Jordan Tansley Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Someone in this thread...sorry i forgot who, mentioned, that since we have been in this Division, we have lost 30 million pound...is that so? They then mentioned that we needed to find a way of increasing revenue, so that SL doesn't have to bankroll us every season. I find this incredible... Surely a better way is to save money instead of waste it. 30 million...and we sit 17th in the division, going backwards every season! What a complete waste of money...and this is where the problem lies with our Club. We are wasteful. Have the likes of Derby, Watford, Doncaster, Norwich and Swansea spent and wasted that amount of money in the same space of time? All teams doing far better than us. Yes, it would be great to increase revenue, but i would suggest it would be far better not wasting what we do have. The crux of the matter lies in poor dicision making and throwing good money at average players and loanees. When you see how well the likes of Blackpool did and how well Doncaster do and Watford, it just goes to show, it's not all about money in this league. But being shrewd with investment decisions. Fans seem to think that we will never progress without extra money... All the clubs you mention bar Donny and Swansea have faced very recent financial trouble. That £30m is simply the deficit and that has afforded us to become established at this level. I agree we have been wasteful but much of that blame lies with GJ, great man and everything but his signings were terrible. Lansdown has done nothing but back a manager. Sometimes you have to speculate to accumilate, AG costs us a million a season and a new stadium is a fixed asset that will not depreciate in value... it will pay for itself just on reducing our running costs and not considering the other benefits of the stadia. Obviously thats just how i read the situation before you claim I have no facts... nor do you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Hindsight is a wonderful thing...but what sets apart great Chairman is decision making and not necessarily money. Make the right decisions in the first place, and you don't need to use hindsight. I look at Middlesbrough as a similar scenario to ourselves. They got rid of a manager they had kept faith with for years, then their Chairman replaced him with another and was let loose in the transfer market, to bring in underachieving players on high wages...mainly from Scotland...Sounds a little similar to our situation. Both teams in similar positions slipping down the table. Not KM's fault...I know. SL's?...probably imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Hindsight is a wonderful thing...but what sets apart great Chairman is decision making and not necessarily money. Make the right decisions in the first place, and you don't need to use hindsight. I look at Middlesbrough as a similar scenario to ourselves. They got rid of a manager they had kept faith with for years, then their Chairman replaced him with another and was let loose in the transfer market, to bring in underachieving players on high wages...mainly from Scotland...Sounds a little similar to our situation. Both teams in similar positions slipping down the table. Not KM's fault...I know. SL's?...probably imho. are you referring to SC or KM? if coppell then fair enough, If Millen then that is a laughable statement considering Millens record in the transfer market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 All the clubs you mention bar Donny and Swansea have faced very recent financial trouble. That £30m is simply the deficit and that has afforded us to become established at this level. I agree we have been wasteful but much of that blame lies with GJ, great man and everything but his signings were terrible. Lansdown has done nothing but back a manager. Sometimes you have to speculate to accumilate, AG costs us a million a season and a new stadium is a fixed asset that will not depreciate in value... it will pay for itself just on reducing our running costs and not considering the other benefits of the stadia. Obviously thats just how i read the situation before you claim I have no facts... nor do you No need to defensive...I only put a thought out there for debate. You say...'Lansdown has done nothing but back a manager'. And there in lies the problem. A good Chairman makes the right decisions at the right times. The buck shouldn't stop with the manager. As in all business', the Chairman has to decide whether the manager is spending wisely. If not, then he acts to save the company. Imho...SL has no one else to blame but himself, for the losses incurred by the Club, because he allowed those contracts to be signed and sanctioned them. I think SL is the best Chairman we have had for years, and we are lucky to have him. But i've said this before...Letting a manager waste money like he has done, is his own liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 are you referring to SC or KM? if coppell then fair enough, If Millen then that is a laughable statement considering Millens record in the transfer market. GJ and SC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_Red Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 I agree we have been wasteful but much of that blame lies with GJ, great man and everything but his signings were terrible. while I agree he made some bad signings to call them all terrible is a bit odd. we finished 4th 10th and 10th with his players. only 4 players he signed started for us on Saturday and where are we in the legue now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolman Block B Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 while I agree he made some bad signings to call them all terrible is a bit odd. we finished 4th 10th and 10th with his players. only 4 players he signed started for us on Saturday and where are we in the legue now? Enter the fray, Robbored! