Questions For The Board On U-Turn & Taking Responsibility

[Jordan Tansley]

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.

 

Sorry, Dan. I am and will always be a huge fan of Gary. What I of course was referring to was Gary filling the side with highly paid players who actually weren't really much cop. These players also had no resale value meaning we were lumbered with their entire contracts thus restricting our spending power and bleeding the finances dry at the same time.

 

Gary is a legend, but he always had is eyes on today. The short term. he had no view of the future.

[Red-Robbo]

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

 

Agree. I can see he is trying to address some of the ponderous, sloth-like approach play that crept into our game and make our attacks quicker, snappier, more direct. Whether he's got the smarts to do that remains to be seen.

 

He's not a manager who can really articulate his long-term vision, like O'Driscoll. But then, that's more of a problem for us, than the team. Providing he can put things over to them, that's the main point.

 

As for the board, we can all blame them for some of the fiascos like ticketing etc - but we can't blame them for Cotterill being a bad move, because we don't yet know he will be.

 

The uncertainty depresses some, but the possibility of building a winning side - and yes, some of the groundwork was laid by SOD, I acknowledge that - excites me.

[BCFC_Dan]

Sorry, Dan. I am and will always be a huge fan of Gary. What I of course was referring to was Gary filling the side with highly paid players who actually weren't really much cop. These players also had no resale value meaning we were lumbered with their entire contracts thus restricting our spending power and bleeding the finances dry at the same time.

 

Gary is a legend, but he always had is eyes on today. The short term. he had no view of the future.

 

Indeed. But that's not his fault, is it? He's a short term manager who gets results. That's what we needed in 2005 and that's what we need now.

 

The fact that Johnson (and possibly Cotterill) was a short term manager did not preclude the board from doing long term planning. Johnson's success, the closeness of the Premier League, and the stadium business distracted them from looking at the long term. That's their fault, not Johnson's.

 

A good case to look at is Southampton. 12 months ago people were in uproar at the way they treated Nigel Adkins. 12 months on and the decision looks extremely sensible. They recognised the limits of the manager they had, identified one better suited to the next stage of the club's development and acted. Sensible club management.

 

I'm increasingly of the opinion that O'Driscoll was the right man at the wrong time. The time to appoint him was around 2009 when Johnson had reached the limits of his capabilities but the team was still a winning one. The transition to the longer term could have been made against the backdrop of mid-table finishes, rather than bottom 3 scraps. There would still have been dissenting voices and the academy still wouldn't have had the players to put right in but it would have been a darned sight easier than the job became.

[Eco]

I was thoroughly annoyed with SOD's sacking for reasons stated in TER's blog, however feel we should back the new manager, not  just for the moment either. All Managers need time and none of ours have had enough since GJ left, the only exception being Millen who should never have been appointed.

 

Don't think I could stand another bout of blood spilling/division/angst on here if SC is not immediately successful, give him until the end of the season plus all next at least and lets attempt to all pull in the right direction, sing from the hymn sheet etc

[old parkender]

Well, knowing the people who do the BBC News Bristol website - none of whom has the slightest interest or understanding of football - I'd not take that link as gospel.

As to Bristol Sport being based at Ashton Gate, that does not imply Jon Lansdown was fibbing. They are both his dad's enterprises. I can't see the bit on Bristol Sport's website that says they "own" Bristol City FC.

But besides the dry world of corporate governance, I can't really see why it would matter what name SL uses to control the club.

When planning permission was given for Ashton gate refurb who was wheeled out for the cameras to make some comments? It was Martin griffiths, chairman of bristol sport who apparently have nothing to do with bristol city fc other than an advisary capacity.

[Aizoon]

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?

You know, sooner or later, someone will justify Cotterill's appointment on grounds other than:

1. He shouts and waves his arms.

2. He's not O'Driscoll.

[Red-Robbo]

When planning permission was given for Ashton gate refurb who was wheeled out for the cameras to make some comments? It was Martin griffiths, chairman of bristol sport who apparently have nothing to do with bristol city fc other than an advisary capacity.

 

I'm sure there's plenty of input as they are some sort of umbrella group, as I understand it, representing the wider interests of Bristol City and Bristol Rugby,  to be based in the new AG, plus other, smaller, local sports interests.

 

TBH it doesn't really matter who takes what decisions as long as they are good ones.  We've not always had those, I grant you!

[Red-Robbo]

You know, sooner or later, someone will justify Cotterill's appointment on grounds other than:

1. He shouts and waves his arms.

2. He's not O'Driscoll.

 

 

3: He might win more games.

