adamski

7 hours ago, shahanshahan said:

Not bad @Blagdon Mike!

 

 

TBH he looks really well, probably better than  when he was manager here.

1 hour ago, Bar BS3 said:

And priority on quarter final tickets..!

Nice one.....

15 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Happy to debate that, so who has achieved more? Arguable that TC possibly did, as we were dead & buried before he turned us around.

No one else has a case though.

First season, GJ took over after the Tinnion debacle, finished the season with 2 defeats in 14 (9 wins) after he sorted us out.

Next season, won automatic promotion.

Season after, got to the Prem playoff final, highest place finish (4th) since AD left.

Next season 10th, fourth highest place finish since AD left.

Who comes remotely close to that? ******* Danny Wilson & his 4 seasons of third division inertia?

I guess his Trump card must be play off, which is still not a promotion.

Jordan got us promoted, but left..

Ward got us promoted and sacked

I suppose, at least Cotterill actually won something X2 which Johnson, Ward and Johnson failed to do

Legacy, well the desert that normally remains when a bully leaves the building!

Can't argue with his record...best since Dicks, debatable. Manner he departed questionable. Legacy he left dubious....

But a larger than life character who certainly made stuff happen and raised our profile

4 hours ago, adamski said:

I’d just like to apologise to everyone. My daughter has never seen the City win in 15 years..I have, in recent years discouraged her from attending. She has just texted me to say she is going with friends. I have offered her £100 to stay in the centre and enjoy herself instead of coming to the gate….alas she has declined my offer

Now she wants a season ticket......hooked...poor thing

I’d just like to apologise to everyone. My daughter has never seen the City win in 15 years..I have, in recent years discouraged her from attending. She has just texted me to say she is going with friends. I have offered her £100 to stay in the centre and enjoy herself instead of coming to the gate….alas she has declined my offer

2 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

How do you think other Managers go about it, when they come to a club with players who only do what they want and create a bad atmosphere everywhere?

They either try to get them back on side, isolate them or ship them out. From what I have read on their forum, he spent the first third of the season playing the same old faces, then when that didn't get them on side, he dropped them and introduced some of the others. In the January window he has apparently done well to ship some of those out, but like all clubs, he probably hasn't got rid of them all, so it's a case of just having to manage them away from the core group.

It's not radically different to what Pearson has done here over the past two years.

in short, if people don't want to be involved you ship them out, the creation of a poison pool is ridiculous ,as anyone competent in management would tell you.. It also reminds me of the school remedial groups that were abundant in the 70s. As ever, someone needs tp sense check his words before they fall out of his mouth!

1 hour ago, FNQ said:

interesting words here from LJ reflecting on his January transfer window..
 

I think it’s been a brilliant window in terms of the outs, because we had to do that,” Johnson says. “You have to remember it’s about the facilities. At some clubs, say Bristol City, there are two facilities there so if a player is not wanted, or not getting gametime, or bringing the culture down then you move them to the other facility and protect the culture. I have worked really hard to protect the culture here between ten and two o’clock, and put the discipline in place and have a different training group on at 3pm so if anybody is causing problems or is not fully focused they can be moved. That 3pm group is also for development so we can improve the young players technically as they are coming up from the academy, and that has been really important. In the last four or five weeks there’s no doubt I’ve noticed the change in the malaise that is sometimes around this place.

Not a clue!!! So what he does is create and intensify a negative sub culture whist promoting a separate "yes men group"... Sounds like he bases his style on the Chinese re-education programme.... Organisational culture development is gained through cohesive ethos and expectation expressed via effective and justified communication. Little Lee loves the culture of the Hero Leader...because anything else is probably beyond his range of experience (look unto the Father my son) and intellectual ability...observing training with the military was probably wasted on him once he got past the parade ground.... 

6 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Why now Tony? Why not 20 years ago when your idea of how to play “football” was hideously outdated.

