sports these antiquated notions descend into hypocrisy and naivety very quickly. English cricket, for example, opened Lords, the spiritual home of global cricket, to the now disgraced financier Alan Stanford. He landed a helicopter on the pitch and wheeled out a perspex case containing $1 million in banknotes. The ennobled guardians of cricket said 'thank you very much,' shook his hand, and didn't realise that something was amiss. Needless to say, they were understandably shocked when he was later arrested by the FBI.

The Bath Rugby scandal is also shaping up to be a masterpiece of voluntary myopia. In the early months of this year, star player Matt Stevens was banned for two years after testing positive for cocaine in a mandatory drug test. Although Stevens' drug use had gone undetected by the coach Steve Meehan. At the time Meehan 'wondered whether other Bath players might have been using the drug but was reassured by high-level performance on the training ground and in matches.' Well, then, that makes it okay. Right?

It turns out it was not. Ten weeks later Meehan was tipped off by another player that (shock!) Stevens had not been the only cocaine user on the squad. So far four more have been suspended by the club (although technically their suspensions are only for refusing to take tests, not positive results). This mess appears to be headed for the courts because Bath Rugby may not have handled the testing procedure properly. Doubtlessly, everyone involve in this will end up looking even worse in the end.

As an American observer of all of this several points stand out. First of all, if rampant cocaine use was occurring inside a football club I doubt there would be nearly as much media attention. The unacknowledged spice to this story is that it is happening in rugby. This is very odd. True, rugby was played only by amateurs until as late as 1995. Previous to this it was played, in theory, for the love of the game. Without the supposed corruption of money, rugby could pretend to be a sport with a higher calling played by morally superior sportsmen. Fifteen years later, though, it seems absurd to think that professional sportsmen in one sport would behave differently from any other sport, or from the population as a whole.

The other question is why is this not happening in football? Here the answer is much more interesting. There is no way of actually proving that there is no cocaine in the higher levels of professional football, but I think it is unlikely to be common. The reason, ironically, is money. Football does not try to hide the fact that money is its engine. The players play for money. The clubs succeed because of money. It can seem distasteful, but there is a strangely appealing honesty to football's culture. Football players are assets. Cristiano Ronaldo was just sold by Manchester United to Real Madrid for £80 million. I think the likelihood that Ronaldo could have been taking cocaine without Alex Ferguson knowing about it is unlikely in the extreme. I doubt he could even eat junk food without someone being tipped off. He is too valuable to just guess about it. And, despite childish antics at the touchline from the managers, football clubs are much more slickly run than their counterparts in other sports. If a Premiership footballer is ever caught with a 'class A' drug it is inconceivable that a thorough investigation would not be launched across the entire organisation. Drawing a conclusion after looking at the team's performance in a few matches would not cut it.

So, what about the other sports team in Bath, Bath City FC? Six divisions down from Manchster United there isn't the money to spend analysing every chemical in a player's body they way Premiership clubs do. Cocaine is not likely to be part of City's locker room culture, though. This is not because City breed a higher class of sportsman. It is just unlikely they could afford it on part-time football wages. City players also appear to be perfectly normal people (perhaps even more normal than their supporters). Whatever they are doing in the privacy of their homes it is probably the same as what everyone else in town is doing in the privacy of their homes. We should not expect any differently.

Now that the club's reputation has been tarnished, will the hordes of Bath Rugby supporters defect to Twerton Park on Saturdays in disgust? I don't wish Bath Rugby any harm, but I do hope more people do start coming to City matches. At least a few will. I hope, though, that they do not come because Bath's footballers are thought to be more morally upright. I hope they come just to see some good football played by people not so different from themselves.