What can be “destroyed”?

[Harry]

This has been partly discussed in the Lansdown interview thread, but I thought it might be worth separating out from there and discussing in isolation. 
 

Steve made it quite clear that whoever comes in to be the Head Coach of Bristol City will have to “slot in” to what has been built and that he doesn’t want someone to come in and “destroy” what has been put in place. 
 

So, I thought it might be worth going through exactly what is involved in the day to day of the football club, understand what’s been built, and what ought not be destroyed. 
 

1 - State of the art stadium. 
Steve is very proud of his rebuild and he should be. We’ve got a fantastic facility now and one which players and managers will be very attracted to. No manager will arrive and destroy what has been built. 
Likelihood of Destruction = 0. 
 

2 - State of the art training facility. 
Again, something Steve can be very proud of and again, players and managers will enjoy spending their days in. I can’t see any new manager arriving and not being happy with what’s on offer. 
Likelihood of Destruction = 0. 
 

3 - Non-football activities. 
The club have made great strides in terms of creating revenue for the club through non-football activities, from becoming a premier conferencing facility through to attracting international music acts. I don’t see any manager coming in and asking to cancel the next Take That concert as he’s worried about the pitch. 
Likelihood of Destruction = 0. 
 

4 - Commercial & Marketing. 
Again, great strides have been made in attracting sponsorship, partnerships with large enterprises, increased advertising etc. We certainly seem to be a very professional operation in these areas. I don’t think a new manager has any influence here. 
Likelihood of Destruction = 0. 
 

5 - Community. 
Lots of great work is done by BCFC and the foundation, and again is something to be very proud of. I highly doubt a new manager arrives and says he doesn’t want his players delivering food parcels or not visiting CHSW. 
Likelihood of Destruction = 0

6 - Bristol Sport portfolio. 
The rugby is superb. Many folk enjoy the basketball. The new development will be amazing. None of these things impact the football side, so I don’t think a manager comes in and politely asks the rugby club to be moved out. 
Likelihood of Destruction = 0

7 - Academy. 
Steve says the academy is the “heartbeat of the club”. Cat 2 status was achieved back in 2013 by the fantastic work of Amy Kington and Sean O’Driscoll (and many others). The fruits of this are now bearing. Steve also says that we now have a “wave” of players coming through, rather than the smattering we’ve had in years gone by. There is a desire for a pathway, to ensure youngsters are attracted to BCFC and can see a clear route to the first team. 
Any manager coming in needs to embrace this, and certainly once the youngsters are training at the same facility every day as the senior team, then the expectation would be that a new manager interacts with the academy regularly. Most, if not all, managers will always be happy to play youngsters in their team, as long as they feel they are good enough. No manager will play an academy lad if he isn’t good enough (unless in the midst of a catastrophic injury crisis!!). When push comes to shove, when results are on the line, all managers will find it hard to play youngsters when they have better options. One time when I was in SOD’s office, he explained to me how he has a remit to bring through the academy kids, but how he has to balance this off with 15,000 fans screaming for your head and demanding results, and how this also needs to be weighed against what’s right for the players development and state of mind (ie can they handle that pressure or will they shrink). And he’s someone who 100% believed in the model. 
So even someone who is fully on board will always have the argument with themselves as to whether they need to protect both the player but also protect their own job. 
There are very few managers who would come in and completely disregard the academy. 99% of managers will say “if they’re good enough they’re old enough”. 
Likelihood of Destruction = Very small percentage. 
 

8 - Finances / FFP. 
Steve takes the finances very seriously and has always given managers a healthy budget. He’s said that any new manager has the funds to “rearrange” the squad if they feel it necessary. All clubs have a budget. All clubs have to control spend. Some take more chances than others and find loopholes but generally we are well financed and the managers know they have good backing. I don’t see many managers coming in and demanding more money, when even those with zero financial brains like Harry Redknapp, understand the financial rules in place nowadays. 
Likelihood of Destruction = Very slim. 
 

9 - Recruitment. 
Steve says we have put in place “recruitment systems” and that anyone coming in needs to work within those systems. 
My understanding of those systems are that there has to be an academy pathway (already discussed), that we sign players with potential for growth and future value, and that this is interspersed with necessary ‘experience’. 
Sounds like the kind of model that 99% of managers would embrace. There aren’t many managers who’d come in and say they only want to sign over 30’s. Likewise there won’t be many who want to work purely with youngsters. All managers would be happy with the model we supposedly work to. Buy the best players that you think will get us to the Prem, but understand that the ones that you coach-up and improve may be sold on for profit, but know that the money made comes straight back to you to buy more players. Actually sounds like the sort of model that the majority of football clubs operate. I’m not aware of any clubs (well, maybe 1 down the road) whose model is to purposely buy crap players who won’t improve your squad. 
So any manager coming in will surely embrace the opportunity to work at a club where you are asked to show ambition to get to the Prem and you have a wealthy backer who is willing to fund it. 
Likelihood of Destruction = Tiny. 
 

