we can't compete

[ChippenhamRed]

3 minutes ago, Doozerchris said:

You do realise Cotts does not actually buy the players .....that bit is down to the board 

The same board that sanctioned massive offers for Gayle and Gray? 

[Vincent Vega]

3 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

The same board that sanctioned massive offers for Gayle and Gray? 

Indeed.

[ChippenhamRed]

Just now, Doozerchris said:

Indeed.

So why are we so certain it's their fault then? They have put the money up for the players Cotterill wanted. They would have offered a salary that would have been in line with what the club could afford with consideration to running a sustainable business, and financial fair play limitations. What did they do wrong?

[robin_unreliant]

1 hour ago, BCFC Jordan said:

 

PNE improved their squad slightly (with help from us) and still have Beckford to come back. Our squad for this season is significantly worse than last year, and that drained all confidence and sense of momentum from the club. The board let SC and the fans down again.

Slightly yes - and Beckford has been out so doesn't explain why they are significantly above us.

Worse how? JET was effectively replaced by Kodjia - an improvement in my opinion. Who else who played more than a bit part last season have we lost?

Elliott? - couldn't get in the team for most of the last few months. Matt Smith - maybe a case there. But the core of the team that got 99 points is still here plus a £2m striker. 

So I don't really accept your argument.

[Vincent Vega]

5 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

So why are we so certain it's their fault then? They have put the money up for the players Cotterill wanted. They would have offered a salary that would have been in line with what the club could afford with consideration to running a sustainable business, and financial fair play limitations. What did they do wrong?

I'm not certain at all, assume Cotts handed a list of targets to the board & the rest is down to them . I could be wrong as to that this is how it happens

but if it is & they failed for whatever reason ( wages, fees, doing there homework ) then i think it is there fault . I get that people will say the targets were the wrong ones.

Then that is down to someone at boardroom level to point it out to the manager rather than having it played out on sky sports news, but this is only my opinion because

the club has decided not to come out & explain what went on.

 

[spudski]

58 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Ok - but again out of interest, so what do you get, as an anonymous poster, out of offering "information" and "constructive criticism" to a forum for fun, given that it will change nothing?

I am intrigued.

Like everyone else I hope...a shared passion for talking about Bristol City and football in general. It's a passion and hobby.

The fact that I know people who work in the game, and can sometimes offer thoughts based from info gathered from them, can also add balance to a conversation or thread.

As do many who contribute on here.

Pro football as you have probably gathered in a closed shop...and Clubs like to keep it that way.

The less the public know the better in their opinion.

Fans are often guessing as to why things happen.

Look at this seasons transfer fiasco and mixed messages coming out of the Club as an example.

So if people hear things via people they know who work in the game...what's the problem in sharing?

It often gives balance and an alternative view to how it is 'officially' put out there.

Like I said in a previous post...things change quickly in football. Often something is said or done and then it changes very quickly.

As an anonymous poster, I'm not bothered what forum users think, as it doesn't effect me directly...but the forum has led to good friendships and PM's amongst others with similar backgrounds and interests.

[jambodinho]

Yep. But he and his team of scouts identify the players he wants. He identified Gray, Gayle and Lingard. You don't have to be a genius to realise they they unrealistic targets. If cotts wastes 2 weeks in january going after jordan Rhodes,  is it the boards fault when we don't sign him or is it cotterills fault for being clueless?? 

[Vincent Vega]

3 minutes ago, jambodinho said:

Yep. But he and his team of scouts identify the players he wants. He identified Gray, Gayle and Lingard. You don't have to be a genius to realise they they unrealistic targets. If cotts wastes 2 weeks in january going after jordan Rhodes,  is it the boards fault when we don't sign him or is it cotterills fault for being clueless?? 

Exactly you don't have to be a genius, yet the board sat down had a meeting and still went ahead with it,......only my opinion.

[NickJ]

12 minutes ago, spudski said:

So if people hear things via people they know who work in the game...what's the problem in sharing?

 

Thanks.

OK I will tell you the problem, so listen up.

You are an anonymous poster making unsubstantiated comments. It's a bad start.

Because there is no provable substance behind anything you say, and because you have no credibility, because a fictional being cannot have credibility, I would be foolish to believe a word of what you say.

If I knew you, or anything about you, I could make a judgment as to whether I believed what you say. But I don't, as you are anonymous.

