Brian Clough on Steve Lansdown

[Cowshed]

18 hours ago, Robbored said:

I’m stunned that anyone can  criticise the man who has ploughed millions of his own money into the club to keep us afloat. Not only that he’s created Bristol Sport, redeveloped AG from a run down dump into a sparkling new stadium and has devised a philosophy/strategy in an attempt to create sustainability and stability for the club and has employed professional people to help achieve that.

 

In regards to philosophy do you mean a philosophy in regards to how the club will play and develop its football?

If its a yes where can I access this? 

[NickJ]

22 hours ago, Robbored said:

No need to think carefully Nick - a local man, born and raised in the City, built his empire here, employs many local people, cares about the City..............uses his fiscal acumen to try and develop a stable and sustainable football club........

How does Steve’s birthplace of Bristol benefit Bristol City?

How does Steve’s business being Bristol based benefit Bristol City?

How does employing people in Bristol benefit Bristol City? 

How does Steve’s Bristol roots make his financial acumen benefit Bristol City more than if he was not Bristol born? 

 

[BS4 on Tour...]

On 14/11/2018 at 18:16, Mr Popodopolous said:

Plenty of bad/clueless English/British owners about too.

In modern times and in no particular order from our top 2 divisions- Mike Ashley, the Oystons, SISU- thinking further back Risdale at Leeds...Plenty of bad foreign ones too as there are plenty of good local owners following the traditional model,  but it's an interesting (lazy)? trope- 'English owner good, foreign owner bad/inept'. At similar time to Risdale, Bates at Chelsea was mostly positive, but by the end they were close to admin until Abramovich- a good foreign owner incidentally- arrived. Marcus Evans at Ipswich also, seems to be taking them on a road to nowhere.

Ridsdale was just the chairman at Leeds wasn’t he? I don’t think he owned the club...

[BS4 on Tour...]

On 14/11/2018 at 20:23, Davefevs said:

Who did he sign her from and how much? 

Dukla Prague I believe ....nice away kit, and Xmas is coming up....

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Ridsdale was just the chairman at Leeds wasn’t he? I don’t think he owned the club...

Good point, but I don't know the structure of Leeds at that time- don't think it had a private owner as such, so he was ultimately responsible- the point is you can have shitty UK custodians of clubs just as you can foreign ones. From Leeds, a Leeds fan no less! 'Living the dream'.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I think a few slating SL/the club for lack of investment or not going for it in Jan should read this, taken from an interview which I saw in my twitter feed. Admittedly it's about QPR specifically, but FFP will change the landscape if it isn't already changing it and how clubs run.

Decent read- contains lessons for all sides in Championship- it goes on longer but I've picked out the best section and underlined a few key bits.

Quote

 

Were you disappointed in the end that we had to settle on the historic breach, given that the legal advice all the way through was that we had a good case?

I like fighting. I’m limited on what I can say on the settlement, but as far as the legal decision that came down is concerned we showed it to several lawyers and my favourite comment was the one who said ‘the more I read it the less I understand it’. It was an absurdly reasoned judgement that seemed to make a decision to start with and then work back from there and try to shoe-horn reasons into it. I thought it was diabolical, but it is what it is. With an appeal there is always a propensity to back up the judges, you’re fighting an uphill battle. It wasn’t good for us, or football, or the league for us to continue that fight. We reached an agreement where the payment terms were logical and didn’t cause us financial distress so it made sense, from a business stand point, to do that. We could have put a whole lot more money into the legal battle and it benefit nobody. At least now it’s benefitting charities, it’s benefitting football, we can concentrate on what we need to do, the league can concentrate on what they need to do, it was taking a hell of a lot of time. We can take football forward now instead of taking the legal profession forwards.

It’s widely reported that it will be paid over ten years, so who pays that as it stands now and does it count against us for our current FFP calculations?

I’ve only ever said it will be paid over a period of time and I’ll leave it at that. Who pays it? The club, and the shareholders fund the club. Does it affect the budget and operations going forwards? No. Does it affect the player budget? No. What does affect the player budget is the new FFP rules, but paying the actual settlement of the old dispute doesn’t affect it at all. That’s been siloed, and it doesn’t interfere with available cash flow. It doesn‘t count against FFP now or it would become a vicious circle when you’re constantly in breach.

It may have been a nonsense ruling but it was a deliberate and flagrant breach…

… well there’s a view on the outside and there’s another on the inside. When you come in here you realise, what were they supposed to do? They couldn’t just get rid of contracted players, it was only a one-year reporting system. What could they do, they were backed into a corner?

