How Long Should Sl Give It....?

[Fiale]

dp

[spudski]

Can I just ask a pertinent question?

Cisse, Stewart and Hunt were all decent footballers at their previous clubs. Howcome the minute they enter Ashton Gate they suddenly become utter shite?

Our record of transforming decent players into rubbish has been phenominal over the last few years and there must be a reason.

I think the lack of clear direction on the pitch is one and certainly think that SL's policy of appointing "yes" men is a factor.

Does SL interfere behind the scenes?

If I'd pumped 30 million pounds into BCFC I bloody well would!

Maybe SL is more 'hands-on' than we know, and maybe, just maybe, thats why Coppell walked.

SL is the best chairman we've ever had and are ever likely to get but its totally clueless to think that he doesn't approve/ sanction all the major decisions made at City. Including signings and possibly influencing team selection.

Who knows, I certainly don't but its worth considering that SL may be too'hands-on' for the footballing side of the club to let the manager "manage".

Any thoughts?

(I'll just put my tin hat and body armour on )

I personally don't think SL interferes with the playing side of things. I just think he's not a great judge of the type of manager and coaching staff and playing staff that is required, to take the Club forward, to the desired level, that he wants.

I do wonder who advises him on what is right.

I also believe the knee jerk reaction of making KM manager will come back to haunt him. Although a manager was needed at the time when SC left, i do believe the quick appointment of KM, was made, to detract away from the whole SC scenario. Something very strange happened there, and the story went completely cold. I don't think we well ever no the truth, but the fact SL wasn't going ballistic at being left in the lurch, speaks volumes to me.

[WellRedPhil]

Can I just ask a pertinent question?

Cisse, Stewart and Hunt were all decent footballers at their previous clubs. Howcome the minute they enter Ashton Gate they suddenly become utter shite?

Our record of transforming decent players into rubbish has been phenominal over the last few years and there must be a reason.

I think the lack of clear direction on the pitch is one and certainly think that SL's policy of appointing "yes" men is a factor.

Does SL interfere behind the scenes?

If I'd pumped 30 million pounds into BCFC I bloody well would!

Maybe SL is more 'hands-on' than we know, and maybe, just maybe, thats why Coppell walked.

SL is the best chairman we've ever had and are ever likely to get but its totally clueless to think that he doesn't approve/ sanction all the major decisions made at City. Including signings and possibly influencing team selection.

Who knows, I certainly don't but its worth considering that SL may be too'hands-on' for the footballing side of the club to let the manager "manage".

Any thoughts?

(I'll just put my tin hat and body armour on )

I can see the point you're making, and it does seem like that has been the case with certain strikers in the past, but I wouldn't say it's a general trend wth players. Cisse had a very mixed reputation with Reading fans, some claiming he has elements of brilliance and others saying he's useless. We haven't seen these apparent flashes of brilliance yet, and perhaps we never will, but I wouldn't say he came here with a particular pedigree.

Hunt is an interesting one, as even though he has not played regular football for a few years, he played a lot under Allardyce in what was a very successful spell for Bolton. His total lack of not only defending but general awareness and intelligence is baffling, and I've no idea how he was first choice right-back for Bolton for 2 seasons as they competed in the top 6.

Stewart was a decent centre-back, but hardly a name held in high regard, and while he has racked up a lot of performances in this league I can see how. He's a big lad who wins a lot in the air, that can be enough at some clubs but it just wasn't working for us, probably because the other 3 defenders weren't defending well either!

I'd be very surprised if Landsdown was involved with team matters/tactics etc. as no manager can work under these conditions. Maybe he does become too involved with players individually, and I've no idea how frequently he visits the dressing room or even the training ground. (Although I'd imagine very little where the latter is concerned considering where he lives now.)

[Guest Parson St Station]

Let me get this right, after all this time with GJ, SL has secretly been behind the scenes deciding play style and personnel.

