JBFC II

33 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Totally respect if you think this is a sign were heading in the right direction however to me at this point it's following the same pattern of LJ. Poor runs followed by good runs. 

Which has been what supporting us has been like under every manager in this division (bar one season under GJ) since the 70's, here's hoping next season is different!

45 minutes ago, redkev said:

Where in Bristol would be big enough to hold such a prestigious event 

The Lansdown suite - knowing the gas that would never surprise me yet another gift to keep on giving 

It was here, with post event entertainment for all involved!

3 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

That's not how it works in this country mate. 

The PL say they have evidence, Man City say they have evidence which proves their evidence wrong. That's the whole purpose of them having a hearing. 

They may well be guilty but due process needs to be followed and until that time they are not guilty. 

We'll have to see.

They've already faced punishment from UEFA, not sure how different the rules are for the Premier League, going to be interesting to see how it affects them if they are found guilty

12 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

How does being charged with something in any walk of life prove any guilt? 

If they've got into the position where they've had over 100 charges then that's poor management.

I'd be astonished if none of the charges resulted in a punishment

4 minutes ago, elhombrecito said:

Strange that this is sold out on the ticketing website, but City have posted nothing about it (unless I've missed it). Normally they're all over a sell out.

They've released a load of unsold hospitality tickets for general sale.

Probably waiting for those to go before announcing anything

51 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I did a Google search and most results said Man Utd were the highest, some said City. 

But again the point I was making was spending money doesn't matter. As we've seen with countless other clubs. It's a very weak arguement. Chelsea are the case and point so it's disingenuous to say City are only challenging because of the money. 

Of course they had investment to propel them. Not denying it. So have many many other clubs. Shouldn't have to point this out really. But for some bizarre reason City seem to be the only club that isn't allowed investment? 

City have got the money and they spend it wisely. Why wouldn't they? 

I don't know if they've breached ffp. None of us do. We'll find out in the fullness of time. Fed up of saying this but look how long it took to deal with Evertons 1 charge that they admitted to breaching. It takes quite a while longer to deal with 115 breaches that City deny. 

 

Just have a look at their financial reports, for the 2023 year Man City had a payroll of £422 million, compared to the 331 million of Man United. I can link them here if you'd like.

Not saying they aren't allowed investment, but it isn't disingenuous at all to say they are only challenging because of money. If it wasn't for the money they wouldn't be challenging. No other club has a payroll of over £400 million pounds. Chelsea are just poorly managed, that doesn't mean man City are well managed though, as all of these charges show.

Also, please stop referring to them as 'City' we're on the wrong forum for that!

34 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

The arguement I'm presenting is that it's very easy to say "Man City only win because of the money they spent" 

But then we have multiple examples of other clubs spending money and not getting success. 

It's one thing spending money but a totally different ball game spending it correctly. 

Not sure why you've mentioned how much Man City spend on wages? Isn't it Man Utd that have the highest wage bill? How's that going for them?

Didn't Man City post profits of 80 odd million? So why wouldn't they spend that sort of money on wages when they are able to do so within their own means? 

Man United spent roughly £90 million less on wages last season than City, so no, not exactly.

The money Man City have spent is the key factor behind their success, look at where the club was 20 years ago compared to where it is now. That rise is due to finances and very little else.

Of course, they've spent well (even if they've seemingly broken every rule in the book with FFP), but let's not pretend they'd be challenging if they didn't have the biggest budget in the league.

They may have posted profits, but they've also got over 100 charges against them for financial fair play, which is hardly a good look

2 minutes ago, redkev said:

On paper 4 points minimum for city - but as you say it’s city so probably 1 at best 

am I right in saying Rotherham haven’t won away all season - I’ll leave it there

Big crowd

Game we should win

End of the season

Wurzels afterwards

It's a guaranteed 0-0/0-1 match isn't it?

2 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Chelsea have spent billions but are as you say 9th. Which proves your point to be invalid. 

I'd be pretty confident Man City wouldn't be in the running for a fourth league title in a row if they spent a quarter of their £400 million pounds a year on wages to be honest...

The point isn't invalid that these clubs have no difficulties when they can spend whatever they want on whoever they want and have 3rd teams who would be fighting for Europe

5 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I kinda felt like they went for the nuclear option by not selling any new season tickets. 

They needed to do something as clearly its not acceptable to have all those empty seats. 

But to increase the kids tickets and not sell new season tickets is a bit OTT imo. I was an advocate of a use it or lose it policy that many other clubs use. 

The issue with this is the cutthroat nature of it. If someone doesn't use their ST for three games due to holiday or illness, it feels harsh to rid them of their season ticket.

There's no perfect scenario, I guess the current one at least gives more of a chance of the south stand being closer to full next season, which can only be a good thing

1 minute ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I was looking this morning at seats in the Dolman. It's still obviously more than I would have paid for a South stand season ticket but less than the Lansdown. 

What is going through my mind is the marketing spill of "only a limited number of sesson tickets on sale" "we don't want too many more season ticket holders" etc etc. 

So I'm sat here thinking I'd be annoyed if we did have success and then I was unable to buy a season ticket. 

Don't the club have to keep a certain number of tickets back for pay on the day anyway?

Let's say we have 22000 seats available for home fans, we'd probably be looking to max out at 18k season tickets and then leave the rest for general sale.

