sh1t_ref_again

4 hours ago, RedRoss said:

I don't think he needs that burden put on him if he does arrive. I obviously hope he hits the ground running. He has his own skillset and looks talented but doesn't need to be Alex Scott mk2.

That's fair, how about the Irish Grelish

3 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Bear in mind that we are speculating on this thread based on what Man Utd have done. There isn't actually any indication that there are any negotiations going on with any potential minority investor.

Remember also that Jon told us categorically that the football operation doesn't need a CEO. When challenged on that at the Senior Reds he compounded it by saying we didn't need one because Tinnion was growing into the job. So the Technical Director is also fulfilling at least some of the CEO function? Really?

Of course that could just be Jon's usual hapless communication but on the evidence available I'm not inclined to credit him with cunning strategic thinking.

Quite all speculation, but JL volunteered about investors with expertise, and as stated the current setup is unlikely to have a minority investor wanting to carry on with the current set up, so likely to be adding experience and have input at the most senior level, what ever that revamp looks like. Of course it does not mean anything is in the pipeline, but an alternative to selling wholesale 

6 minutes ago, chinapig said:

It's worth asking whether any other Championship club would have the same, shall we say, unorthodox governance structure. I suspect not.

Furthermore would any other club appoint Jon as Chairman? Again I think not.

There is a worrying lack of professionalism and best practice at the top.

As per the point I made in my post, perhaps the structure is interim, could even be with the investor taking over the day to day running and JL taking a back seat.... who knows what discussions could be ongoing

I know it's popular to attack the Lansdowns, but it was JL who introduced they may consider investment if they had the right expertise, surely the only expertise an investor would want, would be at a senior level that has some control.

Perhaps the unpopular flatened management structure is only planned as interim, eventually paving the way for the possibility of new investor led board members or senior management.

55 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I realise this is totally off-topic but what were your favourite performances under Nige, Dave? I think it's fair to say there was a distinct lack of memorable wins and performances during that period.

The one that pops into my head is the 3 nil win over WBA in the FA Cup. Naismith recently moved into midfield, and felt we were in control against a decent in-form team at the time. 

We were very good in that game, but did have a certain £25m young lad playing for us, in one of his best games he played 

1 hour ago, NickJ said:

You clearly don’t know and/or understand the ownership structure before Steve created Ashton Gate Ltd.

The stadium was already potentially protected, for the benefit of Bristol City. 
 

Look up the accounts of Bristol City Holdings Limited and Bristol City Football Club Limited.

There was already a structure that could have protected the stadium.

Bristol City, as in the football club, not a legal entity, is no better protected now than when before Steve put in place the current more complex arrangements, 

Steve’s investment on the other hand is better protected. 

When you refer to the 100 year lease, ask yourself the question, what is the legal entity that is protected by that and what happens to the football club if that legal entity is insolvent or ceases to exist.

The fact is that Steve deliberately unraveled the 1982 constitution which prohibited any one individual owning more than 25% of Bristol City. 
 

Whether or not you question his motives for doing that, I think it’s reasonable to expect that he delivers an outcome which is better than Bristol City would likely have achieved anyway.

Bristol City doesn’t have that. It has Jon Lansdown running the show. 

No problem with what you say about club structure, but it the way you tried to portray it in your original post making out its something sinister that SL owns 100% of the ground. 

SL had to do away with the 25% limit as otherwise could not invested the way he has

If SL decided to sell the ground, I am sure things can be put in place to cover different eventualities and no doubt if someone bought the club relying on a lease, would need to ensure this, so really just a lot of hot air.

5 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

It's from the same people that always troll my posts. Despite being on my ignore list they still continue to quote me etc. 

Unfortunately they can't move on from their hatred of NP. I've seen lots of digs about Pearson on this forum today by people who just can't let it go. 

I might be a bit outspoken but I just say things how I see them. Some people don't like that. 

I remember having a conversation on here with someone and them telling me that I must blindly support Manning. I told them he'd need to earn that support as I had lots of concerns. 

From the moment he was linked with us my concern was that Manning ball would not suit our players. We saw that in his early games for us. Now after moving away from Manning ball and therefore calming my concerns  and playing to our strengths and winning 3 on the bounce, he has my support. 

Not sure if on your ignore list, but quite happy to be

You have been very vocal over NP sacking and your displeasure at Manning, even saying in a post you don't like him and happily see him gone or words to that effect.

Rather than now just praising Manning you try and twist it that he has gone away from Manning ball and changed from the 1st few games, back towards NP style. The 1st game was QPR which was meaningless then games we played well in parts, including where we Could have been 3 -0 up at Southampton. The first games he wrongly played players out of position and learnt some lessons and accepted he perhaps overloaded them with information, but that does not nean he has gone away from a playing a style he is trying to implement. Of course there will be similarities to NP as he signed the players. Although Mehmeti has been given games and the undropable Bell dropped and even James today.