Then Keith took other the end of last Season SL changed his mind on play style. Then SL appoints Coppell, and decides to bring in a lot of players that SL wants, and starts playing 4-4-2 (meddlsome Chairman that he is). SC leaves and SL decides that actually he wants to bring in even more players on top of those he already did (nothing to do with Keith shaping the team, or wanting new personnel) and also decides that he's not so keen on 4-4-2 after all...... Keith must have had a right moan when SL came to him before Portsmouth, cast his die and told him to change personnel again formation AGAIN and play 3-5-2. Man what an indecisive Chairman we have - it's almost like he isn't making these decisions at all, and some sort of Manager is choosing players and play style, what with the 3 differences in direction and players over the last three managers.

You know what I was trying to say.Sarcasm doesn't make my post any less valid.

[Fiale]

You know what I was trying to say.Sarcasm doesn't make my post any less valid.

You are saying that Steve Lansdown interferes with the team. I am saying it's unlikely. So yes my comment does make your point less valid unless you wish to counter what I said.

You cannot make accusations like

Does SL interfere behind the scenes?

If I'd pumped 30 million pounds into BCFC I bloody well would!

Maybe SL is more 'hands-on' than we know, and maybe, just maybe, thats why Coppell walked.

SL is the best chairman we've ever had and are ever likely to get but its totally clueless to think that he doesn't approve/ sanction all the major decisions made at City. Including signings and possibly influencing team selection.

Who knows, I certainly don't but its worth considering that SL may be too'hands-on' for the footballing side of the club to let the manager "manage".

Any thoughts?

Yet produce no proof, and when challenged still insists your points are valid, they are not, your points are stupid - end off.

[WellRedPhil]

You are saying that Steve Lansdown interferes with the team. I am saying it's unlikely. So yes my comment does make your point less valid unless you wish to counter what I said.

You cannot make accusations like

Does SL interfere behind the scenes?

If I'd pumped 30 million pounds into BCFC I bloody well would!

Maybe SL is more 'hands-on' than we know, and maybe, just maybe, thats why Coppell walked.

SL is the best chairman we've ever had and are ever likely to get but its totally clueless to think that he doesn't approve/ sanction all the major decisions made at City. Including signings and possibly influencing team selection.

Who knows, I certainly don't but its worth considering that SL may be too'hands-on' for the footballing side of the club to let the manager "manage".

Any thoughts?

Yet produce no proof, and when challenged still insists your points are valid, they are not, your points are stupid - end off.

His points are neither valid nor stupid, they are just his opinion. Although I don't agree entirely with what he's said, Landsdown may be more involved with the team than we know, and this could be unhealthy. Likewise he could not be involved in the team whatsoever. I don't know, he doesn't know and you don't know. Noone can dismiss everything he's suggested as bollocks and nor can they ratify it, unless Landsdown himself chose to post, which of course is not going to happen.

[Guest Parson St Station]

You are saying that Steve Lansdown interferes with the team. I am saying it's unlikely. So yes my comment does make your point less valid unless you wish to counter what I said.

You cannot make accusations like

Does SL interfere behind the scenes?

If I'd pumped 30 million pounds into BCFC I bloody well would!

Maybe SL is more 'hands-on' than we know, and maybe, just maybe, thats why Coppell walked.

SL is the best chairman we've ever had and are ever likely to get but its totally clueless to think that he doesn't approve/ sanction all the major decisions made at City. Including signings and possibly influencing team selection.

Who knows, I certainly don't but its worth considering that SL may be too'hands-on' for the footballing side of the club to let the manager "manage".

Any thoughts?

Yet produce no proof, and when challenged still insists your points are valid, they are not, your points are stupid - end off.

Im not accusing, just spectulating.

I don't understand your thoroughly aggressive replies.

All I know, is that if I had put a shed load of money into ANY business I would want to know what it was spent on.

You own, say, a carpet factory, and after 5 years you are 5 mil into the red...would you...

A) Oh well..

B) WTF has happened to my money

C) I'm going to have some influence over my investment

I hope you are not as dumb as you seem to be and the answer is C...

