Eddie Hitler

I'd say that because people support "their club" for life in most cases people tend to project onto them special, even unique, qualities which really don't exist. At root they are, location excepted, interchangeable professional football teams and this decade's success is next decade's struggler falling through the leagues if something goes awry. My earliest memories of supporting City were under Alan Dicks in Division 1 with that classic line up, meaning that I have always since then seen us as a top division club in waiting. I am however wrong in this, as the companies selling investments always say "past results are no guide to future performance". Man United ruled for a decade from the mid 90s because of the combination of a great manager and half a dozen superb players coming through the youth team at the same time and forming the core of the side. And look at them now. Brentford has been very well run recently but for years was just another small lower league club. Currently City has a very strong youth programme, great facilities and coaching, and wealthy owners. This is an excellent position in which to be. We are however lacking two things: an excellent manager (maybe that is Manning, too early to tell yet) and some decent player purchases. Add those two and we become a "special" club.

I know this isn't what the thread is asking but it brought it to mind. In the late nineties in London I had a member of staff whose landlord was Kevin Nugent's brother, I said to pass on my admiration.

Nope. I find the price of a pint eye-watering.

That's fairly standard in the UK TBF, Wetherspoons excepted. Sub £1 for can of beer in a supermarket, £6 for a pint in the pub. I'm fairly surprised that France has gone that way, cheap booze and the one Euro, now 1.5 Euro, cold pint of local lager has always been an attraction of Mediterranean holidays.

Yes, and it didn't used to be like that. We criticise Rovers' fans for their passiveness, where have their "sack the board" protests been over the years for example, but we have mostly gone the same way. The sheer cost and being crammed into small seats makes for a very passive audience these days; most clubs are likely the same.

Covid killed it for me. When league games are stripped of the crowd-generated atmosphere they look like school kids having a kickabout in the park. It was an "emperor's new clothes" moment; I retain an interest in City but have lost all interest in the England national team.

Go to the link that @ExiledAjax posted and look for your name on the register giving your shareholding, as long as it's there then you don't actually require your certificate to sell (not that you appear to be intending to do so anyway).

The shares have been so heavily diluted over the years by the Lansdowns doing debt for new equity swaps to keep within the FFP limits that yes, they are really only of sentimental value these days. At how much would the club be valued with the ground? £40m maybe, or £30m with the third party debt on the ground going with it. The minority shareholding of 1.3% is worth £390k on that £30m basis, each ordinay share is worth 19.4p. The buyback by the Lansdowns was incredibly generous as it was at £2 a share. If I had only had a few I might have held on for said sentimental reasons but I had a fair few so accepted it.

Yes, absolutely that. Well surmised.

This is why I only ever pay cash. If a seller is ripping you off then you know about it there and then and can walk away. Tap your card and you may not know how much they are actually thieving off you.

I hope so. Those Bristol Sport staffers need to earn their corn just like any other worker. I await the "Nigel Pearson ran over my dog and laughed about it" stories.

The appointment always looked to be about Steve wanting to decide upon everything without actually having to do the job of running the club himself which would require him to be physically present a lot with the accompanying negative implications for his personal tax status, so he put in someone he knows will allow him to do just that. The mistake Jon makes IMHO is in having a public image when he should leave that to the manager and quietly get on with his job behind the scenes other than delivering a speech once a year at the AGM. For anyone unhappy at JL being in charge as SL's proxy please remember that if Jon wasn't in place it could be smarmy Mr Ashton sitting there, spending money like it was going out of fashion in order to have another few dozen players or "golf clubs in the bag" as he does his wheeling and dealing with other people's money.

My impression is that the very best managers tend to be those who have had poor or injury shortened playing careers because they haven't had the long and successful playing career of others. Brian Clough was a successful player but had a career ending injury at 29. The three you cite had unspectacular careers as you say, whereas people who have been highly successful as players don't seem to cut it as managers: Bobby Moore, Dean Saunders, Sol Campbell, Alan Shearer and so on. I was personally pleased that we didn't get Steven Gerrard that time because for all his great playing skills he had achieved very little as a manager.

I wouldn't write QPR off, they persisted longer than they should have done with Gareth Ainsworth because he was a popular player and had done well in League 1 but the performances were terrible, reminiscent of when we had Tins as manager (that isn't a criticism of his ability in his current role). They have gone for a European manager, the team has noticeably improved and they won their last game, the first win at home for ages.

