lets look at lansdowns record

[Alan Dicks]

Apart from delivering us a shinny new white elephant, sorry I mean stadium, what else has his billions acheived for this club during his reign that any other chairman/owner hasn't in the past 35 years?

[Unan]

Not a lot, but I'd rather him and his money than neither.

[View from the Dolman]

3 minutes ago, Alan Dicks said:

Apart from delivering us a shinny new white elephant, sorry I mean stadium, what else has his billions acheived for this club during his reign that any other chairman/owner hasn't in the past 35 years?

A League title.

[Red-Robbo]

We haven't gone bust. Like lots of other clubs have.

[RedRock]

A sustainable future.

A magnificent stadium.

A superb training facility.

A Championship club.

 

 

 

[BigAl&Toby]

What I'd be more interested in understanding is a slightly wider "before and now" picture. Before SL who owned what? Did "the club" own Ashton Gate and other non-playing assets and who were "the club"? Who owns those assets now, and if it's no longer "the club" and another entity who's the individual/s with an overall controlling interest?

Anyone know?

[phantom]

3 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

We haven't gone bust. Like lots of other clubs have.

Like who ?

If he didn't bankroll his continual losses we would have done!

[View from the Dolman]

Just now, BigAlToby&Liam said:

What I'd be more interested in understanding is a slightly wider "before and now" picture. Before SL who owned what? Did "the club" own Ashton Gate and other non-playing assets and who were "the club"? Who owns those assets now, and if it's no longer "the club" and another entity who's the individual/s with an overall controlling interest?

Anyone know?

Ashton Gate Limited is owned by Bristol City Holdings Limited. The majority shareholding in Bristol City Holdings Limited is held by Pula Sport Limited, a Guernsey-based entity.

[phantom]

2 minutes ago, Moor2Sea said:

A sustainable future. - Only if SL continues to throw money at the club

A magnificent stadium. - Very true

A superb training facility. - It's not 'that' great - just better than what we had

A Championship club. - hopefully for longer than one season

 

[Bristol Rob]

Invisible food vouchers.

[Red-Robbo]

1 minute ago, phantom said:

Like who ?

If he didn't bankroll his continual losses we would have done!

Portsmouth for example.

His main achievement is that we are exempt while he is owner from fear of insolvency and he has rebuilt AG to 21st century standards.

In terms of progression as a footballing side, I would agree we are still looking for that golden ticket.

[GrahamC]

10 minutes ago, cynic said:

 

The stadium is a massive legacy.

It is.

At present though that is the only one.

When the Bountyhunter used to take the piss out of Les Kew who knew that a bloke with barely tuppence in comparison could achieve as much on the pitch for us as chairman as a billionaire...

[Barrs Court Red]

While I'd rate his time at the club as c- for on field activities (mediocre) and probably a c- for off field activities, to label the new stadium as a white elephant is comical.

A facility future proofed for the medium term, capable of being fit for anything other than an inexplicable rise as a serious and consistent top four prem club; a facility with duel usage that is a viable business entity in its own right, is not a white elephant.

 

[RedRock]

2 minutes ago, phantom said:

 

The 'model' is one where the Club financially can stand on its own feet. That model is better than 99% of other Club's who are dependent on the likes of Tann.

We all wish that things were better on- the-field. What I don't get is the implied or direct criticism of SL and the Board. They've made mistakes, but my goodness I'd rather our lot than Tann, Higgs et al.

As I've said in other postings - look at FFP as one of the main reasons for us being where we are. FFP is beyond our Board's control and will act for us, and many other 'big' Clubs in/around our position -  Sheff U, Portsmouth, Cov, Bolton and Plymouth - as a major blockage to rapid progress.

The only way forward is sustainable evolution, not mega-wealthy owner 'quick fix' revolution. Frustrating, as we have an owner who would be willing to create a revolution - but blame Sky/Premiership, not him, for not being able to invest his money in players wages. 

[reddoc]

8 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Portsmouth for example.

His main achievement is that we are exempt while he is owner from fear of insolvency and he has rebuilt AG to 21st century standards.