So, what is it about our ‘structure’ that is actually so different to many other clubs. Most clubs are ‘selling’ clubs. So any manager will understand that your better players will likely go. Most clubs have a fanbase who want to see their own youngsters blooded, so we’re actually no different to most in that respect. 
Most clubs have to work within a budget. All managers understand that. 
Most clubs engage in the community, no manager will ever pull the plug on something like that. 
 

So, it all comes back to recruitment doesn’t it. It’s the one thing that is the stumbling block. I know many people still don’t believe that the manager doesn’t have full control, but surely it’s blindingly obvious by now, and furthered by Steve’s interview, that the new Head Coach has to slot into the current way of thinking. It’s clear and obvious that a new man will not be able to sign his own players. I actually know for a fact and have seen with my own eyes that the manager is given a list from which to choose. I know DaveFevs has likened it to a sausage machine in the past, where the manager is able to feed his (or her) own meat into the machine, but what comes out the other end isn’t always what he put in. 
 

It’s as clear as day, that the one thing that any manager is told not to “destroy”, is our CEO’s influence of transfers. And that is why we are shopping in Poundland again. 

[redsquirrel]

i sometimes think Mark ashton may be on some sort of commission on savings made in the transfer or manager recruitment budget. always seems the cheapest option.hes definitely a gambling man. no new experienced manager would risk players with long term injury history if they needed them as a backbone for a squad. so,in answer to your question,a new manager cant really destroy anything as they wouldnt agree with MA if they were any good. looking  at it that way does make Lee johnson out to be the best weve had or could have had here.

[Davefevs]

I think I also questioned whether some players bypass the sausage machine or don’t go through the same level of scrutiny / analysis (eyes, data, video) as others.

My biggest issue is “player fit”.  Some of that borne out of lack of consistent playing system.

I honestly don’t think we have a bad bunch of players, but some of us are sat here struggling to pick a team and system (and I’m not just talking formation) that is suitable.  Some of that is injury influenced admittedly.

But in an energetic 352 that started the season, where do Brunt and Lansbury fit in for example?

It really needs a new manager, with a clean slate of a squad (which they’ll get) to nail down the playing system and recruit to it.  It’s a massively important appointment, but equally it ain’t a bad time to be coming in.  The clubs in the bag will’ve gone to a large extent.

What we will then see is either:

- recruitment to a plan (I hope)

- players forced on a manager

It really is the missing piece of the jigsaw.  I don’t think Paul Cook couldn’t work with the Recruitment Dept to refine the list of players.  He’s done it in his sleep at his previous clubs.  He’s done it cheaply too.

Whether someone like a Luke Jephcott (just using the name) for £500k (made up fee) from Plymouth massages the ego of the CEO or not is a different question.  But Ashton needs to think about the other end when his ego is massaged by selling him for 10x that with lots of add-ons.

Of course there could be more to it than his ego!

But time for Ashton to realise he’s playing a dangerous game if he gets this one wrong.  Why wouldn’t you trust the manager?  Why wouldn’t you trust the man you appointed having gone through a vigorous / rigorous process.  In Cook’s case, one with a fantastic record of finding players on the cheap.

 

[LondonBristolian]

I think what it basically comes down to is the club have had their fingers burned in the past by managers who prioritised short term success and did not put long term foundations in place. I don't think the club want a manager who is going to

1) insist on a complete overhaul of the squad and sign expensive players on long-term contracts that another manager would not want (which arguably happened in the past when we we took a hit on Hunt and Stewart and were paying players like Pearson and Elliott long after they had any value to the first team).

2) block off the pathway to the young players who have come through this season. I don't think we're going to consider a manager who doesn't want to use Vyner, Bakinson, Massengo, Semenyo etc. as part of the team. 

3) sign players for the short term with no resale value.

I don't think that actually rules out many managers, or is a particularly different set of criteria from most other clubs. Howe didn't have sole control of transfers at Bournemouth and I don't really see any reason why Cook wouldn't or couldn't work on that system.

I think the two massive elephants in the room are

a) as @Davefevspoints out above, and in several different posts, we're not currently implementing our own system very well. We have signed players for the short-term with no resale value, players like Wells and Palmer are already expensive players another manager wasn't getting the best out of and players like Brunt and arguably now Lansbury have been playing ahead of younger players who could offer more in the long term and arguably right now.

b) there seems to be this assumption that high profile managers won't come to us but sources seem to strongly suggest that managers like Hughton (who I felt might not be an ideal fit, tbh) and Cook (who I thought would be a great fit) did want to come last summer. It's pretty inconceivable that an out of work Mick McCarthy would have turned down the job if offered and, whilst the timing was maybe not right for Eddie Howe last summer, a club relatively local to him with infrastructure, potential and young players sounds very much up his alley. The issue isn't that we can't attract managers. It's that we could but still appointed Holden. 