How can I produce proof....its just my opinion, but judged by other repies, I'm not alone in my thoughts.

Do you honestly think that Steve L, after working so hard to be successful, would just go "oh well, Ive spent 10 mil this year,maybe next year might be better"

Or maybe, just, maybe, he's going, Keith, WTF is going on?

However, I've got no proof so Steve Lansdown is obviously quite happy to have lost nearly 30 million pounds over the last 5 years.

Fiale, add the 40 odd mil to the stadium and then ask the question,"who would be so stupid to pump 70 million pounds into a venture and then have no influence/opinion on where their money went"

I don't need "proof" ...the amount of money spent absolutely guarantees that SL is involved on a daily basis.

Just think about it.

[CliftonCliff]

Steve Lansdown's expertise is in the field of financial management, where as we all know he is has been outstandingly successful as a founder of one of the most well-known and highly respected investment houses in the UK. He is an extremely astute man.

It is precisely because he is a shrewd and intelligent man that he won't interfere in matters of team selection. He's trained as an accountant, not a football coach, and whilst he might be passionate about the club he would not be so daft as to think he has the knowledge and skills to meddle in such things.

I don't know why on earth you feel it necessary to speculate on this theme in the total absence, by your own admission, of any evidence whatsoever that would support your conjectures. At a time when the club has enough problems already, contributing to a thread by implying that the Chairman is actively undermining the manager he's only just appointed (which is what such behaviour would amount to, if there were any truth in it) is unhelpful, to say the least.

I would respectfully suggest you don't pursue this unfounded and frankly pretty pointless line of speculation any further.

[redrussian]

I'm wasn't overjoyed when Keith got the job but we need to unite as a club. He's taken up a tough job. Being an assistant is an easy job, you run with the hares and the hounds. How many people have taken over from their boss and taken a few months to settle in. He's got to lay down his style and engage the squad. That will take time. Ive had enough of the rubbish that we need to act now to save our status. We have a decent squad and potentially a good manager, all managers started somewhere, we've just got to get behind him, as have the players!

[bucksred]

I am a trifle worried after Mr Millen ,said the the Naaaarwich game was a must win game and that he's sold it to the players. F *** me, they shouldnt bloody need telling, and if thats th best inspiration Mr Millen can come up with, we are up shit creek with no paddles.

its like GJ's rubbish last season, and the same tired spiel from the manager, who cant seem to motivate the team

Mr Millen needs to start inspiring pretty damn quick, or the goodwill he has/had will evaporate

We were on top first half, couldnt kill the game, AGAIN, and Pompey made us pay.....its getting ******* predictable the City "performance" these days.

We aint too good to go down, but you have to say can Mr Millen turn it round, or is it risk relegation, or yet another manager in through the out door syndrome

I sure as hell dont want to be visiting the shittier grounds in the league again.

[Guest Parson St Station]

Steve Lansdown's expertise is in the field of financial management, where as we all know he is has been outstandingly successful as a founder of one of the most well-known and highly respected investment houses in the UK. He is an extremely astute man.

It is precisely because he is a shrewd and intelligent man that he won't interfere in matters of team selection. He's trained as an accountant, not a football coach, and whilst he might be passionate about the club he would not be so daft as to think he has the knowledge and skills to meddle in such things.

I don't know why on earth you feel it necessary to speculate on this theme in the total absence, by your own admission, of any evidence whatsoever that would support your conjectures. At a time when the club has enough problems already, contributing to a thread by implying that the Chairman is actively undermining the manager he's only just appointed (which is what such behaviour would amount to, if there were any truth in it) is unhelpful, to say the least.

I would respectfully suggest you don't pursue this unfounded and frankly pretty pointless line of speculation any further.

You are an educated man Clifton Cliff.

So I will just say two things.

Marcus Stewart and David James.

Lansdown wanted them and told his managers to get them.Is that hands-on enough for you?

And Im not implying SL is undermining Millen, he's doing a fine job mucking things up on his own..

[CliftonCliff]

You are an educated man Clifton Cliff.