I genuinely don’t think I’ve ever hated someone involved with our club more. It wasn’t the Rovers connection, the alleged financial improprieties or even the dress code (as a wise man once said  “There are fewer sights more distressing than that of an Englishman in a baseball cap”). It was the football. I genuinely left a game before half time at 1-1 because the football was so bad. I wasn’t even sat in the ****ing Dolman and had the excuse of beating the crowds. It was just shit. Pure, unadulterated absolute shit.

I hated him then. I hate him now. He can get in the ****ing bin, then climb out, then get in again for good measure.

****.

encapsulates my feelings to a tee...Thank you for posting such a succinct and accurate appraisal of that ****'s time at AG...

3 hours ago, Bouncearoundtheground said:

Yes, I was going to say, I can’t imagine many of the folk in there now giving a shit, it’s not like trying to start a vocal section in the cushion seats of the Lansdown, although that would be a laugh…  

 

More so A block to be fair! Memory is naff though. Are you referring to Del Naja? Don’t remember that. Did see him eating a goat curry in The concourse recently though…

I am, used to sit 4 rows in front of me, used to be full of stars and Mr Scott from ITN - I hasten to add that these were not trouble makers/seat throwers/pitch invaders or punch throwers...

9 minutes ago, Bouncearoundtheground said:

There was regular persistent standing in both blocks A and B for years previously and this was never an issue 

Was there? I had a ticket in B Block from the season they started building on the Open End circa 93 until 2017, I remember standing a bit, but never all the time. Certainly it was a very vocal section and the area of choice for many naughty boys, ee out of Massive attack and ee off the telly!

Really sad news,

I used to work in a school next to Chelsea's training ground when Luca was Manager. He gave generously of his time and spirit. I was lucky enough to have many chats with him when he came round to spend time with the kids, he was a truly gentle man...a great loss

27 minutes ago, milo1111 said:

They’ve done so many great things for this club.
 

The Achilles heel has been over backing of Johnson snr and Jnr in excessive transfer spending, and then paying for it in the years that followed as  more experienced managers have been asked to cut their cloth accordingly. 
 

the most recent incarnation of this scenario was the worst as it was orchestrated by the utter turd known as mark Ashton who clearly wasn’t half as clever as he or the lansdowns thought he was.

that is why Nigel Pearson should be supported now by us all. Careful what you wish for as another yes man with no credentials is probably next on the rank.

Exactly, the nepotistic Gary and his idiot son (who kept far more talented players out of the play-off side) have been the biggest mistakes made by SL, regardless we are a championship club with great facilities, hope, stability and potential - it's a package, not individual elements. I'm getting cheesed off by the Landsdown haters, a bunch of entitled dimwits with no right to expect and no brain to debate! 

10 hours ago, Mendip City said:

I spotted 11 people heavily under the influence of sedatives at The Gate on Boxing Day.  

only 11, I counted at least 10,000 in the second half to stop me from falling asleep

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

We need to continue to reduce our operating costs. Wells' new contract is presumably another step in that direction but we need to increase our income also.

But an owner can't just pay off any FFP deficit so the only way to raise substantial funds is to sell players.

I doubt Wells contract on its own will make much difference, The 3 year FFP deficit might be an issue in the short term, however, moving forward, should an owner decide to inject cash, and I'm not for one minute suggesting/demanding that SL should invest further, then it should not be an issue - if someone does not, then you are absolutely right, we'll have to sell and prey!

6 hours ago, marmite said:

Agree with most of this but even you must agree that the club has now stalled where it matters most, on the pitch. Even when we win, I don't walk away from the ground feeling entertained or exited by what I've seen. 

I've met and spoken to all the Lansdown family in recent years and they usually come across as very enthusiastic about the club and its future.

However, the silence from the top is deafening at the moment and although the appointment of Phil Alexander is welcome, just where are the chairman and the owner. I find that quite worrying.