In terms of progression as a footballing side, I would agree we are still looking for that golden ticket.

This argument worries me. The fear of insolvency and our perceived financial stability forces many on here to accept Lansdown's approach to financing the club and more specifically the playing staff which has led to years of disappointment and mediocrity. When you look at the list of teams entering administration over the last 30 odd years only Newport County, R+D, Fairsley Celtic and Chester City were dissolved. Many are now thriving and stand well above us in current league standings..

Now obviously I'm not suggesting this is something we should aim for, but the concept that we would lose our Club under these circumstances is highly unlikely and as stated many have come back stronger. I think it's fair to judge Lansdown on his lack of progress over his prolonged tenure without the 'where would we be without him and his money' bleating that we see every time he comes in for some criticism.

My answer is roughly where we are now as a wild guess.

[Red-Robbo]

7 minutes ago, reddoc said:

This argument worries me. The fear of insolvency and our perceived financial stability forces many on here to accept Lansdown's approach to financing the club and more specifically the playing staff which has led to years of disappointment and mediocrity. When you look at the list of teams entering administration over the last 30 odd years only Newport County, R+D, Fairsley Celtic and Chester City were dissolved. Many are now thriving and stand well above us in current league standings..

Now obviously I'm not suggesting this is something we should aim for, but the concept that we would lose our Club under these circumstances is highly unlikely and as stated many have come back stronger. I think it's fair to judge Lansdown on his lack of progress over his prolonged tenure without the 'where would we be without him and his money' bleating that we see every time he comes in for some criticism.

My answer is roughly where we are now as a wild guess.

Or we could be where we were in 1982. 

It has to be conjecture tbh. There are undoubtedly worse owners out there.  There may be better.  

As we aren't for sale, we have to accept the reality of what we have.

[reddoc]

5 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Or we could be where we were in 1982. 

It has to be conjecture tbh. There are undoubtedly worse owners out there.  There may be better.  

As we aren't for sale, we have to accept the reality of what we have.

Of course, thus the wild guess, but all I'm suggesting is that Lansdown should be accountable for the lack of success this club has achieved as a football club since he took over. The doomsday, where would we be without his money argument doesn't hold up and in terms of where we are currently the answer could as easily be higher rather than lower.

[Natchfever]

Many people ask "where would we be if it wasn't for SL" - I agree with Reddoc in that we'd be where we are now as a yo yo club. The stadium is fine but don't let anyone think that all the revenue that the stadium generates is coming our way - why should it  when BCFC isn't the owner or sole occupant?

There is absolutely no evidence that City has since 82 been at risk of doing a Portsmouth and the debt people say SL has cleared is largely of his own doing.

The notion that BCFC or pretty much any football club could be self sufficient and competitive at the upper end of the football pyramid is a bit of a laugh in my view.

In my view SL is ideally positioned to realise his dream but he has to act big not just talk it. FFP isn't taken seriously by clubs once they have stockpiled with quality players btw.

I am glad we have SL on balance but he can do a whole lot better if he is serious about this football club and not just a steel clad legacy coming out of the ground.

[Red-Robbo]

7 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

Many people ask "where would we be if it wasn't for SL" - I agree with Reddoc in that we'd be where we are now as a yo yo club. The stadium is fine but don't let anyone think that all the revenue that the stadium generates is coming our way - why should it  when BCFC isn't the owner or sole occupant?

There is absolutely no evidence that City has since 82 been at risk of doing a Portsmouth and the debt people say SL has cleared is largely of his own doing.

The notion that BCFC or pretty much any football club could be self sufficient and competitive at the upper end of the football pyramid is a bit of a laugh in my view.

In my view SL is ideally positioned to realise his dream but he has to act big not just talk it. FFP isn't taken seriously by clubs once they have stockpiled with quality players btw.

I am glad we have SL on balance but he can do a whole lot better if he is serious about this football club and not just a steel clad legacy coming out of the ground.

That debt may well have accrued whoever was the owner. The vast majority of football clubs are loss-making entities.  