The major question for me isn't whether we'll find it difficult to attract a manager who'll accept our ethos and work within our structure. It's whether the club have got the openness and infrastructure for an incoming manager to help make our structure work as it should. Our ethos is perfectly sound but we're not currently achieving it. 

[Wolf Island]

Look on my works ye mighty and despair 

[exAtyeoMax]

I've said for ages that the focus has to be toward building a team as a priority, and not trading players. If their focus is towards financial gains then they will ultimately buy with the aim to sell at a profit (possibly not buying the right player for the team because they won't get so much out of him as a commodity). They are both financial based people so that will be their instinctual way of working. I'm not saying that trading players has to stop at all but the focus has to be towards the actual game of football for their trading philosophy to work in the long run. This would fit with what @Davefevs says about recruiting to fit the team.

[steviestevieneville]

24 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think I also questioned whether some players bypass the sausage machine or don’t go through the same level of scrutiny / analysis (eyes, data, video) as others.

My biggest issue is “player fit”.  Some of that borne out of lack of consistent playing system.

I honestly don’t think we have a bad bunch of players, but some of us are sat here struggling to pick a team and system (and I’m not just talking formation) that is suitable.  Some of that is injury influenced admittedly.

But in an energetic 352 that started the season, where do Brunt and Lansbury fit in for example?

It really needs a new manager, with a clean slate of a squad (which they’ll get) to nail down the playing system and recruit to it.  It’s a massively important appointment, but equally it ain’t a bad time to be coming in.  The clubs in the bag will’ve gone to a large extent.

What we will then see is either:

- recruitment to a plan (I hope)

- players forced on a manager

It really is the missing piece of the jigsaw.  I don’t think Paul Cook couldn’t work with the Recruitment Dept to refine the list of players.  He’s done it in his sleep at his previous clubs.  He’s done it cheaply too.

Whether someone like a Luke Jephcott (just using the name) for £500k (made up fee) from Plymouth massages the ego of the CEO or not is a different question.  But Ashton needs to think about the other end when his ego is massaged by selling him for 10x that with lots of add-ons.

Of course there could be more to it than his ego!

But time for Ashton to realise he’s playing a dangerous game if he gets this one wrong.  Why wouldn’t you trust the manager?  Why wouldn’t you trust the man you appointed having gone through a vigorous / rigorous process.  In Cook’s case, one with a fantastic record of finding players on the cheap.

 

Also likes 4231 wants to work on the training ground to improve them . Stating in that video posted on here how a team can progress by sticking to a system , coaching them well and seeing players flourish . I think he fits us perfectly . He’d be given time which he also says is a problem in today’s game .

[LondonBristolian]

21 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

I've said for ages that the focus has to be toward building a team as a priority, and not trading players. If their focus is towards financial gains then they will ultimately buy with the aim to sell at a profit (possibly not buying the right player for the team because they won't get so much out of him as a commodity). They are both financial based people so that will be their instinctual way of working. I'm not saying that trading players has to stop at all but the focus has to be towards the actual game of football for their trading philosophy to work in the long run. This would fit with what @Davefevs says about recruiting to fit the team.

I think buying the wrong player for the team, even if they have potential, is also a false economy. Palmer might have been cheap relative to his potential but we are not going to see his value increase whilst he sits on the bench. And even a player like Fam we might have managed to recoup a fee on if he had been in a team geared up to get the best out of him. It is easy to harp on about Brentford but they have shown that recruiting players with potential to fit into an established system gets you results and maximises what you can sell them for. 
 

There should not be a contradiction between signing players to maximise income and signing players who fit the team and, if there is a tension between these two objectives, it weakens both of them.

[exAtyeoMax]

5 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think buying the wrong player for the team, even if they have potential, is also a false economy. Palmer might have been cheap relative to his potential but we are not going to see his value increase whilst he sits on the bench. And even a player like Fam we might have managed to recoup a fee on if he had been in a team geared up to get the best out of him. It is easy to harp on about Brentford but they have shown that recruiting players with potential to fit into an established system gets you results and maximises what you can sell them for. 
 

There should not be a contradiction between signing players to maximise income and signing players who fit the team and, if there is a tension between these two objectives, it weakens both of them.

