Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Kid in the Riot

Recommended Posts

I questioned the ownership when Holden was appointed and got slammed for it. That appointment above all else showed the ambition of Lansdown, irrelevant of Covid and for me was the point they should have been looking to sell up.

I’m glad others have mentioned the stadium as well. It’s a very poor second behind what we really wanted which was a new state of the art stadium. Instead we have a bodged Ashton Gate. Not Lansdown’s fault by any means that the planning permission for a new stadium was refused, but let’s not pretend Ashton Gate is what anyone wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, formerly known as ivan said:

I questioned the ownership when Holden was appointed and got slammed for it. That appointment above all else showed the ambition of Lansdown, irrelevant of Covid and for me was the point they should have been looking to sell up.

I’m glad others have mentioned the stadium as well. It’s a very poor second behind what we really wanted which was a new state of the art stadium. Instead we have a bodged Ashton Gate. Not Lansdown’s fault by any means that the planning permission for a new stadium was refused, but let’s not pretend Ashton Gate is what anyone wanted.

I really like the new AG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lot of pessimism on this thread. Maybe it's life as a football, and certainly a Bristol City fan. If all things were equal with salary caps and reverse order player drafts (like the American system) then over time there's a 25% of a successful season (play-offs 6/24). An excellent season (promotion) is 12.5%. However we know that all things aren't equal. And that's at Championship level where we're still a relatively small fish, and the top 6 are dominated by either bigger clubs, clubs that have benefitted from parachute payments, or clubs that are willing to bend the rules, trading off potential short-term success for long-term benefit.

Lansdown has ultimately failed in what he set out to achieve on the pitch. Maybe his methods haven't worked. Maybe he's stubborn. Maybe he's misadvised. Maybe he's shown poor judgement. But he's a Bristolian who genuinely cares about the club and the city. He's invested significant sums of his own cash into building something sustainable and a lasting legacy after he's gone in terms of club infrastructure. I loved the old east end as a kid and I too have romantic memories of those days, but times move on, and Ashton Gate is somewhere I enjoy and am proud to take my wife and kid, or anyone visiting from out of town.

Perhaps the value of the club will cover Lansdown's investment, but it's very much to be seen and it's a risk he's personally taken. He isn't doing what he's doing for financial gain, but because he genuinely cares. I'd much rather take that than your pick of Chinese, American, Middle Eastern, Russian money with owners who are essentially motivated by financial gain. 

Yes Lansdown has flaws, but we'd be in a far worse place without him, and may well find ourselves in a worse place in future. If he sells to a responsible owner who can take the club forward further, then indeed we owe him thanks for that, rather than necessarily selling to the highest bidder. If we end up in as safe hands as Steve in future I'll consider us lucky.

It seems I'm in the significant minority... but it's still a massive THANK YOU to Steve Lansdown from me!

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thread for sure. I'm somewhere in the middle on SL, he has put cash in but also could benefit financially through Ashton Vale related stuff etc. OTOH, the failure to go for it in Jan 2008 looks big now and to a lesser extent, Jan 2019- 2 or 3 more in, not saying smash FFP, could have been the difference between top 6 and finishing a bit outside...CM and striker?

Never been at risk of losing it all under him- see insolvency- or crippling embargoes and points deductions. The infrastructure is certainly welcome as is the conversion of debt to equity...although he might recoup that on disposal if the time comes. Unsure that's a given but it's certainly possible.

Could he have been a bit firmer with LJ given the sheer churn? Costly both financially and cohesion wise...of course a lot of clubs have to sell their best players but for a time it seemed to be a new side every season- maybe not reflected in the Starting XI as such but certainly ins and outs!

The Athletic article was interesting too, thanks for those who posted it. Matt Slater an experienced journo in the industry, usually good stuff and has solid sources.

Quick bit for @Kid in the Riot which I think I have likely asked before but will rephrase/expand on it...

You have often beat the drum about new investment replacing SL etc but I would be interested in the following...

1.Given the underlying FFP position, barring big player sales how do we go about it? Will happily point out the following impediments to a new owner or new investment "resetting" FFP. It doesn't...

Q&A

"Let's sell the training ground or stadium to new owners in order to realise a profit to reset and go again a bit"?

Quote

(b)           with effect from, and including the Accounting Reference Period covering Season 2021/22, profit/loss on disposal of any tangible fixed asset.

That would rule that out!

