Have we a.ways been ‘a strange club’?

[Ivorguy]

OR has it only been post old Harry Dolman, as I suspect.  Too many recent managers seem to have agreed, if more quietly than NP, that this is so, eg Cotts, LJ, and Coppell.

[Sir Geoff]

Post Cooper and Jordan imo.

[Eddie Hitler]

Seeing some of the footage of the old directors in 1982 it very much appeared that the club was being run for the personal benefit of the directors and their businesses. They weren't interested that Clive Whitehead was being given a ten year contract on top wages as long as they had a decent roast and a few whiskies with their mates, all on the club, of a Saturday lunchtime.

We've been run much better than that since.

And there are some terribly run clubs out there with unaccountable foreign ownership: Birmingham, Coventry. I wouldn't swap with those.

[Silvio Dante]

I think the reason we’re viewed as a “strange club” is that inherently there is a heck of a lot of potential which just doesn’t seem to be realised, so people look for an underlying reason.

The catchment area for City is huge. There aren’t competitors in the south west of any comparable size. So, you’re outside looking in - you say why are this team, which is significantly bigger than anyone else around them and has clear potential to be in the premier league, not kicking that door down?

Previously you could have said Stadium - now you can’t 

Previously you could have said fan base - now you can’t

Previously you could have said financial backing - now you can’t

Previously you could have said lack of appeal to players - now you can’t 

So, outside looking in - everything is geared to the top level. Pre our FFP hiccup, you had a well funded squad playing in a new stadium with capacity in line with small prem, an owner who’d write off debt and 20k turning up each week.

The only reason, outside looking in, that people think we aren’t kicking on is - why don’t they want it enough? And that means we are “strange”…

 

[Merrick's Marvels]

Always, imo.

After finishing 8th in the top flight First Division and reaching the FA Cup Final in the same season, it took just 2 years to get relegated. It takes a special kind of incompetence to be doing that well and then go backwards so rapidly. Talk about taking your eye off the ball.

10 years later, we were 8th in the Second Division and unlucky to lose an FA Cup semi-final. 2 years later - relegated, finishing plumb last. Wait! Next season promoted - as Div 3 Champions. Hang on - immediately relegated again, plumb last. 3 years later - promoted again as Champions. The Roaring Twenties they called it - when City were barking mad. Not much has changed in the meantime, imo.

I agree with Silvio's comment - "I think the reason we’re viewed as a “strange club” is that inherently there is a heck of a lot of potential which just doesn’t seem to be realised".

I think this is why Pearson took the job - he sees it as an interesting project with unique, rewarding potential for the person who gets it right. Question is, has he begun to wonder if he's bitten off more than he can chew?  

Edited April 12, 2022 by Merrick's Marvels

[BUTOR]

It’s related to poor football decisions but also economical, geographical and political in my opinion. The passiveness has only increased with the new stadium and the modernisation. Football in Bristol is a nice day out. In the north rarely do they care for award winning concourses and posh pasties but that their football team performs well. That attitude has just never been as prevalent in the affluent south and it reflects in its football teams. Bristol is the finest example.

[Bristol Oil Services]

1 hour ago, Bouncearoundtheground said:

It’s related to poor football decisions but also economical, geographical and political in my opinion. The passiveness has only increased with the new stadium and the modernisation. Football in Bristol is a nice day out. In the north rarely do they care for award winning concourses and posh pasties but that their football team performs well. That attitude has just never been as prevalent in the affluent south and it reflects in its football teams. Bristol is the finest example.

The crowds are down because the catering around the concourse is not what it was three years ago?

[Bristol Oil Services]

Bristolians are descended from simple, steady, West country folk who worked the land, laying hedges and milking the cows twice a day, who then upped-sticks and moved to Bedminster to find more regler work. And watch the City.

That's who we are! When Steve's trying to make some critical football decision, his DNA gets in the way, telling him he needs to bring the cows in this af'r'nun. If he hadn't hooked up with that no-nonsense northerner he'd be nothing. 

It's why we never took to going to away games - because we had to get the cows in, sun up and sun down. Alright for yer northerners in their mills and factories and their union negotiated Saturdays off. Can't do it with cows and udders full to bursting. Our genetics tells us: don't go and watch the City away, there's (other) things need doing first.

Just as Brian Wilson wasn't made for them times in the 60s, so are we not made for this game of industrial Britain, and fancy-Dan London with all its crooked money.

 

[BUTOR]

2 minutes ago, Bristol Oil Services said:

The crowds are down because the catering around the concourse is not what it was three years ago?