The KP situation was bizarre, pay loads for him and then not play him…

[Sir Geoff]

7 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think buying the wrong player for the team, even if they have potential, is also a false economy. Palmer might have been cheap relative to his potential but we are not going to see his value increase whilst he sits on the bench. And even a player like Fam we might have managed to recoup a fee on if he had been in a team geared up to get the best out of him. It is easy to harp on about Brentford but they have shown that recruiting players with potential to fit into an established system gets you results and maximises what you can sell them for. 
 

There should not be a contradiction between signing players to maximise income and signing players who fit the team and, if there is a tension between these two objectives, it weakens both of them.

The problem with signing a lot of players to trade is you end up with a lot of show ponies and not enough work horses imo.

[Daniro]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

This has been partly discussed in the Lansdown interview thread, but I thought it might be worth separating out from there and discussing in isolation. 
 

Steve made it quite clear that whoever comes in to be the Head Coach of Bristol City will have to “slot in” to what has been built and that he doesn’t want someone to come in and “destroy” what has been put in place. 
 

So, I thought it might be worth going through exactly what is involved in the day to day of the football club, understand what’s been built, and what ought not be destroyed. 
 

1 - State of the art stadium. 
Steve is very proud of his rebuild and he should be. We’ve got a fantastic facility now and one which players and managers will be very attracted to. No manager will arrive and destroy what has been built. 
Likelihood of Destruction = 0. 
 

2 - State of the art training facility. 
Again, something Steve can be very proud of and again, players and managers will enjoy spending their days in. I can’t see any new manager arriving and not being happy with what’s on offer. 
Likelihood of Destruction = 0. 
 

3 - Non-football activities. 
The club have made great strides in terms of creating revenue for the club through non-football activities, from becoming a premier conferencing facility through to attracting international music acts. I don’t see any manager coming in and asking to cancel the next Take That concert as he’s worried about the pitch. 
Likelihood of Destruction = 0. 
 

4 - Commercial & Marketing. 
Again, great strides have been made in attracting sponsorship, partnerships with large enterprises, increased advertising etc. We certainly seem to be a very professional operation in these areas. I don’t think a new manager has any influence here. 
Likelihood of Destruction = 0. 
 

5 - Community. 
Lots of great work is done by BCFC and the foundation, and again is something to be very proud of. I highly doubt a new manager arrives and says he doesn’t want his players delivering food parcels or not visiting CHSW. 
Likelihood of Destruction = 0

6 - Bristol Sport portfolio. 
The rugby is superb. Many folk enjoy the basketball. The new development will be amazing. None of these things impact the football side, so I don’t think a manager comes in and politely asks the rugby club to be moved out. 
Likelihood of Destruction = 0

7 - Academy. 
Steve says the academy is the “heartbeat of the club”. Cat 2 status was achieved back in 2013 by the fantastic work of Amy Kington and Sean O’Driscoll (and many others). The fruits of this are now bearing. Steve also says that we now have a “wave” of players coming through, rather than the smattering we’ve had in years gone by. There is a desire for a pathway, to ensure youngsters are attracted to BCFC and can see a clear route to the first team. 
Any manager coming in needs to embrace this, and certainly once the youngsters are training at the same facility every day as the senior team, then the expectation would be that a new manager interacts with the academy regularly. Most, if not all, managers will always be happy to play youngsters in their team, as long as they feel they are good enough. No manager will play an academy lad if he isn’t good enough (unless in the midst of a catastrophic injury crisis!!). When push comes to shove, when results are on the line, all managers will find it hard to play youngsters when they have better options. One time when I was in SOD’s office, he explained to me how he has a remit to bring through the academy kids, but how he has to balance this off with 15,000 fans screaming for your head and demanding results, and how this also needs to be weighed against what’s right for the players development and state of mind (ie can they handle that pressure or will they shrink). And he’s someone who 100% believed in the model. 
So even someone who is fully on board will always have the argument with themselves as to whether they need to protect both the player but also protect their own job. 
There are very few managers who would come in and completely disregard the academy. 99% of managers will say “if they’re good enough they’re old enough”. 
Likelihood of Destruction = Very small percentage. 
 

8 - Finances / FFP. 
Steve takes the finances very seriously and has always given managers a healthy budget. He’s said that any new manager has the funds to “rearrange” the squad if they feel it necessary. All clubs have a budget. All clubs have to control spend. Some take more chances than others and find loopholes but generally we are well financed and the managers know they have good backing. I don’t see many managers coming in and demanding more money, when even those with zero financial brains like Harry Redknapp, understand the financial rules in place nowadays. 
Likelihood of Destruction = Very slim. 
 

