"He's taken us as far as he can"

[Sleepy1968]

4 hours ago, BigAl&Toby said:

The blind still lead the blind….

Lansdown never wanted to relocate to Ashton Vale. Twas a smokescreen to get what he really wanted. His cake and the crumbs after he’d devoured it….

Ashton Vale was only ever wanted for it’s true development potential. 

Houses. Not a sports stadium.

And bugger me he got them both. The cash cow keeps mooing as Steve’s hands are massaging it’s teats.

Meanwhile we’ve got a footballing feast to look forward to on Saturday…….

The more I think about it, the more obvious it becomes that no one was overlooking the village green angle when they faield to fence off the ashton value land.

[ExiledAjax]

16 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

It's difficult to know with the Lansdowns, and it's probably time to recognise them as a collective. Whether it's in terms of day to day decision-making or a horrible worst case scenario, it's not just Steve that is, or would, make decisions involving the football club, it is also Maggie and Jon. Some may consider it inappropriate to speculate in this way, but should the worst happen to Steve, I believe Maggie would inherit his shares. And so forth. Therefore, it is important to recognise that Bristol City FC, RFC, WFC and Flyers are owned by "The Lansdowns".

Steve owns 99% shares in Bristol City FC, yet I still see people banging on about there being "a board". The board is Steve, Maggie and Jon, because guess what? They own 99% of the club. Brian Tinnion, Lee Johnson,  Mark Ashton, Nigel Pearson,  Richard Gould - employees, nothing more. Their say, pretty much subservient with their level of power at the club. 

For the bit in bold, I guess it is hard to say for certain. You'd need to know not only the terms of his will, but also the transmission terms contained within the articles of association (or equivalent) of Pula Sport, the Channel Islands company that I believe is the only one in which any Lansdown actually directly holds shares (all the rest of the companies being subsidiaries of that ultimate holdco). I don't believe that Steve and Maggie own all of the shares jointly, as the PSC register for Bristol City Holdings Limited list them separately, and lists Steve as having 75% or more of the shares and voting rights, plus the right to appoint/remove the directors, whereas Maggie holds between 25% and 50% of the shares. For that maths to work out they must own some shares jointly, but others separately. Steve must also hold some shares that carry different rights than those held by Maggie. I suspect that Maggie does not have voting rights for example, as she can't affect the make up of the boards.

You can assume that Steve's shares go to Maggie upon death, but you cannot know for sure that all of them do without seeing Steve's will and the corporate documents of Pula Sport.

The second point that you make here is effectively accusing the group of companies of pretty piss poor corporate governance, bordering on negligent disregard for the proper role of directors and shareholders and a breach of fiduciary duties.

The only Lansdown currently appointed to the board of any of the relevant companies registered at Companies House is Jon*. He is on the board of Bristol Sport Limited, Bristol Flyers Limited, Bristol Rugby Club Limited, BCFC Limited, Ashton Gate Limited, Bristol City Football Club Limited, and Bristol City Holdings Limited. So, the only member of the Lansdown family that should be involved in the day to day operations of the companies, is Jon. His duty as a director is to run those companies for the benefit of the shareholders, and yes ultimately that is his mum and dad. However he also has a duty in law to act independently and without his discretion being fettered by anyone else. If, as you say, the shareholders are involved in day to day to decisions, well then Jon (and all the other directors) are sailing pretty close to the wind in terms of fulfilling their duties properly and correctly. At the very least you'd expect conflict of interests and the like to be declared (privately, that sort of thing doesn't need to be public), or we'd expect some sort of shareholders' agreement (a private document).

Now the confusion comes when Jon is described as 'chairman', but then acts in very much an executive role, including being head of kit design. He is clearly not really a chairman in the traditional sense of the word - a director who makes sure the other directors abide by their duties.

This is all without even mentioning the chain of board and shareholder resolutions you'd need to pass if Steve and Maggie, via Pula Sport, actually wanted to make a controlling decision in one of the lower subsidiary companies. Just as one example the articles of association of Bristol Sport Limited says that the members may by special resolution, direct the directors to do something. Ok, that's a carve out from the general rule that the directors act independently. However, that special resolution would then have to be filed at Companies House, and so we would all be able to see it - there is no such resolution currently showing on the Companies House page.**

You can say that I am naïve and that there is a difference between day to day reality and the legal framework within which they should be operating. However, if the operation of the board and club are as you allege, then the whole stack is pretty possibly in breach of a whole bunch of laws and regulations. As others have said, the corp gov generally is a bit of a mess, and needs clearing up.

