Questions For The Board On U-Turn & Taking Responsibility

[The Exiled Robin]

I've sat on this and thought about this, a lot.  I've questioned myself and interrogated everything that's been published and recorded but can't seem to get to the bottom of many, many aspects of the decisions that have been made by City in the past month.

 

So here is my view, and my questions for the people running our club

 

http://exiledrobin.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-bristol-city-board-who-is.html

 

Feedback is as welcome as ever, and would love to hear the additional questions you'd want answers too, just in case - in a very unlikely twist - I ever get the chance to quiz someone directly.

 

['Orns]

Looks a bit meaty....have saved to pocket and will read it later!

[Redderland]

Thanks, this feels like a dangerous time for our club and you have nailed the immediate issues brilliantly. The suspicions about the ground ownership and Rugby are truly worrying set against the background you've laid out.

[Major Isewater]

[gater2]

Great article with many pertinent questions.

Taking your last sentence, the sad fact about English football is that despite all the club, league and FA rhetoric to the contrary, our clubs are not really 'ours' in the sense of ownership. In Germany there are rules written into the governance of the game which state that each club must have at least 51% voting rights to supporters as it is collectively felt clubs are too culturally & historically important to be in the hands of one person/small group of people.

Here, unless you're an AFC Wimbledon or Wycombe for example you don't really have any stake the way your club is run. SL is clearly not as bad as the Venkys at Blackburn or Tan at Cardiff but this article raises some v serious questions. If fans really are the most important aspect of a club, then why do we have no mechanism whatsoever to demand proper accountability for the way it's run? I'm not advocating a club run entirely by supporters in that a bunch of us become the board and make all financial decisions etc, but in Germany and many clubs in Spain (eg Barca), the board are fully accountable to the supporters and if they are not doing a good job they will get voted off.

 

It's not a short term game, but I believe supporter ownership like that in Germany has to be the future of the English game.

 

A brilliant short report on supporter ownership if anyone is interested: http://www.uk.coop/sites/storage/public/downloads/insight3_bara_0.pdf Ask the vital question: what IS a football club?

[Robin1988]

It does speak rather like 'I am the voice of the fans'.

[Daniro]

The real question is what progress have we made since 1996 when SL first became involved with the club (I'm quoting his recent interview as far as the date is concerned - forgive / correct me if I'm wrong).

 

As far as league position is concerned, the answer is no progress at all and, some would fear, as far as owning our own ground goes, we are in a worse position.

 

We came within spitting distance of the premiership though and that was pretty cool.   since then it's been a series of disasters and the board take the blame imho,

[redordead1]

Great article which asks many of the questions that the board should have had the common decency to answer these past few weeks.

Be it cowardliness, be it a lack of a coherent and considered strategy or be it a simple lack of respect for the supporters, the boards actions and responses this last month have led many, myself included to question their ability and motivations for running our club. Worrying times.

[Kid in the Riot]

For once, I'm going to say that was an awful article. The sentiments behind it were good, but it reads like a stream of conciousness and is built on a sort of 'what's in it for me as a fan view' rather than what's in it for the club. You as a fan are left bewildered, because change has occurred, you come across as not liking the change so are lashing out, which is why I think the flow is as it is. IE all over the shop.The questions asked in the blog, meander without going anywhere in particular and the whole thing isnt to the point nor does it do anything in particular either.

Somethings inc a vocal Chair have been done to death on here already, and all honesty it's not important, neither  is 'board representation' in front of camera for SC, yet people still use that to hammer the club and the board with. The littlest, insequential things are used as somekind of massive turning point. SC can speak for himself. his turn to shine, what use is a board member being there, when it was about SC's unveiling? 

 

So yeah, sorry, not great this time, soz

 

Did you really just say "soz"? What are you a 14 year old girl?!

 

Anyway, a few of points in regard to your slightly incoherent response above:

 

I agree the chair doesn't have to be vocal but SOMEONE DOES. Please, anyone! Any form of leadership wouldn't go amiss right now - to not put anyone (bar the hapless Adam Baker) in front of the cameras to speak by SC was a poor show, what have they got to hide? Not even willing to stand by their convictions in public was piss poor. It's funny you mention the Venkys and Tan as it's exactly the kind of stunt you'd expect from some half arsed board completely disconnected from the fan base and showing a lack of understanding of the role they (the board) have at the club. It was at best petulant and ill-judged, and at worst pathetic and disrespectful.

 

EDIT: And considering so many people seem to be agreeing with the above, it has to be questioned: just what do The Lansdowns have on you that'll make you never question a word they say??

[Red-Robbo]

I've sat on this and thought about this, a lot.  I've questioned myself and interrogated everything that's been published and recorded but can't seem to get to the bottom of many, many aspects of the decisions that have been made by City in the past month.