As has been noted elsewhere,  he appointed managers the fans were clamouring for - and they were flops - then he appointed someone who lots of fans said would lead us into L2 and he was a huge success.  Now, as our poll suggests, he has taken the action most seem to want. 

Who'd be a football club owner? You pour vast amounts of your cash away and get blamed for everything that goes wrong.

[Coppello]

Unan.

[Loderingo]

It is true that we have not seen much progress overall on the pitch but how many Chairmen can say that? Sustained success is very hard for any club.

Look at Blackburn: Championship club, rich owner, won the Premier League in the 90s.  Now back in the Championship

Derby: Championship club, won the league in the 70s under Clough. Now back in the Championship

Blackpool and Wigan.  League 1 clubs.  Made it to the Prem, Now back in league 1

The fact is that clubs can overperform or underperform for a while, but eventually most end up back at their long term average.

Our average, is top of L1, bottom of the Championship.  That is why the stadium is so important.  If we want to become a top half Championhsip club or better we need to grow our attendances to 18-20k and this gives us the chance to do that.

 

 

[oldstandrobin]

9 minutes ago, Loderingo said:

It is true that we have not seen much progress overall on the pitch but how many Chairmen can say that? Sustained success is very hard for any club.

Look at Blackburn: Championship club, rich owner, won the Premier League in the 90s.  Now back in the Championship

Derby: Championship club, won the league in the 70s under Clough. Now back in the Championship

Blackpool and Wigan.  League 1 clubs.  Made it to the Prem, Now back in league 1

The fact is that clubs can overperform or underperform for a while, but eventually most end up back at their long term average.

Our average, is top of L1, bottom of the Championship.  That is why the stadium is so important.  If we want to become a top half Championhsip club or better we need to grow our attendances to 18-20k and this gives us the chance to do that.

 

 

plenty of new stadiums in Lg 1 and 2, agree with most of the post but I am in the band that says team 1st, stadium 2nd and I think staying at AG will prove fruitful in the future as long as it stays Ashton Gate and not The Lansdown Stadium !!!

[BigAl&Toby]

5 hours ago, View from the Dolman said:

Ashton Gate Limited is owned by Bristol City Holdings Limited. The majority shareholding in Bristol City Holdings Limited is held by Pula Sport Limited, a Guernsey-based entity.

Pula? Guernsey? Looks like SL has secured his investment against some freehold property. Good investment.

Did "the club" previously own AG? 

If they did and if SL in all but name now does then it's not quite like SL is portrayed as some. Saviour with no self interest or professional investor looking after his own investment?

How does that compare to Memorial Stadium goings on?

[Ivorguy]

I would be interested to know what long term sustainability plan there is, ie when SL loses interest, retires or whatever what are his intentions then ?  I would like him to think of setting up a plan so that there is genuine fan and community involvement in the long term future of Bristol City

[B-Rizzle]

No, we're not a successful premier league team yet but don't really know what people would want as an alternative to Lansdown. He's as good as you're going to get. We're better off than many other clubs owner wise.

[Merrick's Marvels]

6 hours ago, GrahamC said:

It is.

At present though that is the only one.

When the Bountyhunter used to take the piss out of Les Kew who knew that a bloke with barely tuppence in comparison could achieve as much on the pitch for us as chairman as a billionaire...

 

Quite. But fear not, I'm on it already - see the next issue. Bring back Les!

 

[EnclosureSurge]

6 hours ago, Barrs Court Red said:

While I'd rate his time at the club as c- for on field activities (mediocre) and probably a c- for off field activities, to label the new stadium as a white elephant is comical.

A facility future proofed for the medium term, capable of being fit for anything other than an inexplicable rise as a serious and consistent top four prem club; a facility with duel usage that is a viable business entity in its own right, is not a white elephant.

 

But does it have to have 27,000 seats to be a 365-day, all-year-round money-maker? Sure, put all the facilities in place to be the best conference centre in the SW etc etc, but do we need 27,000 seats? I think that is what some people are referring to when they use the term white elephant. Just like the club's continual insistence on our aim being the Prem when we can't even make a fist of the Champ (or L1, most seasons), 27000 is over-reaching things by about 7,000. 