Ultimately, there's an awful lot to unpick. Bristol City has far from the most complicated corporate structure, but the devil is in the detail.

*Note that Steve is a designated member, with Jon, of Vence LLP, the LLP that owns the Ashton Vale land, but my understanding is that this entity sits outside of the main Bristol Sport structure.

**As an aside, if they do want to sell the club then Burges Salmon really want to be updating the articles of Bristol City Holdings Limited as they are from 2005 and still talk about stuff like bearer shares.

[ExiledAjax]

3 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Yup. Listed twice for some reason.

My point about having employees as directors still stands though. 

I think one of the problems with BCFC is the composition of the board: the owner's son and a bloke who has the profile of the invisible man, plus two people employed by the owner.  Where's the oversight?  Where's the expertise?  Who was there to say, "I don't think Dean Holden is ready to manage at this level", for example? Where is an independent voice?

We'd be much better with it, which is why I welcome new investment in the club. New stakeholders should mean the cosy consensus is challenged.

To be honest, as private companies there is no requirement for an independent director to be on the boards. It's only with PLCs that you start to get into legal and regulatory requirements for non-execs and proper chairmen.

[Red-Robbo]

45 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

To be honest, as private companies there is no requirement for an independent director to be on the boards. It's only with PLCs that you start to get into legal and regulatory requirements for non-execs and proper chairmen.

 This is true. It would just be handy at a football club. Not suggesting they are breaking company law or owt. 

[ExiledAjax]

1 minute ago, Red-Robbo said:

 This is true. It would just be handy at a football club. Not suggesting they are breaking company law or owt. 

I agree completely. I'm hoping we see the 'fan-led review' recommend a regulator, and I'd certainly think that part of that regulator's role would be to ensure that there was uniform corp gov standards across professional football. To my mind including a requirement to have an independent element on the board would be a good thing.

Football clubs aren't like normal companies, but currently they dance to the same tune.

[ExiledAjax]

39 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I agree completely. I'm hoping we see the 'fan-led review' recommend a regulator, and I'd certainly think that part of that regulator's role would be to ensure that there was uniform corp gov standards across professional football. To my mind including a requirement to have an independent element on the board would be a good thing.

Football clubs aren't like normal companies, but currently they dance to the same tune.

Would not normally quote myself, but @Red-Robbo I just looked up the interim findings of the review - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1004891/TC_letter_to_Oliver_Dowden_Accessible_Format.pdf

Couch states in her letter that "I have stated publicly that there is a strong case for a new independent regulator, and I have heard nothing in evidence that has dissuaded me from this view. I believe that IREF should be established to address issues that are most relevant to the risks to the game and already at least partially a matter of English law - particularly financial regulation, corporate governance and ownership. The related requirements are likely to include cost controls, real time financial monitoring, minimum governance requirements (including a requirement for independent non-executive directors on club boards) and revised separate tests for owners and directors of clubs on an initial and ongoing basis."

So yeh, should a regulator be founded, it's almost certain that the Lansdowns would be required to broaden the board, and provide greater transparency.

[BigAl&Toby]

4 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

 

So the old joke is "how do you become a millionaire?, Start with a billion and invest it in a football club." right? 

So my view is that Lansdown is too smart to allow that to happen to him but, everything else he has invested in and has planned will only allow him to get his money back. I don't believe there is a massive profit in this unless something surprising happens in the future to the football, the womens game, rugby or UK basketball sides that we can't foresee. Even reaching the premier League is only going to allow some investment on the playing side without further input from him. 

I don't think this is a bad thing, we have a ground the majority of us appreciate, the team is currently out of form, but the consensus of opinion on here in the last 10 years was that we wanted an extended spell in the Championship, and we have had that. 