New dodgy sponsorships related to the new owner? Well it's possible but...I believe Birmingham proposed an inflated one in Summer 2018 when they were facing FFP issues but it cut little ice. Think the EFL put in a fair number.

Quote

1.8          Fair Market Value means the amount for which an asset could be sold, licensed or exchanged, a liability settled, or a service provided, between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction.

Clearly it would help, every little can help but beyond the 'going rate' no means all would be counted by the EFL. Sheffield Wednesday have a few but they add up to about £2m per year...hardly a gamechanger.

The reset idea? Well sadly not...

From the Owners and Directors Test- see notably the bit to account for change of control etc. Also see 3.3 to 3.3.3- but the whole section gives the EFL a pretty strong hand to monitor and ensure compliance. Carte Blanche in some ways although this covers many financial bits not just FFP. Couldn't change the way we amortise either, Derby case has surely set a precedent as far as straight line goes.

Quote

(b)           submit to the League up to date Future Financial Information (as defined in Regulation 16) prepared to take into account the consequences of the change of Control on the Club’s future financial position; and

3.1.2      the League shall have the power to require the Club and/or the Person who proposes to acquire Control to appear before it and to provide evidence of the ultimate source and sufficiency of any funds which that Person proposes to utilise to acquire Control and/or invest in or otherwise make available to the Club.

3.2          In relation to any proposed acquisition of Control of a Club by a Person, The League shall have:

3.2.1      the powers set out in Regulation 16.20; and/or

3.2.2      the ability to impose such other conditions,

as in each case it may determine, in order to monitor and/or ensure compliance with Regulations 16 to 19, 21, 22 (including Appendix 3) and 103 to 113 inclusive (and their successor or replacement provisions).

3.3          No Person may acquire Control of a Club and no Club may permit a Person to acquire Control of it until such time as:

3.3.1      The League provides confirmation that all Persons that are required to do so have complied with the process set out in Rule 3.1.1(a) and no such Persons are liable to be disqualified as a Relevant Person;

3.3.2      The League provides confirmation of its satisfaction with the information provided pursuant to Rule 3.1.1(b); and

3.3.3      The Club and any Person proposing to acquire Control have acceded to any powers and/or accepted any conditions imposed pursuant to Rule 3.2.

Ah yes, FFI. What is FFI...well it feeds into to an extent, present and future monitoring of FFP- we already know they can analyse and reassess the past.

Quote

2              Profitability and Sustainability

2.1          Rules 2.2 to 2.9 shall apply with effect from Season 2016/17.

2.2          Subject to Rule 2.2A, each Club shall by 1 March in each Season submit to the Executive:

2.2.1      copies of its Annual Accounts for T-1 (and T-2 if these have not previously been submitted to the Executive) together with copies of the directors’ report(s) and auditor’s report(s) on those accounts;

2.2.2      its estimated profit and loss account and balance sheet for T which shall:

(a)           be prepared in all material respects in a format similar to the Club’s Annual Accounts; and

(b)           be based on the latest information available to the Club and be, to the best of the Club’s knowledge and belief, an accurate estimate as at the time of preparation of future financial performance; and

(c)           if Rule 2.5 applies to the Club its P&S Calculation in a form approved by the Executive from time to time and which as at the date of these Rules is set out in Appendix 1.

That's the present monitoring bit. Also about the Fair Value section- for FFP purposes of course!

Quote

2.3          The Executive shall determine whether consideration included in the Club’s Earnings Before Tax arising from a Related Party Transaction is recorded in the Club’s Annual Accounts at a Fair Market Value. If it is not, the Executive shall restate it to Fair Market Value.

A Projected overspend in March is treated as being in breach. Also if it exceeds the Lower Loss Threshold- that will be most clubs probably- then the next two years worth of Projections. That's where ongoing, past, present and future monitoring will kick in.

Quote

2.8          If the P&S Calculation results in a loss that exceeds the Lower Loss Threshold, then the following shall apply:

2.8.1      the Club shall provide, by 31 March in the relevant Season, Future Financial Information to cover the period commencing from its last accounting reference date (as defined in section 391 of the 2006 Act) until the end of T+2 and a calculation of estimated aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Tax until the end of T+2 based on that Future Financial Information;

Reading are under that to an extent- see the -6 combined with the targets ie £21.1m Player Wage Bill this season and £16m one next! Fail any conditions and it's another -6 and fresh charges relating to the breach(es).

