Leaderboard

At the risk of sounding like I might be defending the majority shareholder and ex-chairman I think I should clarify the stadium ownership issue. The Company formed in 1982 (BCFC 1982 Ltd.) was renamed Bristol City Holdings Ltd at the same time as two wholly owned subsidiaries were created - one of which operates the football club and the other the stadium. Consequently the stadium remains 100% owned by Bristol City Holdings Ltd as we speak. The conspicuous danger is that whilst the Company remains entirely dependent on (and in substantial debt to) the majority shareholder without any realistic prospect of any alternative it can be forced at any time to hand ownership of the stadium (and any other assets) to SL in part payment of the debt - even without being forced into administration. Not unlike Cardiff City and Hull City the soul of Bristol City and what little influence and stake supporters and minority shareholders had in its future has passed lock, stock and barrel to an ego-driven individual. A point he once again made abundantly clear in his crass responses to reasonable questions on Radio Bristol yesterday. The difference of course is that both Cardiff and Hull have gained something in return for the change of control - we patently have not. The icing on the cake for me is reading on this forum that some continue to heap praise on Steve Lansdown (although it is not clear for what) and that his frankly childish reaction to the criticism he and his Board have received is met by some with a concern that he may at some point decide to take his money elsewhere. Is it really the case that he may be driven away by rational criticism of the continuing abject failure of the business he owns/controls? If it is then this merely serves to reinforce the most cynical view of his motivation for spending (and wasting) the cash that he has. If the Board feels unable to face the music (non-participation in a press conference because the press are critical, supporters try to hold the Board to account suggests that the Board has been to open with them - just two of the highlights from the interview) then the Board should be subject to a vote of no confidence. Of course this cannot whilst the Board is made up of the majority shareholder's friends and family and when SL has seen to it that the AGM is a thing of the past. It is well established that good corporate governance requires a clear division between ownership and management - the performance of Bristol City continues to provide strong evidence of this.

Here is my 5p worth. I have been loyally behind SL since the beginning and up until he left the country as an exile especially after his reasons for going were made known. I said then it was a mistake not for the tax saving benefits but for the cost it would have on the club; I had no idea it would be this bad mind. Any savings he may have made in tax have been royally blown away by our demise since his departure. And when, recently, I frivolously called for the board to resign it was after SO'D was sacked and then replaced by a wholly underwhelming replacement. Not, in itself, because the former was doing badly or because the latter was not, personally, to my taste. No, I asked for that because they have started to lie to us and to duck away from us and treat us like we are all a bit thick. I suppose they can do what they jolly well like as they are in control but woe behold those you treat fans with on-going disdain and run a club so badly. I hope Steve sticks around but clearly something needs to change pretty darn fast in the boardroom. I doubt it will happen but Steve, himself, announcing he is coming back to do crisis management would be a very good way of beginning the work to get the fans back on side. Right now i get the feeling my sentiments are fairly widespread.

This is it, in a sentence. SL can chuck his own money at us buying crap players and paying off managers if he wants. But long term the ground is a huge worry. There's another thread running about 1982: one thing I remember clearly about 82 was the board that rescued us being absolutely adamant that they could and would only do this if ownership of the ground was part of the deal and part of the plan. They were clear that the football club could only be rescued and have along term future if it owned its own ground. And I have to say that! for all lansdown's success in the financial world, Des Williams had a far better understanding of how to run a football club. The other thing that keeps coming back to me is what happened to the Gas and Eastville. Ground owned by a separate entity, albeit with a common owner. Two sports. Owner gets fed up with the stick he gets because the football club is going nowhere. Falls out of love with the football club. Sells ground. And the Gas are still paying the price for that.

I wish people would stop attacking the best thing that has happened to Bristol City for years STEVE LANSDOWN,he has given us all his time and his money for years giving us promotion play-off final and many great memory's to look back on and in the future a new stadium so please back the guy don't knock him.