I was a Nige fan and gutted when he was sacked, but recognised there is a lot more to it than any on us know

Things beyond our control have changed and now we just have to enjoy the ride

What a superb performance against a form team

Just confirmed on robins tv, it is Matty James on the bench

Guess if its James, that's not our main stay James on the bench then James must have picked up an injury or sickness bug or eaten undercooked Turkey

6 minutes ago, Super said:

He isn't on the bench

He is according to the team sheet, unless that's changed

James dropping to the bench could be due to light injury or was one affected by the bug the other day or big decision, but thought Williams was good when he came on. It is a squad game particularly over Xmas.

20 minutes ago, NickJ said:

A series of facts isn’t a snipe.

It is when you try to misrepresent it, like this

So now Steve owns pretty much 100%, and in doing so has taken away the sole tangible asset, the football stadium, which Steve now effectively owns personally.

SL owns 99-100% of all the companies, but you have tried to imply he has taken the ground away from the club and stashed in his back pocket for possible alternative mostives. When in reality he has done no different to a lot of clubs to protect the ground and perhaps more to ensured it is linked to the football club with a lease

you only have to look at the company structures and even the accounts just submitted to see they are linked.

Guess you could argue its possible to sell the club without the ground now, but it would have to be a watertight agreement for its continued use, otherwise no one would purchase, but what good is a ground that SL or anyone else cannot do anything else with for 100 years.

No problem with having a difference of opinion or having a dig at the Lansdowns when it's factual and not twisted to meet an agenda 

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The Rugby wide Salary cap perhaps keeps a bit of a lid on it but the 2023 accounts when out will reveal more.

As will the individual components ie Bristol City FC, Ladies, Ashton Gate Limited etc.

The point I was asking Dave was, Rugby is showing a loss at Bristol Rugby Ltd, but all the revenue generated at the stadium during games goes to Ashton Gate accounts, so not straight forward to see the actual liability of the Rugby club

Or at least that was my take on it?

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You can do that for previous years, as I have done!

If I was to be rude, I’d say the reason inefficiency (not producing results) hasn’t been looked at, is primarily down to the focus of this whole thread!!!!

I see nothing hugely wrong with the BS concept, but I see lots of issues with the execution of it.  And don’t forget all the sports under the umbrella are loss making, despite being in their respective top flights - whereas city have the potential to be profit making if they make it there. 

My understanding, correct me if wrong, the Bears are loss making, but there figures will not include the revenue made at the stadium on match days so would need to be able to separate out to see the true picture 

18 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Agree re the benefits of multi-use, but if it was just Football - you wouldn’t have the same staffing costs.  You’d need less staff or at least less “FTE”.  It might be less efficient, but you wouldn’t need the same!

Also, what we are aren’t necessarily seeing is the efficiency of the multi-use model, the cost of providing is too high, ie we aren’t making enough from it.  There is too much cost being cross-charged through the various businesses in the overall group.  I’ve heard it’s become a bit jobsworth, and also a lack of accountability as some management are silo’d in their thinking.

Fair point, but I guess without breaking down all the figures and seeing what is generated vs additional cost then we don't know. 

The principle is sound and if not producing results, needs looking at why

As I said bar some minor issues I do not see the big problem with Bristol Sport 

6 hours ago, mason said:

Bristol Sport is his dream not ours, apart from multiple tiers of management what exactly are we BCFC getting out of this dream.

Can we not "utilise" our own stadium without the rest.... rugby etc?

What exactly does concerts etc bring to BCFC. What next, cricket, running track, seems to me more BS than BCFC as each month passes, we are part of something else and I for one dont like it.

Sorry when you say ours, not sure you talk for all fans or even the majority. Lots attend both Bears and city games, or are able to look past a few negatives for the bigger picture.

Funny you should mention tiers of management, as that is exactly what has just been streamlined, due to the overlap. (Not saying we have it right yet)

Concerts, rugby and any other functions produce revenue at the stadium which is fed back into the stadium company and therefore help us, otherwise the stadium would only be used, once every 2 weeks for part of the year, although you still have all the same running and staffing costs 

Maybe that's why you are so confused if you are thinking about cricket or running tracks.

5 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

If you compound it.

Otherwise 1%of 20 billion is the 20 million he puts In each season. It really is just pocket money to him.

But it's what has been put in over the years and likely to only ever get a percentage of it back.

We can try to play it down, it's only 20m, only 1%, but that seems to be about the loss you incur running a championship football club, which means as fans we are only paying about a third of what it costs to watch our team, with the other 2/3s subsidised by SL

Perhaps if he did a Sheffield Wednesday and asked the fans to dip more into there pockets to fund the club, would not be much uptake

18 minutes ago, RedM said:

I realise there are a few examples, but generally it's not a done thing, especially at our level. My view is that if something rarely happens then there usually is a valid reason for that.

