Has Steve Lansdown Been Good For Bristol City?

[Monkeh]

Don't believe anyone is making any attacks on anyone or not appreciating Lansdown, well I am certainly not.

But when Lansdown makes the open decision at the start of the decision, which he did! to not invest any more money in the team. Then the team suffers. Lansdown is his own person, it is his money he can do what he likes with it. But if you were worth a billion and an constantly yearly profit of £94 million would you just not spend it in your life? Currently Lansdown doesn't.

for **** sake HE CAN'T INVEST MORE MONEY IN THE ******* TEAM FFP WILL NOT LET HIM

[BCFC_Dan]

We had a debt of 1-2 Million a decade ago! Compare and contrast, with what we have now

Well, as mentioned before about the 1982 safeguards, its very likely that we would have cut our cloth accordingly because, we had to and didnt want to overspend getting back in to a mess that nearly wiped us out before.

OK, so we've spent circa £40m and will probably end up where we were in 1999. I agree that's not a great use of money.

However, that doesn't mean that if we hadn't spent £40m we'd still be in the same place. Don't forget that the club was losing money even just staying in league one (Lansdown or no Lansdown that would have happened).

Lansdown says that the club produces enough revenue to sustain a top league two side. If we'd 'cut our cloth accordingly' that's what we'd have. Only the crowds wouldn't come to watch a top league two side. They could be 50% what we have now, so the revenue would be substantially lower. Meaning we couldn't sustain a top league two side. Maybe we'd have one avoiding relegation, or maybe we'd be in the Blue Square Premier. We wouldn't have quite so much debt but we'd be a million miles from anything you could call 'success'.

[dezgimed]

One thing I would say is that its no good boasting about the training facilities and academy because to date, we have the worst team in the League and every academy player is to be fair, crap (or certainly not good enough for this level NOW).

Peterbrough probably train on a cabbage patch but it doesnt matter, its down to the players.

[BristolBEAT]

for **** sake HE CAN'T INVEST MORE MONEY IN THE ******* TEAM FFP WILL NOT LET HIM

Of course he can. He just can't loan it to the club. It can be a cash injection from his back pocket.

[Monkeh]

Of course he can. He just can't loan it to the club. It can be a cash injection from his back pocket.

no he can't read up on the rules

[TRL]

no he can't read up on the rules

he can, just make sure we have all our players in place before the transfer embargo hits.

it is a farce, they should dock points, not enforce a transfer embargo

[downendcity]

Don't believe anyone is making any attacks on anyone or not appreciating Lansdown, well I am certainly not.

But when Lansdown makes the open decision at the start of the decision, which he did! to not invest any more money in the team. Then the team suffers. Lansdown is his own person, it is his money he can do what he likes with it. But if you were worth a billion and an constantly yearly profit of £94 million would you just not spend it in your life? Currently Lansdown doesn't.

It's not that he won't spend it on the team. Under ffp he can't - or more impotantly, ffp lays downn how much he's allowed to invest in the club/team.

The fact that he was prepared to put this hand in his pocket is demonstrated by the £90m he was prepared to put into into the building of AV, because ffp does allow an owner to invest in the stadium. A modern stadium would give the club much greater revenue then we get from AG, and that extra revenue could be used to fund players etc.

McInnes was under instruction to trim the playing budget in line with ffp requirements, not SL's reluctance to put his hand in his pocket. L is on record a long time ago as saying that the club had to live within it's means - anticipating that ffp would bring in stringent financial controls and swinging penalties for non complaince.

[Monkeh]

he can, just make sure we have all our players in place before the transfer embargo hits.

it is a farce, they should dock points, not enforce a transfer embargo

yep he could of and we could still be in this postion,

Look at QPR I'd wager that they were one of the top spenders in the prem this season and they are still in the shit money doesn't buy you sucsess good management and coaching does somthing Lansdown is not responsable for

[TRL]

yep he could of and we could still be in this postion,

Look at QPR I'd wager that they were one of the top spenders in the prem this season and they are still in the shit money doesn't buy you sucsess good management and coaching does somthing Lansdown is not responsable for

I am not advocating he does, infact the opposite. I want points deductions for breaking it, to ensure the price of football doesn't continue to spiral. If that screws us over, so be it.

