Kid in the Riot Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 3 hours ago, Eddie Hitler said: These are all massively successful clubs. We are on the point of going down to the third tier of English football. At this level they are a massive and pointless waste of money. Though I'm sure there have been quite significant start up costs the aim of Bristol Sport is to run at a profit, not rely on hand outs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Posted January 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 8 hours ago, Big Jon said: Why stop bashing the board and for that matter Lansdown the man who only cares about rugby these days why hasn't the board spent any money this January on signings instead we have more loans if you ask me they should all have got there p45 buy now yes that includes Jon dosent have a clue Lansdown I don't think you can argue the club aren't willing to spend on transfers. If reports are correct, had the bids been successful, we'd have spent nearly £20 million on Grey, Gayle, Lingard and more recently Dack and Gilbey. Ambitious targets, maybe, but ambition none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 9 hours ago, Big Jon said: Why stop bashing the board and for that matter Lansdown the man who only cares about rugby these days why hasn't the board spent any money this January on signings instead we have more loans if you ask me they should all have got there p45 buy now yes that includes Jon dosent have a clue Lansdown So who would you appoint in each of the positions instead? (I'm not expecting a reply) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Why is it when ever someone try's to defend those running this club, they use the examples of the worst possible alternatives out there? Lansdown has been and still is a very benevolent owner, has the clubs interest at heart. It's still ok to question the flip flop in approach and rampant cronyism amongst other elements in the regime without that meaning I want Vincent Tan to sweep in and takeover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Posted January 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 11 hours ago, Barrs Court Red said: Why is it when ever someone try's to defend those running this club, they use the examples of the worst possible alternatives out there? Lansdown has been and still is a very benevolent owner, has the clubs interest at heart. It's still ok to question the flip flop in approach and rampant cronyism amongst other elements in the regime without that meaning I want Vincent Tan to sweep in and takeover. You're guilty of going to the extreme yourself here. Of course I'm not suggesting anyone wants someone like Tan to takeover, but that's the point, we don't really get to decide to owns our club. You say i've used the worst possible alternatives, but they're real ones, happening now, and numerous. So if a "flip flop approach and rampant cronyism" is the worse we have to put up with, well I for one can deal with that. Because frankly if you weigh up what SL has brought to the club VS. what he has 'done wrong', i'd still say he is in credit for some time yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lew-T Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 I'm not bashing the board, they have the best interests of the club. The issue I have is this and it's simple. They don't have a clue about football and the business it involves to be successful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodogs Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Basic basic decisions like not sacking your manager during a transfer window. Pushing for recruitment during the summer following promotion Having someone in mind and making a quick decision for a replacement when sacking your manager Talk to your fans I don't run a football club I don't play football manager but the above my 12 year old would see as common sense and could avoid a lot of pain on both sides Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semblar Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 12 hours ago, Barrs Court Red said: Why is it when ever someone try's to defend those running this club, they use the examples of the worst possible alternatives out there? Lansdown has been and still is a very benevolent owner, has the clubs interest at heart. It's still ok to question the flip flop in approach and rampant cronyism amongst other elements in the regime without that meaning I want Vincent Tan to sweep in and takeover. Probably for the same reason as people who want to bash the club use the most extreme examples to try to make their point too. Not many people kicked off when kids' ST prices were set at £50 including a free shirt, for example....Nor do people get upset about the section in the south stand that appears to have a different youngster's club sat there (I'm guessing for free) even when we are selling out or getting close most matches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Would anyone honestly want the owners/board of the two teams below us? I wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Dawe Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 27 minutes ago, Alessandro said: You're guilty of going to the extreme yourself here. Of course I'm not suggesting anyone wants someone like Tan to takeover, but that's the point, we don't really get to decide to owns our club. You say i've used the worst possible alternatives, but they're real ones, happening now, and numerous. So if a "flip flop approach and rampant