NickJ

Never said he has substance Harry, honestly don't know. But bluff and bluster is at least more interesting than the shite from O'Boring. I'd argue the crap from O'Bluster-Driscoll was bluster, he said we were going to do this and that but it would take years "because of the years of under achievement". **** me forget the excuses in advance just get on with it - Crawley are above us for ***** sake. And the football is infinitely better, surely you agree that? If not you need to watch an O'CoverMyAssWithBollocks game sober mate.

The reason people will forgive Cotterill more easily than O'Dreary is he's got a personality and we are playing football which is 10 times as attractive, win or lose. That's not having it both ways mate that's having what we want, entertainment. I would have ditched my season ticket if O'SafetyFirst had stayed.

There is a reason for that mate

There is a reason for that mate

I don't know. Is it relevant?

I'm not anti SL and I haven't asked for the board to resign because that isn't what my point is - although looking from the outside they appear to be doing a spectacularly dismal job, despite what SL says. But that's the problem, looking from the outside, which means we don't know what problems they face, what they do, how they arrive at decisions, the calibre of the thought process. My opinion is that the fans should be represented on the board. That doesn't mean Jon or even Ernie Aarathoon appointed by SL, that means somebody independent of the current board capable of genuinely representing the fans. Organising a protest of the types you mention would be relatively easy as "sack the board" is sensationalist and would stir the emotions of many and the crowd effect would take over. I doubt that many would turn up for a "Supporters Trust on the board" meeting.

Touche!

The Supporters Trust is a group and as a member I have consistently called for it to be represented on the board of directors, as was indicated would happen several years ago. This forum as we know is widely read. Standing outside the Williams car park with a placard is possible. Given that the majority shareholder lives in Guernsey comments on here are more likely to receive attention. I have also asked the Fans Liaison Officer to pass this request on. I was given an unequivocal reply that the answer - No - will not change. The majority shareholder has in the past suggested that any fan representation would be given on Bristol City Football Club only, not Bristol City Holdings, ie excludes stadium matters. That to me is unacceptable, although not even that has been offered yet. Not sure what other action you have in mind.

You are quite right Timbo7 although Steve would no doubt be indignant as to any suggestion that he would indeed take the ground as part payment for the debt. Greater transparency and unequivocal statements, possibly even enshrined in an agreement of some sort would help. Regarding the ownership of Ashton Gate, in fact Bristol City Holdings was always the proud owner, not the subsidiaries, until it was hived off in 2005 to the newly incorporated Ashton Gate Ltd.

Yes it was me. I questioned Steve about it immediately after it was announced at an AGM. There was no prior notice about it, no other shareholders were consulted, and it was announced at the AGM as though it was just an administrative change. The impression I formed was a hope that it would go through under the radar. I was given an explanation by Steve that made no sense whatsoever, and a statement that Ashton Gate Ltd could be partly sold to external investors to raise funds which would have been madness - except that since then with everything that has happened with Ashton Vale I have realised that those "external" investors may have been a bit closer to home than was indicated. I guess it was Steve's misfortune that as an accountant I knew the explanation for doing it did not stack up and any proposal to sell our ground or even a part of it was ridiculous, and so I challenged further.

I'm not saying it was over exuberance at all. Notwithstanding the clown hitting a police horse and some idiots throwing things - which should be punished severely as being so cowardly and indiscriminate - in the main, it was kids shouting and posturing. Some of them will have had fisticuffs outside the ground - very little direct physical contact took place inside. I don't think that makes them vermin or scum though I do think they should get the proverbial clip round the ear. I'm not complaining about the police, just questioning why the need for a dawn raid. Maybe there were logistical issues, but it seems OTT to me.

Thanks I will. You are of course right that anti-social behaviour should not be tolerated, but some of your comments are sensationalist, ironically aggressive, and come across as attention-seeking, in a one man contest on how many times you can use words like vermin and scumbags in one sentence. I doubt very much if many if any of those who will eventually be convicted are indeed vermin or scum, and lets hope they learn from what will probably be a very expensive, disproportionate, lesson. Dawn raids for a group of young lads that ran onto a piece of grass and shook their fists a bit? As we all know, most of them actually want to be stopped - had they wanted to they could have easily got through the stewards and to the Rovers fans. Shock horror maybe some of them even had a bit of a scrap outside the ground. Whether you like it or not its what some young lads do, always have done, always will do. It's liable to happen every time large numbers of youths congregate, in any situation. Not all, but many, and I would suggest that in crowd behaviour even the least likely are likely to get caught up in it. I'm not condoning breaking of the law or their actions, I'm not condoning aggressive behaviour, in the slightest. But it happens, and society, through the police and the courts if necessary, brings them back into line. Job done. But dawn raids and some of the emotive language you use is way OTT, in my opinion.