9 - Recruitment. 
Steve says we have put in place “recruitment systems” and that anyone coming in needs to work within those systems. 
My understanding of those systems are that there has to be an academy pathway (already discussed), that we sign players with potential for growth and future value, and that this is interspersed with necessary ‘experience’. 
Sounds like the kind of model that 99% of managers would embrace. There aren’t many managers who’d come in and say they only want to sign over 30’s. Likewise there won’t be many who want to work purely with youngsters. All managers would be happy with the model we supposedly work to. Buy the best players that you think will get us to the Prem, but understand that the ones that you coach-up and improve may be sold on for profit, but know that the money made comes straight back to you to buy more players. Actually sounds like the sort of model that the majority of football clubs operate. I’m not aware of any clubs (well, maybe 1 down the road) whose model is to purposely buy crap players who won’t improve your squad. 
So any manager coming in will surely embrace the opportunity to work at a club where you are asked to show ambition to get to the Prem and you have a wealthy backer who is willing to fund it. 
Likelihood of Destruction = Tiny. 
 

So, what is it about our ‘structure’ that is actually so different to many other clubs. Most clubs are ‘selling’ clubs. So any manager will understand that your better players will likely go. Most clubs have a fanbase who want to see their own youngsters blooded, so we’re actually no different to most in that respect. 
Most clubs have to work within a budget. All managers understand that. 
Most clubs engage in the community, no manager will ever pull the plug on something like that. 
 

So, it all comes back to recruitment doesn’t it. It’s the one thing that is the stumbling block. I know many people still don’t believe that the manager doesn’t have full control, but surely it’s blindingly obvious by now, and furthered by Steve’s interview, that the new Head Coach has to slot into the current way of thinking. It’s clear and obvious that a new man will not be able to sign his own players. I actually know for a fact and have seen with my own eyes that the manager is given a list from which to choose. I know DaveFevs has likened it to a sausage machine in the past, where the manager is able to feed his (or her) own meat into the machine, but what comes out the other end isn’t always what he put in. 
 

It’s as clear as day, that the one thing that any manager is told not to “destroy”, is our CEO’s influence of transfers. And that is why we are shopping in Poundland again. 

great post.    as you describe, he has nothing to be scared of, but he just can't risk letting go - it's pychological.

 

i think what he's scared of losing (or being destroyed) is his legacy.    

 

 

 

[exAtyeoMax]

2 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

The problem with signing a lot of players to trade is you end up with a lot of show ponies and not enough work horses imo.

the problem is that you have to be able to sell them, somebody has to want to buy them.

[LondonBristolian]

6 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

The problem with signing a lot of players to trade is you end up with a lot of show ponies and not enough work horses imo.

In theory I would agree but I look at our squad and can’t even really see where the show ponies are. It feels to me like we’ve splurged all our money on race horses with gammy legs...

[Silvio Dante]

3 minutes ago, Daniro said:

great post.    as you describe, he has nothing to be scared of, but he just can't risk letting go - it's pychological.

 

i think what he's scared of losing (or being destroyed) is his legacy.    

 

 

 

But, as the maxim goes:

”What is a legacy?

It’s planting seeds in a garden you will never see”

Steve’s legacy, by way of infrastructure, is secure. If you look at Harry’s list - that’s happened under his watch. Long after Steve’s gone, there’s a top notch stadium, training facility, community setup and Cat 2 academy. That’s happened in a large part due to him. But it’s sullied for some by the first team.

So, as the saying indicates, he’ll not realise how much he’s appreciated until long after he’s gone.

The only thing that can harm his legacy, certainly in the short term, is by screwing up the managerial choice again.

[Davefevs]

20 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Also likes 4231 wants to work on the training ground to improve them . Stating in that video posted on here how a team can progress by sticking to a system , coaching them well and seeing players flourish . I think he fits us perfectly . He’d be given time which he also says is a problem in today’s game .

Shirt of getting a really top class manager / big name, I really do think Cook is the perfect fit.  In the summer Hughton was my slightly dull and boring 1st choice, whilst secretly I wanted Cook, my 2nd choice, because I think over the longer term I would really have seen it click, and be a super fit for Bristol City.  It’s still a really good fit.  Perversely in a Covid world where fees are gonna be lower, it might be an even better fit, in that he can use his talent eye-d (sic) to get in better players he might not usually be afforded at clubs like Wigan.

Obviously Howe is that real, real top-choice, but I see Cook in a similar vein to G.Johnson and Cotterill.

[grifty]

I read it as we've spent £X amount on the academy and a scouting network, we're not going to hire a manger who buys the same 5 players he always does.

Like when Warnock would always buy Clint Hill, Shaun Derry, Kenny, etc

Harry Redknapp also got Defoe, Crouch, Kranjcar

[mozo]

I think the destroyed comment was just referring to our philosophy of pathway and spending within our means

[One Team]

3 minutes ago, mozo said:

I think the destroyed comment was just referring to our philosophy of pathway and spending within our means

Agreed. Either that or he was referring Mark Ashton’s ego. 

