Lansdown's Business Decisions?

[Tomo]

Would Steve Lansdown appoint a relatively un-experienced candidate to be a "fund manager" with Hargreaves Lansdown?

The simple answer is NO!

So why would he consider a relatively un-experienced candidate in Lee Johnson for Bristol City?

The world has gone mad!

 

[Roe]

What about Fund Head Coach? Or can I start another thread for that.

[Welcome To The Jungle]

Because football and investments are two completely different things. Because something works in one does not mean it works for the other.

[LondonBristolian]

5 minutes ago, tomo said:

Would Steve Lansdown appoint a relatively un-experienced candidate to be a "fund manager" with Hargreaves Lansdown?

The simple answer is NO!

So why would he consider a relatively un-experienced candidate in Lee Johnson for Bristol City?

The world has gone mad!

 

Are you sure that's the simple answer?  I'm willing to wager it is not. 

[Scrumpty]

The optimum age for a fund manager is early forties, so I guess he would appoint a 36 year old.

Maybe the world isn't as mad as you thought?

[Major Isewater]

As a football club owner SL is an excellent accountant .

[Rich]

I often wonder whether Mr Lansdown is quite the businessman some people say, or just a very good accountant. With "Hargreaves Lansdown" there was a partnership and as I see it, one was the bombastic pushy public face of the company, always with a statement of intent and not suffering fools gladly, pushing the company ever onwards. The other was going about his business quietly in the background making sure the figures added up. Which one do we have?

I'm not being critical because he has done wonders in terms of funding the club, I just hope that some of the drive of his former partner has rubbed off, enabling him to achieve his goals.

[Monkeh]

11 minutes ago, Rich said:

I often wonder whether Mr Lansdown is quite the businessman some people say, or just a very good accountant. With "Hargreaves Lansdown" there was a partnership and as I see it, one was the bombastic pushy public face of the company, always with a statement of intent and not suffering fools gladly, pushing the company ever onwards. The other was going about his business quietly in the background making sure the figures added up. Which one do we have?

I'm not being critical because he has done wonders in terms of funding the club, I just hope that some of the drive of his former partner has rubbed off, enabling him to achieve his goals.

you don't start out with nothing and become billionaire by being lucky or "very good" you have to be the best

Lansdown has always supported the club made fund available his problem is he's been badly let down by his staff in the past

[Red Exile]

16 minutes ago, Rich said:

I often wonder whether Mr Lansdown is quite the businessman some people say, or just a very good accountant. With "Hargreaves Lansdown" there was a partnership and as I see it, one was the bombastic pushy public face of the company, always with a statement of intent and not suffering fools gladly, pushing the company ever onwards. The other was going about his business quietly in the background making sure the figures added up. Which one do we have?

I'm not being critical because he has done wonders in terms of funding the club, I just hope that some of the drive of his former partner has rubbed off, enabling him to achieve his goals.

I believe that Mrs L challenged this viewpoint on this very forum earlier in the week.

She was pretty clear that Hargreaves Lansdown was a partnership.

[Charliesboots]

There's over a billion reasons why I think he's no business mug.

Clearly he's put in the mileage of years of hard work, sacrificing at times his personal life and now enjoying his wealth with his family on a passion of his.

For what it's worth if you put your neck out and real cash on the table you have the right to decide what happens with your investment. 

People can question, moan, criticise all they want but it's his business not ours. 

We are of course supporters and have personal attachment to the club but we are not majority shareholders, (now that's a whole other debate to be had)

I'm glad we have a fan owning our club and I've said in previous threads we should thank our lucky stars we don't suffer the ownership of a number of unfortunate clubs. 

When it's your money you earn the right to decide. 

[spudski]

I think SL is being very astute...he's building a structure into the club and finding people that will work best within that structure.

You want everyone pulling in the same direction.

Just because there are Candidates with better experience at this level, it doesn't mean they will fit in with the clubs structure.

I really am getting the impression certain fans are struggling to grasp this.

We are not employing a Coach and giving him free reign to do what he likes.

We have shifted towards a structure where the decisions will be made by a group of people...not one man.

[Rich]

10 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

you don't start out with nothing and become billionaire by being lucky or "very good" you have to be the best

Lansdown has always supported the club made fund available his problem is he's been badly let down by his staff in the past

I didn't say he was lucky, I merely asked the question about who was the driving force in his previous "partnership".

