A properly coached football team

[Rich]

56 minutes ago, Harry said:

Size of the city has nothing to do with it. 
Why should we have been a top flight club years ago? 
Historically, our attendances rank us at 33rd in the country. We’re a mid table championship team when it comes to attendances and we are currently punching marginally above that. 
Just because you and your cat want it now now now cuz you’ve watched for 50 years and are getting impatient, doesn’t mean it’s SL or LJ’s fault. 
Why didn’t that legendary team of the 70’s stay up there and make us an established top level team. Don’t they have some responsibility to bear in failing to keep us in Div 1? 
 

Edit - additional point to make. 
There are only 3 teams in the premier league with historical lower attendances than us (Brighton, Watford & Bournemouth). 
There are 15 teams currently NOT in the Prem who have historically larger attendances than us, and therefore arguably are historically bigger clubs. 
What right do you think we have to be in the Prem? Why exactly do you think we should’ve  been there years ago? 

Do you not think that those teams with higher average attendances than us, have them because they've been more successful?You don't just get higher attendances because of the population size.

The size of the city and it's surrounding area do have a lot to do with the possible success of a club. If there's no latent support to pull on, then eventually that club fails such as Wigan have, we as a club have the capacity to be much better supported. Our crowds are increasing due to better facilities and a better match day experience (football excluded). During the 70's when we were in the top division and struggling, our attendances were about 23k average. Forest, who'd just won the title and then the European cup, were averaging about 26k. With a little success, I think we could well increase our average and be on a par with the likes of WBA, Stoke, Derby, Wolves, absolutely no reason whatsoever not to be. The scenario is slightly different nowadays because of the sponsorship monies available. If the population and fan base are not that important then clubs like Liverpool, Man U wouldn't be bothered about increasing their capacity. What that larger fanbase does is make the club a more merchant friendly club with a better sound financial footing to be able to sustain that level of success.

As for our historical lack of success there are many reasons. The make up of the city, it's still a working mans sport. Lack of investment, rugby has always appealed to the money people of this area. Two teams fighting for the working mans support, between us we are averaging about 27k, not too shabby for the dross we've had to put up with over the years. The most important thing has been the lack of long term investment, we're finally getting that, all we need to do is get the right things in place at the right time. That doesn't appear to be happening at the moment, hopefully it will click into place.

Strange how the investment into the infrastructure of the club has been generally top class, with great facilities, a new training ground on the way and the ground. The rugby has also shown how to be successful but there again, they employed a top coach.

[Packman]

The funny thing is the year Sheffield United went up we did the double over them, LJ actually did a job on Wilder on both occasions. It's a shame they didn't stay in the championship as it's pretty much a guaranteed 6 points.

[Bristol Oil Services]

10 hours ago, Harry said:

 

What right do you think we have to be in the Prem? Why exactly do you think we should’ve  been there years ago? 

It’s not so much a "right," more a curiosity, and a frustration, as to why one of the largest conurbations in the country is so much poorer at football than other similar sized places, and many, many smaller ones.

Why it is never our turn. 

Size matters in football, this cannot be argued. Size gifts you certain advantages, or at least, opportunities to take advantage. 

Many people on here have speculated as to why we have failed where others succeed, citing such things as history, and geography. I think there is something in this, but it doesn’t explain more than a century of mediocrity.

Southampton and then Norwich both rose to the top in the Dicks era, Southampton in the late 60s, Norwich the early 70s. Neither had any history of top flight football, they were not "traditional"football places,  and both were from areas isolated from the main football hubs and hotbeds. This being before the motorway network was built.

We arrived a little later in the 70s. With a history of top flight football, and a decent road and rail network connecting us north and east.

For those four seasons we had at the top in the 70s, we had bigger attendances than Norwich every season and Southampton had the same support - about 21k - a support that tailed off sharply in the 80s.

Indeed, in 1984, Southampton finished 2nd to Liverpool and averaged fewer than we did when relegated just four years before.

We were never bottom three for attendances in the 1st division; never the minnow. Bottom third, yes; small club at that level, yes; but never the most strapped. There was always someone doing more than us with less.