cronyism" is the worse we have to put up with, well I for one can deal with that. Because frankly if you weigh up what SL has brought to the club VS. what he has 'done wrong', i'd still say he is in credit for some time yet. Have you considered the manner in which expectations have been raised by this board? We have been told the PL is the aim (as recently as two weeks ago) a number of times; SL has talked about us being like Barcelona, or been quoted as such, in the national media; SL says he wants us to be challenging at the top of the Championship next season; the chairman opined that SC was capable of taking a team to the PL and keeping it there; we were told by John Pelling that "we will be competitive in the Championship, one way or another;" the official bids for top drawer players; the ground. All this, and then we are humiliated publicly in the transfer market (including jokes about us on the C5 highlights show) and embarrassed on the pitch, spending all season in or near the bottom of the league. And you are surprised by, or at least moved to comment on, some being critical, or carrying out a "witch hunt" as you put it. There's a lot going for this club and yet still we struggle desperately in this league. This board of directors have got it easy, they get an easy ride - on a Saturday, at least - compared to previous administrations at AG, as board members from 20 years ago or more would no doubt testify. If you raise expectations as we have seen, then deliver a season like this one, what do you expect? Football crowds are well known for voicing their disapproval. It goes with the territory. Despite this, I think the crowds have been supportive in numbers and for the most part in spirit at games this season, with some unpleasant exceptions, directed at some players and Cotts. Have the board copped any flak at games? They would have had dog's abuse years ago for this season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Dawe Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 12 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said: Would anyone honestly want the owners/board of the two teams below us? I wouldn't. No, I don't see anyone saying that. I see a number of people being critical of decisions made or not made by this board, some of these people being among those that stump up hundreds of pounds before a ball is kicked, in the hope and expectation that a competitive team is provided in return. When this doesn't happen, they like to know why. It's great living in a democracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Dawe Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Another thing to say on this is that SL and the board are treated with kid gloves by local media. They get an easy ride. No "bashing" there. If we were in the PL, the scrutiny of national media might not be quite so gentle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ontariored Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Given SL's benevolent financial support I would love to understand if each of the Board Members are getting a performance appraisal and what does SL believe are the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of our club. It would be nice to understand where this money is going at a very top level ie Team including Team Staff, Infrastructure including Buildings and then the support costs including the Directors, Commercial Management down to the staff serving the pies. We can hen ratio this against other clubs. To be honest, I am getting sick and tired that SL is throwing money at the club (which is great) but we are doing no better, probably worse, than a well managed club with no money. The likes of Derby, Ipswich, Preston etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodogs Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Derby have money, as do ipswich they just spend it a bit more wisely. We've spent no money and wonder why we are we where we are. Everyone accepts you have to spend if you get to the premiership its no different in any other league. You have to spend to stay in it by strengthening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 20 minutes ago, ontariored said: Given SL's benevolent financial support I would love to understand if each of the Board Members are getting a performance appraisal and what does SL believe are the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of our club. It would be nice to understand where this money is going at a very top level ie Team including Team Staff, Infrastructure including Buildings and then the support costs including the Directors, Commercial Management down to the staff serving the pies. We can hen ratio this against other clubs. To be honest, I am getting sick and tired that SL is throwing money at the club (which is great) but we are doing no better, probably worse, than a well managed club with no money. The likes of Derby, Ipswich, Preston etc. Pretty sure Derby have a bigger budget than us. Preston I will concur, Ipswich I dunno, hear McCarthy has quite a tight budget, but Derby get good gate receipts, good established fanbase and were throwing cash about in summer. As an aside, guess how much they spent on transfer fees this summer. I knew it was a bit but the amount surprised me even so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC Jordan Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 The fact that we're deservedly down with the likes of Bolton/Charlton warrants the criticism to the board. When it comes to football decisions they fail time and time