In another post @BigAl&Toby suggested that he was never interested in Ashton Vale, I am not sure why he spent 10 years fighting for it, spent a large sum on buying land for it then. It would have definitely been cheaper starting from scratch and the income from match days would have been higher due to no disruption while the build was going ahead.
There is also the peripheral benefits to the City that people seem to overlook, regeneration of the Ashton area, new jobs in hospitality, conferencing  etc, it all comes from the investment of one man. He has also done this with little help, and in some cases downright opposition from Bristol City Council over the years.

Why should that cost him a large percentage of his fortune? 

Over the last 55 years I have seen so much lip service paid by successive Chairmen since Harry Dolman to the progression of this club. At every turn they either took more money out of the club than the put in, or suggested investment that never came. Lansdown has done pretty much the opposite, when he has added money from the sale of shares just to keep us afloat, there has been little or no fanfare about it. 

Forget red herrings like "% of income invested" and "I pay through the turnstiles" rhetoric, combined we would do well to match what he has put into this club over his time here. I should think that he feels his £150 - 200m investment is pretty unappreciated right now, no wonder he wants to pass it on to some other sucker.

If that’s what I said that’s not what I meant.

Mr L hedged his bets with Ashton Vale. If he got consent for a stadium then that would have been ok. He’d then have redeveloped Ashton Gate.

The real value though was in getting resi consent on Ashton Vale. That’s what he really wanted. Never mind a consent to develop a sporting and entertainment complex. The value in that land was always resi.

And guess what? He’s got it. Hook, line and sinker.

He tried “his best” to make us proud. But guess what? He’s got his cash cow in BS3 and he’s milking her teats. He’s also got his resi consent on Ashton Vale.

Who says he can’t have his cake and eat it?

But we’re ok. And eternally grateful. Aren’t we?

[The Constant Rabbit]

Goodness, this seems familiar.

If only someone had posted this exact same stuff, ooh, say 2 weeks ago... 

[chinapig]

35 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

So yeh, should a regulator be founded, it's almost certain that the Lansdowns would be required to broaden the board, and provide greater transparency.

It's a recommendation certainly. The question is, will the government accept it?

My guess is the Premier League will oppose it. The big clubs especially do not like any threat to them doing whatever the hell they like. So, especially having been forced to back down on the ESL, they may be spoiling for a fight.

The most likely scenario imo is that Crouch's proposal will be watered down as a result. I hope I'm wrong though.

[Pezo]

6 hours ago, Robbored said:

A major worry would be if SL sold up who would buy the club? We could end up with a dodgy ownership and suffer the consequences of that.

SL is a Bristolian and to me that’s vitally important and in my view he’s achieved a great deal so far. Started Bristol Sport, Revamped AG, brand spanking new training facilities. The only thing missing is a squad capable of reaching the riches of the PL. Sure, he’s made mistakes not only with managers but with senior members of staff at AG but I’m more than happy to forgive for those errors - I really wish more City fans shared my view.

SL has top drawer business acumen - hence his billionaire status and fair play to him but City is not his only interest. Fairly recently he bought up a hotel complex and golf club in Guernsey and who knows what other interests he has. 

I’d be seriously concerned if he ever sold up.

While I agree if you take those achievements you could easily pick them apart.

Started Bristol sport - how has a sports management and service business helped the football club.

Revamped Ashton gate - that had been talked about since Scott Davison was here, it needed doing and who let it get in the state it was in after 20 plus years of ownership?

Brand spanking new training facilities that are similar to Crystal palace u23s and as you know should have been done under Danny Wilson and be 20 years old by now.

[ExiledAjax]

7 minutes ago, chinapig said:

It's a recommendation certainly. The question is, will the government accept it?

My guess is the Premier League will oppose it. The big clubs especially do not like any threat to them doing whatever the hell they like. So, especially having been forced to back down on the ESL, they may be spoiling for a fight.

The most likely scenario imo is that Crouch's proposal will be watered down as a result. I hope I'm wrong though.

Agreed, it will be a hard sell. We only have the interim report right now - the full one is due to be published soon I believe. That report will be a starting wish list of recommendations, and you're correct that they will be negotiated until something is agreed between the government and the stakeholders. Of the three things that Couch recommends the regulator have oversight for - financial regulation, corporate governance and ownership, I would expect corp governance to be the least controversial. I've worked for regulators before, and my wife worked for the FCA when we were in London. I'm well aware of the testy relationships that regulators and their industries have, and when you have an industry with the resources that football has...blimey it's going to be tough to get something in place.