You have no reputation to lose, and so long as you don't stray into defamation, which I have noticed you do not, you can say pretty much anything you like without fear of ridicule or criticism of your person, as "spudski" is just an imaginary persona.

That, is the problem.

[jambodinho]

53 minutes ago, Doozerchris said:

Exactly you don't have to be a genius, yet the board sat down had a meeting and still went ahead with it,......only my opinion.

So let's imagine the the scenario:

Cotts: I want Dwight Gayle Mr Lansdown, and he's going cost about £6-£9m

SL: Right. He's a premier league player Steve. Do you think you can sell our club to him?

Cotts: Yeah of course I do. I'm steve Cotterill  

SL: Well ok. We are happy to put the money up if you think you can talk him into joining. We do have a wage structure though that we have to stick to because we've got ourselves in a lot of trouble before and with FFP we need to be strict with this. There may be ways around it though if we can offer him a big signing on fee to make up for the low wages. Your call.

Cotts: Let's go for it. 

We get offer accepted. Cotts speaks to him. He gets offered a contract. It falls apart somewhere. We don't know for certain where but you can imagine he wants well above what we can afford to pay. Same happens with Gayle and Lingard. 

I'm sorry but the board aren't to blame for that. A manager with experience in this league and with less arrogance would have not even wasted time and effort on targets that are unrealistic and even had we of pulled on of these off then how much more could we have spent on the rest of the squad? We've brought in a striker for a fraction of the cost and he's been a great signing so far. Well done to Cotts and all involved. But where are the midfielders and defenders we needed to bring in. I can't even think of a midfielder that we were linked with in the summer. 

[Vincent Vega]

3 minutes ago, jambodinho said:

So let's imagine the the scenario:

Cotts: I want Dwight Gayle Mr Lansdown, and he's going cost about £6-£9m

SL: Right. He's a premier league player Steve. Do you think you can sell our club to him?

Cotts: Yeah of course I do. I'm steve Cotterill  

SL: Well ok. We are happy to put the money up if you think you can talk him into joining. We do have a wage structure though that we have to stick to because we've got ourselves in a lot of trouble before and with FFP we need to be strict with this. There may be ways around it though if we can offer him a big signing on fee to make up for the low wages. Your call.

Cotts: Let's go for it. 

We get offer accepted. Cotts speaks to him. He gets offered a contract. It falls apart somewhere. We don't know for certain where but you can imagine he wants well above what we can afford to pay. Same happens with Gayle and Lingard. 

I'm sorry but the board aren't to blame for that. A manager with experience in this league and with less arrogance would have not even wasted time and effort on targets that are unrealistic and even had we of pulled on of these off then how much more could we have spent on the rest of the squad? We've brought in a striker for a fraction of the cost and he's been a great signing so far. Well done to Cotts and all involved. But where are the midfielders and defenders we needed to bring in. I can't even think of a midfielder that we were linked with in the summer. 

I'm sure that's how it happened, But the fact remains Cotts works for the club he doesn't run it, and ask yourself this,  if it was as you say all down to him, then why 

did the board not get shot of him if he got it so wrong...?

[spudski]

54 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Thanks.

OK I will tell you the problem, so listen up.

You are an anonymous poster making unsubstantiated comments. It's a bad start.

Because there is no provable substance behind anything you say, and because you have no credibility, because a fictional being cannot have credibility, I would be foolish to believe a word of what you say.

If I knew you, or anything about you, I could make a judgment as to whether I believed what you say. But I don't, as you are anonymous.

You have no reputation to lose, and so long as you don't stray into defamation, which I have noticed you do not, you can say pretty much anything you like without fear of ridicule or criticism of your person, as "spudski" is just an imaginary persona.

That, is the problem.

I get your point...and it's a fair point.

I can only hope other forum members come on here in good faith, and make comment that they think is valid.

I, at no point, have given any info on here, that I feel is untrue.

I do, like anyone else, give opinion on subjects...that are purely opinion...but on other occasions give info based on what I've heard.

If it's any consolation...I do personally know a few on here that can vouch for me.

Plus... only this evening, via pm I've arranged to meet a fellow forum user who happens to work in the game.

But yes...I do get your very valid point...I could be anyone with any agenda.

I just hope people realise anything posted by me is in good faith, like I do with all fellow forum users on here. 

Like I said before...we all support the Club and are passionate about it, otherwise we wouldn't be on here.