again. Our squad isn't too dissimilar to what Blackpool's was like at this level under Oyston. This season is simply inexcusable when we had so much momentum going into it in April/May. To then palm off the blame on SC is pathetic and we've barely heard a thing from the club this season. SL did one radio interview where he deemed our squad good enough for this level, which says it all really. SL provides us with security and I do of course believe he holds the club's best interests at heart, but this season has been a disaster and the board has a past record for disastrous decision-making, the summer of 2014 was the exception not the norm. I have no idea what they've been doing for a long time now but this season is simply inexcusable and all the criticism they get is justified, until they start proving otherwise. At the moment we're a few days off the end of the window, we've made two uninspiring loan signings and are without a manager, after getting rid of one of our most successful managers in recent history because they failed to back him in the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ontariored Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Pretty sure Derby have a bigger budget than us. Preston I will concur, Ipswich I dunno, hear McCarthy has quite a tight budget, but Derby get good gate receipts, good established fanbase and were throwing cash about in summer. As an aside guess how much they spent on transfer fees this summer. I knew it was a bit but the amount surprised me even so! No idea, please enlighten me Mr P. You get my drift though? There are other teams we can swap in such as Brentford, Huddersfield or are you saying we have spent the most cash but least on the field? Not being difficult, just interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 Who OWNS Ashton Gate? Bristol City FC Steve Lansdown Incorporate...or whatever they call themselves. The Latter...The Football Club no longer own its greatest assets it's Stadium. People repeated tell us how lost we would be without Lansdown because of club debt and how the club wouldn't last without him. who signed off the bills to build up this massive amount of Debts. Lansdown. He created the debt and now the club and fans are at his mercy to continue to cover the debt he built up with reckless spending and he's taken our ground to cover the debt one day he will get bored and then where will we be...no better than Bolton right now and probably still yo-Yo between league 1 and championship where he found us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 1 minute ago, ontariored said: No idea, please enlighten me Mr P. You get my drift though? There are other teams we can swap in such as Brentford, Huddersfield or are you saying we have spent the most cash but least on the field? Not being difficult, just interested. I would suspect our budget is towards the lower end, bottom 6. What with the ground, newly promoted, lots of sides with bigger attendances. Transitional times what with the changing club, changing ground. It shocked me for Championship club you know, shocked me big time but £24, 25m on fees something like! That is mad for a side at this level! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ontariored Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: I would suspect our budget is towards the lower end, bottom 6. What with the ground, newly promoted, lots of sides with bigger attendances. Transitional times what with the changing club, changing ground. It shocked me for Championship club you know, shocked me big time but £24, 25m on fees something like! That is mad for a side at this level! True. Much Appreciated. So, the club has a choice, either compete or go to League 1 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Posted January 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 34 minutes ago, Jack Dawe said: Have you considered the manner in which expectations have been raised by this board? We have been told the PL is the aim (as recently as two weeks ago) a number of times; SL has talked about us being like Barcelona, or been quoted as such, in the national media; SL says he wants us to be challenging at the top of the Championship next season; the chairman opined that SC was capable of taking a team to the PL and keeping it there; we were told by John Pelling that "we will be competitive in the Championship, one way or another;" the official bids for top drawer players; the ground. All this, and then we are humiliated publicly in the transfer market (including jokes about us on the C5 highlights show) and embarrassed on the pitch, spending all season in or near the bottom of the league. And you are surprised by, or at least moved to comment on, some being critical, or carrying out a "witch hunt" as you put it. There's a lot going for this club and yet still we struggle desperately in this league. This board of directors have got it easy, they get an easy ride - on a Saturday, at least - compared to previous administrations at AG, as board members from 20 years ago or more would no doubt testify. If you raise expectations as we have seen, then deliver a season like this one, what do you expect? Football crowds are well known for voicing their disapproval. It goes with the territory. Despite this, I think the crowds have been supportive in numbers and for the most part in spirit at games this season, with some unpleasant exceptions, directed at some players and Cotts. Have the board copped any flak at games? They would have had dog's abuse years ago for this