So I will just say two things.

Marcus Stewart and David James.

Lansdown wanted them and told his managers to get them.Is that hands-on enough for you?

And Im not implying SL is undermining Millen, he's doing a fine job mucking things up on his own..

And your evidence for these two further allegations is....?

The former is too long ago, for me at any rate, to recall the precise circumstances surrounding Stewart's signing, but off-hand I don't remember any such rumours circulating at the time.

As to James, there were threads on the forum some weeks ago making similar accusations. There are always a few mischief-making conspiracy theorists around when controversial things happen, but most members rightly dismissed this as nonsense and it even got to the point, I seem to remember, where the Chief Executive made a public statement that the sigining was not made by the Chairman or at his instigation, in order to stem the speculation which was becoming very unhelpful at an already difficult time for the Chairman.

Simply reiterating your suspicions over and over does not make them any more valid. I would repeat my previous suggestion - either present some sort of credible evidence that what you say is true, or drop it. (And try asking yourself how you would feel if someone anonymously and persistently made unfounded statements about your conduct on a public forum without offering any tangible justification. This is why we have libel laws.)

In specific response to your last two sentences, I'm sorry but I'm afraid you are implying that SL is undermining the manager, whether you mean to or not, because that is exactly what his behaviour would amount to if what you say were true. So, in answer to your rhetorical question, 'is that hands-on enough?' - no, of course it isn't, if by that you mean does that convince or demonstrate you're claims are correct. Repetition doesn't constitute proof.

And by the way, thanks for the compliment, if it was meant as a compliment and not as sarcasm, but my educational background is neither here nor there. It's simply a question of what's fair, and your comments aren't.

[Guest Parson St Station]

And your evidence for these two further allegations is....?

The former is too long ago, for me at any rate, to recall the precise circumstances surrounding Stewart's signing, but off-hand I don't remember any such rumours circulating at the time.

As to James, there were threads on the forum some weeks ago making similar accusations. There are always a few mischief-making conspiracy theorists around when controversial things happen, but most members rightly dismissed this as nonsense and it even got to the point, I seem to remember, where the Chief Executive made a public statement that the sigining was not made by the Chairman or at his instigation, in order to stem the speculation which was becoming very unhelpful at an already difficult time for the Chairman.

Simply reiterating your suspicions over and over does not make them any more valid. I would repeat my previous suggestion - either present some sort of credible evidence that what you say is true, or drop it. (And try asking yourself how you would feel if someone anonymously and persistently made unfounded statements about your conduct on a public forum without offering any tangible justification. This is why we have libel laws.)

In specific response to your last two sentences, I'm sorry but I'm afraid you are implying that SL is undermining the manager, whether you mean to or not, because that is exactly what his behaviour would amount to if what you say were true. So, in answer to your rhetorical question, 'is that hands-on enough?' - no, of course it isn't, if by that you mean does that convince or demonstrate you're claims are correct. Repetition doesn't constitute proof.

And by the way, thanks for the compliment, if it was meant as a compliment and not as sarcasm, but my educational background is neither here nor there. It's simply a question of what's fair, and your comments aren't.

No, Cliff, I genuinely have respect for your postings but with both Stewart and James, SL publically stated he "wanted them".

He's not the fricking messiah, he's a guy who wants his pet project to be successful...the man is a financial genius and is worth, what 500 million pounds?

Yet in the last 5 years he has lost 30 million pounds on his "football project"

So how can a man like SL, a man who has been an icon to private enterprise continue to write out cheques for Styvar, Angeyman, Williams, Trundle, Velicka,Saborio,Hunt,Stewart,Cisse,etc etc without going...."oh hang on WTF have I just blown 10 mill on?"

I simply cannot believe that most of you chaps believe that SL signs blank cheques every week!!

If anyone, including you Cliff, believe that SL gets up on a Friday and writes out 36 player payment cheques without any input whatsoever..well, you must be on acid.