… they did sign 16 players that season…

They did. The one I scratch my head at though is the legal ruling said there were 18 players who went out of contract that we chose not to let go, which is just factually incorrect. They were hell bent on finding against us.

…I don’t want to get into raking over old graves and decisions that were made before you got here. What I am getting at is if the fine for it is delayed over a period of ten years and during that period the board who oversaw that season and made those decisions and breached those rules leave the club, does that leave QPR with a millstone round its neck of having to pay that fine which the owners themselves have admitted is totally their responsibility?

Let’s make it clear to start with, the owners have absolutely no intention of leaving. There is no inclination for them to sell whatsoever. Let’s take a hypothetical situation, if they did, somebody coming in to buy a club would certainly take that into consideration. It would be part of the deal. I don’t think anybody would pay the money required to buy this club and not realise there was an outstanding item like that to be paid off.

There is still a lack of understanding of the new, current rules. In a nutshell, what are they?

In a nutshell, in the Championship, you can lose up to £39m over any rolling three-year period. On average, it’s £13m a year but we have seen some clubs deliberately take two years’ worth of loss, combine it into one and going for it. Wolves, for instance, may have had an issue had they not got promoted. It’s a risk and a gamble, if it doesn’t work out you’re in big trouble. There are exceptions you can write off in your losses such as youth development, community work, women’s football, capital expense on buildings and infrastructure, but not maintenance costs.

Playing devil’s advocate, why not gamble again? Are we to just resign ourselves to sitting in the middle of the Championship balancing the books forever more?

Two reasons. One, history has shown money doesn’t buy you everything. Look at what Huddersfield did, Burnley did, Sheffield United are doing. Money isn’t always the answer. Secondly, if you did decide to do it, what if 20 other teams all decide to gamble that year as well? There’s still only three going up, and the other 17 would be left to reflect on it not working out and then what?

Well, exactly, then what? Because we don’t know what the punishments are do we?

We’ll find out soon because there are clubs that are going to be in the dock for this soon and it’s been widely reported that the league will push for a 12-point deduction.

Every March every club has to submit Future Financial Information (FFI) to the league, and you wouldn’t be able to lie on that because the league knows what player contracts you’re committed to and they’re your biggest source of expense. They can see how much you’re going to lose and can see if you’re going to breach at which point they step in and your only way out then is to sell a lot of players over the summer. They monitor it, they can see if you’re going to be in breach and if that’s the case then even before they’ve seen that third set of audited accounts they can take action. If you think you can slip under the radar and by the time they realise it you’re in the Premier League, it tends not to work that way.

I think it’s changed the way clubs are going to be run moving forwards. A manager can’t just come in and say ‘I want this player, this player and this player’ any more. You have to look at the future impact of committing to three- and four-year contracts. We’re constantly running future scenarios and not just worrying about the current season. We’ve used the loan market this season because if we’d gone out and tried to buy those three players, or their equivalent, that would have been at least a three-year commitment going forwards at a time when we’re about to lose our parachute payments. It’s trying to balance costs and revenues as best we can.

We’ve lost £7m and £11m so far but it only gets tougher from here on…

That’s right because the parachute payment has been reducing and gets eliminated altogether for us after this season. My first question when I got interviewed here was what is the plan in three years’ time when you lose your parachute payments, how do you replace that? It’s a big, big black hole in the budget. There’s only so much incremental income I can get from the gates, only so many costs I can reduce. I’m not saying that every penny doesn’t count because that’s how we work, but we can’t put the balance sheet up on the big screen and have everybody cheering. It’s about what happens on the pitch and every penny we can save or generate all goes into getting the best players we possibly can out on the pitch. But the biggest revenue hit you’re going to get after parachute payments is going to be a player sale.

It’s about finding undiscovered gems, polishing them up, and selling them on. That has to be the business model moving forwards. The board recognises that, the managers know that - although they always say ‘make sure the fans know that otherwise they’ll be on my case about it’. The managers have been very good and understand the business case. That’s not saying that we go with a whole academy team out there every week because to develop players you can’t just throw 11 kids on the pitch and expect them to develop, you have to have senior heads on there to act as mentors and oversee the development of those kids. It’s about balance, getting the right balance in the team to be competitive and at the same time develop players.

 

Key takeaways we can learn from this.