I'm genuinely kind of excited by the prospect of the full report. There's a lot of nerdy corporate law type stuff that will come out of it. All this 'golden share' stuff, fan share schemes etc. There's a real possibility of defining a new class of company or legal entity within English law.

Or it could all just be farts in the wind.

[Robbored]

3 minutes ago, Pezo said:

While I agree if you take those achievements you could easily pick them apart.

Started Bristol sport - how has a sports management and service business helped the football club.

Revamped Ashton gate

Scot Davidson didn’t have access the resources to pay for a professional assessment of the AG stadium back then but it was obvious to all that ground space around BS3 was very limited.

When SL took over he did have the resources for a professional assessment and subsequently three sides of AG were redeveloped. Until then AG had been slowly deteriorating over quite a number of years - it wasn’t down to SL that AG had become such a dump.

Brand spanking new training facilities that are similar to Crystal palace u23s and as you know should have been done under Danny Wilson and be 20 years old by now.

SL said fairly recently that he’d asked Danny Wilson what he spend a million on - he replied  ‘the training facilities’ and that has finally happened. The fact that the new facilities are similar to those of the Palace u23s means nothing.

 

[Bris Red]

17 minutes ago, Pezo said:

While I agree if you take those achievements you could easily pick them apart.

Started Bristol sport - how has a sports management and service business helped the football club.

Revamped Ashton gate - that had been talked about since Scott Davison was here, it needed doing and who let it get in the state it was in after 20 plus years of ownership?

Brand spanking new training facilities that are similar to Crystal palace u23s and as you know should have been done under Danny Wilson and be 20 years old by now.

Indeed. The redevelopment of Ashton Gate has long long been coming. As you said Scott Davidson was looking at doing it. Anyone remember the plans for the stadium at Hengrove Park?

Again as you have said the training ground is something that should have been done a very long time ago. An absolute embarrassment that we were sharing QEH school grounds for how many years? The new facilities we have got are decent but thats all they are decent, they are the bog standard minimum requirement for most proper clubs at this level. I mean you can even go as far as saying they aren’t actually overly that great, no indoor pitches on site is not ideal is it? I would say the Bears facility is actually more head turning and impressive than ours actually.
 

KITR is bang on with his opening post, a good summary and for what it’s worth i think he has taken us as far as he wants too now. The championship ‘’will do’’ for the Lansdown family IMO. Time to push the Flyers and the Rugby club on and the let the football club just tick along as lets be honest even keeping us in the Championship is costing a fortune (in the eyes of the Lansdown family)..

[chinapig]

15 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Agreed, it will be a hard sell. We only have the interim report right now - the full one is due to be published soon I believe. That report will be a starting wish list of recommendations, and you're correct that they will be negotiated until something is agreed between the government and the stakeholders. Of the three things that Couch recommends the regulator have oversight for - financial regulation, corporate governance and ownership, I would expect corp governance to be the least controversial. I've worked for regulators before, and my wife worked for the FCA when we were in London. I'm well aware of the testy relationships that regulators and their industries have, and when you have an industry with the resources that football has...blimey it's going to be tough to get something in place.

I'm genuinely kind of excited by the prospect of the full report. There's a lot of nerdy corporate law type stuff that will come out of it. All this 'golden share' stuff, fan share schemes etc. There's a real possibility of defining a new class of company or legal entity within English law.

Or it could all just be farts in the wind.

Interesting, thanks. Some will see these things as nerdy but they are critical to the future of the game. I understand the report will be published this month btw.

In my experience what tends to happen when regulation is threatened in other areas is you end up with a voluntary code of practice and alleged self regulation. A sop in other words. Fingers crossed it will not be so this time.

 

[Pezo]

4 minutes ago, Robbored said:

 

On your first point - there is a good 20+ years between Scott Davidson and the SL funded redevelopment of Ashton gate. It wasn't like Davison left SL came in and the ground was redeveloped, I cut him some slack that the AV debacle cost him about 3 years but 3 in 20+ years!

