bs3 Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 When CS step down as Chairman, Del lost is biggest champion with in the club. Del was a very much a Sexton Signing. SL as been reported many times that he wanted Mark Robins. So it does leave open the question of the dynamic at the club between the rest of the board , Lansdown and Mcinnes . Steve L was fiercely loyal to KM partly I suspect because it was his appointment and his reputation at stake. Does Del get the same backing from Steve and the Chairman as previous Managers. Does Del feel he is getting the same support and backing not just financial from the new chairman as he undoubtly got from Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bs3 Posted August 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 The title thread should have read Lansdown /Mcinnes . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliftonville Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 Derek McCinnes is not going to get the largesse of other managers because rules governing football have changed. It was time football started sorting its act out too. Fans should stop have a pop at Steve Lansdown for not turning BCFC into a basketcase like Pompey. The invisible men he employed to run the club should be explaining this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 Don't buy this Lansdown didn't want Del theory. Th decision was not down to Sexstone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bs3 Posted August 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 Football clubs like us need a very good relationship between Owner/Chairman and Manger, take Wigan for just one example and the the relationship at our club with Lansdown and Johnson these two men shared the same vision for the club and worked towards it on a today today bases . Is there the same sort of relationship with Del and Lansdown jnr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisBCFC Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 When CS step down as Chairman, Del lost is biggest champion with in the club. Del was a very much a Sexton Signing. SL as been reported many times that he wanted Mark Robins. So it does leave open the question of the dynamic at the club between the rest of the board , Lansdown and Mcinnes . Steve L was fiercely loyal to KM partly I suspect because it was his appointment and his reputation at stake. Does Del get the same backing from Steve and the Chairman as previous Managers. Does Del feel he is getting the same support and backing not just financial from the new chairman as he undoubtly got from Colin. Clueless and pointless thread 1. Lansdown didn't want Robins, pure hearsay do why are you making it out as fact? 2. Del has just come out and said how good the board have been when it comes to financial backing. 3) SL wasn't fiercely loyal to Millen, being sacked less than 3 months into a new season is hardly someone fiercely loyal End of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bs3 Posted August 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 I did say it as been reported that Lansdown wanted Robins I didn't say it was a fact . Please re read . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.D Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 Forums... People who really know something post nothing, people who think they know something, post an awful lot.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bs3 Posted August 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 Forums... People who really know something post nothing, people who think they know something, post an awful lot.. Yes your right . I can't really post everything I have been told or know from people at the very heart of the club . My point is that Colin Sexton and Del would have made a great combination working side by side . It not all about the money but good leadership and teamwork at the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 Clueless and pointless thread 1. Lansdown didn't want Robins, pure hearsay do why are you making it out as fact? 2. Del has just come out and said how good the board have been when it comes to financial backing. 3) SL wasn't fiercely loyal to Millen, being sacked less than 3 months into a new season is hardly someone fiercely loyal End of. 1) Wrong. Lansdown said this himself in an interview that was on Player. It was when he was denying the post rumour of a boardroom split, he explained he favoured Robins and was convinced by the board in favour of McInnes. 3) Wrong. Millen was given the job when many club owners wouldn't have, and kept on longer than many would have. SteveL spoke many times of the faith he had in Millen. If you're going to make so many very vehement posts you should probably try and be right more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisBCFC Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 1) Wrong. Lansdown said this himself in an interview that was on Player. It was when he was denying the post rumour of a boardroom split, he explained he favoured Robins and was convinced by the board in favour of McInnes. 3) Wrong. Millen was given the job when many club owners wouldn't have, and kept on longer than many would have. SteveL spoke many times of the faith he had in Millen. If you're going to make so many very vehement posts you should probably try and be right more often. O dear, I suggest you go back to the player because Lansdown stated the stories regarding Robins were completely untrue, and that he had no idea where they came from and that it was pure fabrication. Taxi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rule The Waves Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 The club, ultimately, is Steve Lansdown's property. If he wanted Robins so badly, he would have told Colin to eff off and appointed him regardless of CS' desires. End. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 No truth in this. Clearly remember the interview with Steve when McInnes was appointed. Gave him 100 percent support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 The club, ultimately, is Steve Lansdown's property. If he wanted Robins so badly, he would have told Colin to eff off and appointed him regardless of CS' desires. End. That is the truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Rat Lover_89 Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 Probaly the most pointless thread ive ever read!!!! What SL says goes and if he wanted Robins he would of got Robins, instead del boys here and thats that!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashtonphil Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 Forums... People who really know something post nothing, people who think they know something, post an awful lot.. Agree - its called professional respect and trust... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 O dear, I suggest you go back to the player because Lansdown stated the stories regarding Robins were completely untrue, and that he had no idea where they came from and that it was pure fabrication. Taxi. No, he denied that there was a split. He also spoke about him being convinced by the board. Incidentally Sexstone said much the same. There was no split, people had their favourites and a consensus was arrived at after discussion. SL started favouring Robins, the rest of the board McInnes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.