• As we know already- the allowable costs. Youth, community, women's football- capital expenses will help too.
• Wolves gambled because of their good 2015/16 profit which pushed their allowable losses right up- they probably were within the 3 year limit once allowable costs removed, albeit not by much. If we make a profit this season which is possible with the transfers out, then we maybe in a position to go again in 2020/21 because last seasons losses will be wiped from the record by then with the 3 year rolling rule.
• 12-point deduction. Let's hope so eh! That really would send the message home.
• Submission of FFI- that's the projected accounts thing. Gamechanger! Means if a side (hello Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday almost certainly and potentially Aston Villa, Derby, Nottingham Forest) are over by a fair bit in their submissions in March then they fail and the 12-point loss is potentially a goer. On the flipside, a good warning to clubs to keep spending within proportion- that's the lesson for us right there.
• In time, it should- hopefully will- see spending and teams boxing clever. The Championship is by and large a financial train wreck, these rules may help bring a bit of sanity. Teams will need to up their game in a big way in recruitment terms.

[downendcity]

5 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think a few slating SL/the club for lack of investment or not going for it in Jan should read this, taken from an interview which I saw in my twitter feed. Admittedly it's about QPR specifically, but FFP will change the landscape if it isn't already changing it and how clubs run.

Decent read- contains lessons for all sides in Championship- it goes on longer but I've picked out the best section and underlined a few key bits.

Key takeaways we can learn from this.

• As we know already- the allowable costs. Youth, community, women's football- capital expenses will help too.
• Wolves gambled because of their good 2015/16 profit which pushed their allowable losses right up- they probably were within the 3 year limit once allowable costs removed, albeit not by much. If we make a profit this season which is possible with the transfers out, then we maybe in a position to go again in 2020/21 because last seasons losses will be wiped from the record by then with the 3 year rolling rule.
• 12-point deduction. Let's hope so eh! That really would send the message home.
• Submission of FFI- that's the projected accounts thing. Gamechanger! Means if a side (hello Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday almost certainly and potentially Aston Villa, Derby, Nottingham Forest) are over by a fair bit in their submissions in March then they fail and the 12-point loss is potentially a goer. On the flipside, a good warning to clubs to keep spending within proportion- that's the lesson for us right there.
• In time, it should- hopefully will- see spending and teams boxing clever. The Championship is by and large a financial train wreck, these rules may help bring a bit of sanity. Teams will need to up their game in a big way in recruitment terms.

Good post Mr P. 

I think there are still fans who do not understand, or appreciate, the impact of FFP. Some see the QPR situation as justification for breaching  - if promotion is secured - but as this article is from QPR's perspective, it highlights the major changes recently implemented and which make the new rules hugely punitive.

It also helps to make clear why the club has gone down the route it has in terms of player recruitment as part of the strategy needed to ensure we are living within our financial means, and not just because SL doesn't fancy putting any more of his money into the club.

 

 

[pjg11]

On ‎13‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 21:40, The Horse With No Name said:

And keeping Lee Johnson in his.

Joke is we could sack Johnson .And find the new manager is Lee Johnson at his level no one better safe pairs of hands someone I trust blah blah blah. All management speak .

[willadams]

On 13/11/2018 at 20:05, Davefevs said:

Someone said to me when LJ was appointed that Macca would be back with Alex Ball.  Lo and behold, Pembo (an experienced Assistant Manager, the right kind of tool) was got rid of, and both Macca and Ball had both returned as my mate predicted and Macca was promoted.  The Alex Ball bit is irrelevant, the Macca bit not so....and very convenient!

This is entirely unfair, Dean Holden came in who was experienced, and David Coles was kept. Most managers want people they’re comfortable with alongside them so it was no surprise Pemberton wasn’t kept.

Wether you see Johnson’s desired playing style as trash or not, there was no point keeping a coach who was at odds with that philosophy, any manager will look for coaches on the same page, no?

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, willadams said:

This is entirely unfair, Dean Holden came in who was experienced, and David Coles was kept. Most managers want people they’re comfortable with alongside them so it was no surprise Pemberton wasn’t kept.

Wether you see Johnson’s desired playing style as trash or not, there was no point keeping a coach who was at odds with that philosophy, any manager will look for coaches on the same page, no?

I don’t disagree about bringing in your own guys, but I wouldn’t call Holden or Macca experienced, unlike Pemberton.  Whether Pembo was the right man (obviously not), he brought a great deal of experience....one component LJ hasn’t got.  Bring in a ‘mate’ by all means, but bring in one who’s experienced.