 

So here is my view, and my questions for the people running our club

 

http://exiledrobin.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-bristol-city-board-who-is.html

 

Feedback is as welcome as ever, and would love to hear the additional questions you'd want answers too, just in case - in a very unlikely twist - I ever get the chance to quiz someone directly.

 

Not a particularly coherent effort IMO.

 

You liked O'Driscoll bought in to his alleged "vision" and "long-term plan" and had a blind belief that it the club would be strengthened by him. You base that belief on a good win, a slightly lucky win and a few draws (admitting an absolute pisspoor home loss to the then bottom club marrs this 'turning of the corner').

 

You don't like Steve Cotterill, based on what some fans at other clubs (not Cheltenham, Notts County or Burnley) have said.

 

On the basis of these two positions, you've constructed this sort of weird, vague criticism of the board, with loads of assumptions and other complete non-sequiturs.

 

I mean - to give but one example - who cares if Keith Dawe gives interviews. Some chairmen do, others don't. Does it effect the club and its success on the pitch? No, it doesn't. Irrelevant. Jon Lansdown, representing the club's owner, does the talking for the board and personally, I can never remember receiving as many, lengthy and clear emails from someone on the board as we do now.

 

Why does sacking SOD mean there is an abandonment of a long-term vision and the drive to make the club self-sufficient? It doesn't, the board made that clear. The "long-term vision" didn't mean sticking with a manager for years even if, in the boards' view, he was going to lead us to relegation. I ask you can you to name another club that stuck with their manager overseeing such a lengthy winless run. I'd suggest no clubs have and none would. Certainly not Doncaster, who sacked SOD after a lengthy winless run.

 

What evidence do you have that the Bristol Sport chairman has "an increasingly hands-on role in the running of the club"?  Answer: none.

 

As for interviews, I've said before, that as an employer,  if I get an application from the person I know I wanted, I scrap the time-wasting (for all concerned) interview process. It's only worth doing that if there are other interesting applicants. We have no idea who went for the job. SC may well have been the stand-out candidate. It's a nonsense to claim people were, in some way, mislead regarding this.

 

So, I have yet to identify the u-turns let alone lies you refer to.

 

What I get is that you want SOD to be manager and were angry that he was sacked. Other fans were overjoyed - including most I know. For myself, I was surprised and skeptical but I could see the reasoning and it's the club's owner's job to hire the man he thinks right for the job. Christ alone what sort of nightmare we'd have if we had to put a list of candidates to a vote by fans. Should we also vote on who starts each week?!

[bcfcnick]

[Kid in the Riot]

Not a particularly coherent effort IMO.

 

You liked O'Driscoll bought in to his alleged "vision" and "long-term plan" and had a blind belief that it the club would be strengthened by him. You base that belief on a good win, a slightly lucky win and a few draws (admitting an absolute pisspoor home loss to the then bottom club marrs this 'turning of the corner').

 

You don't like Steve Cotterill, based on what some fans at other clubs (not Cheltenham, Notts County or Burnley) have said.

 

On the basis of these two positions, you've constructed this sort of weird, vague criticism of the board, with loads of assumptions and other complete non-sequiturs.

 

I mean - to give but one example - who cares if Keith Dawe gives interviews. Some chairmen do, others don't. Does it effect the club and its success on the pitch? No, it doesn't. Irrelevant. Jon Lansdown, representing the club's owner, does the talking for the board and personally, I can never remember receiving as many, lengthy and clear emails from someone on the board as we do now.

 

Why does sacking SOD mean there is an abandonment of a long-term vision and the drive to make the club self-sufficient? It doesn't, the board made that clear. The "long-term vision" didn't mean sticking with a manager for years even if, in the boards' view, he was going to lead us to relegation. I ask you can you to name another club that stuck with their manager overseeing such a lengthy winless run. I'd suggest no clubs have and none would. Certainly not Doncaster, who sacked SOD after a lengthy winless run.

 

What evidence do you have that the Bristol Sport chairman has "an increasingly hands-on role in the running of the club"?  Answer: none.

 

As for interviews, I've said before, that as an employer,  if I get an application from the person I know I wanted, I scrap the time-wasting (for all concerned) interview process. It's only worth doing that if there are other interesting applicants. We have no idea who went for the job. SC may well have been the stand-out candidate. It's a nonsense to claim people were, in some way, mislead regarding this.

 

So, I have yet to identify the u-turns let alone lies you refer to.

 

What I get is that you want SOD to be manager and were angry that he was sacked. Other fans were overjoyed - including most I know. For myself, I was surprised and skeptical but I could see the reasoning and it's the club's owner's job to hire the man he thinks right for the job. Christ alone what sort of nightmare we'd have if we had to put a list of candidates to a vote by fans. Should we also vote on who starts each week?!