Not my point. Attitudes of fanbases reflect on their football clubs. Therefore attitudes of cities and towns. Historically, Bristol does not have the same reasons to hold football to the upmost importance as the northern teams do. Therefore the passive nature of the fan base reflects onto the club. It’s an “oh well” and an “onto the next one” for a lot of us. Let’s roll up North street for a posh beer. In the north Saturday 3PM can be all they have. Certainly historically this has been the case. And the north south divide increases by the second even today.

My point about the stadium, new training ground etc is that such a comfortable environment has increased the passiveness for fans and players alike. Win or lose Bristol City is still a pleasant place to be. We do not demand accountability and success. Ultimately the investment could have been split between the playing side and the facilities a little better, but as it is it feels like the actual football has been neglected. Now we’re stuck in a difficult place.

 

 

[REDOXO]

4 hours ago, Ivorguy said:

OR has it only been post old Harry Dolman, as I suspect.  Too many recent managers seem to have agreed, if more quietly than NP, that this is so, eg Cotts, LJ, and Coppell.

We were a bit pony before Harry Dolman too. HD transformed the club, mainly by sticking by his man Alan Dicks and not putting us into debt. 
 

Harry only got to go to Highbury for all he did! What followed was a party for idiots particularly after the Gary Collier affair. 

[myol'man]

Probably the biggest club never to have won a major trophy?

Brighton maybe from the 'new' money clubs. 

[ZiderEyed]

56 minutes ago, Bouncearoundtheground said:

Not my point. Attitudes of fanbases reflect on their football clubs. Therefore attitudes of cities and towns. Historically, Bristol does not have the same reasons to hold football to the upmost importance as the northern teams do. Therefore the passive nature of the fan base reflects onto the club. It’s an “oh well” and an “onto the next one” for a lot of us. Let’s roll up North street for a posh beer. In the north Saturday 3PM can be all they have. Certainly historically this has been the case. And the north south divide increases by the second even today.

My point about the stadium, new training ground etc is that such a comfortable environment has increased the passiveness for fans and players alike. Win or lose Bristol City is still a pleasant place to be. We do not demand accountability and success. Ultimately the investment could have been split between the playing side and the facilities a little better, but as it is it feels like the actual football has been neglected. Now we’re stuck in a difficult place.

 

 

It's myopic to think your football team is in some way different from any other, neoliberalism has handily seen to homogenising the supporter experience around the UK, be that in our hinterlands or otherwise. 

Bristol is a bit of a weird city though. Henri Lefebvre would have us believe that the change to our spatial practice with the redevelopment of the ground and street spaces around it has altered the feel of the club - that changes social cohesion, it changes the structure to our experience in the representational space. 

Comfort is putting it a bit plainly. Capitalism obliterates differences between football clubs, so there's no reason to think it's particularly unique to us imo.

Would we be having this discussion if we'd won the FA Cup in 1909? I don't think so. Bad luck and internal mismanagement, I reckons I do. 

Oh well and onto the next one.

[Lew-T]

4 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

I think the reason we’re viewed as a “strange club” is that inherently there is a heck of a lot of potential which just doesn’t seem to be realised, so people look for an underlying reason.

The catchment area for City is huge. There aren’t competitors in the south west of any comparable size. So, you’re outside looking in - you say why are this team, which is significantly bigger than anyone else around them and has clear potential to be in the premier league, not kicking that door down?

Previously you could have said Stadium - now you can’t 

Previously you could have said fan base - now you can’t

Previously you could have said financial backing - now you can’t

Previously you could have said lack of appeal to players - now you can’t 

So, outside looking in - everything is geared to the top level. Pre our FFP hiccup, you had a well funded squad playing in a new stadium with capacity in line with small prem, an owner who’d write off debt and 20k turning up each week.

The only reason, outside looking in, that people think we aren’t kicking on is - why don’t they want it enough? And that means we are “strange”…

 

Good post. 

[Supersonic Robin]

4 hours ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Seeing some of the footage of the old directors in 1982 it very much appeared that the club was being run for the personal benefit of the directors and their businesses. They weren't interested that Clive Whitehead was being given a ten year contract on top wages as long as they had a decent roast and a few whiskies with their mates, all on the club, of a Saturday lunchtime.

We've been run much better than that since.

And there are some terribly run clubs out there with unaccountable foreign ownership: Birmingham, Coventry. I wouldn't swap with those.

You say that, but I certainly doubt those clubs would swap their last 25 years of ownership for ours.

Would Birmingham exchange their 2011 League Cup win for our "accountable English ownership" and corresponding mediocrity?

Are Coventry looking at us with jealousy right now, wishing that they were run as well as we are?

I can't imagine there are many Championship clubs who, in the grand scheme of things, wish they were more like Bristol City......