Lansdown is responsile for hiring the right managment team, by putting structure in place of how he wants the club to progress, and type of football he wants. That is a duty he has. Many don't including our owner. But it is how you get success.

[Jordan Tansley]

I'll take it as a compliment your stalking my posts, however you are wrong.

On this thread for example here is the comment by another poster I said I agreed with:

I have absolutely no doubt that he has the drive, ambition and wealth to bring success and his heart is the right place with regards to the club. The early GJ years especially 2006/7 and 2007/8 were great times, unfortunately followed by a serious losing of the plot until GJ went (not really SL's fault).

with the caveat that IMO SL should have as the ultimate boss stood up to Johnson who was clearly getting carried away with his own self importance. Had SL done that he, GJ, and all of us might be a darn sight happier with where Bristol City are right now. But SL is human and we all make mistakes. And really, thats all thats being discussed on here, mistakes.

If you would like to describe people as "clowns" and "sad" thats up to you but again you are incorrect with all of your alleged "Facts".

Ten years ago there existed planning permission to redevelop Ashton Gate, at a cost which at that time was affordable based on the relatively healthy balance sheet at the time - £10m positive with an asset available as security valued at £20m. Now thats what I call a fact.

I cant dispute another of your alleged "facts", that without SL we wouldnt be in the league we are now, because its impossible to prove or disprove - and incidentally cannot therefore be "fact" one way or the other. History however suggests that by now you would almost certainly be incorect.

Still I suppose its a slight improvement on another claim you made previously, that without SL we wouldnt exist at all.

Would we be better off without SL at the helm? Probably not but at the end of the day this club belongs not to Steve but to all of us, and we all have a right to question decisions. I dont think Steve would deny anybody that right so long as its done in a civilised way; sometimes passionately held views spill over into comments which go beyond the mark and I will accept I have probably been guilty of that, at times when I shouldnt be posting and I suspect that applies to others also.

My view has always diverged from Steve's and what appeared at one time to be the majority view, that we should not move to Ashton Vale. I also disagreed with the claim that Ashton Gate was not a financially viable option.

Interestingly, since the announcement that Ashton Gate redevelopment was once again being considered, those in favour of that seem to have - with respect to them - crawled out of the woodwork: the threads at the time of the announcement indicated a 50:50 split. It is also interesting that there is now an implicit acceptance by the board that Ashton Gate is financially viable, a complete backdown on the message previously being given - a change of heart which hasn't been explained.

I also think that the current board of directors, appointed by Steve, is entirely inappropriate. I suppose one way of explaining my position on this issue would be to ask Steve, would he appoint a 27 year old to the board of Hargreaves Lansdown let alone as Managing Director and would he in his wildest dreams envisage a board of directors at Hargreaves consisting entirely of personnnel with no direct experience of the financial services industry.

That is not criticism for its own sake, I would like to think these are pertinent and valid questions. We are all passionate Bristol City supporters otherwise we wouldnt be on here and I do not think it is unreasonable to question the way that aspects of the club is run. The alternative is called a dictatorship and Steve doesnt strike me as the sort of chap who would deliberately set out to act in such a way and as such I would like to think that questioining in a responsible way would be welcomed by him.

Out if interest Nick, are there many other clubs with 'football men' on the board?

[BristolBEAT]

no he can't read up on the rules

Not trying to get into a war with you. I don't ever wish to hate another red, so please don't take me as such.

My understanding (of course I could be wrong) just scanned the rules (below) does not state anywhere if you cannot breakeven then you cannot spend. You cannot Loan full stop anymore, but cash injections not adding to the clubs books are allowed.

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html

[Mr Mosquito]

One thing I would say is that its no good boasting about the training facilities and academy because to date, we have the worst team in the League and every academy player is to be fair, crap (or certainly not good enough for this level NOW).

Peterbrough probably train on a cabbage patch but it doesnt matter, its down to the players.

Spot on, you've hit the nail on the head. I'm sure I remember our old top flight team under Alan Dicks sometimes training in Lady Smythes Park during the week not at some fancy training ground.

[Mr Mosquito]

Out if interest Nick, are there many other clubs with 'football men' on the board?

Manchester United have Bobby Charlton on their board - and look where they are in the league !!!!!!

[Monkeh]

Out if interest Nick, are there many other clubs with 'football men' on the board?

