ExiledAjax

The main decision that SL needs to make is whether he takes investment/sells Bristol City Football Club Ltd or Bristol City Holdings Ltd. The current structure is as below, and it really isn't that complex when compared to other company structures. As you can see, Bristol Sport Ltd is actually a sister company of Bristol City Holdings Ltd. Despite what many fans will tell you Bristol Sport does not own any part of Bristol City Football Club. There will be contractual agreements between the Club company and Bristol Sport, but that does not constitute ownership. Likewise the Rugby club owns no part of the football club or Ashton Gate. Basically, does SL want to keep hold of the stadium - owned by Ashton Gate Ltd., or does he want to sell the whole lot and take a clean break? I have no idea, but it would make a huge difference to both the potential valuation of the sale/investment and to the future stability of the club. I'd guess that the stadium would add £40-50m to any valuation(a guess of a figure). As fans we should want SL to take investment or sell the whole package, stadium company and club company. Doing this keeps the stadium packaged with the club and so provides any new owner with control of the three main assets that make up our club - membership of the EFL, player contracts (which are with Bristol City Football Club Ltd), and the stadium. That's what you buy, and that's where the value is. That means selling the Holding company, or more likely setting up a new company, and selling Bristol City Football Club Ltd and Ashton Gate Ltd to that NewCo. The women's club company would go with it as a subsidiary of Bristol City Football Club Ltd. Rugby would continue to be a tenant of Ashton Gate Ltd - and that should cause no issue if the new owner is honest and in good faith. Likewise the Club could easily continue to licence or rent things from Bristol Sport Ltd under its current contracts. In terms of structuring the deal the existence of Bristol Sport, and the relationship that the Football Club has with Bristol Sport and the Rugby Club should have very little negative impact on any new investor.

I wonder if they've already exhausted all other means of making their point? Presumably they've already written to the club, emailed Gould, contacted the SC&T to see if they can use that channel of communication, written to the club's lawyers, maybe delivered a petition or manifesto detailing the changes they'd like to see...or have they just gone straight to the march?

Initially no we'd be no better of FFP-wise. A new owner inherits the club's current FFP status, and SL already puts the maximum equity investment (when he does his annual debt/equity swap) in every year in order to keep the club afloat. However, if SL's attitude and motivation to continue doing that is failing, then a new shareholder could be needed in order to keep treading water. So short term it would do nothing, but long term (ie 2024/25/26) it could be what's needed. IMO a fresh approach to governance, board structure, and corporate structure are needed. That can be achieved either through a new investor or through a complete sale/takeover. Personally I would welcome a new investor coming on for something like a 20% stake. Fresh ideas and views but with SL retaining control. Allows us to test out that investors motives and modus operandi.

Despite my reticence to give this any oxygen, I believe it is this. Organised by an Instagram account with some 347 followers they list multiple vague and directionless complaints including: "We need change" "We want our club back" "Fans not customers" Finally the hashtag in the comment is #PearsonOut which very much suggests that ultimately it is completely to do with Pearson. In my opinion we are struggling in the league, in the balance book, and when that happens fans get strained. But we're a very, very long way from marching to "get our club back" - whatever that really means.

That Spurs game against Inter at the San Siro on 2010 when he just ran the show. Turned Maicon inside out and upside down, took one of Europe's top teams to pieces. That was the game. If I was a player and that game and performance were all I ever did, I'd retire happy.

Unbeaten in 3.

Go back and tell them to count you. Then go and tell the next steward. Then the next. Etc

Attendance: 99,000

Gone for the win. Full strength starting XI with a few young 'uns on the bench.

Presume you've given yourself a seat upgrade? Straight to a box if I were you.

I find Pougatch very "Smashy and Nicey". Comes across as desperate to convince you that he's a funny guy who's best mates with the pros. Grates on me personally. Logan is far more natural and comes across as genuinely wanting to present the sporting occasion to the viewer. She'd be a top choice.

Well there you go guys. There's your fix. Grab a pen, grab a sheet of A5, and scribble away.

It's financed on paper though. There's a relationship between the two things, and that's what "get your £ on the pitch" describes.

Trouble with Emmar 'ayes is that as a presenter we would have to listen to her voice. And that is an unpleasant thing to do.

Laura Woods was the best of the ITV world cup anchors. Put cliche factory Pougatch to shame in my opinion.

Oh and a wild card who's still pretty new and currently only really on the podcasts and radio - Nedum Onuaha. Calm, funny, knowledgeable, played with and against some of the best, hates Joey Barton. A class act.

Great minds.

Colin Murray would get my vote. But probably doesn't want the gig.

But which player actually made the one huge profit? Webster - the guy that LJ specifically demanded be signed as a condition of letting Flint go. The guy LJ then played as much as he could (I mean which of us wouldn't have done that!?). He's the one who went for 1000% more than we bought him for.

7.5k to the Etihad for a cup semi-final. 4.5k to Fulham a few years back (but Fulham's normally more like 2-3k). 1k average away following this season. I think 6k would be about what should be expected tbh, and I think that's a good number. It coould well be more as you say, but I'd be pleasantly shocked if we got up near 9k like Pompey. 1-0 to Spurs. Kane from the edge of the box.

Nearly 9k apparently. Impressive. I'd imagine we'd do 5-6k for a similar London game at a big place like that. Pompey have been solid but with only a little threat. Spurs sending everything through Son on the left and he's not quite got the deliver correct yet. Morrell's been solid if unspectacular.

Have opted for Pompey v Spurs and Joe Morrell.

Might even be 9th in the Championship.

I've spoken to Gould about this precise point. "Value on the pitch" is a bit of both what you and @Harry are saying. Gould's view on it is that you need as much of your wage bill playing as much as possible. Otherwise why are you paying them? To achieve you need a sensible wage structure with carefully allotted wages. He would say that yes you should play your expensive players as much as you can, but before you do that you should be carefully choosing who gets those high wages. It's that second part that wasn't happening under Ashton, and so we ended up with players like Palmer and at certain times Wells. Naturally you cannot always achieve this as things like injuries (Kalas) and managers discretion (see Bentley) might detail it. But basically the idea is to structure wages properly, be honest with players about potential minutes and therefore fair wages, and to have a clear idea from the manager about how much players will play. In that way we can try to get our "£ on the pitch" as Gould said to me.

Yeh replays were scrapped for the 3rd round and on during the "COVID seasons". But they're back this season for 3rd and 4th round. 5th round, QFs, SFs and final will be ET and pens straight away.