LTTP but no, it is not.
They pay a fine every season for not meeting the criteria but the exact details of how much and what needed to be done or even if B*th have made any pledges or plans to meet the criteria is hard to come by. It's a ridiculous situation.
I think you're about a decade out of date there.
Facilities are outdated, but to the best of my knowledge, meet the criteria.
Of course, it's ridiculous if you're one of those childish enough to consider the name of a club to be an obscenity.
For those of us in the real world, we're aware that being located in a World Heritage Site makes developments a tad tricky; and aware that the legal wrangling is a thing of the past; so it's "just" planning permission that's lacking, and is being actively sought.
I could be wrong though, and there may be something in the "must have" column that I thought was in the "ought to have" column.
Worth noting, that if the council withdraw consent for the temporary stand, then we'll fall below the capacity requirement, and start paying fines again.
It's also possible that EPRC regulations might be a touch tighter, and see us failing in there, but I've not heard anything about that.
ETA:
Chat GPT gave me this (Does the Rec ground at Bath meet minimum standards for a Premiership rugby club?):
While the Rec currently meets the minimum standards required to host Premiership Rugby matches, it is considered outdated compared to other top-tier venues. The planned redevelopment is critical for Bath Rugby to remain competitive and provide a modern fan experience. Without these improvements, the club risks falling behind the standards of other Premiership teams.
And this (When did Bath rugby last pay a fine for failing to meet the minimum standards for premiership rugby?):
If you are asking specifically about fines related to minimum standards for facilities or governance, I could not find recent examples of Bath being penalized in such contexts. If you have more details or a specific fine in mind, feel free to clarify!