 

The only justification, when you come to think of it.

[Aizoon]

3: He might win more games.

The only justification, when you come to think of it.

With respect, Horace MIGHT win more games. So might any of us...

[Redrobbin]

BCFC DAN

"Johnson's reign showed we can have success without needing patience or to resort to overspending".

I think you'll find it was the Johnston rein where this accumulation of dept and overspending started from.

[GrahamC]

3: He might win more games.

 

The only justification, when you come to think of it.

Absolutely, when will the O'Driscoll apologists accept that his win ratio was utterly desperate?

If we win more and become harder to score against then Cotterill will be an improvement.

Also the comment in the article about Flint is ludicrous.

O'Driscoll said he wanted Burt as DoF and the latter identified players to sign. When O'Driscoll said he wouldn't have paid that much to sign Flnt it did not mean he didn't want us to sign him, but simply that he thought we had overpaid.

There is no way you can then make the link that the board signed Flint.

[Aizoon]

Absolutely, when will the O'Driscoll apologists accept that his win ratio was utterly desperate?

If we win more and become harder to score against then Cotterill will be an improvement.

It's that I-word again...

[Cowshed]

I'm sure there's plenty of input as they are some sort of umbrella group, as I understand it, representing the wider interests of Bristol City and Bristol Rugby, to be based in the new AG, plus other, smaller, local sports interests.

TBH it doesn't really matter who takes what decisions as long as they are good ones. We've not always had those, I grant you!

You are trivialsing Martin Griffiths role. He is overseeing the re-development of Ashton Gate.

His decisions will cost millions. His influence will alter the culture and fabric of the club for generations.

Strangely Martin Griffiths is not a director of BCFC.

[Sixtyseconds]

What evidence do you have that the Bristol Sport chairman has "an increasingly hands-on role in the running of the club"? Answer: .

He is tending the light at the end of the tunnel as far as Ashton Gate goes in future. He will even decided where people sit.

[Red-Robbo]

You are trivialsing Martin Griffiths role. He is overseeing the re-development of Ashton Gate.

His decisions will cost millions. His influence will alter the culture and fabric of the club for generations.

Strangely Martin Griffiths is not a director of BCFC.

 

 

If this is so, won't his decisions cost Steve Lansdown millions - not the club. And how do you mean his 'influence' - In stadium design?

[BCFC_Dan]

BCFC DAN

"Johnson's reign showed we can have success without needing patience or to resort to overspending".

I think you'll find it was the Johnston rein where this accumulation of dept and overspending started from.

Not the early part. The early part was performed under the austerity imposed following Wilson's overspending. Johnson's promotion side was built at relatively low cost. The costs escalated after the Championship playoff final.

[Red-Robbo]

With respect, Horace MIGHT win more games. So might any of us...

 

But Cotterill is a manager with a healthy win ratio. He's succeeded at some clubs, failed at a few, as do most managers.

 

Despite the supposed corner that had been turned at Carlisle, we still were in relegation do-do as we'd been virtually all season, winning very few fixtures and still able to lose at home to the league's bottom club in a match that saw us have a princely two shots on goal in 90+ minutes.

 

The board, and their position is understandable, didn't share some people here's blind faith that "it would come good" under SOD. Therefore they decided to try something different.

 

You know all this, so you cannot claim the only reason for getting rid of SOD was that he was impassive and didn't get on with some people. The reason, as Graham C correctly says, was about results.

[Cowshed]

If this is so, won't his decisions cost Steve Lansdown millions - not the club. And how do you mean his 'influence' -;In stadium design?

You appear to be unaware of Mr Griffiths role despite your assertions. Mr Griffiths has more say so regarding the re-development of Ashton Gate than the club's stakeholders, and extended fan base. Forget consultation Mr Griffiths a non director of the club is running the show.

[Red-Robbo]

You appear to be unaware of Mr Griffiths role despite your assertions. Mr Griffiths has more say so regarding the re-development of Ashton Gate than the club's stakeholders, and extended fan base. Forget consultation Mr Griffiths a non director of the club is running the show.

 

I'm not making any assertions, Cowshed. I just can't quite see what is supposed to be sinister about this bloke, a representative of the umbrella group of Lansdown's two professional teams Rugby and Football. Surely if you're going to ground-share you need someone like that on the development team?

 

Ultimately, it's going to be Lansdown who signs off any plans as he's paying for them. Griffiths is merely one of his employees.

 

Hopefully fans views will be taken on board.

 

I can't see what relevance it is that he isn't on the board of directors. We don't vote for the directors so they are no more - or less - representative of fans' views than this bloke.