[GreedyHarry]

5 hours ago, Bouncearoundtheground said:

It’s related to poor football decisions but also economical, geographical and political in my opinion. The passiveness has only increased with the new stadium and the modernisation. Football in Bristol is a nice day out. In the north rarely do they care for award winning concourses and posh pasties but that their football team performs well. That attitude has just never been as prevalent in the affluent south and it reflects in its football teams. Bristol is the finest example.

For a moment I thought you were differentiating north and south Bristol. Took me a couple of reads to get you meant the country.

[marmite]

6 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

I think the reason we’re viewed as a “strange club” is that inherently there is a heck of a lot of potential which just doesn’t seem to be realised, so people look for an underlying reason.

The catchment area for City is huge. There aren’t competitors in the south west of any comparable size. So, you’re outside looking in - you say why are this team, which is significantly bigger than anyone else around them and has clear potential to be in the premier league, not kicking that door down?

Previously you could have said Stadium - now you can’t 

Previously you could have said fan base - now you can’t

Previously you could have said financial backing - now you can’t

Previously you could have said lack of appeal to players - now you can’t 

So, outside looking in - everything is geared to the top level. Pre our FFP hiccup, you had a well funded squad playing in a new stadium with capacity in line with small prem, an owner who’d write off debt and 20k turning up each week.

The only reason, outside looking in, that people think we aren’t kicking on is - why don’t they want it enough? And that means we are “strange”…

 

Exactly as I wrote in another thread. You can't judge a book by its cover.  We look such an attractive option from outside, so the fault obviously lies within.  We just need to identify the problem.  My money's on SL despite all he's invested. The buck stops at the top.

[Wiltshire robin]

5 hours ago, Bouncearoundtheground said:

It’s related to poor football decisions but also economical, geographical and political in my opinion. The passiveness has only increased with the new stadium and the modernisation. Football in Bristol is a nice day out. In the north rarely do they care for award winning concourses and posh pasties but that their football team performs well. That attitude has just never been as prevalent in the affluent south and it reflects in its football teams. Bristol is the finest example.

What about Southampton, Portsmouth,brighton and Bournemouth? All southern clubs that have had success. I’d say it’s down to poor ownership over the years rather than location 

[22A]

Looking around other two team cities.

Nottingham has 100,000 less inhabitants than Bristol. 1 strong Championship team, one non league.

Sheffield has 100,000 more than Bristol; 1 strong Championship team, one strong League 1 team.

Bristol has one weak Championship team and one reasonably strong team in Div 2.

City and Rovers always get a good spell but soon slip back. 2008 City beat Palace and Hull beat Watford on their way to the play off final.

Five years later Hull, back in the Championship won auto promotion. Palace played Watford in the play off final whilst City were relegated.

6 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

I agree with Silvio's comment - "I think the reason we’re viewed as a “strange club” is that inherently there is a heck of a lot of potential which just doesn’t seem to be realised".

 

[spudski]

Hopefully not sounding like a ***** for name dropping...but I spent some time with Joe Jordan, first stint, and he said he'd never seen a club run so amateurish. Happened again with other managers up to and including SoD. Common theme...

[BUTOR]

14 minutes ago, Wiltshire robin said:

What about Southampton, Portsmouth,brighton and Bournemouth? All southern clubs that have had success. I’d say it’s down to poor ownership over the years rather than location 

I agree that primarily it is mismanagement but I think Bristol is a significantly different place to the ones you listed. And that there are socio-economic/cultural factors here which are a little more difficult to navigate in terms of establishing a successful football team than many places. 

[RedRock]

7 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

I think the reason we’re viewed as a “strange club” is that inherently there is a heck of a lot of potential which just doesn’t seem to be realised, so people look for an underlying reason.

The catchment area for City is huge. There aren’t competitors in the south west of any comparable size. So, you’re outside looking in - you say why are this team, which is significantly bigger than anyone else around them and has clear potential to be in the premier league, not kicking that door down?

Previously you could have said Stadium - now you can’t 

Previously you could have said fan base - now you can’t

Previously you could have said financial backing - now you can’t

Previously you could have said lack of appeal to players - now you can’t 

So, outside looking in - everything is geared to the top level. Pre our FFP hiccup, you had a well funded squad playing in a new stadium with capacity in line with small prem, an owner who’d write off debt and 20k turning up each week.

The only reason, outside looking in, that people think we aren’t kicking on is - why don’t they want it enough? And that means we are “strange”…

 

Previously you could have said training facilities - now you can’t.

 

I’m with Jon, the staff and players are massively underperforming. They’ve run out of excuses. The staffing structure and the players need changing. 

[Wiltshire robin]

11 minutes ago, Bouncearoundtheground said:

I agree that primarily it is mismanagement but I think Bristol is a significantly different place to the ones you listed. And that there are socio-economic/cultural factors here which are a little more difficult to navigate in terms of establishing a successful football team than many places. 