season Firstly, as I said in my post, I don't think the board should be free from criticism. But having seen frustrations building on the forum and those frustrations being vented at SL and the board, I felt compelled to post this. Just to offer another view. Secondly, you sum up my point for me really. SL is not the first chairman of a club to say the aim is the Premier league. It's said by half the chairmen of Championship clubs every season. But my point is that SL is at least trying to achieve that in a sustainable way, and not in an all or bust approach as others in the division may take, gambling on their very futures. Yes, this season has not gone well, and yes the transfer 'inactivity' of the summer was, of course, a huge factor in this. But none of us know, 100%, what went on in the summer behind closed doors. I would also argue (and have done repeatedly) that no one here could also have predicted quite so many of our players wouldn't make the step up to the Championship either. If you read posts about strengthening areas in the summer, it was a few strikers here, a midfielder there, a CB and perhaps a left back. Well we got Kodjia and Baker. But now we will read that we need strengthening in pretty much all areas. The thin squad we do have, has drastically under performed and SC has to put his toe to that line. SL could not have foreseen that. To be honest, i'd expect SL to say the aim is the Premier league, of course. But do I expect it to happen?? Do I take this quote of ambition as fact, a prediction for the future?! We all know this league is probably one of the hardest to get promoted from, did anyone really think we'd do it at the first attempt? More fool them. As I also said in my first post, 100 clubs in the country, 10 odd get promoted. Success is not a given, regardless of ambition. SL has put his money where his mouth is before. SC was very well funded by L1 standards last year in wages and transfers. And go sit in our new stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Posted January 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 25 minutes ago, BCFC Jordan said: The fact that we're deservedly down with the likes of Bolton/Charlton warrants the criticism to the board. When it comes to football decisions they fail time and time again. This is the kind of over zealous extreme criticism i'm talking about. Didn't they appoint SC, haven't we got two new trophies in our cabinet. Disaster. Our squad isn't too dissimilar to what Blackpool's was like at this level under Oyston. This season is simply inexcusable when we had so much momentum going into it in April/May. To then palm off the blame on SC is pathetic and we've barely heard a thing from the club this season. SL did one radio interview where he deemed our squad good enough for this level, which says it all really. We had so much momentum, we all, as did the pundits, believed our current squad, young and hungry, dominant in L1, would step up. It's not SL's fault Freeman and Flint are shadows of themselves, that bright sparks of Bryan and Little seem out. Who else can you blame but SC??! SL provides us with security and I do of course believe he holds the club's best interests at heart, but this season has been a disaster and the board has a past record for disastrous decision-making, the summer of 2014 was the exception not the norm. SL backed SC in the summer, the bids we made proved that. Why didn't they come off? Well one was that we didn't wish to cripple the club with massive wages. I have no idea what they've been doing for a long time now but this season is simply inexcusable and all the criticism they get is justified, until they start proving otherwise. At the moment we're a few days off the end of the window, we've made two uninspiring loan signings and are without a manager, after getting rid of one of our most successful managers in recent history because they failed to back him in the summer. What they've been doing for a long time now is developing a fantastic new stadium and winning L1 and the Johnstones paint trophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 6 minutes ago, Alessandro said: SL backed SC in the summer, the bids we made proved that. Why didn't they come off? Well one was that we didn't wish to cripple the club with massive wages. That's one view. Another view expressed is that bids made prove nothing. - deals were agreed but attempts were made to re-negotiated downwards. There may have been a good reason for that, but if true, that is not backing SC. - when we eventually went back offering the selling club twice the money in transfer fee, it was a complete publicity stunt as it was never going to happen as we would not match the wage demands of the player. Bit like offering £200m to Real Madrid for Ronaldo and the player £300pw I think I saw it described as. Do you know for sure none of this is true. I have no proof one way or other (although seems very plausible in the light of all the events and if forced would tend towards the above as being quite close) however I think you are accepting everything as though it happened as the club has tried to portray, which I am reasonably confident is not the case. That is not bashing the board, it is trying to establish the facts in order to form an informed view. As supporters and stakeholders we deserve to know but the club deem us not worthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Posted January 26, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 8 hours ago, NickJ said: That's one view. Another view