In a successful partnership you have people that bring different skills and abilities to make that partnership work. He is no longer in a partnership, so must now rely on his own skills, yet he has not (so far) been what you could class as a success in this business. In fact, you could say it has been mediocre at best when you consider how long he's been running the business.

Hargreaves Lansdown employed good workers to do their business, one must assume that they have employed some of the best, as they are very very successful. This cannot be said about the football club?

I believe I am correct in saying that Mr Hargreaves was still in charge of the company until April of last year when it continued to grow in leaps and bounds without Mr Lansdowns input. I believe that Mr Hargreaves was the driving force of that partnership and MR Lansdown was very good at his side of the partnership (investment).

I believe Mr Lansdown now realises that he needs to employ good staff to run the football business and think he has tried to address this in recent years with his appointments running the stadium and the academy/scouting, the jury is out on his most recent and rightly so.

I do believe we have a good man at the helm in Mr Lansdown and it will come right eventually, I just wish it was sooner.

[frenchred]

41 minutes ago, Red Exile said:

I believe that Mrs L challenged this viewpoint on this very forum earlier in the week.

She was pretty clear that Hargreaves Lansdown was a partnership.

Well it must be true then! hahahahaha

[cityexile]

11 minutes ago, Rich said:

I didn't say he was lucky, I merely asked the question about who was the driving force in his previous "partnership".

In a successful partnership you have people that bring different skills and abilities to make that partnership work. He is no longer in a partnership, so must now rely on his own skills, yet he has not (so far) been what you could class as a success in this business. In fact, you could say it has been mediocre at best when you consider how long he's been running the business.

Hargreaves Lansdown employed good workers to do their business, one must assume that they have employed some of the best, as they are very very successful. This cannot be said about the football club?

I believe I am correct in saying that Mr Hargreaves was still in charge of the company until April of last year when it continued to grow in leaps and bounds without Mr Lansdowns input. I believe that Mr Hargreaves was the driving force of that partnership and MR Lansdown was very good at his side of the partnership (investment).

I believe Mr Lansdown now realises that he needs to employ good staff to run the football business and think he has tried to address this in recent years with his appointments running the stadium and the academy/scouting, the jury is out on his most recent and rightly so.

I do believe we have a good man at the helm in Mr Lansdown and it will come right eventually, I just wish it was sooner.

A successful partnership is exactly that. I have no idea of their respective roles, but re-interpreting what you have said, I could equally say Mr H was the ideas man and Mr L the one who made them work, or being harsher, the first was the corporate BSer and the other the real brains.

All unfair I am sure. They were a partnership that worked, each playing off the others skills. 

Could do with that upfront, ourselves.

[Rich]

1 minute ago, cityexile said:

A successful partnership is exactly that. I have no idea of their respective roles, but re-interpreting what you have said, I could equally say Mr H was the ideas man and Mr L the one who made them work, or being harsher, the first was the corporate BSer and the other the real brains.

All unfair. They were a partnership that worked, each playing off the others skills. 

Could do eith that upfront, ourselves.

Nobody knows except them of their true roles in the partnership. On the face of it, Hargreaves was the bullish frontman that made sure things got done. Perhaps Mr Lansdown was the one that made sure they were done properly.

 

[Barry Sheene]

On ‎05‎/‎02‎/‎2016 at 11:00, tomo said:

Would Steve Lansdown appoint a relatively un-experienced candidate to be a "fund manager" with Hargreaves Lansdown?

The simple answer is NO!

So why would he consider a relatively un-experienced candidate in Lee Johnson for Bristol City?

The world has gone mad!

 

one question how do you become an experienced "fund manager" .

I would imagine it would be because you're in the financial industry and someone takes a chance on you because you show potential.

If that did not happen me and you would be making the tea emptying the bins and sweeping up first thing tomorrow.

I would argue Lee Johnson has shown potential at his last two clubs so is not the un experienced candidate on this occasion

[NickJ]

38 minutes ago, spudski said:

I think SL is being very astute...he's building a structure into the club and finding people that will work best within that structure.

You want everyone pulling in the same direction.

Just because there are Candidates with better experience at this level, it doesn't mean they will fit in with the clubs structure.

I really am getting the impression certain fans are struggling to grasp this.

We are not employing a Coach and giving him free reign to do what he likes.

