Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership


OTIB Supporter
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


Recent Profile Visitors

867 profile views
  1. There may be other restricted view seats, but I know for a fact that if the safety glass is between you and the pitch you're warned about the 'restricted view'
  2. This could be a game changer. The EFL has always been frightened of enforcing FFP. Now it's got to be frightened of failure to enforce.
  3. No - I agree it looks like a long shot! Certainly need more than just poor Bury going under for government to do anything about it. Looks like there have been periodic calls from government for better football governance for over 50 years! But I think hoping that the EFL will come up with meaningful reforms is even more unlikely.
  4. I've just had a look at the EFL's Mem and Arts registered at Companies House. Each club in the football league holds a share in The Football League Ltd. for as long as they remain in the league. Six of nine board members are appointed are club represenatives: 3 from the Championship, 2 from L1 and 1 from L2. In order to change any of the rules, a majority of clubs need to vote for it... ...which is why we are where we are and why things won't change without external - governmental - intervention. I love the way the FSA in @phantom's post, above, are suggesting parallels between listed buildings and clubs. Owners of listed buildings can't just do what they want with them, and the same should apply to club owners.
  5. Isn't the EFL just the clubs self-regulating?? Because if it's just the clubs self-regulating, it's hardly surprising that the rules are lax. Business owners won't vote for tougher regulations with penalties, controls over how they spend their money or constraints on who they can sell their businesses to when they've got bored or run out of money? Maybe some tweaks but nothing of the kind that's needed. Businesses go bust all the time - it's the way capitalism works. If we don't want clubs to go bust on a regular basis, or for them to be subject to asset stripping or other predatory practices that are part of the rough and tumble of any other sector... if instead we want them to be treated like community assets, then we need legislation. We need an independent regulator, empowered in law to manage participation in the football league so that there's genuine FFP, rules that work to provide ownership oversight and to provide protection for communities of fans who - unlike in other business sectors, don't shop around.
  6. I wouldn't say anything that I think could hurt the club. I don't think this could hurt the club partly because I don't think the club has done anything wrong as I've been careful to point out in nearly every post I've made about it. You and others disagree and I respect that so I decided to drop it. That's all I was saying.
  7. Hi @29AR, thanks for the answer. All good points. You're probably right. And I think people may be uncomfortable me discussing this for reasons that I disagree with but understand. So I'm going to drop it. And just enjoy the fact that the football gods have given us Massengo.
  8. I don't imagine for one second we've been underhand with our dealings. If (and it's only an interesting possibility) we've benefited from Chelsea's recommendation to the player's representatives, that's not dodgy. Like you I don't believe that Ashdown would consider a dodgy deal, and I'm glad of it.
  9. Hi @Phileas Fogg, I can't answer for anyone else but I like the theory and don't understand why it's being called a 'conspiracy' theory. It's possible we signed this wonder kid without help but that would also be surprising. There's a way in which the market works - a natural pecking order - but this transfer subverts that. Why would he sign for Bristol City? Monaco seems a better platform for a young player hoping to reach the top and with good prospects of doing so. Sure we've sold players to lower end premiership teams and done very well in the process. We should be proud that we're now a credible choice for young players from less prestigious clubs and leagues who see us as a good stepping stone. But Monaco sell players to PSG, Liverpool and Atletico Madrid! And Massengo was one of their most exciting talents. There are links between us and Chelsea, links between Chelsea and Monaco and there is both opportunity and motive for CFC to encourage the player's representatives that this would be a good move for him to work with a team they trust and get used to English football culture ahead of a likely bid next summer when their embargo is lifted. It's just a theory, but I like it because it helps makes sense to me of something which would otherwise be surprising. (And it requires zero dodgy-ness from BCFC). Would you take a friendly £10 bet at evens that we receive a bid from Chelsea within the year? Given that I have no inside knowledge that's stupid good odds, but I don't want to take a controversial positition without being willing to stand behind it!
  10. Yep, COD played impressively well at LB v Wimbledon. Just before the Fulham rumours started.
  11. It seems improbable that we would have got a talent like Massengo without a little help. You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to see why and how Chelsea might have helped us. Why? They want him but can't buy him but have a good relationship with City which may help them get him further down the line. How? They make a call to the player's agent. What's that cost them? Nothing. What's the risk? Zilch.There's nothing dodgy about it. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's just a theory!
  12. How did he do it? And what has he done?
  13. The scoreboard hasn't worked for months. It WASN'T turned off for this game. And a small gate was expected which means there really was a financial case for not printing programmes. Perhaps that was convenient, and there are other 'small time' reasons for not having printed a programme. And perhaps the sensible thing to do would be to just get over it. But it still really stings! Fans were powerless when our club was taken and our name was bastardised by that lot. So it's not surprising that many fans can't let it go and don't want to acknowledge them using the name they stole from us. It's not comparable though is it? Not even close.
  14. They don't mean much, but they're as much use as hoping we're signing him because the media team tweeted a seagull... which is a bit like an eagle and his name is eddie. We're way past the stage of only allowing useful posts!
  15. I suspect that's not going to work. The club owes HMRC £1m. Their other debts before the CVA were £7m and they still have to pay a significant proportion of those. And the EFL estimates they need £1.5m to run the club for the year ahead - which they don't have. Dale bought the club for £1 in December, it's worth way less than that now, meaning, presumably, that he's going to have to take on personal liability for the debt, or at least a lot of it, when he sells the club - which I guess he can't do - or he's going to have to let it go bust.
  • Create New...