Like you say with the training facilities it's finally happened. The comparison to Palace u23s shows how far we are behind, we should have had these facilities ages ago and I'm fairly sure SL would agree.

Why did both of these things take so long? What are we going to do next that's 20 years behind the cutting edge? Sorry we're ahead of our time because we bought a TV that goes on a trailer, we have drones and a player app, the problem with those things is that they don't take more than a couple weeks to sort out (there's virtually zero barriers to entry for others to copy).

There's a saying in business that you have to be first, biggest or cheat - SL won't cheat, we do ok (not spectacular) when we're one of the biggest in the third tier, our only way to compete at this level is be first and as you say under SL we have a timeline of it happens eventually.

[Pezo]

27 minutes ago, bris red said:

Indeed. The redevelopment of Ashton Gate has long long been coming. As you said Scott Davidson was looking at doing it. Anyone remember the plans for the stadium at Hengrove Park?

Again as you have said the training ground is something that should have been done a very long time ago. An absolute embarrassment that we were sharing QEH school grounds for how many years? The new facilities we have got are decent but thats all they are decent, they are the bog standard minimum requirement for most proper clubs at this level. I mean you can even go as far as saying they aren’t actually overly that great, no indoor pitches on site is not ideal is it? I would say the Bears facility is actually more head turning and impressive than ours actually.
 

KITR is bang on with his opening post, a good summary and for what it’s worth i think he has taken us as far as he wants too now. The championship ‘’will do’’ for the Lansdown family IMO. Time to push the Flyers and the Rugby club on and the let the football club just tick along as lets be honest even keeping us in the Championship is costing a fortune (in the eyes of the Lansdown family)..

I'm not sure about your last point if it's trying to say he is choosing, I don't think he is choosing one over the other he can easily afford to fund everything - it's what he has time to dedicate himself to I guess, maybe? He knows we're not going to challenge because of our FFP constraints, he has taken us as far as FFP will allow him to for the next couple of years, maybe? So the wording could be that the championship is where he is stuck due to FFP and parachute payments I think.

[Port Said Red]

1 hour ago, BigAl&Toby said:

If that’s what I said that’s not what I meant.

Mr L hedged his bets with Ashton Vale. If he got consent for a stadium then that would have been ok. He’d then have redeveloped Ashton Gate.

The real value though was in getting resi consent on Ashton Vale. That’s what he really wanted. Never mind a consent to develop a sporting and entertainment complex. The value in that land was always resi.

And guess what? He’s got it. Hook, line and sinker.

He tried “his best” to make us proud. But guess what? He’s got his cash cow in BS3 and he’s milking her teats. He’s also got his resi consent on Ashton Vale.

Who says he can’t have his cake and eat it?

But we’re ok. And eternally grateful. Aren’t we?

So you would be more impressed id he had pissed multi millions up the wall without building in a way of protecting his investment? 

One minute he is being lambasted for being the worlds most inept billionaire, the next he is criticised for being a clever businessman, that's typical of this forum.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Port Said Red

[Kid in the Riot]

1 hour ago, bris red said:

Indeed. The redevelopment of Ashton Gate has long long been coming. As you said Scott Davidson was looking at doing it. Anyone remember the plans for the stadium at Hengrove Park?

Again as you have said the training ground is something that should have been done a very long time ago. An absolute embarrassment that we were sharing QEH school grounds for how many years? The new facilities we have got are decent but thats all they are decent, they are the bog standard minimum requirement for most proper clubs at this level. I mean you can even go as far as saying they aren’t actually overly that great, no indoor pitches on site is not ideal is it? I would say the Bears facility is actually more head turning and impressive than ours actually.
 

KITR is bang on with his opening post, a good summary and for what it’s worth i think he has taken us as far as he wants too now. The championship ‘’will do’’ for the Lansdown family IMO. Time to push the Flyers and the Rugby club on and the let the football club just tick along as lets be honest even keeping us in the Championship is costing a fortune (in the eyes of the Lansdown family)..

 

26 minutes ago, Pezo said:

I'm not sure about your last point if it's trying to say he is choosing, I don't think he is choosing one over the other he can easily afford to fund everything - it's what he has time to dedicate himself to I guess, maybe? He knows we're not going to challenge because of our FFP constraints, he has taken us as far as FFP will allow him to for the next couple of years, maybe? So the wording could be that the championship is where he is stuck due to FFP and parachute payments I think.