We have shifted towards a structure where the decisions will be made by a group of people...not one man.

Maybe its the clubs structure that is wrong then spudski.

[Numero Uno]

49 minutes ago, spudski said:

I think SL is being very astute...he's building a structure into the club and finding people that will work best within that structure.

You want everyone pulling in the same direction.

Just because there are Candidates with better experience at this level, it doesn't mean they will fit in with the clubs structure.

I really am getting the impression certain fans are struggling to grasp this.

We are not employing a Coach and giving him free reign to do what he likes.

We have shifted towards a structure where the decisions will be made by a group of people...not one man.

How long has he been at the club and how much money has he spent before deciding that everyone pulling in the same direction might work and that your democratic way of doing things is the way to go? Astute or just trying the only thing he hasn't done to date?

There are too many variables in football for any "magic formula" to work otherwise everyone would be at it. After all, the autocratic "I'm in charge" style of Cotterill saw us have our most successful season in living memory - a shed load of wins, points and a double to boot. You would guess that most people at the club must have been pulling in a "similar" direction at the very least for that to happen.

[robinreliant]

39 minutes ago, Barry Sheene said:

one question how do you become an experienced "fund manager" .

I would imagine it would be because you're in the financial industry and someone takes a chance on you because you show potential.

If that did not happen me and you would be making the tea emptying the bins and sweeping up first thing tomorrow.

I would argue Lee Johnson has shown potential at his last two clubs so is not the un experienced candidate on this occasion

Exactly. You have the acumen to succeed and then either come good or fail. I hope in LJ's case he succeeds. I think he will. In that case I have the faith that SL has in him. Lets give him a go yeah. He needs us to get behind him and support him just as SL is. Please no more negative posts.

[MigratedRobin]

Personally I don't think I'd be happy until he spends £500 million on the club!

[Chivs]

I've no personal experience of Lansdown's business acumen.  But it is clear to see that Hargreaves Lansdown is a massively successful business making the owners some of the richest men in Britain (or Guensey).

Bristol City Lansdown Club is an unmitigated disaster as a business, a sporting concern, communication with customers (us), and general everyday (tickets, phones, FLO etc.) running.

I think we can deduce something from that.

PS Also, Lansdown promoted his unqualified son to be managing director of BCLC...I don't know what Mr Hargreaves' children do.

[bs3]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

I think SL is being very astute...he's building a structure into the club and finding people that will work best within that structure.

You want everyone pulling in the same direction.

Just because there are Candidates with better experience at this level, it doesn't mean they will fit in with the clubs structure.

I really am getting the impression certain fans are struggling to grasp this.

We are not employing a Coach and giving him free reign to do what he likes.

We have shifted towards a structure where the decisions will be made by a group of people...not one man.

I think most fans grasp this idea but many of us don't think it will work.  Didn't we try to go this route with SoD.

Mcinnes left the club due to a fall out with Jon Lansdown , Coppell walked out after much interferance from the owner.

Lansdown in is choice of "head coach" as reverted to type by appointing some one who he can work with, by that I mean some one he feels, he will have influence over, just like he felt he could have an input with Tinnion and Millen.

[Red-Head]

My view was DM was sacked because the players stopped playing for him.

[spudski]

1 hour ago, NickJ said:

Maybe its the clubs structure that is wrong then spudski.

In the past, I would say it was Nick...I think the Club are trying to learn from their mistakes and improve the infrastructure.

1 hour ago, Numero Uno said:

How long has he been at the club and how much money has he spent before deciding that everyone pulling in the same direction might work and that your democratic way of doing things is the way to go? Astute or just trying the only thing he hasn't done to date?

There are too many variables in football for any "magic formula" to work otherwise everyone would be at it. After all, the autocratic "I'm in charge" style of Cotterill saw us have our most successful season in living memory - a shed load of wins, points and a double to boot. You would guess that most people at the club must have been pulling in a "similar" direction at the very least for that to happen.

I agree...the infrastructure at this Club has been awful for many years...at least they seem to be doing something about it.

It's not a magic formula...it's a 'formula' that the majority of Clubs have in place.

As for SC...yes it worked short term...but then the wheels started to come off. As it's done with managers in the past.

27 minutes ago, bs3 said:

I think most fans grasp this idea but many of us don't think it will work.  Didn't we try to go this route with SoD.