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 No need to defensive...I only put a thought out there for debate. You say...'Lansdown has done nothing but back a manager'. And there in lies the problem. A good Chairman makes the right decisions at the right times. The buck shouldn't stop with the manager. As in all business', the Chairman has to decide whether the manager is spending wisely. If not, then he acts to save the company. Imho...SL has no one else to blame but himself, for the losses incurred by the Club, because he allowed those contracts to be signed and sanctioned them. I think SL is the best Chairman we have had for years, and we are lucky to have him. But i've said this before...Letting a manager waste money like he has done, is his own liability. Not defensive, just recalling a recent debate... it was entirely tongue in cheek. I see your point, but had Lansdown refused some signings he would have been critisised for not backing the manager and gained himself a reputation for not being a supportive chairman. One thing SL does retain is a positive reputation as a chairman who backs managers and gives them a chance. That reputation will only help us if he ever needs to make another appointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 while I agree he made some bad signings to call them all terrible is a bit odd. we finished 4th 10th and 10th with his players. only 4 players he signed started for us on Saturday and where are we in the legue now? I never said All, He did make some great signings and I am still a massive fan of GJ and greatly appreciate his time here. However if we look at all the players he signed there are an awful lot of poor buys... A good point, yet on paper it is hard to argue that our squad hasnt improved player for player... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 that was me spud, 30 million over 4 years I think 12 million on the ground 4 million on the training ground and the rest on transfers and wages, We are in a better postion then most in this league but yes we wasted alot of money on Johnson's (who I loved as manager) and a few copout signings, If we spent no money on the ground (new one) or training ground and only signed free transfers we'd still be losing 2 - 4 million a season, The club needs a new ground the the commercial benefits that come with it we miss out on about 5 - 7 million a season on corprate sponsership because we don't have box's for a meeting hall, Thats why lansdown is investing more off field and behind the scenes then he is on the field and sadly most of our fans don't see this, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_Red Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 I never said All, He did make some great signings and I am still a massive fan of GJ and greatly appreciate his time here. However if we look at all the players he signed there are an awful lot of poor buys... A good point, yet on paper it is hard to argue that our squad hasnt improved player for player... you said his signings were terrible. Fair enough if you meant some. I'd agree with that. I think Millens signings so far have been good apart from Rose who I think will prove to be the poorest of the bunch because he thinks he's better than he is and won't improve here with that attitude. Just an impression I get. The problem I think Millen faces is pulling together a squad put together by 3 managers (more if you add player's already here before Johnson arrived). Which is why I'd be against adding a 4th manager to the mix at the moment. I think there have been enough positive signs to keep Millen on and let him progress. We only need 7 wins from our last 21 games to stay up and I think Millen is more than capable of that. Then we can look again. My main worry is how fragile we look without Caulker. Which we could be for several weeks now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notsobigfatdave Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 All the clubs you mention bar Donny and Swansea have faced very recent financial trouble. That £30m is simply the deficit and that has afforded us to become established at this level. I agree we have been wasteful but much of that blame lies with GJ, great man and everything but his signings were terrible. Lansdown has done nothing but back a manager. Sometimes you have to speculate to accumilate, AG costs us a million a season and a new stadium is a fixed asset that will not depreciate in value... it will pay for itself just on reducing our running costs and not considering the other benefits of the stadia. Obviously thats just how i read the situation before you claim I have no facts... nor do you How will it pay for its self when it will only be half full ? I dont see 15,000 extra fans coming out of the woodwork each week or 7,500 locked out of the ground at every homematch currently. Personally, and this is only my opinion of course, trying to secure a new stadium at the moment is pure folly. If we are ever fortunate enough to secure Premier League status in the future only then should we relocate. at that appropriate time Planning Permission would be granted and all of the impediments would suddenly be ironed out. No, sorry ... somebody or bodies stand to make a great deal of money out of a new stadium and it aint Bristol City Football Club. ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Not defensive, just recalling a recent debate... it was entirely tongue in cheek. I see your point, but had Lansdown refused some signings he would have been critisised for not backing the manager and gained himself a reputation for not being a supportive chairman. One thing SL does retain is a positive reputation as a chairman who backs managers and gives them a chance. That reputation will only help us if he ever needs to make another appointment. I agree, but it could also be his downfall in the longterm. If it were me...I would definately be sitting in on the interviews with perspective players, looking in their eye and giving their agents a good grilling. For example...the appointment of Hartley, a highly constructive player. A major cog in the wheel. Feels homesick after a year....hmmm! SC...we all know what happened there. Two very influential signings, who up't and left. Both odd, and set us back. As Chairman, i'd be asking myself how i allowed this to happen, didn't see it coming, or allow it to happen again in the future. I'll be interested to see how the whole DJ's situation pans out too come the end of the season. Will he be here next season, or will we be back to square one again. One step forward, two steps back in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 that was me spud, 30 million over 4 years I think 12 million on the ground 4 million on the training ground and the rest on transfers and wages, We are in a better postion then most in this league but yes we wasted alot of money on Johnson's (who I loved as manager) and a few copout signings, If we spent no money on the ground (new one) or training ground and only signed free transfers we'd still be losing 2 - 4 million a season, The club needs a new ground the the commercial benefits that come with it we miss out on about 5 - 7 million a season on corprate sponsership because we don't have box's for a meeting hall, Thats why lansdown is investing more off field and behind the scenes then he is on the field and sadly most of our fans don't see this, Thanks for the reply...my apologies for being lazy and not finding your post. Do you know whether Doncaster and Watford spend and lose as much as we do? I struggle to see it's all down to a new Stadium to stop the rot. I'm not saying it won't help though. Do Coventry and Swansea make alot from corperate and hospitality sponsership? Anyone.