[Redland]

55 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

But time for Ashton to realise he’s playing a dangerous game if he gets this one wrong.  Why wouldn’t you trust the manager?  Why wouldn’t you trust the man you appointed having gone through a vigorous / rigorous process.  In Cook’s case, one with a fantastic record of finding players on the cheap.

 

Of course Ashton will get it wrong. You’re talking about the man who after the previous five week rigourous process discounted proven, experienced managers and recommended ............................................(drum roll) Dean Holden.

If he had any decency he would have resigned after Holden was sacked.

[Thank you Ashton 8]

45 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think I also questioned whether some players bypass the sausage machine or don’t go through the same level of scrutiny / analysis (eyes, data, video) as others.

My biggest issue is “player fit”.  Some of that borne out of lack of consistent playing system.

I honestly don’t think we have a bad bunch of players, but some of us are sat here struggling to pick a team and system (and I’m not just talking formation) that is suitable.  Some of that is injury influenced admittedly.

But in an energetic 352 that started the season, where do Brunt and Lansbury fit in for example?

It really needs a new manager, with a clean slate of a squad (which they’ll get) to nail down the playing system and recruit to it.  It’s a massively important appointment, but equally it ain’t a bad time to be coming in.  The clubs in the bag will’ve gone to a large extent.

What we will then see is either:

- recruitment to a plan (I hope)

- players forced on a manager

It really is the missing piece of the jigsaw.  I don’t think Paul Cook couldn’t work with the Recruitment Dept to refine the list of players.  He’s done it in his sleep at his previous clubs.  He’s done it cheaply too.

Whether someone like a Luke Jephcott (just using the name) for £500k (made up fee) from Plymouth massages the ego of the CEO or not is a different question.  But Ashton needs to think about the other end when his ego is massaged by selling him for 10x that with lots of add-ons.

Of course there could be more to it than his ego!

But time for Ashton to realise he’s playing a dangerous game if he gets this one wrong.  Why wouldn’t you trust the manager?  Why wouldn’t you trust the man you appointed having gone through a vigorous / rigorous process.  In Cook’s case, one with a fantastic record of finding players on the cheap.

 

Completely agree with " But in an energetic 352 that started the season, where do Brunt and Lansbury fit in for example? " ... I'd also add if you go for this energetic high press then why do you buy Chris Martin ? that's not his game.. his strength is all about hold up play on the ground.

 

 

 

[Harry]

18 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

The KP situation was bizarre, pay loads for him and then not play him…

This was an utter failure of the system. A player the manager wasn’t really sure of, but was happy to take as part of a plan to play him with Nketiah. One was signed, the other got ballsed up and suddenly the head coach has a player he can’t really use. 

[Bazooka Joe]

18 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

The problem with signing a lot of players to trade is you end up with a lot of show ponies and not enough work horses imo.

Mind you, we have some donkeys.

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

This has been partly discussed in the Lansdown interview thread, but I thought it might be worth separating out from there and discussing in isolation. 
 

Steve made it quite clear that whoever comes in to be the Head Coach of Bristol City will have to “slot in” to what has been built and that he doesn’t want someone to come in and “destroy” what has been put in place. 
 

So, I thought it might be worth going through exactly what is involved in the day to day of the football club, understand what’s been built, and what ought not be destroyed. 
 

1 - State of the art stadium. 
Steve is very proud of his rebuild and he should be. We’ve got a fantastic facility now and one which players and managers will be very attracted to. No manager will arrive and destroy what has been built. 
Likelihood of Destruction = 0. 
 

2 - State of the art training facility. 
Again, something Steve can be very proud of and again, players and managers will enjoy spending their days in. I can’t see any new manager arriving and not being happy with what’s on offer. 
Likelihood of Destruction = 0. 
 

3 - Non-football activities. 
The club have made great strides in terms of creating revenue for the club through non-football activities, from becoming a premier conferencing facility through to attracting international music acts. I don’t see any manager coming in and asking to cancel the next Take That concert as he’s worried about the pitch. 
Likelihood of Destruction = 0. 
 

4 - Commercial & Marketing. 
Again, great strides have been made in attracting sponsorship, partnerships with large enterprises, increased advertising etc. We certainly seem to be a very professional operation in these areas. I don’t think a new manager has any influence here. 
Likelihood of Destruction = 0. 
 