Any successful man who makes a great living off his own back will not SIMPLY WILL NOT, just give away the amount of money SL has wasted over the last few years.

Tom Williams..FFS, do any of you honestly believe he was signed without Lansdowns approval??

Player signings over the last 3 years have been atrocious...who thinks that SL woke up on a Tuesday morning and said,"oh look love, we've just signed Tom Williams"

Bollocks....every player has been sanctioned and approved by SL and, frankly, he's a brilliant businesman, but his chairmanship leaves a lot to be desired.

And by that I don't mean his heart and soul aren't bleeding red and white...but maybe, just maybe, he needs to step back, hire a top-line managerial staff and let them run the show.

KM isn't it BTW.

And just for the record I've been going to AG since 1970 and besides Harry Dolman, no-one, and I mean no-one has got any where near SL's commitment to BCFC.

The man is a legend....but someone else may save SL a hell of a lot of cash with a more informed knowledge of Football.

Williams, Angeyman,Velicka, Styvar, Trundle and Stern John. Theres 5 million quid in fees and wages alone.

Madness.

[The Red Planet]

No, Cliff, I genuinely have respect for your postings but with both Stewart and James, SL publically stated he "wanted them".

He's not the fricking messiah, he's a guy who wants his pet project to be successful...the man is a financial genius and is worth, what 500 million pounds?

Yet in the last 5 years he has lost 30 million pounds on his "football project"

So how can a man like SL, a man who has been an icon to private enterprise continue to write out cheques for Styvar, Angeyman, Williams, Trundle, Velicka,Saborio,Hunt,Stewart,Cisse,etc etc without going...."oh hang on WTF have I just blown 10 mill on?"

I simply cannot believe that most of you chaps believe that SL signs blank cheques every week!!

If anyone, including you Cliff, believe that SL gets up on a Friday and writes out 36 player payment cheques without any input whatsoever..well, you must be on acid.

Any successful man who makes a great living off his own back will not SIMPLY WILL NOT, just give away the amount of money SL has wasted over the last few years.

Tom Williams..FFS, do any of you honestly believe he was signed without Lansdowns approval??

Player signings over the last 3 years have been atrocious...who thinks that SL woke up on a Tuesday morning and said,"oh look love, we've just signed Tom Williams"

Bollocks....every player has been sanctioned and approved by SL and, frankly, he's a brilliant businesman, but his chairmanship leaves a lot to be desired.

And by that I don't mean his heart and soul aren't bleeding red and white...but maybe, just maybe, he needs to step back, hire a top-line managerial staff and let them run the show.

KM isn't it BTW.

And just for the record I've been going to AG since 1970 and besides Harry Dolman, no-one, and I mean no-one has got any where near SL's commitment to BCFC.

The man is a legend....but someone else may save SL a hell of a lot of cash with a more informed knowledge of Football.

Williams, Angeyman,Velicka, Styvar, Trundle and Stern John. Theres 5 million quid in fees and wages alone.

Madness.

Parson St,

Like, you, I have great respect for Clifton Cliff's articulate and knowledgeable posts, but I think you have it right on this one.

Again (like you) I feel I have to make it clear that I am a tremendous admirer of SL's passion and commitment to the club, but there is evidence of too much interference in the football management side of things

Cliff - in CS's statement about the signing of James he clearly said that approaching DJ was SL's idea (although Copout actually made the call).

Maybe all wealthy Chairmen get too involved. It's well known that Avbravomich is very "hands on" at Chelsea.

Personally I think it works better when the Chairman provides all the right support but lets the Manager get on with the decisions about who is in the squad.

Look at Arsenal, they have got that balance right (and they have just announced a £55M + profit for the last financial year). Not all football clubs lose money.

[The Red Planet]

By the way, looking at those results for Arsenal (who I regard as a model club, although I am not a fan) I notice that during the last financial year they made a profit of over £13M on player "trading" - as they call it.

You can be damn sure that this profit is down to Arsene Wenger's shrewdness in terms of buying and selling players, not their Chairman.