[Cowshed]

I'm not making any assertions, Cowshed. I just can't quite see what is supposed to be sinister about this bloke, a representative of the umbrella group of Lansdown's two professional teams Rugby and Football. Surely if you're going to ground-share you need someone like that on the development team?

Ultimately, it's going to be Lansdown who signs off any plans as he's paying for them. Griffiths is merely one of his employees.

Hopefully fans views will be taken on board.

I can't see what relevance it is that he isn't on the board of directors. We don't vote for the directors so they are no more - or less - representative of fans' views than this bloke.

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

Mr Griffiths is not merely an employee. He has massive influence. This is ment to be the BCFC's ground, its asset. It appears the rugby club are going beyond being just tenants.

[Jordan Tansley]

And BCFC do not own the stadium - maybe not so strange....

Not strange, but a bloody travesty.

[Red-Robbo]

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

Mr Griffiths is not merely an employee. He has massive influence. This is ment to be the BCFC's ground, its asset. It appears the rugby club are going beyond being just tenants.

 

Well those are assertions. What evidence do you have for them?

 

I'm not having a go, merely interested.

 

I thought Lansdown Jr and Dawe were on the board of Bristol Sport - along with some Rugby guy - and Griffiths was just some sort of accountant who chaired the thing. Lansdown (Sr) pays the bills.

 

I confess I don't know much about Martin Griffiths. Wasn't he brought in for his business acumen?

 

Perhaps lessons are being learned from the AV impasse.

[Jordan Tansley]

Nope.

BCFC lease the ground.

Yes.

It is MEANT to be our ground and asset.

What payment was received for the ground if it no longer belongs to us?

[cider_dog]

But Cotterill is a manager with a healthy win ratio. He's succeeded at some clubs, failed at a few, as do most managers.

 

Despite the supposed corner that had been turned at Carlisle, we still were in relegation do-do as we'd been virtually all season, winning very few fixtures and still able to lose at home to the league's bottom club in a match that saw us have a princely two shots on goal in 90+ minutes.

 

The board, and their position is understandable, didn't share some people here's blind faith that "it would come good" under SOD. Therefore they decided to try something different.

 

You know all this, so you cannot claim the only reason for getting rid of SOD was that he was impassive and didn't get on with some people. The reason, as Graham C correctly says, was about results.

He was backed by the Board mid October - results IMPROVED until he was sacked at the end of November.

 

So, presuming that in October the board were happy (relatively speaking) how did the following results lead to his dismissal?

 

The board lost their nerve, simple as that.

 

Are we in a better position? NO.

 

Are we more likely to be relegated? YES

 

Is SC an astute and cerebral coach who can build long term stability AND a measure of success to BCFC? NOT ON YOUR NELLY.

 

Sorry to have to say this, but the board and a section of fans have placed a noose around the neck of this club.

 

And SC could be the man to drop the trap door.

[BCAGFC]

[Red-Robbo]

He was backed by the Board mid October - results IMPROVED until he was sacked at the end of November.

 

So, presuming that in October the board were happy (relatively speaking) how did the following results lead to his dismissal?

 

I doubt they were happy, but Sheffield Utd proved no lessons had been learned by Mr O'Driscoll

 

The board lost their nerve, simple as that.

 

Are we in a better position? NO.

 

After two games, you might add

 

Are we more likely to be relegated? YES

 

How can you know that it's just your opinion, not fact.

 

Is SC an astute and cerebral coach who can build long term stability AND a measure of success to BCFC? NOT ON YOUR NELLY.

 

Again, just opinion

 

Sorry to have to say this, but the board and a section of fans have placed a noose around the neck of this club.

 

A section of fans?! More like a section of players and the managers who deployed them

 

And SC could be the man to drop the trap door.

 

Yes and he might not be. Of course, if you can afford to buy the club, you can take it on and employ whichever manager you like for however long you like. If you can't,  you, I (and any "section of fans") don't really have a say in managerial selection. As was always the case here and at virtually every other club in the land.

[glynriley]

Bristol Rugby fans are adamant that Ashton Gate will be a sports stadium, as opposed to a football stadium and that they will be equal partners, as opposed to tennants.

[CotswoldRed]

[Jordan Tansley]

[Jordan Tansley]

Bristol Rugby fans are adamant that Ashton Gate will be a sports stadium, as opposed to a football stadium and that they will be equal partners, as opposed to tennants.

And the day there's a blue seat or a Bristol Rugby badge at AG is the day I turn up on match day with a tin of red paint.