The issue with the south stand was the number of unused season tickets. From what I heard, despite being sold out it was at around 60% capacity on average, the club had to do something. Season tickets are still of huge importance for a club like ourselves, can't see there coming a time in the near future where we won't have them

2 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Everyone write Man City off every season and it baffles me because they always always go on incredible runs at the end of the season. Like a boxing match really. Start off slow and then come alive in the final rounds. 

But fair play to Arsenal they have taken a step forward this season. 

But if you asked me who's likely to win all their remaining games out of the two then my money is on Man City. 

City do like to make things difficult for themselves at times but they have the favourable fixture list. 

Rotherham and Stoke are two favourable fixtures in our race for 11th I agree!

Oh wait, wrong City...

2 hours ago, Betty Swallocks said:

Is moving season ticket seats mid-season even possible? I was under the impression you could upgrade your seats but this was restricted to twice a season only. 

For reference, this is in the season ticket terms and conditions:

9. Permanent Seat Transfers

9.1 Permanent seat transfers made during the season will incur the following fees:

9.1.1 Reprint fee, this costs £10 per Season Ticket and applies to all Season Tickets which need to be reprinted. 

9.1.2 Seat Move Admin Fee, This costs £10. Supporters are entitled to one move per season without incurring this Seat Move Admin Fee.

9.1.3 Upgrade Fee, if the Season Ticket Holder is moving into an area of a higher price the Season Ticket Holder will need to pay the difference between the two areas. Supporter Services will work out this cost on a pro-rata basis if the season has already started. No refund will be made for supporters moving into a cheaper area of the ground. 

2 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Let me make this very simple for you.

I currently sit in the Lansdown. 700 odd quid for us to renew. 

Ultimately I was not willing to pay 700 quid for all the things you mentioned. 

500 quid and I probably would have sucked it up and paid it. But not 700. Got it now? 

You are aware you can get a season ticket for less than £500 even without the South Stand being open for seat moves?

13 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

Frome will be right up for it.

League title is still potentially there for them, they've had a full week between games and 2 years ago when they were both last in the playoffs Farm went there and turned them over in the semis, even though Frome were the favourites to win the playoffs outright.

Was there for that one, one of the better away days with the Farm in recent years for sure!

Have to hope Cribbs help us out v Larkhall, although tomorrow night will be tough before we even think about the weekend.

48 minutes ago, phantom said:

 

Tavistock is a must win.

The goal difference that Mousehole have could be crucial, although Larkhall are poor on the road so the hope has to be that continues.

Considering they could well get frome if they end up in the play offs, a positive result against them on Saturday is even more important 

All but sold out now, too late for them to put any of the Atyeo on sale I'd imagine.

Let's hope as many ST holders turn up for this one, over 22k home fans after the inconsistent season we've had is very impressive!

More season tickets sold than the capacity of that other club across the river and a sell out crowd for the last game of the season.

Considering how frustrating things have been this season, fair play to all those making such big financial commitments. Let's just hope the board realise our support doesn't detract from the discontent around so many decisions that have been made

1 minute ago, Lew-T said:

Reading is the worst for me. Not just the ground, but the location of it.

Nothing beats Stadium MK on that front.

About as soulless as they come

5 minutes ago, Shaun Taylor said:

I see Norwich as the benchmark for BCFC, a decent ground, big catchment area and decent owners.

Be very careful writing something like that on here!

31 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

If you do 'highest home crowd this season' across men's and womens football and the rugby you should be able to find the worst supported side in the region!

So, in first place we have....

Bristol City - 25,857 v Leicester.

Second....

Bristol Rugby - 21,076 v Exeter 

Third

Bristol City women - 12,008 v Arsenal.

And propping up the table....

Fewers - 10,335 against Norwich.

Bristol Bears had 26387 v Bath, a higher crowds than Rovers 3 last attendances put together...

16 minutes ago, Open End Numb Legs said:

Last night there was a very good documentary on TV about Pompeii on that my wife was watching. It talked about volcanoes and pyroclactic fumes. The only large amounts of gas seen last night.

Ah it all makes sense.

The poor sods heard that the ‘gas are on the tv’ so stayed at home instead of going!

Price rises of over 50% in some areas for Forest fans, with 17-21 price range scrapped as well, so young people in full time education have to pay adult prices. Their fan base are far from happy about it…

The dangers of promotion I guess!

Turning up in their numbers as per usual.

Good to see the new stand being packed to the rafters again!

4 minutes ago, The Humble Realist said:

Haha I should have predicted this thread would lead to a load of SL comments rather than WSL comments but thanks @JBFC II for rising above it with an explanation. 

Does this mean lansdown can spent 40% of the mens/womens team combined on the womens team if he wants to ?

As far as I’m aware, although that rule may have changed. 

I heard an interview with Karen Brady where she basically said that although the temptation is there to do just that, it won’t help the women’s game at all so West Ham refuse to live beyond their means 

As far as I'm aware, there's a salary cap which means top flight sides can spend 40% of their turnover on wages. That turnover is for the whole club though, so it would still be a huge amount for the WSL were we to do that.

The big issue is with the lack of revenue the womens game makes, spending huge money on wages etc would lead to big losses, which isn’t sustainable in the long term