5 - Community. 
Lots of great work is done by BCFC and the foundation, and again is something to be very proud of. I highly doubt a new manager arrives and says he doesn’t want his players delivering food parcels or not visiting CHSW. 
Likelihood of Destruction = 0

6 - Bristol Sport portfolio. 
The rugby is superb. Many folk enjoy the basketball. The new development will be amazing. None of these things impact the football side, so I don’t think a manager comes in and politely asks the rugby club to be moved out. 
Likelihood of Destruction = 0

7 - Academy. 
Steve says the academy is the “heartbeat of the club”. Cat 2 status was achieved back in 2013 by the fantastic work of Amy Kington and Sean O’Driscoll (and many others). The fruits of this are now bearing. Steve also says that we now have a “wave” of players coming through, rather than the smattering we’ve had in years gone by. There is a desire for a pathway, to ensure youngsters are attracted to BCFC and can see a clear route to the first team. 
Any manager coming in needs to embrace this, and certainly once the youngsters are training at the same facility every day as the senior team, then the expectation would be that a new manager interacts with the academy regularly. Most, if not all, managers will always be happy to play youngsters in their team, as long as they feel they are good enough. No manager will play an academy lad if he isn’t good enough (unless in the midst of a catastrophic injury crisis!!). When push comes to shove, when results are on the line, all managers will find it hard to play youngsters when they have better options. One time when I was in SOD’s office, he explained to me how he has a remit to bring through the academy kids, but how he has to balance this off with 15,000 fans screaming for your head and demanding results, and how this also needs to be weighed against what’s right for the players development and state of mind (ie can they handle that pressure or will they shrink). And he’s someone who 100% believed in the model. 
So even someone who is fully on board will always have the argument with themselves as to whether they need to protect both the player but also protect their own job. 
There are very few managers who would come in and completely disregard the academy. 99% of managers will say “if they’re good enough they’re old enough”. 
Likelihood of Destruction = Very small percentage. 
 

8 - Finances / FFP. 
Steve takes the finances very seriously and has always given managers a healthy budget. He’s said that any new manager has the funds to “rearrange” the squad if they feel it necessary. All clubs have a budget. All clubs have to control spend. Some take more chances than others and find loopholes but generally we are well financed and the managers know they have good backing. I don’t see many managers coming in and demanding more money, when even those with zero financial brains like Harry Redknapp, understand the financial rules in place nowadays. 
Likelihood of Destruction = Very slim. 
 

9 - Recruitment. 
Steve says we have put in place “recruitment systems” and that anyone coming in needs to work within those systems. 
My understanding of those systems are that there has to be an academy pathway (already discussed), that we sign players with potential for growth and future value, and that this is interspersed with necessary ‘experience’. 
Sounds like the kind of model that 99% of managers would embrace. There aren’t many managers who’d come in and say they only want to sign over 30’s. Likewise there won’t be many who want to work purely with youngsters. All managers would be happy with the model we supposedly work to. Buy the best players that you think will get us to the Prem, but understand that the ones that you coach-up and improve may be sold on for profit, but know that the money made comes straight back to you to buy more players. Actually sounds like the sort of model that the majority of football clubs operate. I’m not aware of any clubs (well, maybe 1 down the road) whose model is to purposely buy crap players who won’t improve your squad. 
So any manager coming in will surely embrace the opportunity to work at a club where you are asked to show ambition to get to the Prem and you have a wealthy backer who is willing to fund it. 
Likelihood of Destruction = Tiny. 
 

So, what is it about our ‘structure’ that is actually so different to many other clubs. Most clubs are ‘selling’ clubs. So any manager will understand that your better players will likely go. Most clubs have a fanbase who want to see their own youngsters blooded, so we’re actually no different to most in that respect. 
Most clubs have to work within a budget. All managers understand that. 
Most clubs engage in the community, no manager will ever pull the plug on something like that. 
 

So, it all comes back to recruitment doesn’t it. It’s the one thing that is the stumbling block. I know many people still don’t believe that the manager doesn’t have full control, but surely it’s blindingly obvious by now, and furthered by Steve’s interview, that the new Head Coach has to slot into the current way of thinking. It’s clear and obvious that a new man will not be able to sign his own players. I actually know for a fact and have seen with my own eyes that the manager is given a list from which to choose. I know DaveFevs has likened it to a sausage machine in the past, where the manager is able to feed his (or her) own meat into the machine, but what comes out the other end isn’t always what he put in. 
 

It’s as clear as day, that the one thing that any manager is told not to “destroy”, is our CEO’s influence of transfers. And that is why we are shopping in Poundland again. 

That's very long post just to have a pop at Mark Ashton and Steve Lansdown- why not just say- Steve won't allow MA to allow any Manager a free hand in transfers?

[The Swan and Cemetery]

Agree recruitment has been very patchy (Brentford sell plenty, but recruit far better), but the coaching needs to improve so much. Struggle to believe that with decent coaching even our current crop would allow crosses at will and only muster a shot every third St Swithin’s Day.