I can't remember many games in the old AG when there were thousands locked out or unable to get tickets. If we were to ever get ourselves established in this div then we might need more than 20,000 seats. Until then we won't. It really wouldn't have been too much to just build a nice shiny new single-tier Williams with the option to extend upwards, as many clubs have the option, should we ever do the seemingly unimaginable and stay in this div properly (I know we did that not long ago, but that seems to have been an aberration). 

To make money on non-match days those extra 7000 seats are irrelevant. we look a laughing stock building a stadium this size when our trajectory is nothing but backwards. And downwards.

[EnclosureSurge]

6 hours ago, Moor2Sea said:

The 'model' is one where the Club financially can stand on its own feet. That model is better than 99% of other Club's who are dependent on the likes of Tann.

We all wish that things were better on- the-field. What I don't get is the implied or direct criticism of SL and the Board. They've made mistakes, but my goodness I'd rather our lot than Tann, Higgs et al.

As I've said in other postings - look at FFP as one of the main reasons for us being where we are. FFP is beyond our Board's control and will act for us, and many other 'big' Clubs in/around our position -  Sheff U, Portsmouth, Cov, Bolton and Plymouth - as a major blockage to rapid progress.

The only way forward is sustainable evolution, not mega-wealthy owner 'quick fix' revolution. Frustrating, as we have an owner who would be willing to create a revolution - but blame Sky/Premiership, not him, for not being able to invest his money in players wages. 

I've said this before, so skip this if you're bored, but why is the equation this simple: either we have Lansdown or a buffoon like Cellino, Tan etc?

What about the plentiful clubs who do well and don't have a clown in charge? Why couldn't we aim to be one of them? Rotherham, Preston, MK Dons spring to mind! Wow what clubs! Ipswich, Brentford (even though their bloke is hideously in love with stats, he's appointed pretty good managers), Huddersfield. there are six clubs better than us, but no bigger, really. We are way behind all of them in one way or another (catching up finally with having a decent stadium [Roth, H'field], reaching the Champ and looking like staying there [MKD and PNE], being financially sustainable [Ips, Brntfrd]).

Sorry, but the argument that we're better off with Lansdown or else we'd have a gibbon in charge is rubbish. The majority of clubs are run by ok people. The buffoons are just noisier and in our faces more. 

We could, believe it or not, just have an ok, decent bloke in charge, with or without money, were Lansdown not here. It's not a Lansdown or clown choice.

[Red Exile]

3 minutes ago, EnclosureSurge said:

I've said this before, so skip this if you're bored, but why is the equation this simple: either we have Lansdown or a buffoon like Cellino, Tan etc?

What about the plentiful clubs who do well and don't have a clown in charge? Why couldn't we aim to be one of them? Rotherham, Preston, MK Dons spring to mind! Wow what clubs! Ipswich, Brentford (even though their bloke is hideously in love with stats, he's appointed pretty good managers), Huddersfield. there are six clubs better than us, but no bigger, really. We are way behind all of them in one way or another (catching up finally with having a decent stadium [Roth, H'field], reaching the Champ and looking like staying there [MKD and PNE], being financially sustainable [Ips, Brntfrd]).

Sorry, but the argument that we're better off with Lansdown or else we'd have a gibbon in charge is rubbish. The majority of clubs are run by ok people. The buffoons are just noisier and in our faces more. 

We could, believe it or not, just have an ok, decent bloke in charge, with or without money, were Lansdown not here. It's not a Lansdown or clown choice.

Couldn't agree more.

As I'd mentioned in another thread take a look at Burnley's board…a range of local business folk…done very well in recent years:

http://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/club/boardroom/

 

[GrahamC]

1 hour ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

 

Quite. But fear not, I'm on it already - see the next issue. Bring back Les!

 

You should be ashamed of the vitriol poured out on our then visionary leader.

If we only but knew, Mr.H.....