As can be seen from a fairly active thread on the ERE Messageboard, Rugby Times has reported that Bath Rugby is seeking alternative local locations for an enhanced stadium, facilitating some 20-25,000 supporters as opposed to the 15-16,000 seater we've hoped will be built at The Rec.

Whether this is true, a fanciful idea from a reporter flying a few kites or Bath Rugby making known their options should they not pull off their plans for The Rec, who knows? However what we do know is that Bath Rugby cannot carry on waiting for the outcome of such slow deliberations by officials and politicians. After all, it's not just the facilities available for players and supporters that are key components, it's the ability for the club to grow commercially that perhaps has greater ramifications.

If Bath Rugby does get permission to build a sympathetic arena on The Rec it will be limited in its options for all the reasons argued by conservationists. It will be limited in size, access, usage and the club management will forever be hassled by the small band of vociferous opponents as well as having to provide support to others to meet the Charity Commission rules. 

Without doubt managing an arena on The Rec will be more costly than managing a purpose built ground away from Bath and everything about a Rec arena will smack of compromise. We, as customers (not just supporters), will be all too well aware of that compromise at every game when we find that views are still restricted, standing areas and food/drink outlets are still limited and there is little scope to offer up special pricing packages that will make watching Premiership rugby more affordable for families.

On the other hand if the club is able to find a location within a few miles of Bath it will have greater scope to build a rugby-centric, cost efficient stadium with none of the above issues. I was introduced to rugby in 1971 by the concept of free schoolboy season tickets: imagine Bob Calleja having the ability to offer up 1000 seats at every game to local schools and junior rugby clubs to encourage the next generation of season ticket holders. Why would any business (like it or not, that's what Bath Rugby is) opt for staying at the Rec instead of pursuing the alternative option?

Well, as Brian Ashton once recognised, The Rec is a spiritual home and the surroundings are loved by players, supporters, visitors and TV producers. The comparison with Adam's Park, The Mad Stad, The Mem and Kingsholm is obvious. The beauty of The Rec can be spell-binding and to move away would be heartbreaking for many people. However is the future of Bath Rugby likely to be more secure by staying or going? Can the club afford to build its future on the concept of beautiful surroundings and the perception of a spiritual home or should it take the more pragmatic option of moving away?

Bath Rugby moving out of the City Centre will have an impact on local businesses but, too be honest, I've not seen too many local businesses starting a campaign of their own to keep Rugby at the Rec so should the club consider their needs? If local businesses are so desperate to retain their rugby customers shouldn't they too be shouting loudly at the politicians?

Clearly, judging by the comments on the Messageboard, some ERE stalwarts are suggesting that it is time to be pragmatic even though it it will be heart-wrenching to leave the City Centre and I've a  good deal of sympathy with this opinion. 

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that The Rec carries with it too much baggage that will hang heavy around the shoulders of the club for the next 100 years. Stay at The Rec and Bath Rugby will forever be seeking permission for this and permission for that with no room to generate extra revenue, meet the needs of professional rugby in 20 years time with club management spending as much time dealing with politicians as they do coaches and players.

Bookmark or share this story with:

• Digg
• Delicious
• Facebook
• Reddit
• Stumbleupon

SPORTNETWORK SPECIALS