[jambodinho]

58 minutes ago, Doozerchris said:

I'm sure that's how it happened, But the fact remains Cotts works for the club he doesn't run it, and ask yourself this,  if it was as you say all down to him, then why 

did the board not get shot of him if he got it so wrong...?

Because there would have been uproar from the fans if he'd been sacked before a ball was kicked. He went about his business the way he did and may end up paying for it with his job. Of course they wouldn't sack him then. He's brought a couple of decent loans and a couple of pointless loans in like Hamer, robinson and Cox. Most people thought the squad that got us up along with a few additions would see us comfortably around mid table. 

I appreciate everyone has their own opinions but it's baffling that so many believe that the board should be breaking the bank to sign whoever the manager wants. 

[wayne allisons tongues]

I'm not going to get involved in the can we compete discussion.

Just wish to add to the is SC liked argument, that I work with the brother of a Burnley coach and know a couple of fans and all of them haven't a bad word to say against SC including the coach.

Also my son plays football up here in Manchester and i know a few scouts and each one I've spoken to have been all complimentary to SC. Each one says people at there club haven't a bad word to say about him. (They know who I support for wear my city jacket and ski hat when watching).

Only thing they say is he can have a temper on him, but that's due to him hating to lose and doesn't like being let down by his players and if he feels they have he will let them know.

Personally I think if you go looking for people to suit an agenda, good or bad you will find them. We should all just get behind the team and leave our agendas behind.

 

[daored]

Having taken time to digest SC's comments on Tuesday night. Whilst I don't doubt his comments were spoken when he was feeling extremely down following the defeat, I do wonder what the long term impact his comment will have. Firstly, we face QPR on Saturday, and for me personally the strongest squad in this league, although results don't necessarily back that up. If we can't compete with Derby, does the same apply to QPR? 

Secondly, the message that sends out to players who we've potentially identified to come in, in January. Are we now less attractive as a club following these comments on Tuesday night?

 

 

[AshtonGreat]

On 16 December 2015 at 08:28, Spike said:

At no point did I say we should be in the Prem or show any signs that we are entitled, my point was simply that saying "we can't compete" is bullsh*t! If others can compete then so can we, especially when we have such a dedicated owner. The problem obviously stems either from the boardroom or the manager because when I see Flint showing more heart than many of our players have shown in the past 6-8 years you can see the players don't want to be where we are. I see a lot of heart from the players, I even see it from Cotterill but what I don't see is strategy and organisation off of the field.

I think it's probably the owner

[Vincent Vega]

21 hours ago, jambodinho said:

Because there would have been uproar from the fans if he'd been sacked before a ball was kicked. He went about his business the way he did and may end up paying for it with his job. Of course they wouldn't sack him then. He's brought a couple of decent loans and a couple of pointless loans in like Hamer, robinson and Cox. Most people thought the squad that got us up along with a few additions would see us comfortably around mid table. 

I appreciate everyone has their own opinions but it's baffling that so many believe that the board should be breaking the bank to sign whoever the manager wants. 

See Mr Lansdown answered the question today in his own words,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jambodinho]

4 hours ago, Doozerchris said:

See Mr Lansdown answered the question today in his own words

how did you interpret what he said?

[Vincent Vega]

4 hours ago, jambodinho said:

how did you interpret what he said?

He won't be paying the wages of the players that we need to take us forward , but will sanction 9 million bids which I find bizarre in the extreme.  As much as I like the guy and he is obviously a very astute business man to say the least , when it comes to running a football club or employing the right people to advise him he is sadly lacking.

[jambodinho]

Someone did explain the ffp rules on here before that make sense of why we could blow a wad on a transfer fee and even a signing on fee but it's the wages that need to be kept down in order to comply with the rules. It's strange I know. It just bugs me that so many blame the board or SL for not backing Cotts in the summer when he was clearly targeting unrealistic players who were bound to be out of our price range wage-wise. We had long enough to plan for this season since we were all but guaranteed promotion ages ago. Europe and leagues one and two should have cherry picked of cheaper alternatives like we did with Kodjia. That's cotterill and his scouting teams fault. Nobody else's. 