Holden was a rookie Assistant to LJ at Oldham.

McAllister was a rookie coach moving from u23s to LJ’s Assistant.  He had a short spell as player/coach in India.

Of the three, none of them had coached or managed at Championship level at the time they came to the club.

I think it’s pretty telling that SL has something along the lines of Macca being manager in the future!!!

 

[Red-Robbo]

When assessing Lansdown's overall impact on the club, you need to consider how ramshackle and Michael Mouse City was before he came.

I'm not just talking about the Gate. Behind the scenes our set-up was no better than the Gas. Potentially worse! We were one of the amateurish clubs in the football league. 

I realise this will provoke a mass outbreak of rose-tinted glasses and "I prefered it back then" comments, but the reality was we were a mostly 3rd tier club whereas now we have facilities that are up their with the best. The gap between us and the likes of Rovers has never been bigger.

So off-field I think you have to say he's been a success which leads us to on-field.

I doubt many club owners have a very detailed knowledge of football. In fact  having grown-up in this country and watched the game regularly,  Lansdown probably has the edge over some of them who have never watched a live game before they bought their clubs.

But there's no magic formula with hiring managers, nor has the club been less successful under Lansdown than it was before. If anything on balance it's been more successful.

I think LJ was a reasonable punt when he was hired. Indeed, there were posters on here agitating for his appointment before he came here. Amusingly, a few of these are now his sternest critics. Oh, the perils of believing everyone has no memory!

I think I'm probably in the majority now of thinking that Lee has revealed his limits and 11th is the best sort of season we can expect with him.

If we fall into or near the drop zone - which I wouldn't be at all surprised by Christmas - I'd be disappointed if Lansdown doesn't sack him. I know folk say "he won't sack him, they are friends" but I'd ask people to talk to someone who knows his business background. Plenty of friends jettisoned on the way up there.

I'm not uncritical of Steve Lansdown. He has his faults. But people who think that other clubs are more successful because of their owners' football knowledge are showing a lack of knowledge themselves. 

**** knows what Cloughie would write about some of the chairmen in the PL today!!!

[Davefevs]

Good post @Red-Robbo.

He’s done a lot for this club, and yes, we should be grateful.  Ultimately though, he lacks that true football nous to get it right on the pitch.  That’s not wholly his fault.  I wouldn’t entrust Mark Ashton to oversee everything football related.

[Red-Robbo]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Good post @Red-Robbo.

He’s done a lot for this club, and yes, we should be grateful.  Ultimately though, he lacks that true football nous to get it right on the pitch.  That’s not wholly his fault.  I wouldn’t entrust Mark Ashton to oversee everything football related.

TBH the longer things go on, the more I doubt Ashton's ability. It could be argued that it was that appointment, rather than any managers, that has had the most malign influence.

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

When assessing Lansdown's overall impact on the club, you need to consider how ramshackle and Michael Mouse City was before he came.

I'm not just talking about the Gate. Behind the scenes our set-up was no better than the Gas. Potentially worse! We were one of the amateurish clubs in the football league. 

I realise this will provoke a mass outbreak of rose-tinted glasses and "I prefered it back then" comments, but the reality was we were a mostly 3rd tier club whereas now we have facilities that are up their with the best. The gap between us and the likes of Rovers has never been bigger.

So j think you have to say he's been a success which leads us to on-field.

I doubt many club owners have a very detailed knowledge of football. In fact  having grown-up in this country and watched the game regularly,  Lansdown probably has the edge over some of them who have never watched a live game before they bought their clubs.

But there's no magic formula with hiring managers, nor has the club been less successful under Lansdown than it was before. If anything on balance it's been more successful.

I think LJ was a reasonable punt when he was hired. Indeed, there were posters on here agitating for his appointment before he came here. Amusingly, a few of these are now his sternest critics. Oh, the perils of believing everyone has no memory!

I think I'm probably in the majority now of thinking that Lee has revealed his limits and 11th is the best sort of season we can expect with him.

If we fall into or near the drop zone - which I wouldn't be at all surprised by Christmas - I'd be disappointed if Lansdown doesn't sack him. I know folk say "he won't sack him, they are friends" but I'd ask people to talk to someone who knows his business background. Plenty of friends jettisoned on the way up there.

I'm not uncritical of Steve Lansdown. He has his faults. But people who think that other clubs are more successful because of their owners' football knowledge are showing a lack of knowledge themselves. 