West Ham and Peterborough are the only two I can think of

Trevor Brooking and Barry Fry

[NickJ]

Out if interest Nick, are there many other clubs with 'football men' on the board?

Is that relevant Jordan?

The important question to me is, should we have people on OUR board with direct experience of the industry they are in?

If the answer to that question is yes, and we havent, what the other clubs do is irrelevant.

[TRL]

Spot on, you've hit the nail on the head. I'm sure I remember our old top flight team under Alan Dicks sometimes training in Lady Smythes Park during the week not at some fancy training ground.

I thought they did most training down the, several on one match turning up for the game trollied after drinking heavily up on Bedminster Down

[Jordan Tansley]

Is that relevant Jordan?

The important question to me is, should we have people on OUR board with direct experience of the industry they are in?

If the answer to that question is yes, and we havent, what the other clubs do is irrelevant.

I think it is, yes. I personally don't know what Gerry Gow (just grabbing a legend from thin air) could offer the board of directors in terms of running the club.

The manager should have complete control over the football, the board have the business to look after. Would Gerry offer anything to Sean? Doubtful. Would Gerry offer anything to the board in sorting a stadium or training facility? Doubtful.

In structuring the ticket pricing for next season?

I can't really think of anything.

Now, a fan on the board would be good, 2 year terms elected by the ST. Just to sit on board meetings to put a fans views over. If the rest of the board aren't convinced by the arguments then that's that. But a fan had no real experience of football or the running of a business...

[cheese]

10 years ago wages for the avg footballer were about 100% less as well

They played for free?

[NickJ]

I think it is, yes. I personally don't know what Gerry Gow (just grabbing a legend from thin air) could offer the board of directors in terms of running the club.

The manager should have complete control over the football, the board have the business to look after. Would Gerry offer anything to Sean? Doubtful. Would Gerry offer anything to the board in sorting a stadium or training facility? Doubtful.

In structuring the ticket pricing for next season?

I can't really think of anything.

Now, a fan on the board would be good, 2 year terms elected by the ST. Just to sit on board meetings to put a fans views over. If the rest of the board aren't convinced by the arguments then that's that. But a fan had no real experience of football or the running of a business...

It doesnt have to be a legend, hundreds of players have played for City over the years. I wasnt really thinking of input into ticket prices or building stadiums, more, football strategy, funnily enough!

Dont know if you ever heard about the book by Len Shackleton, but he summed up his thoughts on football club directors quite succinctly. If the directors have no experience of their industry, how do they know the right questions to ask when appointing managers for example. I asked Steve once what qualities he looks for in a manager and didnt really receive an answer. I just think our board needs help in the key ingredient.

In answer to your question, Bobby Charlton, Barry Fry and Trevor Brooking have all been mentioned, Niall Quinn was chairman at Sunderland, as was Francis Lee at Manchester City and as is David Whelan at Wigan, with thought I could go on. Then there are directors in the sense of job title rather than legal status, such as Steve Coppell at Crawley to name but one of several.

[Barrs Court Red]

Pros.

Doubled the amount of season tickets sold

Very attractive ticket prices in some cases for season tickets and match days, in comparison to other clubs at this level.

Money spent on Acadamey and training facilities

Highest placed finish in 30 years

Returned east end (partially) to rightfull owners

Investment in playing squad has been there

Cons

Ashton Vale has been a farce

Clubs become very detached from fans, although this has lessend slightly.

Debt has increased to a unsustainable level

Spending policy changes like the wind. Lack of spending for long periods caused frustraightion, replaced by an open door, now back to square one

Academy was allowed to rot for far too long.

Poor manager decisions. Tinnion being the worst. Millen "Not ready" then handed job shortly after.

Of course these sort of threads only pop up in the bad times, and everything seems worse with hindsight.

[Bedminster Born And Red]

My take on the "progress" we have made in Steve Lansdown's reign is as follows:-

A few frustrating seasons in League 1 followed by one very good and one amazing season under Gary Johnson followed by mediocrity and over cautious football required to maintain our Championship status ever since.

