Antman

looks like a bad day at the Mem !

3 hours ago, red kev said:

Andy king? Cheap easy option!

sadly i don't see King staying, too closely associated with Nige.

i have a really bad feeling re Nathan Jones - please god no. - but the luton link scares me, as SL has them as his current bedroom poster wannabee wet dream team.

3 minutes ago, headhunter said:

Dave, that bit about the fall out being caused by a row over bringing in free agents, such players would be experienced such that he wouldn't have to "expose the youngsters". What would Nige's objection be? Unless he wanted the free agents and the ****s wouldn't cough up the cash.

i think previously he'd not wanted to use Free agents as they weren't ultimately part of the bigger plan, i assume the better ones wouldn't play on super short contracts - Take Klose for example - he was good for a handful, but very quickly wasn't ! Simpson another.

That strategy of course contradicts the Lansdowns previously stated 'pillars' bollocks, and they will have forgotten that no doubt.

for better or worse, Pearson was/is a stubborn minded manager, which has runheadlong  into the lansdowns ineptitude at 100 mph on this occasion.

cheers - i'd like to think we have a functioning 'board' - but thats not entirely accurate i think.

SL has a small group of cronies which is a fundamentally unhealthy way to  operate a business, as painfully shown by this situation.

42 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Yes, very noticeable when interviewing incoming players. “yes it’s lovely I’m very impressed with the high performance centre and the stadium” 

 

it’s getting embarrassing  

 

as a previous poster said (and nailed it)  if he wanted to leave a legacy of bricks and mortar why not build a ******* Hospital - The Lansdowns tenure of this club is one of footballing failure (and I would argue financial failure, given the debts he has encumbered the club with) - SL is a fool to think that football ownership doesn't come with a sustained commitment to spending in order to build for success. unless your strategy is merely survival, which seems pointless.

(or of course he saw the whole thing as a financial strategy, a long game to sell off his 'brand vision' but for that to work "like Barcelona" you need to have a team like....Barcelona!)

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

FFS.

They probably think we’ll get an east 6 points and it will be justified.

1) do they know the championship?

2) do they know how many players we have fit?

it seems so horribly obvious they just wanted him out regardless. The gutless way they have gone about it makes it worse.

We'll no doubt get all the usual bullshit about a top class field of applicants again and then see Tinnion made manager.

so utterly demoralising

12 minutes ago, red panda said:

 

Have you seen who are next two opponents are 

sadly, thats exactly my point....

6 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

When a chairman / owner comes out and “backs the manager” publically, it’s usually seen as the death knell

accepted, but there a hundred ways to show support and more importantly understanding of the situation at the moment. we haven't heard a peep...on anything....

i know we all like to get in a lather from time to time (ooh err missus) but the prolonged silence from the owner and his lackeys is odd would you not say - esp given Alexanders departure and Pearsons statement ( which can be interpreted in many ways i'll admit)

5 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

 

There’s no ugly situation, just a side struggling with an awful injury crisis. 

sorry - just to add, do you not think they (SL / JL etc) could and should at least acknowledge that?

2 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Sorry mate, I’m sure you’re a true city fan, but that’s totally over the top.  How many clubs would send their owner out to discuss an injury crisis?  Lots of guess work here, and “a spineless lack of leadership”?  Really?  How do you know what goes on inside the club?

There’s no ugly situation, just a side struggling with an awful injury crisis. 

but where's the leadership? surely the chairman, albeit a mouthpiece for the owner,  needs to give some support for the manager & team - it's a conspicous silence.

we have a very faceless and voiceless leadership - CEO's and COO's and lord knows what, it feels like Pearson is being isolated.

1 hour ago, red panda said:

• we need to start with the absolutely obvious, SL's put a huge amount of his own money in
•  

 

the reason he has put in so much of his own money is that he has, over some considerable period, overseen the massive increase in debt (be that through poor decision making or bad luck - although he is one unlucky MoFo if thats the argument ) Resulting in him having to keep things afloat if he has any hopes of retaining and recouping  his investment.

been said many times before and i'll keep saying it.

18 minutes ago, phantom said:

"Back end error" apparently

Whatever the heck that is. . . . 

i had that recently after some spicy food.

Just now, MelksRed said:

When is his current contract up?

in about 24 hours if SL gets his way...

1 minute ago, Numero Uno said:

Be careful what you wish for lads. Nobody wants an Arab or Yank family in charge who think they have the right to pick the team………..

you might want to read that back - !

unlike the Lansdowns who think they have the right to pick the team....

1 minute ago, redkev said:

Are the Lansdowns becoming the Glaziers 

a Poundsaver version perhaps.

9 minutes ago, Dave L said:

You missed Atkinson Street and the Ritchie Brothers who also featured today. The jewellers were originally called Pearson and Fleming, but the name got lost in the final version. I have always tried to use City players' names for minor characters. It's a petty obsession, but it makes me happy. My favourite - going back a good few years now - was a firm of solicitors called Coles, Carey and Hill. I'm gutted that the show has been axed. I've written 82 episodes over 22 years and I'll miss it hugely. But just like my time at City, nothing lasts forever.

82 eps?. The ALCS must be your friend :)

39 minutes ago, Gazred said:

Just had an email from Stream AMG, they have now reversed the transaction, took £140 back, said they will then send the partial refund shortly. Blamed a system error for it but no apology or prior warning, got a notification from my bank at the same time as the email arrived.