Not sure I see the issue with Bristol Sport and why some see it as the basis of all evil. Yes we have a few rugby pictures around the ground, but the seats inside are all still red. I was initially concerned about the pitch, but bar a few painted out lines has not affected it. 

What it does do is give much better utilisation of the stadium and exposure or the football to other markets, when the sporting quarter gets built it will be more of a multi sport venue 

47 minutes ago, NickJ said:

It’s very simple.

Steve dismantled the constitution of the club which said, post 1982, that nobody should own more than 25% of Bristol City. 
 

So now Steve owns pretty much 100%, and in doing so has taken away the sole tangible asset, the football stadium, which Steve now effectively owns personally.

Steve has done that, his choice, and he is right when he says it’s his club.

People talk about Steve redeveloping the stadium, but in Steve’s 20 years there are plenty of other clubs who have done the same, so that doesn’t make him some sort of saint, just someone doing what is necessary. And let’s not forget, the club had planning permission to build a 12,000 seater stand, with finance in place to do it, long before Steve’s arrival, which he decided not to go ahead with.

So in summary, because he’s taken the club away from the fans, he has a responsibility to deliver success for the football club, relative to what we would have experienced without him.

Which hasn’t happened.

 

The stadium has been covered before, everything is owned by SL and ML as they own all of the companies. The ground being separated is standard procedure adopted by lots of clubs to protect the ground if the foot ball club had problems. The club is further protected by having a 100 year lease of the ground. Even the accounts that have just been released are for the club and the ground.

But you can try to twist it as a snipe at SL.

1 minute ago, IAmNick said:

I sort of understand where you're coming from, but I think you're rather naive if you don't believe they charge the absolute maximum they can to maximise their revenue.

They're not charging the current prices out of the goodness of their hearts (and pockets). They're doing it because they've calculated that's the exact price which will make them the most money.

If you on about ticket prices?, the point I was trying to make, is we only pay about a third of what it costs to have a championship team to watch

Agree they charge the maximum they can get away with

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Look at how much they lost historically, not one season, a season we lost even more.

He doesn’t deserve abuse.  But he deserves the critique the likes of me and other fans give him, and we don’t need “be careful what you wish for” responses.  We fully understand the situation.  I didn’t wish for £200m losses in the P&L.  Have Millwall and Preston got that?

But all the dept is owed to SL, some of it is due to the decisions that have turned out not to have worked some down to mistakes that have been made, some infrastructure and some due to the losses, as championship football is loss making. If SL eventually sells, he will only get what someone is prepared to pay, and will have to take on the chin the balance. If the price is too high, he will not be able to sell and hopefully continue to underwrite the cost of championship football.

I have no problem with criticism and much of it I can agree with, but a lot is just with hindsight and without the full picture 

The abuse is pathetic and often says more about the childish nature of those making comments thinking they are being clever.

Ps I did not say be carefull what you wish for, we all know that any change is a risk.

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

So, you’re both happy that a £36.5m revenue business costs £65.3m to run, yet gets nowhere near being able to recoup some of that by getting to the Premier League?

Well, bugger me if you think that’s me being ENTITLED!!!

I’m not even close to being an “entitled fan”.  It’s been a concern of mine since 2016-17, and it bit us on the effing arse big-time in recent years.

I’m delighted we ONLY lost £22m last season including a £9m transfer, stopping that being £30m. (That’s sarcasm btw!)

What planet am I on?  Give myself a slap in the face for being so entitled.

Pardon me for thinking that there might be a different way / a better way of doing this without feeling that we should be indebted to Steve Lansdown.

(Rant not aimed at you both, just the general lack of understanding why some of us feel as passionately as we do about the ownership / situation).

Weather its £20 or £40, SL is underwriting it, it was said on the other thread what about Preston or Millwall well they both lost £19m

The fact is a mid champ team loses a lot of money, that SL puts his hands in his pockets and covers, in other words supplements all of us to go and watch city, and should at least have a bit of gratitude for it. 

Of course can do better, maybe new owners would do better, and I am not against that, but don't believe he deserves the rubbish some on here come out with

3 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

What exactly do you expect in this kind of scenario??? 

Cue another sh1t comment again.

You stated it was proof of how clueless they are, 

But offer no proof at all, just someone liked a comnent who may know something or may of heard something 4th hand that may or may not be true

You just look for any nonsense to sling sh1t at the Lansdowns, but don't let facts worry you after all hearsay on a forum is proof 

27 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

At least 1 of the posters who liked the statement "Mousinho was our no.1 target" is in a position to be itk.

No proof at all then