An Academy that was not fit for purpose then and certainly doesn't fit that description in any way now (the neglect of the Academy, no doubt "encouraged" by Gary Johnson in my view, is the one area where his actions have been negligent)

£40 million of debt predominantly due to terrible decision making on player recruitment and wages at Manager and Board level

A revolving door "I'll get it right in the end" policy on Managers

A stadium that was an "asset" to BRISTOL CITY FOOTBALL CLUB now belonging to a holding company and, unless someone can correct me, totally out of our ownership

A crumbling stadium in need of modernisation back then still in need of modernisation ten years later

A dogs dinner of a new stadium application - I would have expected a few I's dotted and T's crossed before this Village Green debacle ever came to light

A pitch that has consistently been amongst the best in the country for years soon to be a cabbage patch come February every season despite the claims made by Desso or whoever is laying the new pitch

A football club that had some affinity with it's fans and community now communicating in "brand and customer" speak

A football club that started in League 1 then and will be in League 1 next season

A large increase in season ticket holders likely to be back at the levels when he took the club over from next season

It's not a great "legacy" when you look at it and, I'm sure Steve Lansdown agrees himself, nothing like value for the money that both he and the supporters have spent in the period (you can argue the club is nothing without Steve Lansdown but it certainly is nothing without supporters). Nobody is arguing that his heart and intentions are not in the right place that I can see. But that heart been backed up by the cold, calculated decision making required to move the club forwards during his tenure.

Supporters have every right to ask questions in the right manner and if Steve Lansdown was the type that cannot take that and decides to totally run the club into the ground out of spite then does that make him right? Luckily I don't think he is that type of person. Given that the "ownership" of the club is going nowhere I really do think that an experienced "Director of Football" would be a wise step forward.

[BCFC_Dan]

No the 40 Million is debt on top of normal turn over. We have spent far far more than 40 million, 40 Million is just the losses

Lansdown says..... I cant find any accounts to hand, but how is that justified and compared to what? It's supposition and scaremongering if you dont follow his model. and then a bit of scaremongering in for good measure

Well it doesn't matter whether you look at spend or losses. If you include the spend we can afford then you just have a bigger number. Makes no odds to the argument.

It's not scaremongering at all. It's being realistic and looking at where we could be. There are a whole host of possibilities, from spending less and achieving more (Swansea) down to being asset-stripped and nearly destroyed (Wrexham). There are plenty in between too. We could have milled along happily in league one and made only minimal losses.

The point is you can't assume that the outcome you like would have happened in place of the current one. There are a few better scenarios but plenty of worse ones. That's not scaremongering: it's reality.

[Spike]

Same old City fans exaggerating to the max so they get their point across! Ridiculous

I don't think I am exaggerating but then again I think a lot of our fans wouldn't dare say we could be worse than Rovers without Lansdown because they feel that would be a betray of the club.

[exiledinwatford]

Another SL bashing thread from the usual suspects. I do find it hilarious that he is criticised for bad managerial decisions when at the time of the appointment everyone is happy as Larry.

The question remains - and is never answered, name someone who is willing to takeover and do a better job? Not some ficticious comicbook superhero. Reading this thread the SL bashers want someone who:

Always chooses a successful manager

Backs the manager but then has some "second sense" to know when that manager wants to sign a dud

Invests money in the club without wanting anything in return

Runs the club at a profit by grooming promising youngsters and selling on to Prem clubs

Keeps hold of promising youngsters making them our stars of the future

Gets legal advice for new stadium but second guesses the NIMBY protest

In short never makes a mistake

The bloke has had a real go and it hasn't come off. I hope he doesn't give up.

[Bedminster Born And Red]

Another SL bashing thread from the usual suspects. I do find it hilarious that he is criticised for bad managerial decisions when at the time of the appointment everyone is happy as Larry.

The question remains - and is never answered, name someone who is willing to takeover and do a better job? Not some ficticious comicbook superhero. Reading this thread the SL bashers want someone who:

Always chooses a successful manager

Backs the manager but then has some "second sense" to know when that manager wants to sign a dud

Invests money in the club without wanting anything in return

Runs the club at a profit by grooming promising youngsters and selling on to Prem clubs

Keeps hold of promising youngsters making them our stars of the future

Gets legal advice for new stadium but second guesses the NIMBY protest

In short never makes a mistake

The bloke has had a real go and it hasn't come off. I hope he doesn't give up.

Going through your list above the two areas where I think he really ought to have done better are the Academy and he really should have seen the NIMBY protest coming. Not all bad news though because a revamped Ashton Gate would appeal to many as an alternative.