And yet, if you go back and read the matchday programmes from that era, the "narrative" is that attendances are not large enough, money was too tight to mention. Where are the Bristol public?

No-one at the club was saying: actually, the football is a bit dull, we don't score many goals. No-one was saying: we wish crowds were bigger but they are on a par with Norwich, Southampton, Middlesbrough, Bolton, Leicester, Derby, Coventry, QPR, Stoke (and many other clubs that would later go on to make it to the top). We have enough, we need to use it better.

The club were disappointed with the crowd, and the crowd were disappointed with the club. A love/hate relationship that endures still now.

We dropped out in 1980 leaving Norwich and Southampton to create and build a top class history to make us weep. Why there, but not here? How was it that they - with no more history, better geography, or support - coped, and we sunk without trace? How did they cope with relegation and bounce back, while we sank like a stone?

History? Geography? Lack of support? The moaners at AG? The length of grass on the pitch?? (Grass grows more here than in East Anglia or the south coast. That's it then: the overworked groundsman, petrol for the mower, mower repairs. It is Geography!)

Maybe it was luck? But can luck be so unevenly distributed. For so long.

Things are different now, with ffp and so on. But still, clubs with less will sometimes do more (than us, than others with more). When will we be one of those clubs?

It is difficult to comprehend why we are so poor while many others, with much the same as us to play and work with, do so much better.

 

 

 

[Bristol Oil Services]

Having said all of the above, it must be said that we are in good shape right now, and it is a shame so many struggle to enjoy where we are at currently (leaving aside the quality of home performances) - although, being within touching distance of the play-offs (and therefore a geniune shot at promotion) and then slipping away is frustrating.

However, these are Good Times. There is much to be thankful for and much to be cheerful and optimistic about (whilst slightly grimacing through some puzzlingly timid home displays)

[spudski]

Reading this thread has made me realise some of the older generations are more ' entitled ' than the stamp attached to the so called millennial generation.

Imo...Harry is spot on with his posts.

Everyone gets disappointed...and frustration kicks in, but some of the reasoning given is very odd imo.

Of the whole football league there are only a handful of teams playing where their supporters are overjoyed in weekly performances.

 

[cidered abroad]

18 minutes ago, Moments of Pleasure said:

It’s not so much a "right," more a curiosity, and a frustration, as to why one of the largest conurbations in the country is so much poorer at football than other similar sized places, and many, many smaller ones.

Why it is never our turn. 

Size matters in football, this cannot be argued. Size gifts you certain advantages, or at least, opportunities to take advantage. 

Many people on here have speculated as to why we have failed where others succeed, citing such things as history, and geography. I think there is something in this, but it doesn’t explain more than a century of mediocrity.

Southampton and then Norwich both rose to the top in the Dicks era, Southampton in the late 60s, Norwich the early 70s. Neither had any history of top flight football, they were not "traditional"football places,  and both were from areas isolated from the main football hubs and hotbeds. This being before the motorway network was built.

We arrived a little later in the 70s. With a history of top flight football, and a decent road and rail network connecting us north and east.

For those four seasons we had at the top in the 70s, we had bigger attendances than Norwich every season and Southampton had the same support - about 21k - a support that tailed off sharply in the 80s.

Indeed, in 1984, Southampton finished 2nd to Liverpool and averaged fewer than we did when relegated just four years before.

We were never bottom three for attendances in the 1st division; never the minnow. Bottom third, yes; small club at that level, yes; but never the most strapped. There was always someone doing more than us with less.

And yet, if you go back and read the matchday programmes from that era, the "narrative" is that attendances are not large enough, money was too tight to mention. Where are the Bristol public?

No-one at the club was saying: actually, the football is a bit dull, we don't score many goals. No-one was saying: we wish crowds were bigger but they are on a par with Norwich, Southampton, Middlesbrough, Bolton, Leicester, Derby, Coventry, QPR, Stoke (and many other clubs that would later go on to make it to the top). We have enough, we need to use it better.

