Jump to content
IGNORED

Lansdown's Out!

Randy Marsh

By Randy Marsh
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

Fodbarmyarmy

Fodbarmyarmy

Posted
Posted

Ok so we all agree that we should do a Cardiff then.......

lets get looking for that short time foreign investor so we can have our 5 minutes in the Premier before they run off having pocketed any profits made and leaving the club in the cr4p

Got to be better than what we have now?........ surely?.............

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DT The Optimist

DT The Optimist

Posted
Posted

Another bad decision then, as admitted by themselves having to sack... again.

Does anyone trust these clowns to pick a manager who will bring success?

 

I love comments like this !  Please explain how you can sack yourself by sacking the board, as per the title of the post, Lansdowns out. Please explain what sugar daddy is waiting in the wings to run this business (BCFC) and to make it a going concern and spend their own money rather than the income from the club. 

 

I am also fed up with this ongoing saga, but I would rather  have what we have rather than Hull city owners, Cardiff city owners and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rowley Birkin

Rowley Birkin

Posted
Posted

The Lansdowndowns are to football, what David Blunkett is to Darts.

 

Division 4 football has today been confirmed.

 

Come on Sean let's all hear what a joke of a club it is from you're own mouth, unless your silence has been bought too?

Will there be another cosy press conference with the out going manager, as with G.J. ?

You see the Lansdowndowns always must hold the moral high ground, it's the law.

 

COMPLETE AND UTTER CLOWNS !

Link to comment
Share on other sites
downendcity

downendcity

Posted
Posted

the appointment is only part of the bigger picture - it requires a dedication to a strategy with resources being available, or plainly un-available, and if so explicitly so - it requires a support structure and a consistency at board level to support the manager. lets be honest we have had little of that - When Coppel left he very clearly insinuated that the promised support from the board had not materialised - the same with McInnes, and while the PR huff and puff about how we're doing, plenty of talk for sure, but a twitter feed alone doesn't deliver results - its clear the chairman (the REAL chairman) has lost interest in spending money on the club, but his decisions and strategic planning have left the club utterly dependant on him - that is bad management.

he's obligated to support the ongoing losses HE has created - lets be clear, the profligacy we've seen has been on his watch, we cannot be allowed to think that sucessive managers were making unilateral decisoins without board consent, thats nonsense. (or if true, staggeringly inept management)

Having banged on about 5 pillars and the need to hold our nerve, we see a slight up turn THEN sack him? - 'never a good time' for sure, but then there's plain old clumsy, which is what it feels like.

 

everyone who goes on about how would we survive without the Lansdowns, needs to look back at his long standing manouvering, to get ownership in his name alone  through diluting shares, by splitting the ownership of the ground etc etc and then tell me he's done a great job. The club should not be in this position. The chairman and his son have failed us as fans, as 'stakeholders' big time, and at the very least they need to be held to account.

 

 

On the one had you say he is supporting losses ( albeit of his creation) but the also you say he has lost interest in supporting the club. However, under the league 1 financial rules he is limited on how much he is allowed to invest in supporting the club's running costs. As the club is also restricted to spending only 60% of turnover, and our turnover must be falling away this season,  then it is more than likely that covering our losses swallows up most, if not all the amount he is allowed to invest. If so, then how is he meant to  put any more in? If the rules prevent him investing any more, how can that equate to him losing interest?

 

We have applied for permission to redevelop AG, and as there will be no financial windfall for selling the site to Sainsbury, as would have been the case with Ashton Vale, then I guess the not inconsiderable cost of redevelopment will come from Steve Lansdown's pocket. The financial rules do allow him to invest in the stadium and even though not as much as AV would have cost, he will have to bear all the cost and that is a pretty sizeable amount for someone who has apparently "lost interest" in the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bearded_red

bearded_red

Posted
Posted

 I would rather  have what we have rather than Hull city owners, Cardiff city owners and so on.