[sodburyred]

1 hour ago, jambodinho said:

Someone did explain the ffp rules on here before that make sense of why we could blow a wad on a transfer fee and even a signing on fee but it's the wages that need to be kept down in order to comply with the rules. It's strange I know. It just bugs me that so many blame the board or SL for not backing Cotts in the summer when he was clearly targeting unrealistic players who were bound to be out of our price range wage-wise. We had long enough to plan for this season since we were all but guaranteed promotion ages ago. Europe and leagues one and two should have cherry picked of cheaper alternatives like we did with Kodjia. That's cotterill and his scouting teams fault. Nobody else's. 

Whilst I do agree. I think Gray despite his price was realistic and the sort of player worth going for. Big price tag, good age, proven and we could definitely pay him better wages than Brentford. The issue was that burnley can pay him more. 

[Kibs]

2 hours ago, jambodinho said:

Someone did explain the ffp rules on here before that make sense of why we could blow a wad on a transfer fee and even a signing on fee but it's the wages that need to be kept down in order to comply with the rules. It's strange I know. It just bugs me that so many blame the board or SL for not backing Cotts in the summer when he was clearly targeting unrealistic players who were bound to be out of our price range wage-wise. We had long enough to plan for this season since we were all but guaranteed promotion ages ago. Europe and leagues one and two should have cherry picked of cheaper alternatives like we did with Kodjia. That's cotterill and his scouting teams fault. Nobody else's. 

No, in Leagues 1 & 2 it's SCMP (Salary Cost Management Protocol) where you are limited on spending a percentage of your turnover on wages. 

In the Championship, there is a maximum permitted loss of £13m for this season I believe. 

Edit: It's actually £2m for this season, but can be increased to £13m with owner investment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29940463

 

[pongo88]

8 minutes ago, Kibs said:

No, in Leagues 1 & 2 it's SCMP (Salary Cost Management Protocol) where you are limited on spending a percentage of your turnover on wages. 

In the Championship, there is a maximum permitted loss of £13m for this season I believe. 

Edit: It's actually £2m for this season, but can be increased to £13m with owner investment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29940463

 

Some clubs - e g Leicester - have creative methods of getting around the restrictions. When in the Championship they stayed within the limit due to a contract with a company called Trestellar. This is a company with no telephone number and no website, yet paid Leicester millions for unspecified activities! The article below is dated March 2015, but the issue is still being investigated by the Football League. 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/mar/06/leicester-city-football-league-financial-fair-play

[Unan]

3 hours ago, jambodinho said:

Someone did explain the ffp rules on here before that make sense of why we could blow a wad on a transfer fee and even a signing on fee but it's the wages that need to be kept down in order to comply with the rules. It's strange I know. It just bugs me that so many blame the board or SL for not backing Cotts in the summer when he was clearly targeting unrealistic players who were bound to be out of our price range wage-wise. We had long enough to plan for this season since we were all but guaranteed promotion ages ago. Europe and leagues one and two should have cherry picked of cheaper alternatives like we did with Kodjia. That's cotterill and his scouting teams fault. Nobody else's. 

Do you think SC and SL didn't talk about a budget at all? If they did, which they obviously did, then SC would know what he had to work with.

 

I fail to believe SL said you have X amount to work within then SC ignores it and makes bids twice as much. If for whatever reason this is true then why would SL allow SC to do it a second time and then again a third time if you're going to include Lingard.

 

I'm not saying SC done everything he could do but why is he to blame for SL allowing ridiculous bids without offering the wages to back it up.  

[RedorDead BCFC]

On 17/12/2015 at 10:15, wayne allisons tongues said:

I'm not going to get involved in the can we compete discussion.

Just wish to add to the is SC liked argument, that I work with the brother of a Burnley coach and know a couple of fans and all of them haven't a bad word to say against SC including the coach.

Also my son plays football up here in Manchester and i know a few scouts and each one I've spoken to have been all complimentary to SC. Each one says people at there club haven't a bad word to say about him. (They know who I support for wear my city jacket and ski hat when watching).

Only thing they say is he can have a temper on him, but that's due to him hating to lose and doesn't like being let down by his players and if he feels they have he will let them know.

Personally I think if you go looking for people to suit an agenda, good or bad you will find them. We should all just get behind the team and leave our agendas behind.

 

Sound's like SAF and he didn't turn out to bad did he? 

 

And before any crazy jumps on saying are you comparing SC to SAF I'm not just a similarity in temperament.

 

My main criticism is that the subs can be baffling, Reid was never in a million years going to shore up the defence Derby done that themselves by coasting after 4.0 up.