**** knows what Cloughie would write about some of the chairmen in the PL today!!!

Good post RR

But I would not classify off field as a success due to who he has entrusted in key positions , notably managers and head coaches , a decent scouting head / system and the failure to employ someone credible to oversee the football side as those have the deciding factors on the pitch

I don’t believe people are naive enough to believe a clubs success is dependent on the owners personal knowledge of the game but success comes when the owners appoint people who do, in key positions

[Red-Robbo]

1 minute ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Good post RR

But I would not classify off field as a success due to who he has entrusted in key positions , notably managers and head coaches and the failure to employ someone credible to oversee the football side

I don’t believe people are naive enough to believe a clubs success is dependent on the owners personal knowledge of the game but success comes when the owners appoint people who do, in key positions

Indeed. See my reservations above about Mark Ashton.

We can't doubt the club is better looking, more professional and in the 21st century, rather than stuck in the 1960s, which is where it was when SL took over. 

I guess the last bit of the jigsaw is a golden age under a truly successful manager. Sadly, that's harder to achieve than it was in Harry Dolman's days, when big clubs could fail and little 'uns get promoted on the basis of a good team rather than a big chequebook.

[fatchers]

Splashing the cash in order to buy instant success may have worked for some in the past (blackburn,wigan etc) but nowadays you are in competition with far more teams in the championship who have better resources(parachute payments etc) who can outspend us.  By the way, having read a number of books on Brian Clough, utube video's & quotes, I've found no mention of SL.  I'm sure there are a number of tin pot clubs who'd love him to have him as their owner.

[Natchfever]

On 16/11/2018 at 20:03, downendcity said:

Good post Mr P. 

I think there are still fans who do not understand, or appreciate, the impact of FFP. Some see the QPR situation as justification for breaching  - if promotion is secured - but as this article is from QPR's perspective, it highlights the major changes recently implemented and which make the new rules hugely punitive.

It also helps to make clear why the club has gone down the route it has in terms of player recruitment as part of the strategy needed to ensure we are living within our financial means, and not just because SL doesn't fancy putting any more of his money into the club.

 

 

I don't believe anything will be done and personally I hope that is the case. All FFP does is keep the elite in their place and nobody can gatecrash that party. If an owner was prepared at all times to deposit enough funds to cover club debts then that should be enough to allow them to spend what they want.

I think a billionare could take the matter to court as FFP being some form of restraint of trade, but I don't see ours doing that.

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

I don't believe anything will be done and personally I hope that is the case. All FFP does is keep the elite in their place and nobody can gatecrash that party. If an owner was prepared at all times to deposit enough funds to cover club debts then that should be enough to allow them to spend what they want.

I think a billionare could take the matter to court as FFP being some form of restraint of trade, but I don't see ours doing that.

Rights and wrongs of it aside.

The litmus test in this respect (I'm talking at EFL/Championship level here) will be this Spring. That'd be when the proper 3 year rolling rules in place, able to measure fully from 16/17 to this season.

If there are proper punishments in the Spring we'll know it's here for the foreseeable, if not then there is not much point to it at this level IMO.

I would say QPR have railed against it but seem to have finally accepted their settlement so that suggests that maybe it is a bit watertight- whether it's true time will tell. They are a club with a foreign billionaire owner.

OTOH, you may well be right about restraint of trade claims by a billionaire owner causing it to collapse or maybe get rewritten. A number of these foreign owners are probably used to getting their own way in their home countries let's say- Marinakis at Forest a good example.

Some say he was a bit of an influence in the Greek game and he was a shipping magnate- couldn't see him taking kindly to a 12 point deduction in the Spring somehow.

A nuclear option of course is to put on the table, expulsion of clubs from Football League who stick two fingers up to the rules and do so gratuitously- would have to be put in a vote to Football League Clubs with say 2/3 agreeing to become a potential punishment, but maybe that would counteract legal action. I wouldn't be in favour but it is one option for consideration.

[Major Isewater]

6 hours ago, willadams said:

This is entirely unfair, Dean Holden came in who was experienced, and David Coles was kept. Most managers want people they’re comfortable with alongside them so it was no surprise Pemberton wasn’t kept.

Wether you see Johnson’s desired playing style as trash or not, there was no point keeping a coach who was at odds with that philosophy, any manager will look for coaches on the same page, no?

The new motto of our club 

" Yes men only need apply "