London expats Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 Article from 2013 re Paying too much and running up debt Dont forget before blaming Steve Lansdown not only has he already written off 40 m in debt but also paid 45 m for the stadium. Yes he has made mistakes along the way. But All those criticising him be careful what you wish for ! http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23501929 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 From what has been said and written, there clearly have been some very strange things happening in the boardroom recently, and it is clear Lansdown and those around him have made their mistakes during their time here. That is very frustrating as a fan, and their policy of near radio silence at times doesn't help. But do I believe Lansdown has the club's best interest at heart? 110%. Would I want anyone else owning our club? No. But he is only human, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 Quote Bristol City owner Stephen Lansdown says he is no longer willing to pay excessive player wages He says, after voting in favour of FFP regulations that he knew fulwell would restrict the amount he could spend on wages anyway. The bloke must take us all for complete mugs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said: He says, after voting in favour of FFP regulations that he knew fulwell would restrict the amount he could spend on wages anyway. The bloke must take us all for complete mugs... He does... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London expats Posted January 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 The reason for the new ground was to increase revenue and reduce costs on what was a rapidly outdated stadium. ( look at the corporate income and increased bar / food sales already ) - more income the more you can spend on wages , Our income is one of the lowest in the championship so no wonder we can't pay top whack. also bringing the Rugby boys in also reduces our costs and improves income as I'm sure this years accounts will show. FFP whilst not applied yet as intended was supposed to level the playing field. Do we want to be like Bolton and QPR millions in debt and forever looking over our shoulder or even worse some foreign investment who don't give a monkeys about football purely asset strip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 11 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said: He says, after voting in favour of FFP regulations that he knew fulwell would restrict the amount he could spend on wages anyway. The bloke must take us all for complete mugs... You think FFP isn't a good idea for football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 1 minute ago, Alessandro said: As i've written elsewhere, there clearly have been some very strange things happening in the boardroom recently, and it is clear Lansdown and those around him have made their mistakes. That is very frustrating as a fan, and their policy of near radio silence at times doesn't help. But do I believe Lansdown has the club's best interest at heart? 110%. Would I want anyone else owning our club? No. But he is only human, after all. Precisely. This whole "are you on Cotts' side" or "are you on the board's side?" to a lot of recent posts has sat really ill with me. For a start, we just don't know what's happened in a lot of cases. Even the posters who are 'In the Know' tend to only hear one side of the story so it's really hard to judge exactly what's happened. Secondly whoever is blamed for this season has to be given credit for last season and vice-versa. Last season would have been impossible had the board not backed the manager and also had the manager not delivered the goods. Credit must go to both. This season things haven't worked and that has to be seen as a collective failure not this person's fault or that person's fault. Thirdly, the club functions best by sticking together. Whether you would have backed Cotterill or sacked Cotterill, he is now part of the club's history. For me, a huge part of our history as he brought the feelgood factor back and played a key role in delivering the best season in my memory but part of our history nonetheless. We should applaud what he achieved but there's nothing to be gained by turning on the board. especially as, as I said in point one, we really don't know what's gone wrong this season as most of us are speculating and even the most informed of us only have access to perspectives biased one way or the other. I hope the board have got this right because, if so, that would mean our results improve and that's great for the football club. If they've made mistakes I hope they learn from them. But I'd rather focus on hoping the next appointment is right rather than lambasting the board for a decision that been made and can't & won't be undone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivorguy Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 I am sorry but I see little to change my view that the management of our club is, in one word, amateur. A long time ago this season I argued on otib that before a new manager/head coach is appointed they need two consultants: An outstanding football one. 'Sir Alec, here's £2m for a week's work!' Cheap at the price An outstanding sports lawyer to get the contract right in the interests of the club. I believe this went wrong with Cotteriil, ie accepting him as manager, and not as per the club's agreed structure as head coach,and in all likelihood this messed up the relationship with the Director of Football in the process, and given his previous failures in the Championship offer him a contract with a let out clause should he get us back into the Championship and begin to fail yet again in a short timespan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 1 minute ago, nebristolred said: You think FFP isn't a good idea for football? Let's not be in denial. For all it's apparent good intentions, real purpose of FFP is a way of the top clubs pulling up the drawbridge and stopping wealthy owners taking over small clubs and competing with them. It means the clubs that already bring in fans and revenue continue to spend more and thsoe who don't bring in fans and revenue have no way of bridging the gap. But clubs spending sustainably is undoubtedly a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost black rat Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 this is why clubs like Bolton are in the shit ,, city have been their once hopefully never again http://www.itv.com/news/2015-06-04/championship-clubs-rack-up-1-billion-debt-figures-reveal/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 