Mcinnes left the club due to a fall out with Jon Lansdown , Coppell walked out after much interferance from the owner.

Lansdown in is choice of "head coach" as reverted to type by appointing some one who he can work with, by that I mean some one he feels, he will have influence over, just like he felt he could have an input with Tinnion and Millen.

The reason it didn't work under SoD, was because he was doing the work of ten men, metaphorically.

And yes I agree...there have been fall outs, and one thing said at Interview and another thing actually given.

SL won't get involved with the playing side...that's why he's employed MA, a DoF, and keeping Pemberton and Wade on as coach's...Academy through to first team working as one.

 

[bert tann]

I must congratulate you all on the level of debate which the new appointment has stimulated on this and other threads. Sometimes I do worry when I hear a breathless "John" on Radio Bristol reporting back with despair from some last minute away defeat even though, through it all, his enjoyment of following the City shines through. We must never forget that this is a game for us to enjoy.  

Anyway, something else to throw into the mix is the historical perspective.

Back in Harry Dolman's day when local businessmen ran the football clubs it was quite easy for fans to read a situation and everyone understood what was happening. For example when the Evening Post reported BDR had gained a big new contract for a cigarette packing factory in Malaysia you could be sure new players or ground improvements would be on the horizon. On the other hand when redundancies were announced at Pennywell Road it was far more likely that City would be selling players and belt tightening would be the order of the day at Ashton Gate.

That antiquated way of running a football club persists to this day at Horfield where asset sales have always been relied upon to supply the cash. However, with  the reckless splurge of spending following the Cowlin Construction windfall, it has been discovered there is only one more asset to sell and even cashing in on The Mem may not cover the debts. That is no way to run a railroad but if it was, as a Somerset man with a big Dorset mortgage, I am sure Nicholas would be prowed to call it "The slow and dirty".

Things have moved on and we find the financing of football clubs has changed just as we find that the modern successful ones have replaced the Redknapp's, Allardyce's and (dare I say it) Cotterills with head coaches who are more thoughtful and intelligent personalities. In Ranieri, Wenger, Van Gaal, Pochettino and Howe we see less "charisma" but more intellect. Will Stephen Lansdown will be able to convince the fans that this is his reasoning behind the appointment of Lee Johnson ?

The Tann 4 point recommendation is

1) He should admit the mistakes made in the past which, in my opinion, are centred on the failure to provide an effective support structure to complement each past manager which would have enhances their strengths and alleviated their weaknesses.

2) He should explain fully the new structure and the role of Mark Ashton so that fans understand what he is trying to achieve, feel included, and will therefore be more understanding and supportive as the club journeys along the rocky highway ahead.

3) He should address head on the accusation that Lee Johnson is a cheap option who will toe the line and explain exactly what his own football philosophy is and why he feels Lee is the right man for the head coach job.

4) He should announce that he is seeking major outside minority equity investment in the club which is being done not for purely financial reasons but because he believes to achieve Premiership success an extra stimulus is needed which one man alone cannot provide        

 

Happy Days ...

[bs3]

15 minutes ago, spudski said:

In the past, I would say it was Nick...I think the Club are trying to learn from their mistakes and improve the infrastructure.

I agree...the infrastructure at this Club has been awful for many years...at least they seem to be doing something about it.

It's not a magic formula...it's a 'formula' that the majority of Clubs have in place.

As for SC...yes it worked short term...but then the wheels started to come off. As it's done with managers in the past.

The reason it didn't work under SoD, was because he was doing the work of ten men, metaphorically.

And yes I agree...there have been fall outs, and one thing said at Interview and another thing actually given.

SL won't get involved with the playing side...Two new loans signings didn't make the starting 11 on Saturday , going by a few of our last loanes will we even see them?, and keeping Pemberton and Wade on as coach's...Academy through to first team working as one.

 

So Spudski , Mark Ashton is DoF? I thought he was COO. Where does that leave KB? 

We also could have done a lot better than Ashton if we were going for a DoF, again not a good record when you look closely at his past. 

Time will tell and no one can for see in to the future but I am not optimistic about the future of my club with Mark Ashton at the helm.

[spudski]

19 minutes ago, bs3 said:

So Spudski , Mark Ashton is DoF? I thought he was COO. Where does that leave KB? 

We also could have done a lot better than Ashton if we were going for a DoF, again not a good record when you look closely at his past. 