Although I am quite sure he consults his Chairman about all the player deals he wants to do, that is rather like a Managing Director in a private business going to his Chairman with a business proposition. A good Chairman will ask a few questions, make sure nothing has been missed and then back his MD.

For MD - read Football Manager. That's how it should be.

[Guest Parson St Station]

Parson St,

Like, you, I have great respect for Clifton Cliff's articulate and knowledgeable posts, but I think you have it right on this one.

Again (like you) I feel I have to make it clear that I am a tremendous admirer of SL's passion and commitment to the club, but there is evidence of too much interference in the football management side of things

Cliff - in CS's statement about the signing of James he clearly said that approaching DJ was SL's idea (although Copout actually made the call).

Maybe all wealthy Chairmen get too involved. It's well known that Avbravomich is very "hands on" at Chelsea.

Personally I think it works better when the Chairman provides all the right support but lets the Manager get on with the decisions about who is in the squad.

Look at Arsenal, they have got that balance right (and they have just announced a £55M + profit for the last financial year). Not all football clubs lose money.

Thanks Red Planet, If only SL can accept the fact that with a top-line manager, he could trust his hard earned to be spent more knowledgeably then its a win-win for SL, the club and most importantly SL's bank balance!

The squad is enormous, we need the right man to come in and say, "Steve, sell/loan out these 12 players and use the money on 2 good ones"

I can't believe its a coincidence that NM is our best player when we spent our club record fee for him.

We got lucky with Stead and Albert.Rose and Caulker look astute Wigley/Jordan influenced loans.But the dross we have sitting in the stands every week is unbelievable.Thank god for SL that most of it can be written off as a Tax-Loss!

KM back to coach and sign the best availiable manager right now.A strong man who will remind Mr Lansdown that HE is the manager, not Mr Lansdown.

Once again I will qualify this by saying SL is the best chairman BCFC have had since Harry D.

Now lets get 3 points today and kick on from here!

[CliftonCliff]

OK guys, fair enough. Thank you both, RP & PSS, for kind remarks and the respect is, of course, reciprocated, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I do accept that SL must naturally 'approve' signings recommended to him by his manager, for the simple and very good reason that he's paying for them. But approval is not the same thing as interference, which is what it seemed to me he was initially being accused of, and by using slightly different language it does appear to me that you have subtly shifted the grounds of the argument. 'Approval' in this context will involve sanctioning the money spent on, among other things, agents fees; signing on fees to the player, where applicable; other sundry costs incurred, such as medicals; and, finally, but by no means least, the wages to be paid and how that fits within the club's budget and pay structure. These are all legitimate concerns for the man responsible for the overall financial mangement of the club, but it does not mean that the choice of player was his.

If I understand it correctly, according to your position SL can't win most of the time. If we sign someone who turns out to be a bad buy, it seems it's his fault for meddling. If we fail to sign someone we wanted, it's the fault of our over-stringent wage restraint. If we get a good 'un, like Albert, everyone praises the manager who picked him out, with perhaps a passing nod to SL and a thanks for stumping up the cash.

I have to say I do find to hard to reconcile the obvious and often expressed admiration and gratitude people feel towards Steve with the staggering amount of criticism that's been hurled at him in recent weeks: he is lousy at choosing managers, he interferes too much in player recruitment (which I still don't believe) and so on, and on. He must wonder why he bothers sometimes.

Anyway, as I say, we agree to disagree and to respect one anothers opinions, which is as it should be. I think that's me done on this topic.

[Guest Parson St Station]

Yup, me too Cliff.

Bristol City 0 - 2 Norwich City.(HT)

I have nothing else to say on this issue except that the appointment of KM has set this club back 5 years.

We HAVE to get the best experienced manager availiable, who is his own man or we are so far up poo creek without a paddle that the SS Great Britain couldn't pull us home.

Leicester City have just signed Sven by the way.

Makes you think eh?

Or maybe he's not a yes man.

All the best Cliff and I'm sure we will debate something else over the rest of the season!

Cheers

Andy