The club were disappointed with the crowd, and the crowd were disappointed with the club. A love/hate relationship that endures still now.

We dropped out in 1980 leaving Norwich and Southampton to create and build a top class history to make us weep. Why there, but not here? How was it that they - with no more history, better geography, or support - coped, and we sunk without trace? How did they cope with relegation and bounce back, while we sank like a stone?

History? Geography? Lack of support? The moaners at AG? The length of grass on the pitch?? (Grass grows more here than in East Anglia or the south coast. That's it then: the overworked groundsman, petrol for the mower, mower repairs. It is Geography!)

Maybe it was luck? But can luck be so unevenly distributed. For so long.

Things are different now, with ffp and so on. But still, clubs with less will sometimes do more (than us, than others with more). When will we be one of those clubs?

It is difficult to comprehend why we are so poor while many others, with much the same as us to play and work with, do so much better.

 

 

 

Reference to your comments about attendance's in the First Division days.

Club not happy with numbers?

Published Attendance's for all of that time were a very big joke. When numbers like 27,000 were announced during games against Man U, everyone in the stadium, all 36,000, laughed.

The fiddling of attendances was a well known thing at City. Probably at other clubs as cash entry at a turnstile is an easy way for money laundering. Only when we are now all seated, with tickets issued from a computer system are clubs having to issue attendances as "tickets sold".

[Barry Sheene]

12 hours ago, JonDolman said:

Yep. A Leeds fan I was chatting to on holiday said he's fed up with him. And when talking about City he said he's well impressed with our manager!

 

 

 

Leeds love us as we seem to gift them six points every season!

[Robin Wood]

45 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

Reference to your comments about attendance's in the First Division days.

Club not happy with numbers?

Published Attendance's for all of that time were a very big joke. When numbers like 27,000 were announced during games against Man U, everyone in the stadium, all 36,000, laughed.

The fiddling of attendances was a well known thing at City. Probably at other clubs as cash entry at a turnstile is an easy way for money laundering. Only when we are now all seated, with tickets issued from a computer system are clubs having to issue attendances as "tickets sold".

Gates of under 20 thousand were the norm in the first division i remember one game against middlesbrough where we had 12 thousand,large gayes were only evere against the big teams

[jj77]

12 hours ago, Harry said:

Historically, our attendances rank us at 33rd in the country. We’re a mid table championship team when it comes to attendances and we are currently punching marginally above that. 

 

That's not bad seeing as City have been playing Division Three football for most of my life.

I expect if they were playing Division One football for the same period it would have been a lot higher.

[Roger Red Hat]

14 hours ago, Moments of Pleasure said:

I think we're getting somewhere here.

Pulis went on to 1. Win promotion to the Prem, and 2. Coach in the Prem for many years, never being relegated.

And he wasn't good enough for us and we chased him out of the place.

 

Pulis's football was as unwatchable as the shite we get dished up at home currently. It was a blessing to get rid of him. We played some great entertaining stuff with his replacement trio, with the same players.

[Bristol Oil Services]

54 minutes ago, Roger Red Hat said:

Pulis's football was as unwatchable as the shite we get dished up at home currently. It was a blessing to get rid of him. We played some great entertaining stuff with his replacement trio, with the same players.

Yes, of course. But that wasn't the point. All the coaches/managers we at some point loved while they were here, what did they go on to do anywhere else? 

When did we ever unearth a coaching/managing gem that would go on to work at the highest level? What happens to a bloke coaching/managing here?

[Roger Red Hat]

I don't think Pulis was ever  loved! You could hear the collective sigh all over Bristol when he was appointed!

[Natchfever]

1 hour ago, Robin Wood said:

Gates of under 20 thousand were the norm in the first division i remember one game against middlesbrough where we had 12 thousand,large gayes were only evere against the big teams

I also remember large areas of the ground bursting into laughter when the attendances were announced during the matches.

The club couldn't bullshit when Man Utd Liverpool Spurs came to town but surely had fun with the Inland Revenue with the other games.