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted January 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Doncaster haven't finished above us in the league for a long time, perhaps this might be one exception. They do benefit where we don't from being in the north (or perhaps more accurately not being in the south west), and they do spend a fair bit of money. Watford again haven't finished above us for a while but are in a somewhat unique position with their academy structure, they integrate with the local community and a sport-based college. Perhaps we should look into this as their youngsters seem to be doing rather well. That said, they're doing fairly well for half a season under a decent manager, perhaps that's the main crux of success. Blackpool would certainly suggest so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 How will it pay for its self when it will only be half full ? I dont see 15,000 extra fans coming out of the woodwork each week or 7,500 locked out of the ground at every homematch currently. Personally, and this is only my opinion of course, trying to secure a new stadium at the moment is pure folly. If we are ever fortunate enough to secure Premier League status in the future only then should we relocate. at that appropriate time Planning Permission would be granted and all of the impediments would suddenly be ironed out. No, sorry ... somebody or bodies stand to make a great deal of money out of a new stadium and it aint Bristol City Football Club. ! Enjoyed the conspiracy theory at the end there, Keeping up the comic value I never mentioned gate receipts, My point was that AG is one of the big wastes of money, I have read somewhere (No idea where the figure comes from before people ask me for proof) that AG costs the club upwards of £1m just to maintain it. A new stadium may cost us £90m (£30m from lansdowns pocket) but the money saved on running costs alone make it a smart move... let alone the gate receipts which will still be a significant number, not to mention the newly available sponsorship, not to mention the increased non matchday revenues. I get the feeling you're fishing now, Nobody is that negative/controversial You also recomend we wait until we are in the Prem for a new stadium? Surely it's better to have to infrastructure in place BEFORE the event so we are not playing catchup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Thanks for the reply...my apologies for being lazy and not finding your post. Do you know whether Doncaster and Watford spend and lose as much as we do? I struggle to see it's all down to a new Stadium to stop the rot. I'm not saying it won't help though. Do Coventry and Swansea make alot from corperate and hospitality sponsership? Anyone.... Watford have been skint for years. Doncaster are bankrolled by their chairman. They're on a high right now, but lets see if the business models of the Blackpools and Doncasters lead to something sustainable, or will they drop away like Bradford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frome Valley Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Watford have been skint for years. Doncaster are bankrolled by their chairman. They're on a high right now, but lets see if the business models of the Blackpools and Doncasters lead to something sustainable, or will they drop away like Bradford. Neither Blackpool or Doncastor are losing the sums of money Bristol City are or will in the next few seasons. That is a far more sustainable business model than Bristol City where in the clubs accounts summary you will see concern raised about its viabilty as a business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Which teams have had managers appointed after Keef , but are further up the table? I remember Burnley, very recent manager sacking (December) who have parachute payments and a somewhat settled squad The only other one is Leicester.. who have recently started to put some results together but ain't that far ahead of us Who am I missing? Swansea - twice, Leicester Burnley But that was not really the drivng force behind my points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frome Valley Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Enjoyed the conspiracy theory at the end there, Keeping up the comic value I never mentioned gate receipts, My point was that AG is one of the big wastes of money, I have read somewhere (No idea where the figure comes from before people ask me for proof) that AG costs the club upwards of £1m just to maintain it. A new stadium may cost us £90m (£30m from lansdowns pocket) but the money saved on running costs alone make it a smart move... let alone the gate receipts which will still be a significant number, not to mention the newly available sponsorship, not to mention the increased non matchday revenues. I get the feeling you're fishing now, Nobody is that negative/controversial You also recomend we wait until we are in the Prem for a new stadium? Surely it's better to have to infrastructure in place BEFORE the event so we are not playing catchup? Annual maintenance budget was £250,000, so was this sum a one off payment or something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slave to the rhythm Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 My point was that AG is one of the big wastes of money, I have read somewhere (No idea where the figure comes from before people ask me for proof) that AG costs the club upwards of £1m just to maintain it. A new stadium may cost us £90m (£30m from lansdowns pocket) but the money saved on running costs alone make it a smart move... Is the new stadium somehow not going to have any running costs? Are all the