10 minutes ago, nebristolred said: You think FFP isn't a good idea for football? Yes and no. But that's beside the point I was making. Lansdown saying in 2013 that he was 'no longer willing to pay excessive wages' as some sort of positive message to fans concerned about the debt he was racking up, was a pretty empty thing to say given under FFP he would have no choice in the matter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pride of the west Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 Ffp is there to stop clubs being bought with debt. Can only be a good thing surely. It stops someone loaning a club millions that can't be repaid if called in. There is nothing stopping somebody with more money than sense giving a club millions. The 'gift' is classed as income as it is owned by the club and no longer in possession of a third party. Therefore can be used on wages no questions asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigratedRobin Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 28 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said: Let's not be in denial. For all it's apparent good intentions, real purpose of FFP is a way of the top clubs pulling up the drawbridge and stopping wealthy owners taking over small clubs and competing with them. It means the clubs that already bring in fans and revenue continue to spend more and thsoe who don't bring in fans and revenue have no way of bridging the gap. But clubs spending sustainably is undoubtedly a good thing. This. FFp rules mean that the largest clubs with the biggest fanbase stay big and the small clubs with a small fanbase can never hope to catch up! How this is supposed to level the playing field, I have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOTBLUE Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 7 minutes ago, pride of the west said: Ffp is there to stop clubs being bought with debt. Can only be a good thing surely. It stops someone loaning a club millions that can't be repaid if called in. There is nothing stopping somebody with more money than sense giving a club millions. The 'gift' is classed as income as it is owned by the club and no longer in possession of a third party. Therefore can be used on wages no questions asked. Or having you training ground sponsored for £50 million,give or take £10 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Team In Keynsham Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 49 minutes ago, Ivorguy said: I am sorry but I see little to change my view that the management of our club is, in one word, amateur. A long time ago this season I argued on otib that before a new manager/head coach is appointed they need two consultants: An outstanding football one. 'Sir Alec, here's £2m for a week's work!' Cheap at the price An outstanding sports lawyer to get the contract right in the interests of the club. I believe this went wrong with Cotteriil, ie accepting him as manager, and not as per the club's agreed structure as head coach,and in all likelihood this messed up the relationship with the Director of Football in the process, and given his previous failures in the Championship offer him a contract with a let out clause should he get us back into the Championship and begin to fail yet again in a short timespan. Sorry to break it to you but 1) Alec Guiness died years ago and 2) he likely knew f-all about football anyway. On this showing, please don't involve yourself in the decision making process going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said: Yes and no. But that's beside the point I was making. Lansdown saying in 2013 that he was 'no longer willing to pay excessive wages' as some sort of positive message to fans concerned about the debt he was racking up, was a pretty empty thing to say given under FFP he would have no choice in the matter! Well that's not true I'm afraid. It is still very much possible to pay excessive wages (i.e. operate at a significant loss) and still fall within the constraints of FFP. Even at the height of our spending I'm not convinced we would have fallen that far outside of FFP. Are you saying that he shouldn't have voted for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 2 hours ago, nebristolred said: Well that's not true I'm afraid. It is still very much possible to pay excessive wages (i.e. operate at a significant loss) and still fall within the constraints of FFP. Even at the height of our spending I'm not convinced we would have fallen that far outside of FFP. Are you saying that he shouldn't have voted for it? Didn't we have wages as turnover ratio of 180% one year?? Our wage bill kepty rising in Championship yet the higher it got, the worse we got on the pitch...squad got far too big, FFP actually could be useful for us. Now though it's gone too far squad is too small...bit callow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityexile Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 Always easy to spend somebody elses money. Maybe he has just decided he wants his legacy to be a new ground that is good for at least a generation, generating income steams that support a self sufficient club, rather than a club always relying on him (who will not be around for ever) and unsustainable debts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
castle red Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 The man is a very successful business man trust him without him I dread to think where we would be we ARE in the championship with a great chance of staying there move on and up ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 3 hours ago, nebristolred said: Well that's not true I'm afraid. It is still very much possible to pay excessive wages (i.e. operate at a significant loss) and still fall within the constraints of FFP. Even at the height of our spending I'm not convinced we would have fallen that far outside of FFP. Are you saying that he shouldn't have voted for it? As Mr Popodopolous says in 2011/12 ish our wage/turnover ratio was 180%. With FFP introduced it has to be 65%. Hopefully you will now understand the quite simple point I made in my initial response to the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said: As Mr Popodopolous says in 2011/12 ish our wage/turnover ratio was 180%. With FFP introduced it has to be 65%. Hopefully you will now understand the quite simple point I made in my initial response to the OP. And people wonder why certain managers struggled when having to reduce this wage bill!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.