Agree Pezo, I don't think the Lansdowns are choosing Flyers/Bears over City.

They are simply waiting for the proposals at Ashton Vale and the sporting quarter to gain planning permission. 

Once that is achieved, they have their exit strategy. 

[YGBjammy]

I imagine he's planning to sell once the sports quarter/village is built. These things take a long time though so he's on the look out for investors now and testing the waters a little?

As others, and The Athletic article, have highlighted there are a lot of foreign owners in the championship who I imagine were seen as very exciting and promised a lot when they came in; only to now be stuck in the championship with only a ton of debt to show for it.

We've seen SL's managerial appointments; doesn't bode well for appointing someone to take over from him...

Edited November 18, 2021 by YGBjammy

[Pezo]

7 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

 

Agree Pezo, I don't think the Lansdowns are choosing Flyers/Bears over City.

They are simply waiting for the proposals at Ashton Vale and the sporting quarter to gain planning permission. 

Once that is achieved, they have their exit strategy. 

I think they will have it built - that will probably coincide nicely with the end of our FFP mess, having a small squad and thus good looking books making us quite attractive as long as we don't get relegated, I accept probably small fry in the grand scheme of things.

[Kid in the Riot]

1 minute ago, Pezo said:

I think they will have it built - that will probably coincide nicely with the end of our FFP mess, having a small squad and thus good looking books making us quite attractive as long as we don't get relegated, I accept probably small fry in the grand scheme of things.

Both sites won't be completed for many years, probably 5+ years from now. And given SL is already on record as looking for outside investment and The Athletic are now even muting a full takeover, then I think things will likely happen before the projects are built out.

Don't forget that in practice Ashton Vale technically as nothing to do with Bristol Sport/City, and even the sporting quarter is technically a separate site to Ashton Gate (though clearly will be intrinsically linked to the stadium).

Any deal could easily be done on the proviso that the sporting quarter development is built-out. The Lansdowns may well want to retain ownership of the arena and hotel elements. 

[Mr Chappers]

Looking at the number of shysters/ undesirables owning football clubs, seems a pretty pointless thread.

[ralphindevon]

Soon after Vincent Tan took over Cardiff and he was trying to turn the stadium and shirts red and their fans were getting upset, I asked Steve Lansdown if he could promise he wouldn’t ever Bristol City to foreign investors like that.

He then told a story of a recent game at Cardiff and how the atmosphere had changed and wasn’t a pleasant experience since the takeover. My eyes lit up.

Then he said no, he couldn’t promise he wouldn’t sell to similar but would rather not. Which didn’t fill me full of confidence.

[Port Said Red]

37 minutes ago, ralphindevon said:

Soon after Vincent Tan took over Cardiff and he was trying to turn the stadium and shirts red and their fans were getting upset, I asked Steve Lansdown if he could promise he wouldn’t ever Bristol City to foreign investors like that.

He then told a story of a recent game at Cardiff and how the atmosphere had changed and wasn’t a pleasant experience since the takeover. My eyes lit up.

Then he said no, he couldn’t promise he wouldn’t sell to similar but would rather not. Which didn’t fill me full of confidence.

The number of investors interested is small enough without limiting it to UK only suitors.

[Red-Robbo]

5 hours ago, YGBjammy said:

As others, and The Athletic article, have highlighted there are a lot of foreign owners in the championship who I imagine were seen as very exciting and promised a lot when they came in; only to now be stuck in the championship with only a ton of debt to show for it.

 

Could be worse. You could think your club had been taken over by an Arab billionaire only to find he's about the 2,000th richest man in the second poorest country in the Middle East and you're in L2.  

[The Bard]

17 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Yup. Listed twice for some reason.

My point about having employees as directors still stands though. 

I think one of the problems with BCFC is the composition of the board: the owner's son and a bloke who has the profile of the invisible man, plus two people employed by the owner.  Where's the oversight?  Where's the expertise?  Who was there to say, "I don't think Dean Holden is ready to manage at this level", for example? Where is an independent voice?

We'd be much better with it, which is why I welcome new investment in the club. New stakeholders should mean the cosy consensus is challenged.

