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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About Yellow&Blue&Red

Recent Profile Visitors

809 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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!
  5. Yep, COD played impressively well at LB v Wimbledon. Just before the Fulham rumours started.
  6. 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!
  7. How did he do it? And what has he done?
  8. 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.
  9. 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!
  10. 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.
  11. No, that seems plausible. It's an unusual move for us and for a lad in his position. But of course I think it's possible that we didn't have a discussion with Chelsea.
  12. I like the Chelsea theory. Sorry! I understand it's not based on inside knowledge, but that doesn't make it a bad theory. It explains why we're confident to make this unusual move. Why he's confident to make this unusual move. And it makes sense for Chelsea. There's absolutely no need for it to be dodgy. Chelsea say to the lad: "if we weren't under embargo we'd sign you but you're not ready for our first team so we'd loan you to City. They're great at developing young players and we trusted them with Tammy who is now in our team. Go there, do well and we'll talk again next year." Chelsea say to us: "we like this lad, we can't sign him but we think he'd do well in the championship and even just on current evidence we'd pay £7m for him. You couldn't normally sign him but we'll put a word in and we think we could swing it. We expect to be making you an offer to buy him next year." No written commitments, some risk on all sides but no more than if this deal had gone through without that conversation.
  13. I'm not sure that's right. Eddie Davies had bottomless pockets when it came to Bolton... until suddenly he didn't, at which point all the player contacts that has been signed became unaffordable. Now look at them. How much better to have clear rules linking expenditure to real income: rights, gates and sponsorship. That way, you stay afloat, whoever owns you. It's not normal capitalism, which might be why it feels odd - the idea that a business should have rules which restrict investment IS unusual. But you can't have it both ways: either football clubs are community institutions which endure over generations, or they're normal businesses which go bust from time to time.
  14. This is such a good thing to have done. Well done to all involved.
  15. Is it unusual/significant that a media blackout has been requested?
  • Create New...