2. It is possible I am misunderstanding your point when it comes to fresh investment- in which case, at which time would it be "splash the cash" ? By my reckoning, possibly 2023/24- barring big player sales of course. It could be that you are driving at fresh direction within that framework, which we are bound by while we remain a Championship club.

I'm just wondering what you think would change and how quickly. Remember too the EFL can even impose Regulation 16.20 to control the issue...they have the authority as Derby case showed, Reading too to an extent- but it was suggested that it can be considered fair leverage in pursuit of an agreement. I thought so too but nice to get some clarity. In short if accounts- see Derby- aren't signed off, and agreed as the basis then no issue at all with the EFL imposing a budget on the club. Think Reading had similar.

Amazing- 6 non transfer fee, non loan fee, possibly non signing on fee signings at £4.5k per week at Championship is deemed a "preliminary measure" but there it is in black and white.

Quote

23. It is also noted that in exercise of its powers under P&S Rule 2.9 and Regulation 16.20, both as a preliminary measure and to provide a tool for the application of a suspended sanction the EFL required the Club to submit, agree and adhere to a budget a summary of which is set out in Appendix 1 to this Decision (the “Budget”).

Granted the requirements loosened after the agreed sanction but useful leverage wouldn't you say?

Okay not that quick ? but new owners would still be bound broadly speaking unless a) Some significant sales, b) Some significant cost savings found quick or c) Some significant organic income growth- barring these or a mix of these, they would still be bound by the same conditions broadly speaking while in the Championship. SL and debt write off could be one possibility but the QPR case perhaps also closed off that avenue albeit that was internal rather than external.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/11/2021 at 00:52, Kid in the Riot said:

or is that "he's taken us as far as he wants to take us"? 

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. 

Over the past 20 years The Lansdowns have presided over the football club and been key to all decision making, including the appointment of managers. When I say "key", I mean appointing every single one of the football managers and agreeing to every single signing made by the football club, without exception. Ah, bar one Steve Cotterill, who was only appointed following an extremely persuasive case put forward by recruitment specialist Keith Dawe. 

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure very persuasive cases were put forward, by someone, of why we should sign Gustav Engvall and Sammy Szmodics, however the buck stops with the man, and his family, that sanctioned these signings.  And sanctioned the people that were put in place to make these signings. 

Recuitment has been an unmitigated disaster over the past three years, and ultimate responsibility must be laid at the door of the family signing off this wastage. 

As we head back towards L1 for a potential third relegation under The Lansdowns, the question has to be asked:

Have they taken us as far as they can, or indeed, as far as they want to take us? 

From where I am, it's a resounding yes. And I'd go further and say they would be quite happy with us being a big fish back in L1.

Derby County are about to be sold for £50m. It got me thinking. The Lansdowns picked up the club and ground for comparative peanuts. Mel Morris still owns Pride Park so that is not part of the deal. 

If The Lansdowns were to sell Bristol Sport  including the ground, I would hazard a guess that it wouldn't be too far off the £150m+ they have invested. Further to that, I would speculate that once the sporting village is complete they would break even AT WORST on their investment.

This isn't supposed to be a hatchet job, just an honest appraisal of The Lansdowns running of our football club.

From where I'm standing, I hope what I read today in The Athletic, and what I already knew to be fair, is true and help or potentially a full takeover is on the way. 

Absolutely. Accurate thinking in my view. You have reached the conclusion I came to many years ago, from as early as 2008.  The football club no longer owning the ground has been a concern of mine. That was my own epiphany. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Boston Red said:

What I object to about Mr Lansdown's tenure is this.

Bristol City used to be its own football club with its own ground and no debt.

It is now just a sub-section of a Land-based, Multi-sport, Property-development, Profit-motivated, Speculative Franchise. 

If multiple revenue streams are generated to help the club have a chance of being able to sustain itself, this could put us ahead of many other clubs who do not have such an advantage.  The old Ashton Gate was much loved and the East End was wonderful, but we have moved with the times and now have top class facilities that will benefit fans and club for years to come.  The one thing the Lansdowns could do to sustain their legacy is to buy the Gas and turn their stadium into a memorial garden and crown green bowling centre - at least the Bristol public would see a nice bit of lawn where none has ever existed before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the outside looking in, it does remain a mystery that you've never managed anything like a sustained push towards the top division. Given how long he's owned the club, you have to say that's down to him and whether he has the club set up to be well run. But also from the outside, you have to be careful wishing for new owners, it can go as wrong as it can right - the Championship is a graveyard of bad ownership.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...