I know the point you’ve made has been said a lot but I just don’t buy it. Pre covid we were getting crowds of 20,000 plus each game which is amazing considering this club has had no success whatsoever. Bristol as a place has much more of a football culture than Brighton for example who have managed it , funnily enough I have a few friends that are lifelong Brighton fans and their astonished that they are there and city aren’t .

 

[glynriley]

10 minutes ago, RedRock said:

Previously you could have said training facilities - now you can’t.

 

I’m with Jon, the staff and players are massively underperforming. They’ve run out of excuses. The staffing structure and the players need changing. 

Well he’s the chairman and if that’s how he really feels, he needs to get his finger out of his ass and sack the staff.

Then find a manager or head coach willing to come in with a smaller budget than NP would have had (cos some of it has been used to pay him and his staff off)

Then hope he can recruit all the players that need to come in to replace those that need changing. 

Best of luck Jonboy. 

[TedsHeadIs Red]

3 hours ago, ZiderEyed said:

It's myopic to think your football team is in some way different from any other, neoliberalism has handily seen to homogenising the supporter experience around the UK, be that in our hinterlands or otherwise. 

Bristol is a bit of a weird city though. Henri Lefebvre would have us believe that the change to our spatial practice with the redevelopment of the ground and street spaces around it has altered the feel of the club - that changes social cohesion, it changes the structure to our experience in the representational space. 

Comfort is putting it a bit plainly. Capitalism obliterates differences between football clubs, so there's no reason to think it's particularly unique to us imo.

Would we be having this discussion if we'd won the FA Cup in 1909? I don't think so. Bad luck and internal mismanagement, I reckons I do. 

Oh well and onto the next one.

Sorry, you’ve lost me. Either you’re too intelligent for me or you are living up to your name.

[ZiderEyed]

26 minutes ago, TedsHeadIs Red said:

Sorry, you’ve lost me. Either you’re too intelligent for me or you are living up to your name.

*retch* I'm a genius *burp*

[Numero Uno]

1 hour ago, RedRock said:

Previously you could have said training facilities - now you can’t.

 

I’m with Jon, the staff and players are massively underperforming. They’ve run out of excuses. The staffing structure and the players need changing. 

See I would argue the people responsible for our financial plan meaning we make £38m losses, are in the shit ffp wise and therefore can’t afford to buy the players we need are under performing. Because of that the changes you want mean you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

[Robbored]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

Hopefully not sounding like a ***** for name dropping...but I spent some time with Joe Jordan, first stint, and he said he'd never seen a club run so amateurish. Happened again with other managers up to and including SoD. Common theme...

Amateurish certainly applied in the last - the long employment of Buster Football highlights that. As far as I’m aware he had no physio qualifications whatsoever.

These days the tag ‘amateurish’ has been removed to a large percentage by appointing various well qualified people in senior roles but there are still areas within the club that needs overhauling. 

A suggestion would be for RG and invisible Jon to visit the bigger PL clubs, stay long enough to learn how they structure their entire set up is organised from the academy right thru the club to the first team squad. What roles are there? A DoF? a head of recruitment? chief scout? How do they analyse the match stats - is the same way that City do? Plenty of learning opportunities right there.

I just get the impression that the description of ‘strange’ indicates that maybe City are going about organising and running the club in a different manner to other, more successful clubs.

Maybe RG is the man to restructure the systems  at City?

 

 

[spudski]

2 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Amateurish certainly applied in the last - the long employment of Buster Football highlights that. As far as I’m aware he had no physio qualifications whatsoever.

These days the tag ‘amateurish’ has been removed to a large percentage by appointing various well qualified people in senior roles but there are still areas within the club that needs overhauling. 

A suggestion would be for RG and invisible Jon to visit the bigger PL clubs, stay long enough to learn how they structure their entire set up is organised from the academy right thru the club to the first team squad. What roles are there? A DoF? a head of recruitment? chief scout? How do they analyse the match stats - is the same way that City do? Plenty of learning opportunities right there.

I just get the impression that the description of ‘strange’ indicates that maybe City are going about organising and running the club in a different manner to other, more successful clubs.

Maybe RG is the man to restructure the systems  at City?

 

 

They will have done all the due diligence on others clubs and how they are run. Managers and coaches the same.

In the past...it was run amateurish. In recent times, they know very well how a club should be run.

Imo, it's been down to poor recruitment, based on personal preferences. Control basically...my toy, my money, I do as I wish regardless of what I know.

[cidercity1987]

Strangest club in the country maybe even europe

Massive underperformance compared to the power of the city.

Ashton Gate is also a weird place, much weirder since the renovation like it doesn't know what it is

[Super]

Always thought of us as a club that will let you down when it gets to the crunch.