Far easier to do with the majority of the crowd stood of course.

I agree the official attendances were lower, and not just at City, but I firmly believe there were thousands more in the ground than declared for the majority of the games.

[EstoniaTallinnRed]

15 hours ago, JonDolman said:

Yep. A Leeds fan I was chatting to on holiday said he's fed up with him. And when talking about City he said he's well impressed with our manager!

 

 

 

Well he should be, I mean Leeds manager has only taken them to around Ist and 2nd place atm and LJ has got City going in and out of the playoff positions most of the season. So is that's why he is impressed with our Head Coach?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, EstoniaTallinnRed said:

Well he should be, I mean Leeds manager has only taken them to around Ist and 2nd place atm and LJ has got City going in and out of the playoff positions most of the season. So is that's why he is impressed with our Head Coach?

I think most fans looking at us see us as a club that is doing very well to be where we are. A bit like how some of us may look at Brentford or Preston.

[Clutton Caveman]

19 hours ago, southvillekiddy said:

Thing is mate we have to ask why it has been so difficult for Bristol City to achieve anything of note since the time of Alan Dicks. We seem to have everything going for us.

Therefore one looks at the reasons. The principle reason in my view is we have never been a true footballing city and so have never been able to attract staff of the highest quality at every level of the Club.

The situation with our owner/chairman and his choice of mediocre managers is another regrettable stage in the cycle of our mediocre football history. This is more than a concern, it's a torment to those of us who will die being City fans not having seen enough success and not seeing our Club where we believe it should be.

It's more than possible for SL to break out of this cycle but at the moment I don't see him changing enough to do that.

I wonder how much Steve Lansdown was inflenced by the behaviour of the last BIG manager he signed? Namely Mr Coppell

[maxjak]

5 hours ago, spudski said:

Reading this thread has made me realise some of the older generations are more ' entitled ' than the stamp attached to the so called millennial generation.

Imo...Harry is spot on with his posts.

Everyone gets disappointed...and frustration kicks in, but some of the reasoning given is very odd imo.

Of the whole football league there are only a handful of teams playing where their supporters are overjoyed in weekly performances.

 

It's hardly suprising that some of the older generation are frustrated and disappointed?  I don't know how old you are spudski?  But alot of the supporters have been following Bristol City for 40-50 years, and in that time there have been proportionally a lot more lows than highs.  They have been coming to Ashton Gate year after year, witnessing wins, draws and defeats, and a variety of managers, successes and failures.  When you personally have watched this club for that period of time, I wonder if you would be as magnanimous about the current standard of home games which are being witnessed  by older supporters (and younger), who quite rightly expect better quality entertainment than some of the dross displayed AT HOME this season. Yes, we are well postioned in the table, and LJ has done well to get us to where we are, and If you had attended just the away games this season, and not bothered  with the home games, you would certainly be a lot luckier and happier?  But considering the investment and perceived standard of our coaches......you have to admit our home form and performances have been embarassing?

[southvillekiddy]

22 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

I wonder how much Steve Lansdown was inflenced by the behaviour of the last BIG manager he signed? Namely Mr Coppell

Surely we can agree that Coppell is not typical. He seemed to be a conflicted soul judging by his first interview with City Media. When asked he said something like 'I don't really know why I have come here" Do you remember? A bit of prior research by City would surely have revealed Coppell's unsuitability as an individual who was seriously uncertain about continuing in football management. This is also made clearer with him only being willing to sign a rolling contract with us. So SL chose the wrong man. Again. Then Coppell quit when SL made the massive mistake in interfering with signings and forcing David James on him.

[southvillekiddy]

6 hours ago, Moments of Pleasure said:

It’s not so much a "right," more a curiosity, and a frustration, as to why one of the largest conurbations in the country is so much poorer at football than other similar sized places, and many, many smaller ones.

Why it is never our turn. 

Size matters in football, this cannot be argued. Size gifts you certain advantages, or at least, opportunities to take advantage. 

Many people on here have speculated as to why we have failed where others succeed, citing such things as history, and geography. I think there is something in this, but it doesn’t explain more than a century of mediocrity.