As for naming someone to take over that is an irrelevant point now because the club has been structured in such a way that a takeover is virtually impossible unless a person comes along who "deliberately" wants to urinate their money up the wall. You simply cannot name a person who will pay £50 million for a struggling League 1 club because there isn't one.

[TRL]

Another SL bashing thread from the usual suspects. I do find it hilarious that he is criticised for bad managerial decisions when at the time of the appointment everyone is happy as Larry.

The question remains - and is never answered, name someone who is willing to takeover and do a better job? Not some ficticious comicbook superhero. Reading this thread the SL bashers want someone who:

Always chooses a successful manager

Backs the manager but then has some "second sense" to know when that manager wants to sign a dud

Invests money in the club without wanting anything in return

Runs the club at a profit by grooming promising youngsters and selling on to Prem clubs

Keeps hold of promising youngsters making them our stars of the future

Gets legal advice for new stadium but second guesses the NIMBY protest

In short never makes a mistake

The bloke has had a real go and it hasn't come off. I hope he doesn't give up.

We can't have someone to replace him.. because he took the safe guards away. He did that, no one els,e so that line of argument is irrelevant, he should not have ripped up the ownership safe guards, he did, now we live with his decision.

[Monkeh]

Going through your list above the two areas where I think he really ought to have done better are the Academy and he really should have seen the NIMBY protest coming. Not all bad news though because a revamped Ashton Gate would appeal to many as an alternative.

As for naming someone to take over that is an irrelevant point now because the club has been structured in such a way that a takeover is virtually impossible unless a person comes along who "deliberately" wants to urinate their money up the wall. You simply cannot name a person who will pay £50 million for a struggling League 1 club because there isn't one.

I disagree

the nimbys waitied until the last possible second to register a TVG (the day planning permission was granted)

Waited to the last possible minute to lunch an appeal (3 months after we were told we could build)

and now insist we wait til october until we have another debate beacuse of Child Care issues

Lansdown could not forsee that

The acadmeny I could give you that if it wasn;t for the fact that its improved 10 fold in the last 3 season with players now getting to the fringes of the squad and the fact we are actually seeling players produced from them (granted for peanuts with a sell on clause) again

[Dolman Block B]

Not really Arn, if you look at my post history, a bit like ralphs, I have always been a dissenter. guess we see how he does things completely differently.

Yeah mucker. Were all down in the dumps with whats been going on and off the pitch and waiting for the final nail of relegation i suppose.

Its heartbreaking as the championship has been a great ride.

It will be interesting to hear comments from SL and JL once this in confirmed.

[Monkeh]

We can't have someone to replace him.. because he took the safe guards away. He did that, no one els,e so that line of argument is irrelevant, he should not have ripped up the ownership safe guards, he did, now we live with his decision.

Ken bates did that at leeds didn't stop them being sold,

Jack Walker and family did that at blackburn did stop them being sold

Deadly D Ellis did that a villa didn't stop them being sold

Its about how attractive a club is and we are not an attractive club to buy and invest in

Take Cardiff and Swansea for example they would never be where they are now if they didn't get the new facilites they have,

Thats what is holding us back its our out dated facilites which lansdown is trying to improve infact fighting hard then any of us ever have,

[Bedminster Born And Red]

I disagree

the nimbys waitied until the last possible second to register a TVG (the day planning permission was granted)

Waited to the last possible minute to lunch an appeal (3 months after we were told we could build)

and now insist we wait til october until we have another debate beacuse of Child Care issues

Lansdown could not forsee that

The acadmeny I could give you that if it wasn;t for the fact that its improved 10 fold in the last 3 season with players now getting to the fringes of the squad and the fact we are actually seeling players produced from them (granted for peanuts with a sell on clause) again

I would have hoped that the whole TVG thing would have been anticipated and dealt with before theh stadium plans were even announced in terms of the proof we needed to provide, evidence that it was never used as a Village Green etc. You would think that a Billionaire having access to the best leagal brains around would have had that covered. The TVG thing may then never have got off the ground.

Cannot agree with you on the Academy. We do not produce anywhere near the amount or same quality of players that other enlightened clubs who have invested wisely in their Academies over the years produce. We all know who these clubs are. When are we going to see a Luke Shaw for example?