I personally thought he came over really badly. My two personal favourites were admitting that the board didn't volunteer for interviews at the unveiling of Cotterill because of criticism they'd received from the press and that people 'make too much of the 5 pillars'. Now I'm only an occasional reader of the post, but I must have missed it's hard hitting journalism. If the criticism the board received after the SO'D sacking was enough to make them play the 'fine we wont talk to you' card then I really do despair. I would suggest they go and find a job in a company slightly less in the spotlight if they cannot deal with criticism from the press. Imagine the stick a manager would get if he refused to talk to the media because they criticised his team selection the week before. Pretty embarrassing from grown adults in all honesty. Gary Johnson's response to the Post after the Orr/Brooker/Partridge/Brown incident was spot on and entirely called for in my opinion, this however is nothing but pathetic. As for people 'making too much of the 5 pillars', well he better tell his son because he keeps emailing me about them! I actually agree with his base point in that all they actually are is a guide to how a club should be run and I do think that some fans are guilty of making too much of them (comments such as 'would the new manager buy into the 5 pillars'). But this has only happened because the only things we hear from the board are banging on about the bloody things. Following this up with 'maybe we've been too open with the fans' was beyond belief. At one point he tried to assure everyone that he has 'thick skin' but some of his petulant responses to the criticism aimed at him and/or the board would suggest he has anything but. All in all the icing on a pretty s*** day.

took no responsibility for anything, and blamed everyone else including the players. peeved because the media don't swallow his shitty (and hypocritical, contradictory) PR sounded like a petulant rich man who doesn't understand why he isn't loved

With respect to Steve, it's all very well asking for people to raise concerns in person but when emails, letters etc are sent they are invariably ignored. DL will reply of course, a decent bloke and an honest person too, but what chance of a board member taking the time to respond to anything? So the invitation to discuss it is, unfortunately, utter bollocks. I don't want the board out or SL to leave, I want them all to do better by my club. Currently they are not and the petulance coming from the board room is cringeworthy. I'm glad SL was at AG yesterday. I hope he noticed that the attendance was shocking, and that those who remained loyal and went absolutely hated what they were subjected to. I can have no doubts that the vast majority inside the stadium who made such discontenting noise were not behind the appointment of SC (ie. the way he was appointed) or the decision makers at BCFC. I desperately want Steve to realise he's ****** up majorly, that his board is not fit for purpose and he desperately needs help.

If this is intended to suggest that all was fine until SL departed for the Channel Islands then I must disagree The financial predicament was already inevitable, as was the eventual need to take steps to begin to reverse it. A collection of the best company directors in the World plus the appointment of a genius to manage/coach the team would not have been enough to preserve Championship status whilst knocking 60%+ of the wage bill. Could SL really have done better? Is the current Board really working without input from SL? That he chose yesterday not only to defend the Board (which he was obliged to do) but also to claim the club is well run (but for the players and head coach) is disturbing. It seems that not only can he not see a solution but he does not yet even see a problem! Given recent events one wonders if he ever will

Yes it was me. I questioned Steve about it immediately after it was announced at an AGM. There was no prior notice about it, no other shareholders were consulted, and it was announced at the AGM as though it was just an administrative change. The impression I formed was a hope that it would go through under the radar. I was given an explanation by Steve that made no sense whatsoever, and a statement that Ashton Gate Ltd could be partly sold to external investors to raise funds which would have been madness - except that since then with everything that has happened with Ashton Vale I have realised that those "external" investors may have been a bit closer to home than was indicated. I guess it was Steve's misfortune that as an accountant I knew the explanation for doing it did not stack up and any proposal to sell our ground or even a part of it was ridiculous, and so I challenged further.

When it comes to JL, let's drop the 'pillock' and 'idiot' stuff. Incompetent is the word. It's not his fault that he's incompetent; he's trying to better himself, like we all do. I respect him for working way out of his comfort zone. But it's the people who place him there and fail to recognize that he's incompetent. JL is obviously out of his depth, and in any other company would've been given the boot months ago. He just wouldn't be there. Steve needs to take a long hard look at himself. He knows what must be done, stop faffing. This club does not have the time and patience to ease him down gently. We are not interested in protecting your sons dignity, self confidence or cv. There are thousands of people suffering due to your poor decision s and nepotism. Sort it steve. NOW.

Utter humiliation. Outclassed.

I find it amazing how the board bottled the press conference for 'Cotts' because they'd received a bit of stick for sacking SOD. Nothing like sticking to your guns, eh! Backing your decision, fronting up. Of all the things going wrong at this club over the last few years, this is the one I find most laughable, and most unacceptable. Dawe - Harman - J Lansdown - Arathoon : YOU made the decision to sack SOD. YOU made the decision to appoint 'Cotts'. YOU should be bold enough to stand by your decisions, not wimp out and hope it all goes away. Have courage in your convictions. This is the most yellow-bellied action yet from this as yet unproven group of men. I'm appalled by this, I really am.

Sounds like Cunningham could of had a hat trick.