staff going to work for free? I suspect not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashtonvale Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Swansea - twice, Leicester Burnley But that was not really the drivng force behind my points. It may not have been the driving force behind your points, but you were using it to make a point regarding Keef's ability to motivate the players. All I am doing is asking for backup cos I didnt think your point was accurate. FYI and I think i'm correct, Swans appointed Rogers in July 2010. I don't accept Burnley, they have just sacked their manager and one could argue are underperforming given their parachute payments Leicester City - I agree appointed after Keef and now higher than us just.. The truth is that none of us know how well (or not) Keef motivates the players, but I would suggest that our recent league form would be a far more objective measure than factual inaccuracies. plucked out of thin air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Neither Blackpool or Doncastor are losing the sums of money Bristol City are or will in the next few seasons. That is a far more sustainable business model than Bristol City where in the clubs accounts summary you will see concern raised about its viabilty as a business. Eh? Have a think. Lets look at Doncaster, as I know you like to think short term. Doncaster are losing money, how is that a "far more sustainable business model". Add to that the fact they don't actually have any assets.......... Blackpool have been losing money but have been the exception to the norm. Name me one other club promoted the the Premier League as poor as Blackpool. WOuld you seriously suggest that as the model to follow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan disorderley Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 @Big dave Why do i get the feeling you're on the wrong forum? Shouldn't you be on BERATE or STOP SAINSBURYS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Annual maintenance budget was £250,000, so was this sum a one off payment or something else? As I said I don't remember where I read it or the underlying reasoning behind the payments. Is the new stadium somehow not going to have any running costs? Are all the staff going to work for free? I suspect not! Tell me where I said that? The word used was "Money saved" meaning reduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frome Valley Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Eh? Have a think. Lets look at Doncaster, as I know you like to think short term. Doncaster are losing money, how is that a "far more sustainable business model". Add to that the fact they don't actually have any assets.......... Blackpool have been losing money but have been the exception to the norm. Name me one other club promoted the the Premier League as poor as Blackpool. WOuld you seriously suggest that as the model to follow? Eh Blackpool have put in place a business model where the club operates within its means and structures players wages in accordance with what it actually can afford. Are you suggesting this is wrong v Bristol Citys loss of twenty five million plus in the past three seasons? Blackpool finaces look rosy in comparison to Bristol Citys, poor! Donny debts are described as manageable while Bristol City is dead as a business in its present form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howey_ducky Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 if anything, blackpool have been ultra cautious with regards to spending. it looks a very sustainable way of running an already over achieving football club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Eh Blackpool have put in place a business model where the club operates within its means and structures players wages in accordance with what it actually can afford. Are you suggesting this is wrong v Bristol Citys loss of twenty five million plus in the past three seasons? Blackpool finaces look rosy in comparison to Bristol Citys, poor! Donny debts are described as manageable while Bristol City is dead as a business in its present form. Well that stopped everyone in their tracks... 25 million in 3 seasons is ridiculous. And if anyone thinks a new Stadium would cover that loss, then they are in cloud cuckoo land. A big reality check is when you physically look at the list of players we have signed or had on loan, since being in the Championship. And how many are no longer with us. It's frightening tbh. Put that next to a list of players we currently have on our books, who hardly make the first team and you start to wonder how we are still in business. That 25 million could have been spent so much more wisely imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tales From The Front Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Well that stopped everyone in their tracks... 25 million in 3 seasons is ridiculous. And if anyone thinks a new Stadium would cover that loss, then they are in cloud cuckoo land. A big reality check is when you physically look at the list of players we have signed or had on loan, since being in the Championship. And how many are no longer with us. It's frightening tbh. Put that next to a list of players we currently have on our books, who hardly make the first team and you start to wonder how we are still in business. That 25 million could have been spent so much more wisely imho. In that context, you would have to say its been very very poor management, clearly its a case of horses for courses and a certian former manager couldn't spend money at the higher level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucksred Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Watford again haven't finished above us for a while but are in a somewhat unique position with their academy structure, they integrate with the local community and a sport-based college. Perhaps we should look into this as their youngsters seem to be doing rather well. That said, they're doing fairly well for half a season under a decent manager, perhaps that's the main crux of success. Blackpool would certainly suggest so. Scumford share their ground with one of the biggest Professional Rugby Union sides Saracens. I think that most clubs who share with a decent rugby side Wycombe/Wasps, Reading/London Irish are doing reasonably well. Only the shit ones Sags/Bristol, & Stockport/Sale Sharks are not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.