expressed is that bids made prove nothing. - deals were agreed but attempts were made to re-negotiated downwards. There may have been a good reason for that, but if true, that is not backing SC. - when we eventually went back offering the selling club twice the money in transfer fee, it was a complete publicity stunt as it was never going to happen as we would not match the wage demands of the player. Bit like offering £200m to Real Madrid for Ronaldo and the player £300pw I think I saw it described as. Do you know for sure none of this is true. I have no proof one way or other (although seems very plausible in the light of all the events and if forced would tend towards the above as being quite close) however I think you are accepting everything as though it happened as the club has tried to portray, which I am reasonably confident is not the case. That is not bashing the board, it is trying to establish the facts in order to form an informed view. As supporters and stakeholders we deserve to know but the club deem us not worthy. Well as you say Nick, yes you don't know for sure and this opinion is based completely on speculation and conjecture, that you've cobbled together from whispers here or elsewhere. You've also said "you are accepting everything as though it happened as the club has tried to portray". Please don't put words in my mouth. What i've done is not let cynicism cloud my opinions, the club has said absolutely nothing publicly about these rumours, right? As you say yourself no facts are out, so how do you form an informed view? But regardless, i've just used a bit a simple logic and deduction and here is why I don't understand everyone getting quite so worked up about these apparent misdealing's, shall we call them. Just stop for a minute, take the frustration out of the situation. Let's break the rumour down and put them into perspective. Firstly, it was only two players. Harry Mcguire and Andre Grey. Not a whole list of fantastic new signings. These would not have been 'done deals', medicals completed or contracts signed. They would have only been at the bid stage, so absolutely not done deals, so absolutely no way of knowing those players 'would' have signed regardless. 1) Harry McGuire. Who has sat on Hull's bench all season and been subsequently loaned to Wigan, in L1. Was he the missing jigsaw piece? No. In fact the board supplied us with two superior players in Baker and Moore, both of whom were also chased by several Championship clubs and lauded as good business all round. 2) Andre Grey. What doesn't sit with me, is that if this is true, why would Brentford allow us back in for another bid? And would no one else have been in for him early in the summer? He was highly rated. But let's say it did happen and we went back in for him again. The FACTS are we had a massive bid accept, had him in for talks, and by good authority (contrary to what you say) apparently matched the wages Burnley offered, and he went for the team he felt had a better chance of making the prem. Was that all a publicity stunt? No, so what more could the board do? Blow the wage budget?! That's exactly the sort of reckless action i'm applauding them for not doing. I concede we didn't recruit well this summer, Kodjia aside. But who was knocking on SL's door with the targets? Lingard, Gayle (who we absolutely went in for and put our money on the table), Grey, James Wilson to name a few of the over ambitious targets SC wanted to get. His attitude of only signing players "that improved the squad" narrowed his field of vision, he look up to the prem instead of down to the quality in L1 and ended up with nothing. But still WE ALL started the season with a belief this squad would perform better than it has, it hasn't and the buck falls to SC. So for me, what is the board guilty of is backing SC's unrealistic targets. I just do not, for one second, buy that the notion the club didn't try to realistically back SC in the transfer market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 Completely disagree with the thread title, I have been paying my dues to my club for 50yrs, that earns me the right to say what I think and not what I`m supposed to think. Whether its the board, manager or players, I am not going to say things are great if I believe they aren`t. This board including SL have made some poor decisions and in my eyes want to survive in this div on a shoestring, that is not going to happen. IMO players aren't coming because we probably have one of the lowest pay structures in this div and although clubs accept bids championship players want championship pay. Now that may or may not be way off the mark but its my belief until its proved wrong. The sacking of SC also showed incredible bad timing and planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Posted January 26, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 7 minutes ago, glos old boy said: Completely disagree with the thread title, I have been paying my dues to my club for 50yrs, that earns me the right to say what I think and not what I`m supposed to think. Whether its the board, manager or players, I am not going to say things are great if I believe they aren`t. This board including SL have made some poor decisions and in my eyes want to survive in this div on a shoestring, that is not going to happen. IMO players aren't coming because we probably have one of the lowest pay structures in this div and although clubs accept bids championship players want championship pay. Now that may or may not be way off the mark but its my