 

It really does sum up the sorry state of modern Football if the people running our club (into the ground) need to be commended for not changing the colour of the shirts or the name of the club. As far as I can see those things are a given and they should be judged on other decisions they make.

 

To praise them for not doing these things would also lead me to deciding to not criticise Sam Baldock next time he tamely shoots at the keeper when through one on one, as at the end of the day it could be worse, we could have Ched Evans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
italian dave

italian dave

Posted
Posted

I think you can throw 'Corporate Accountability' out the window when taliking about football!

 

 

But, strangely enough, not where the manager/head coach is concerned. Just listened to JL telling us how SOD has to be accountable for the performance of the players he's recruited. So where is JL's accountability for the managers and head coaches he's recruited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
havanatopia

havanatopia

Posted
Posted

Quite clearly I'm not claiming OTIB is that influential.  I am merely pointing out that the last two appointments have matched the concensus opinion on here, so it's hardly fair to blame the board for appointing the wrong man.

 

I do not recall SO'D being the OTIB number 1 choice.. like to see that POLL from the archives however. I was a big fan of McInnes.. i put him at the top, if i recall, of the main POLL at the time. I also did not want him sacked and I still think he had at least as much chance of keeping us up a second time. When Sean was appointed i was reasonably satisfied with the appointment. Considering all the things the board have come out with I think they have been rather hypocritical in this appointment as well as Sean's sacking. Now we know who the new 'manager' or 'coach' is we have no choice but to back him but how much time will he get? A lot less than we wanted to give Sean, of that i am sure. He may and I hope will know of that extra pressure and it will, or should, help him turn this club around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
reddab

reddab

Posted
Posted

Three and a half years. **** me. It goes against everything they've banged on about for years

 

 

i have always supported the lansdowns but after this appointment is shows there clueless, and imho the quicker they get out of my club that i have supported for 50 years the better!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Randy Marsh

Randy Marsh

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So you want get rid of the Lansdowns? Be careful what you wish for...

Portsmouth, Cardiff, Hull, Coventry...

Yep. He's stripped that assets, fiddled around with ownership of the ground, ****** off and left his donut son in charge, made countless bad appointments in the boardroom and managerial position.... Etc. etc.

Time for a new owner and fresh board. These guys are only dragging us backwards and we are allowing it to happen.

And this appointment stinks of shit tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tin

tin

Posted
Posted

So you want get rid of the Lansdowns? Be careful what you wish for...

 

Portsmouth, Cardiff, Hull, Coventry...

 

Two of those teams are in the Premiership and likely to stay up, while Pompey is a supporter-owned club on the road to recovery. For every Coventry, there's a Swansea, Palace or Bournemouth, who are all succeeding as supporter-run clubs.

 

hear, hear, well said my thoughts too.

 

 I dont see a long queue of Sugar Daddys and even this poor sqaud cannot be financed on our gate money.

 

Day's of the sugar daddy are numbered with Financial Fair Play.

 

SL could write off the debt that is owed to him and was racked up under his watch, and hand back assets that previously belonged to the club. There is NO reason why BCFC could not progress as a supporter-owned club - if SL put his ego to one side and did the honourable thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
red panda

red panda

Posted
Posted

Two of those teams are in the Premier League and likely to stay up, while Pompey is a supporter-owned club on the road to recovery. For every Coventry, there's a Swansea, Palace or Bournemouth, who are all succeeding as supporter-run clubs.

 

I don't think any of us would like to go through what Pompey has been through.  I suggest you check your facts re the "success" of fans' ownership at Bournemouth (hint: administration).

 

And by the way - City is owned and run by supporters - Steve and Jon Lansdown.  Despite all that's happened, I trust them to run the club better than most of us could.

 

The choices of DMC and SOD as the last managers looked very good on paper.  They didn't work out - but that's what happens at most league clubs.  Every board tries to choose a good manager, but most of them don't work out.  Over the last 5 years, the average tenure of a League One manager is 1.35 years.  That's football.

 

Once again - be very careful what you wish for.  You might get it, and then we really would be up **** creek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...