 

Goodness! What ill-informed tripe. You clearly haven't been following the club very closely for the past few years! Wish I had the time to respond to every point you've made but unfortunately I do not. Maybe you could do some research and furnish yourself.

 

Good luck to you and Merry Christmas!

[phantom]

[Kid in the Riot]

[Major Isewater]

[Red-Robbo]

[Red-Robbo]

Goodness! What ill-informed tripe. You clearly haven't been following the club very closely for the past few years! Wish I had the time to respond to every point you've made but unfortunately I do not. Maybe you could do some research and furnish yourself.

 

Good luck to you and Merry Christmas!

 

You know, Kid, your hero has gone,. Get over it.  There will be no "second coming".

 

Are you going to spend the rest of your life sniping at any successor and rubbishing those who sacked him?

[BCFC_Dan]

I thought it was a good article. If it feels incoherent it's probably because the author is struggling to decide for himself what to make of the situation. I know I have been.

 

My feeling is that someone on the board was talking to Steve Cotterill in the preceding weeks and he convinced them that O'Driscoll was overcomplicating things and that better results could be obtained with the current level of expenditure.

 

I find myself absolutely torn over the split between the "scientific approach" and the belief that "football is a simple game". In the Sunday Times this week, Graeme Souness argues that Redknapp was a better Spurs manager than AVB because motivation is a bigger factor than clever tactics. Clearly Souness is of the old school, who would be bound to insist that, but sometimes I find myself wondering whether he might be right. I naturally lean towards the intelligent and articulate but I also can't help feeling that a lot of the advanced analysis done is at best overcomplicating matters.

 

The optimist in me says that this is someone senior on the board, either Dawe or Steve Lansdown, asserting control and looking to recreate the early days of Gary Johnson's reign. The days when the squad was made up largely of cheap, lower league players who were well drilled and well motivated. Johnson's reign showed we can have success without needing patience or to resort to overspending, and Cotterill has clearly convinced them he can do that.

 

I've no problem with that (clearly, if he delivers what GJ did he'll have been a fantastic success) but as I've said elsewhere the difficulty will be in managing the transition beyond that. It's absolutely vital that the rest of the work that was being done continues to be done. Not necessarily 5 pillars, nor necessarily Keith Burt, but there has to be some kind of coherent strategy throughout the club that will allow new players to be identified and brought in that will complement the existing ones and improve the squad without overspending. That's the difficult bit, and that's the bit we need to worry about.

[BCAGFC]

Bit too long and so haven't finished reading yet.

 

By all accounts, Cotterill was approached before Carlisle.

[Kid in the Riot]

You know, Kid, your hero has gone,. Get over it.  There will be no "second coming".

 

Are you going to spend the rest of your life sniping at any successor and rubbishing those who sacked him?

 

Finally, you got summat right

[glynriley]

[Jordan Tansley]

You know, Kid, your hero has gone,. Get over it.  There will be no "second coming".

 

Are you going to spend the rest of your life sniping at any successor and rubbishing those who sacked him?

 

with respect, nothing here is really to do with SOD. It's to do with the worrying u-turns of a board that increasingly worries sections of the support.

 

If you think there is absolutely nothing odd about the whole scenario then fair enough. But many do and that is there right without being accused of hero-worship and the like. 

 

You yourself have lamented the apathy of our support, then insult those who are voicing their displeasure... It doesn't make any sense to me, that.

[Jordan Tansley]

[Merrick's Marvels]

[glynriley]

Because many a manager would complain about the limitations hindering their effectiveness when results start to go badly. Many managers would be quick to put blame elsewhere if the opportunity were to arise and I would imagine that SC will at some point use the excuse of our financial position if and when the results go badly for him.

 

Well he did comment on not being able to afford Asombalomba(sp) but the point is, when he accepted the job, he'd have known there was already a cost cutting plan in place and it would have been churlish to complain after the event. Cotterill will also know how much money he has to play with, so again, it would be an odd thing to complain about.

[Red-Robbo]

with respect, nothing here is really to do with SOD. It's to do with the worrying u-turns of a board that increasingly worries sections of the support.

 

If you think there is absolutely nothing odd about the whole scenario then fair enough. But many do and that is there right without being accused of hero-worship and the like. 

 

You yourself have lamented the apathy of our support, then insult those who are voicing their displeasure... It doesn't make any sense to me, that.

For the life of me I can't see what these u-turns are, JT.

 

The board wanted to have some stability and long-term continuity at the club, but in their eyes SOD was leading us to relegation so they felt they had to fire him. Two successive relegations just isn't something that could be tolerated.

 

Now, whether you think that was a right decision or a wrong one, it doesn't matter. It isn't a u-turn on any promises. They hoped SOD would be here long-term, he hadn't worked out, they still want some continuity.

