Timbo7

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

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.