[chinapig]

On the recruitment side I have no problem with the model. As @Harrysays it is one lots of managers are used to working with.

The problem is that the man in charge of it is not a football expert. Though he thinks he is and SL seems to agree.

The only defence of Ashton SL could come up with is that he works hard. As if that was enough to justify his £500k salary.

If only some interviewer would ask SL what he thinks qualifies Ashton to be in control of all day to day football (as opposed to business) operations.

[Shtanley]

14 minutes ago, Harry said:

This was an utter failure of the system. A player the manager wasn’t really sure of, but was happy to take as part of a plan to play him with Nketiah. One was signed, the other got ballsed up and suddenly the head coach has a player he can’t really use. 

He did use him until Afobe got injured.

[italian dave]

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think what it basically comes down to is the club have had their fingers burned in the past by managers who prioritised short term success and did not put long term foundations in place. I don't think the club want a manager who is going to

1) insist on a complete overhaul of the squad and sign expensive players on long-term contracts that another manager would not want (which arguably happened in the past when we we took a hit on Hunt and Stewart and were paying players like Pearson and Elliott long after they had any value to the first team).

2) block off the pathway to the young players who have come through this season. I don't think we're going to consider a manager who doesn't want to use Vyner, Bakinson, Massengo, Semenyo etc. as part of the team. 

3) sign players for the short term with no resale value.

I don't think that actually rules out many managers, or is a particularly different set of criteria from most other clubs. Howe didn't have sole control of transfers at Bournemouth and I don't really see any reason why Cook wouldn't or couldn't work on that system.

I think the two massive elephants in the room are

a) as @Davefevspoints out above, and in several different posts, we're not currently implementing our own system very well. We have signed players for the short-term with no resale value, players like Wells and Palmer are already expensive players another manager wasn't getting the best out of and players like Brunt and arguably now Lansbury have been playing ahead of younger players who could offer more in the long term and arguably right now.

b) there seems to be this assumption that high profile managers won't come to us but sources seem to strongly suggest that managers like Hughton (who I felt might not be an ideal fit, tbh) and Cook (who I thought would be a great fit) did want to come last summer. It's pretty inconceivable that an out of work Mick McCarthy would have turned down the job if offered and, whilst the timing was maybe not right for Eddie Howe last summer, a club relatively local to him with infrastructure, potential and young players sounds very much up his alley. The issue isn't that we can't attract managers. It's that we could but still appointed Holden. 

The major question for me isn't whether we'll find it difficult to attract a manager who'll accept our ethos and work within our structure. It's whether the club have got the openness and infrastructure for an incoming manager to help make our structure work as it should. Our ethos is perfectly sound but we're not currently achieving it. 

Good post LB, but on that last point, we’re not miles off it: until 18 months ago I’d say we were. So it needs re-invigorating, but not re-inventing.

[spudski]

What I'd like to be asked to SL, and hear his explanation, is how he has come to the conclusion that promotion is possible under his system in place?

I'd like to understand how he thinks promotion is possible and expected...using Academy players and returning loans, with a few rough diamonds, and a few experienced heads, under the guidance of coaches that have never won promotion or have experience of doing it. As well as selling your better players and not replacing them properly.

Also...how is a coach going to succeed if he sets about a playing system, but is given players that really don't suit the system.

Often players that are good footballers, but don't necessarily fit a system. Players that can improve on their value, and asked to try and fit in a system. The square peg in round holes syndrome.

It's often like...so and so is a good player, but he doesn't have the attributes to play to this system...but try and coach him into that position. 

For example...imo... we've never replaced Webster. A ball playing defender that can build from the back. 

DaSilva...great player in his own way. But nothing like Bryan in energy, fitness, press, directness etc.

As for our selection of forwards, that's been woefully judged imo.

Since Nketiah...it's almost like anyone available that has scored in the past. A right bag of all-sorts.

The way we recruit has an effect on any system a coach wishes to implement. 

It's the equivalent of being handed a bag of all-sorts and told to mould them some how.

[LondonBristolian]

7 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Good post LB, but on that last point, we’re not miles off it: until 18 months ago I’d say we were. So it needs re-invigorating, but not re-inventing.

I agree with that. But, in a way I worry that it makes it harder. I think it is way easier to spot and fix a problem on something that is obviously broken. When things are working okay but not quite as they should, it is easy to keep pretending they are working fine until suddenly the small flaws become massive. There is nothing wrong with the club at the moment that is not easy to fix but only if people admit it needs fixing and set about doing that.

[Harry]

16 minutes ago, chinapig said:

If only some interviewer would ask SL what he thinks qualifies Ashton to be in control of all day to day football (as opposed to business) operations.

I was once present when my friend asked Ashton himself that very question. It’s the only time I’ve ever seen him lost for words!! True story.