What if you don't have the funds in your account at the time or if you do, what if you can't afford the £140 today? Thankfully i did but might not be the same for everyone.

me too

they refunded the whole season TV pass to my account without warning.

now emailed to say they have taken that back - it was in error -  and will refund the relevant amount.

such a professional service.

Just now, Antman said:

Taking pre emptive action merely protects their interests.

By way of an comparison, a friend of mine runs a business in the docks in Bristol, adjacent to him was a derilict site that was then bought and developed into an intensive residential development, they (developers) then started campaigning to have his business closed in advance of selling the units, despite him being there for some years -  fortunately the council told them to eff off.

remember the hoo haa over the flats near the Fleece and Firkin - again, a development attempting to close an established business because of potential noise concerns - even though they knew that 'noise' existed before building was started.

It's all part of the useless planning system i'm afraid. it seems now pre emptive action is part and parcel of strategies to block what might become a threatening development. (if residents do complain)

clearer advice and legal positions need to be established.

I'm surprised this wasn't signed off in advance, and as some have pointed out, is this a reactive grievance to something thats happened recently. (lost contracts)

too add, the situation isn't helped by the way central government can effectively over rule local authorities. so there is no certainty anymore.

3 minutes ago, Harry said:

This must be the first time in history that a company has been worried in advance about noise complaints from neighbours. 
They are either the most caring and considerate company, or there is something that has prompted their action.

One thing is for certain - they’re not doing this for the benefit of their future neighbours. 
There surely isn’t another company in the land that would be concerned about noise complaints before anyone has even moved in. 

Taking pre emptive action merely protects their interests.

By way of an comparison, a friend of mine runs a business in the docks in Bristol, adjacent to him was a derilict site that was then bought and developed into an intensive residential development, they (developers) then started campaigning to have his business closed in advance of selling the units, despite him being there for some years -  fortunately the council told them to eff off.

remember the hoo haa over the flats near the Fleece and Firkin - again, a development attempting to close an established business because of potential noise concerns - even though they knew that 'noise' existed before building was started.

It's all part of the useless planning system i'm afraid. it seems now pre emptive action is part and parcel of strategies to block what might become a threatening development. (if residents do complain)

clearer advice and legal positions need to be established.

I'm surprised this wasn't signed off in advance, and as some have pointed out, is this a reactive grievance to something thats happened recently. (lost contracts)

There's an amazing new movie about constipation

it hasn't come out yet though.

1988

Milne was sold to man U after that.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66932993

It makes you wonder if the shirt manufacturers need to stop dicking around with the design and 'technology' of football (and sports) shirts.

How can this sort of thing happen, do they not test the fabrics first??

Marginal gains is one thing, but this is a farce.

14 hours ago, ralphindevon said:

Crikey they love him at Leicester, everyone i talked to couldn't praise him enough. 

From their fans today we had a Nige song, a Matty James song and a few rounds of applause for Andy King as he warmed up. 

The most Bristol City friendly crowd ever. 

there was one bloke who wasn't a fan tho' ...

(clue: his wife is a grass)

43 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

What I can’t square off is that the transition of structure from:

• Gould (CEO)
• Pearson (Manager)

to:

• Alexander (CEO)
• Tinnion (Technical Director)
• Pearson (Manager)

was on the basis that if Tins / Nige could do most of the footie stuff, Phil could use his strengths to do more on the Commercial side.  Which is what he did at Palace because they had Freedman as Sporting Director handling the football side with Vieira / Hodgson.

So, just asking the question, seeing as we’ve kept Tins / Nige in place with what appears to be the same remit, does that mean two people with a Finance Skillset and JL will be 1) undertaking the commercial things Alexander was, or 2) are we scaling that back or 3) was Alexander not very good at it that it doesn’t need covering?

That’s my question(s) anyway.

what scares me about your question  (option 2) is that JL might be involved at all, in any capacity that would / could impact our operations.

IMO There has been little or nothing he has done that has engendered a sense of credibility or reliability or indeed business acumen.

This new arrangment means Tins is in charge of selling / buying -  i can't comment on that or his ability to (wheel and) deal with agents.

BUT...it suggests we have gone back down the road of the 'Yes men' (been there before!) and within that I worry for Pearsons longevity in his role.

re the commercial side, any sense we have 'sorted it out' and no longer need a good person in that role is patent nonsense. No business stands still, and given the febrile nature of the transfer markets, surely the commercial side is more important than ever to offset ongoing losses on the field. PLUS, we are going into a major sporting development at AG with increased facilities across a broader portfolio (hotels, conference centre, basketball stadium etc)_ that will need a careful and profficient management to maximise revenue (surely?)  is SL honestly suggesting his incumbent team is up to par?

it all smacks so much of previous SL cycles of panic / go for it.

20 hours ago, eardun said:

It seems to me (based on what Pearson said last night and the statement today) that the club has simply realised that they don’t need an expensive CEO in the building - that big role isn’t needed any more seeing how Tinnion’s role has developed. Why pay for a senior, big hitting CEO when one isn’t needed? 

why was one needed in the first place then? it's another Lansdown flip flop

in the face of slight adversity, the bloke does a firesale and nails everything down as usual.