Time will tell and no one can for see in to the future but I am not optimistic about the future of my club with Mark Ashton at the helm.

I've not said that...I said MA, a Dof ( as in KB), Pembo and Wade....

KB and MA will work together in Finding players, recruiting, Scouting, analysing, contract negotiations etc, etc.

This will be done hand in hand with LJ and the coaching staff.

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

On 5 February 2016 at 13:00, tomo said:

Would Steve Lansdown appoint a relatively un-experienced candidate to be a "fund manager" with Hargreaves Lansdown?

The simple answer is NO!

So why would he consider a relatively un-experienced candidate in Lee Johnson for Bristol City?

The world has gone mad!

 

Sorry Tomo but as I  worked in Fund Management for 28 years- you've really shot yourself in the foot on this one.

Providing the structure is in place and that the oversight is such that the new young fund manager can't go off on a tangent to the Group's stated policy and his own given remit, then absolutely YES- an up and coming Fund Manager can and is appointed. Particularly when they have already shown promise with previous ,albeit less high profile/smaller funds. Structures are put in place to ensure that the new manager is kept on the right road. Clients are unforgiving so if he doesn't perform then he or she will be moved on. It's always a risk whether young and new or seasoned and successful with a previous fund.

Target and performance related business works the same pretty much everywhere.

As for the HL partnership, there is little chance that Peter would have ever succeeded to the same extent had Steve not been there to add a somewhat more thoughtful and less abrasive strategy. It works the other way around too. I guess on a musical level- it was a Lennon & McCartney... only Peter and Steve made an awful lot more cash.

 

Are there any more ways in which we can discredit our owner? Because surely you lot must be running out of utter shite soon.

 

[spudski]

42 minutes ago, bert tann said:

I must congratulate you all on the level of debate which the new appointment has stimulated on this and other threads. Sometimes I do worry when I hear a breathless "John" on Radio Bristol reporting back with despair from some last minute away defeat even though, through it all, his enjoyment of following the City shines through. We must never forget that this is a game for us to enjoy.  

Anyway, something else to throw into the mix is the historical perspective.

Back in Harry Dolman's day when local businessmen ran the football clubs it was quite easy for fans to read a situation and everyone understood what was happening. For example when the Evening Post reported BDR had gained a big new contract for a cigarette packing factory in Malaysia you could be sure new players or ground improvements would be on the horizon. On the other hand when redundancies were announced at Pennywell Road it was far more likely that City would be selling players and belt tightening would be the order of the day at Ashton Gate.

That antiquated way of running a football club persists to this day at Horfield where asset sales have always been relied upon to supply the cash. However, with  the reckless splurge of spending following the Cowlin Construction windfall, it has been discovered there is only one more asset to sell and even cashing in on The Mem may not cover the debts. That is no way to run a railroad but if it was, as a Somerset man with a big Dorset mortgage, I am sure Nicholas would be prowed to call it "The slow and dirty".

Things have moved on and we find the financing of football clubs has changed just as we find that the modern successful ones have replaced the Redknapp's, Allardyce's and (dare I say it) Cotterills with head coaches who are more thoughtful and intelligent personalities. In Ranieri, Wenger, Van Gaal, Pochettino and Howe we see less "charisma" but more intellect. Will Stephen Lansdown will be able to convince the fans that this is his reasoning behind the appointment of Lee Johnson ?

The Tann 4 point recommendation is

1) He should admit the mistakes made in the past which, in my opinion, are centred on the failure to provide an effective support structure to complement each past manager which would have enhances their strengths and alleviated their weaknesses.

2) He should explain fully the new structure and the role of Mark Ashton so that fans understand what he is trying to achieve, feel included, and will therefore be more understanding and supportive as the club journeys along the rocky highway ahead.

3) He should address head on the accusation that Lee Johnson is a cheap option who will toe the line and explain exactly what his own football philosophy is and why he feels Lee is the right man for the head coach job.

4) He should announce that he is seeking major outside minority equity investment in the club which is being done not for purely financial reasons but because he believes to achieve Premiership success an extra stimulus is needed which one man alone cannot provide        

 

Happy Days ...

Nice post...your 4th point intrigues me...have you heard something as well through the grapevine?

[Kid in the Riot]

The structure of the club now is very closely aligned with what is in place at Southampton.