I think the club is at a cross roads, if the owner wants to push into the Prem, then some big money will have to be spent, Brentford style promotions are the exception, not the rule. If the club is to stay safe in the Championship(in the hope that a "lucky season" might come along (as happened with Daddy Johnson)) , then the Babby Johnson/Ashton legacy will have to be undone, which will cost money. In short, SL picked the wrong people to spend his money, a couple of unproven chancers. I'm sure he knows what they did and what's required to fix it. I guess it's a question of whether he wants to resource it and put in the effort required. After all, it's his money, there's no way that kind of revenue could be raised by supporters/commercial activity. Which might well explain the silence. I'm with you on the current performances, lacking spirit and excitement....probably due to a lack of purpose

Reflecting back over the past 50 odd years, I'd say the stability and continual improvement provided under the Landsdowns is unprecedented at this club. From 76 things went down hill(and let's be honest, things over the previous 60 years had been pretty average). We did not invest in future players, but tired old has beens. The board did not look at sustainability and we ended up at rock bottom. From that point we scrambled out of the 4th division and were a division 3 team, with short lived bursts into the second for nearly 20 years, apart from a couple of seasons the fare was shite delivered by an army of average players- with the odd exception.

Since 2002 we have had stability, now we have expectations, decent facilities and some hope, if they are a pox, what the hell have rovers got? 

Some people have shady memories or have not been around AG long enough

Not really, given the way we are playing!

Gerrard = Lee Johnson on Steroids..... out of a frying pan into a deep fat fryer scenario..... 

3 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

But surely, according to @Robboredthe Swans fans will still be in the ground.

He said they are never, ever let out at the same time as the home fans. Surely he`s not wrong?

Well, we must have a massive Welsh support then if the large number of fans exiting the away end straight after the game were ours

Yes, I spent a happy 20 mins at the top of Coronation Rd waiting for our and their young lads to move on, some so young I doubt they'd sprouted pubes yet!

"Apparently our toilets have took a beating again, heard this is from a mate who supports the swans..."

Probably because so many of their pufa jacketed fans were so full of shit!

I presume the blue tarp covered construction to the right is the urinals (Glastonbury cast offs)

53 minutes ago, redsquirrel said:

to allow plenty of time to shag mum,sis,gran and any other female family members before falling into drunken comatose sleep

I'm not sure this statement meets equality regulation, you seem to have made a generalisation that does not include all protected characteristics! Can I suggest you remove any gender specific reference

10 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

I think you'll find the main justification for 'Monarchy' these past 3 centuries is it appears to deliver constitutional and political stability it, after all, meaning 'the rule of the many by the one for the purpose of good'. Look at the remaining 46 monarchies around the globe and they tend to be decent, peaceful and prosperous places to reside. When monarchies fall they're invariably replaced by President Republics or Confederations. A quick scan of the major Presidencies of late doesn't exactly promote the concept: Trump , Biden, Putin, Xi, Erdogan, Bolsanaro, Kim Jong-un, Salih, al-Assad, Maduro. Add in just about any African nation, ex-Soviet state and central American dictatorship, consider security, conflict, economic stability and personal liberty and monarchy wins out by a mile.

That's not to say the present form of the UK Royal Family should remain, rather their very function within the constitution should be preserved and for good reason, it provides an essential buffer to political extremism and stasis.

As I mentioned elsewhere, if folks bothered to review the Royals funding position rather than fixate on the Privy Purse, as anti-monarchists so love to do, they'll see The Exchequer receives far, far more in revenue from them than is paid back and that's before any 'benefit' to UKPLC's economy is considered.

As for Charles having 'leached out' fortunes from the Duchy of Cornwall (I assume you also include his other income streams,) its worth noting he's cost the taxpayer nothing, has paid all his own costs and voluntarily paid top rate income tax on all surplus (he didn't have to.) As per your suggestion he may subsidise his existence from 'The Duchy' he can't, its no longer his. He will, however, and as with ERII, more than pay his own way given all that he has inherited by way of income streams is paid to The Exchequer. But when I say 'he has inherited' I really should have said 'the function has inhetited,' for that's what it is.  A functional, not personal, existence. The accounts are public record. 

Presidents BTW, do not come cheap. Amazing how many have PERSONALLY become the richest people in the world.  Unlike monarchs that wealth doesn't transfer to the next in line, preserved ultimately for a nation's benefit. It sits in personal bank accounts around the globe. 

Thank you, some very interesting views and presumptions to consider/research.