 

The rest of that blog was just a load of ramblings about things that irked the writer. No board members spoke at Cotterill's 'unveiling' - so what! Keith Dawe doesn't do interviews - so what! SOD wasn't thanked in the email announcing his departure - so what!

 

As long as they continue with the project of nurturing young talent from the academy, bringing in young, hungry and up-and-coming players sourced by a vastly improved coaching system and looking to make the club self-sufficient, I don't see any huge policy changes will have been made.

 

Sean certainly continued this process, begun (to a degree) under Millen and developed further by McInnes. We have no grounds to believe it's suddenly halted.

 

When Cotterill arrived, people opposed to his appointment suggested we'd have Harewood up front every game and our younger players would hardly get a game. Not so, on this early showing.

[Jordan Tansley]

For the life of me I can't see what these u-turns are, JT.

 

The board wanted to have some stability and long-term continuity at the club, but in their eyes SOD was leading us to relegation so they felt they had to fire him. Two successive relegations just isn't something that could be tolerated.

 

Now, whether you think that was a right decision or a wrong one, it doesn't matter. It isn't a u-turn on any promises. They hoped SOD would be here long-term, he hadn't worked out, they still want some continuity.

 

The rest of that blog was just a load of ramblings about things that irked the writer. No board members spoke at Cotterill's 'unveiling' - so what! Keith Dawe doesn't do interviews - so what! SOD wasn't thanked in the email announcing his departure - so what!

 

As long as they continue with the project of nurturing young talent from the academy, bringing in young, hungry and up-and-coming players sourced by a vastly improved coaching system and looking to make the club self-sufficient, I don't see any huge policy changes will have been made.

 

Sean certainly continued this process, begun (to a degree) under Millen and developed further by McInnes. We have no grounds to believe it's suddenly halted.

 

When Cotterill arrived, people opposed to his appointment suggested we'd have Harewood up front every game and our younger players would hardly get a game. Not so, on this early showing.

 

We'll see in January how far we're moving away from the original plan of young players with resale value. It doesn't take much to plunge us back into exactly the same place Gary left us.

 

In 12 months when Cotterill is inevitably sacked by a board incapable of seeing something through will make the 3.5 year contract contradict the financial prudence pillar.

 

What about the talk of producing something that was to associated with BCFC, making us stand out from the crowd like Swansea and Doncaster did. Does the employment of SOD's antithesis indicate anything other than a complete shift in philosophy throughout the club? What about the young players playing the same way as the first team?

 

edit: I'm backing SC at the moment, one thing i can give him credit for is the selection of Louis and the willingness to chuck Wes into the team. Ideally that will move to starts soon as Wes needs it and I think we need him!

[Red-Robbo]

We'll see in January how far we're moving away from the original plan of young players with resale value. It doesn't take much to plunge us back into exactly the same place Gary left us.

 

In 12 months when Cotterill is inevitably sacked by a board incapable of seeing something through will make the 3.5 year contract contradict the financial prudence pillar.

 

What about the talk of producing something that was to associated with BCFC, making us stand out from the crowd like Swansea and Doncaster did. Does the employment of SOD's antithesis indicate anything other than a complete shift in philosophy throughout the club? What about the young players playing the same way as the first team?

 

edit: I'm backing SC at the moment, one thing i can give him credit for is the selection of Louis and the willingness to chuck Wes into the team. Ideally that will move to starts soon as Wes needs it and I think we need him!

 

Well that last line is where I am, Jord. Let's see how he does.

 

He's SOD's antithesis in terms of how he communicates with people and is apparently an optimist rather than a pessimist.

 

However we just cannot say that the club has abandoned its policy on younger players - nor can we say with any assurance that Cotterill "will be sacked in 12 months".

 

Let's just give the guy a chance.

[BCFC_Dan]

We'll see in January how far we're moving away from the original plan of young players with resale value. It doesn't take much to plunge us back into exactly the same place Gary left us.

 

 

Well arguably that would involve "plunging" us about 30 places up the league ladder.

 

People talk about the Gary Johnson reign as though it was some kind of unmitigated disaster. It wasn't. Up until he left his comfort zone of inexpensive lower league signings everything went well. He didn't blood the youngsters, no, but then they weren't there at the time.

 

Managing the transition between short and long term plans is the bit we got wrong last time (chiefly due to not having a long term plan). Adopting a short term plan now is the correct thing to do, so long as the long term plan is not neglected. You get nowhere on long term plans alone.

[Jordan Tansley]

Well that last line is where I am, Jord. Let's see how he does.

 

He's SOD's antithesis in terms of how he communicates with people and is apparently an optimist rather than a pessimist.

 

However we just cannot say that the club has abandoned its policy on younger players - nor can we say with any assurance that Cotterill "will be sacked in 12 months".

 

Let's just give the guy a chance.

 

Trying to, though that shouldn't have any bearing on how critical the analysis of his management or the clubs mismanagement.