You would think but this was brought in at a conference I regularly attended. Previously you had to out your hand up and it worked well. When they went to questions on an App, mostly from those in the room but also some remotely, the various Chairs without exception picked the easy, bleedin' obvious questions and ignored the hard ones. It ruined the Q&A part of each session to be frank. I was surprised by how bad it was.

Though those are operating leases for cars or whatever, you wouldn't disclose payments under a 125 year lease as operating lease payments.

I've cribbed a definition below, the lease is the legal agreement under which the long term rental happens. Granting a 125 year lease would mean that the football club company would own, as in have exclusive rights to, Ashton Gate for 125 years in exchange for an agreed rental stream. As long as the rent is paid as agreed then BCFC Ltd effectively owns the ground, whilst paying a rent to the freeholder as someone owning a leasehold flat would pay ground rent. And to suggest that having given a 125 year lease to BCFC from the stadium company that the rugby club has similar is a nonsense. Though as I said the guy was put in the spot, in a similar situation I might have blurted out "lease" but I would have corrected myself. What Is a Lease? A lease is a contract outlining the terms under which one party agrees to rent an asset—in this case, property—owned by another party. It guarantees the lessee, also known as the tenant, use of the property and guarantees the lessor (the property owner or landlord) regular payments for a specified period in exchange. Both the lessee and the lessor face consequences if they fail to uphold the terms of the contract. A lease is a form of incorporeal right.

There is no lease. There was nothing in the the years 14 / 15 / 16 and here are the fixed asset notes of firstly Ashton Gate Limited, this holds the ground, and then Bristol City Football Club Ltd. This possibly owns the HPC but crucially owns no leasehold property. The guy who spoke, the accountant presumably, was put on the spot with no opportunity for preparation and was incorrect in referring to a lease but there may well be a bindng agreement that the team will continue to play there for 125 years which is what he meant.

Thanks, the words were that nine years ago the football club was granted a 125 year lease on the stadium. And something about the rugby club have security of tenure. I can't think that this is correct, being an asset of community value would prevent a lease of that length being granted without opening it up. Surely instead of being an actual lease in the formal sense it's going to be an agreement that they can keep playing there. Otherwise if the football club is sold, as an individual company, or goes bust then it takes with it a 125 year lease on the ground which is exactly what the 2006 separation of ground and club which you picked out earlier was designed to avoid. 2014 and 2015 accounts here we come.

There is also this from 2014 where the SC&T had it registered as an ACV, and we'll done them. @Mr Popodopolous Ashton Gate – An Asset of Community Value December 10, 2014\ Stuart Rogers In December 2014, Ashton Gate Stadium was successfully registered by the Supporters Club & Trust as an asset of community value under the Localism Act. Put simply, it means it the owner must not dispose of the freehold or grant a lease of 25 years or more without giving interested local community groups the opportunity to put a bid together. There will be a period of moratorium following receipt of any notice of intent to sell from the owner during which restrictions on disposal will apply. https://www.bristolcitysupporters.org/ashton-gate-asset-community-value/

Well done on finding it Mr P, though that to me looks like the restructure which other clubs were doing where, from having one company holding everything, we changed to a holding company (in which some fans still have shares) which wholly owned a club subsidiary and a ground subsidiary (Ashton Gate Limited). This was done so that if the football club went bust then it wouldn't take the ground with it. At that stage the freehold remained owned by AG Ltd and, through them, BC Holdings Ltd. I will also have a poke about the accounts to see when the freehold went outside the Holdings group, as I said this is all news to me.

Good point.

We, as in Bristol City Holdings, of which I and many on here used to hold shares and some still do, used to own it outright through a subsidiary company. At some point the ownership of the freehold must have been sold and I was totally unaware of that. If I was still holding shares then I would be rather peeved and asking questions about whether it was a genuinely fair value transaction. However I took up the Lansdowns' offer to buy my shares at the price I paid for them, which was very generous of them and a real thank you for those of us who helped the club when it asked for help, so with no vested interest I can't moan about it.

What is this legendary "main thread" of which you speak? And who holds this 125 lease and who the freehold? Is it me?

And the ticket collectors and stewards, it's nepotism run rife there. Clear them all out, bring over the match day staff that Oxford use.