There was Keith Dawe but he's moved on now.  We'd never have appointed Cotts using this model for certain.

[ralphindevon]

8 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

The number of investors interested is small enough without limiting it to UK only suitors.

I wasn’t suggesting NO foreigners, just not bad ones who didn’t understand the game, like the Cardiff owners who at the time didn’t get English football and were tearing Cardiff City to pieces and ruining the club. TBF they seemed to listen and understand more as they went on.

But I think we’d all be very happy with owners like Leicester who invested not only in the club but in the community too.

[Port Said Red]

Just now, ralphindevon said:

I wasn’t suggesting NO foreigners, just not bad ones who didn’t understand the game, like the Cardiff owners who at the time didn’t get English football and were tearing Cardiff City to pieces and ruining the club. TBF they seemed to listen and understand more as they went on.

But I think we’d all be very happy with owners like Leicester who invested not only in the club but in the community too.

I do agree, but it will be difficult because they all can make themselves look good on paper.

[ralphindevon]

9 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

I do agree, but it will be difficult because they all can make themselves look good on paper.

True, we only have to look to the other side of the city.

Hopefully lessons have been learnt in how these people are scrutinised 

[NcnsBcfc]

13 hours ago, Pezo said:

I'm not sure about your last point if it's trying to say he is choosing, I don't think he is choosing one over the other he can easily afford to fund everything - it's what he has time to dedicate himself to I guess, maybe? He knows we're not going to challenge because of our FFP constraints, he has taken us as far as FFP will allow him to for the next couple of years, maybe? So the wording could be that the championship is where he is stuck due to FFP and parachute payments I think.

If ever there was a team that has been hampered by FFP from getting to the PL then it is us.

I admire SL's moral stance on upholding the principles of FFP (Alongside Gibson). But in doing so, another way of funding the club has had to be found.

Cue the MA approach, that has not afforded any coach really the ability to build a squad over time; with the buy in bulk; and hopefully find a gem in there mantra. Whilst at the same time, selling the family silverware.

He obviously sold SL on this what he would call a "Sustainable approach", probably mirroring the ideals of SL on making the club self sustaining in the future. In reality this was just another Football Ponzi scheme, that was doomed to failure over time.

The fact that MA has gone to Ipswich, and immediately tried the same trick, says to me that he must be persuasive in his sales patter. The thing is in L1 there is no salary caps; so Owners for the time being can keep throwing good money after bad with a certain form of impunity.

Once again, just like in 2012/13; the hierarchy have allowed over a period of time a rot to set in. NP is trying to restore some sort of equilibrium, but the whole club at the moment does have a feeling of being on the Titantic for the last few years (Great facilities, but fatally holed below the waterline, and gradually sinking). Whilst the powers at be are saying "Keep Calm, everyone; it'll all be fine".

I still don't know really how we missed out on being relegated last season. The table from Jan onwards showed us in 24th place by a good ten points. It was obviously down to the first 6 games; but for that to come into play after 46 games; shows how poor we have been for the last year. This season's early good form that saw us in the dizzy heights of 9th at one stage, has given way to losing 6 of the last 8 games; and let's be honest being completely outplayed by a Barnsley side who hadn't won since August. How Cole missed that chance in the 93rd Minute in beyond me.

There are no easy answers of course. We've dug a massive hole for ourselves, with a corporate structure that has a barely literate Chairman who would rather be in the West Indies. The new CEO seems like a good man, but in his last interview he came across as being caught in the hurricane somewhat; with no real answers as to what the plan is?

Massive game tomorrow. We have to go onto that pitch and perform. Something that we haven't really done since the Fulham game. I know we've won at Peterborough since then as well as the Barnsley game. But we rode our luck in both those, against poor teams. At least we stood up to Fulham and matched them for parts of the game. Thankfully Mitrovic had an off day.

One last point. I say this every week to @GrahamC when we sit together; as well as @CyderInACan; amongst other of course, so apologies.

But can we please attack the South Stand in the first half, and then the Atyeo in the 2nd. It's a small change to make. But any side attacking a stand full of their own fans in the second half would get a lift. Particularly against a side that collapses as we do when we hit the 90 min mark.

Onwards and Upwards......