Southampton and then Norwich both rose to the top in the Dicks era, Southampton in the late 60s, Norwich the early 70s. Neither had any history of top flight football, they were not "traditional"football places,  and both were from areas isolated from the main football hubs and hotbeds. This being before the motorway network was built.

We arrived a little later in the 70s. With a history of top flight football, and a decent road and rail network connecting us north and east.

For those four seasons we had at the top in the 70s, we had bigger attendances than Norwich every season and Southampton had the same support - about 21k - a support that tailed off sharply in the 80s.

Indeed, in 1984, Southampton finished 2nd to Liverpool and averaged fewer than we did when relegated just four years before.

We were never bottom three for attendances in the 1st division; never the minnow. Bottom third, yes; small club at that level, yes; but never the most strapped. There was always someone doing more than us with less.

And yet, if you go back and read the matchday programmes from that era, the "narrative" is that attendances are not large enough, money was too tight to mention. Where are the Bristol public?

No-one at the club was saying: actually, the football is a bit dull, we don't score many goals. No-one was saying: we wish crowds were bigger but they are on a par with Norwich, Southampton, Middlesbrough, Bolton, Leicester, Derby, Coventry, QPR, Stoke (and many other clubs that would later go on to make it to the top). We have enough, we need to use it better.

The club were disappointed with the crowd, and the crowd were disappointed with the club. A love/hate relationship that endures still now.

We dropped out in 1980 leaving Norwich and Southampton to create and build a top class history to make us weep. Why there, but not here? How was it that they - with no more history, better geography, or support - coped, and we sunk without trace? How did they cope with relegation and bounce back, while we sank like a stone?

History? Geography? Lack of support? The moaners at AG? The length of grass on the pitch?? (Grass grows more here than in East Anglia or the south coast. That's it then: the overworked groundsman, petrol for the mower, mower repairs. It is Geography!)

Maybe it was luck? But can luck be so unevenly distributed. For so long.

Things are different now, with ffp and so on. But still, clubs with less will sometimes do more (than us, than others with more). When will we be one of those clubs?

It is difficult to comprehend why we are so poor while many others, with much the same as us to play and work with, do so much better.

 

 

 

Bravo

[spudski]

4 hours ago, maxjak said:

It's hardly suprising that some of the older generation are frustrated and disappointed?  I don't know how old you are spudski?  But alot of the supporters have been following Bristol City for 40-50 years, and in that time there have been proportionally a lot more lows than highs.  They have been coming to Ashton Gate year after year, witnessing wins, draws and defeats, and a variety of managers, successes and failures.  When you personally have watched this club for that period of time, I wonder if you would be as magnanimous about the current standard of home games which are being witnessed  by older supporters (and younger), who quite rightly expect better quality entertainment than some of the dross displayed AT HOME this season. Yes, we are well postioned in the table, and LJ has done well to get us to where we are, and If you had attended just the away games this season, and not bothered  with the home games, you would certainly be a lot luckier and happier?  But considering the investment and perceived standard of our coaches......you have to admit our home form and performances have been embarassing?

I've watched since mid 70s.

I don't think what we are seeing is any different to most football clubs.

Just because people have supported for years doesn't justify demanding entertainment...football doesn't work like that.

[Robbored]

2 minutes ago, spudski said:

I've watched since mid 70s.

I don't think what we are seeing is any different to most football clubs.

Just because people have supported for years doesn't justify demanding entertainment...football doesn't work like that.

The difference these days is the internet. Back in the 60s,70s and early 80s few, if any of us had heard of the World Wide Web. Now it’s everywhere and the perfect platform to us football fans to air our views pretty much in a public arena.

Back before the internet all the slagging off the manager, whingeing and complaining and selecting the right team was done in pubs.......and the hierarchy within the club were pretty much unaware of it.....................

 

[TonyTonyTony]

2 hours ago, Robbored said:

Back in the 60s,70s and early 80s few, if any of us had heard of the World Wide Web.

 

Probably because it didn’t exist