belief until its proved wrong. The sacking of SC also showed incredible bad timing and planning. Where do you think this money will come from? SL's pockets again!? I don't know about this season, but in 2013/14 we had the third lowest net debt of any Championship club. We also topped the list of wages as a proportion of turnover at 190%. As I say I don't know about this season, but if the figures are similar to this year, a) i'm happy about our relatively low debt and b) we may have one of the lower pay structures (we don't know for sure), but you have to put it in perspective with turnover. We cannot currently compete with the established teams who have large gate receipts or parachute payments and so on. To recklessly plunge money into wages is not the solution. Look at Portsmouth. Bristol Sport was created to improve revenue, Aston Gate is being developed to the same end, but it takes time. And the last time I checked, money doesn't grow on trees, unless you've got a spare plant or two mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 Good post @Alessandro . We needed probably 5 or 6 players added to the squad in the summer yet we're all concentrating on Maguire Gray/Gayle. Once we failed with these targets where were the other ones? Plan b? Plan c? Why weren't we linked with a midfield replacement for Wade ALL summer? Did SC have any midfield targets aside from David Silva? As I've said numerous times before we could've picked up 'the ginger Pirlo' Ryan Woods at the beginning of the summer for around £650k from Shrewsbury. 22 years old and 20 appearances for Brentford, who ended up snapping him up on deadline day, already this season. He was from L2 and I'm sure there are many other examples. I think SC got confused with 'improving the squad' versus 'improving the first team'. He only wanted players in that would improve his first 11 whereas really all we needed was numbers and competition for places. A few options to have on the bench when things were going wrong... that probably would've been enough to see us a few points better off without chasing marquee signings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Dawe Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 9 hours ago, Alessandro said: Firstly, as I said in my post, I don't think the board should be free from criticism. But having seen frustrations building on the forum and those frustrations being vented at SL and the board, I felt compelled to post this. Just to offer another view. Secondly, you sum up my point for me really. SL is not the first chairman of a club to say the aim is the Premier league. It's said by half the chairmen of Championship clubs every season. But my point is that SL is at least trying to achieve that in a sustainable way, and not in an all or bust approach as others in the division may take, gambling on their very futures. Yes, this season has not gone well, and yes the transfer 'inactivity' of the summer was, of course, a huge factor in this. But none of us know, 100%, what went on in the summer behind closed doors. I would also argue (and have done repeatedly) that no one here could also have predicted quite so many of our players wouldn't make the step up to the Championship either. If you read posts about strengthening areas in the summer, it was a few strikers here, a midfielder there, a CB and perhaps a left back. Well we got Kodjia and Baker. But now we will read that we need strengthening in pretty much all areas. The thin squad we do have, has drastically under performed and SC has to put his toe to that line. SL could not have foreseen that. To be honest, i'd expect SL to say the aim is the Premier league, of course. But do I expect it to happen?? Do I take this quote of ambition as fact, a prediction for the future?! We all know this league is probably one of the hardest to get promoted from, did anyone really think we'd do it at the first attempt? More fool them. As I also said in my first post, 100 clubs in the country, 10 odd get promoted. Success is not a given, regardless of ambition. SL has put his money where his mouth is before. SC was very well funded by L1 standards last year in wages and transfers. And go sit in our new stadium. Agreed, you are not suggesting the board should be free of criticism, and you say it is clear they have made mistakes. You also suggest there is a witch hunt attitude towards the board and that they are getting a bashing. That's an opinion I have argued against, with a different opinion. I have said the board have raised expectations, and must expect some backlash (some criticism) from this when things unfold as they have since last summer. Not because we are not challenging for promotion at the first attempt, few expected that, but because we are struggling desperately already. After coming into this season on a high and with many things in our favour. And remember, in SL's own words, he expects us to be challenging at the top of this league next season. That's his words and his expectations, not the fans. And I reckon he expected a lot better this season, too. If SL and the board are not taking a critical look at things themselves, I'd be somewhat surprised. Fans are doing this, but in a "fanatical" way, ie, a bit ott, and with varying degrees of insight and intelligence. That is football. The only "bashing" I am aware of (the board might be inundated with furious phone calls, letters, tweets, emails etc, I don't know) is the endless going-round-in-circles criticism, rumour, speculation and itk titbits on here, which I would say is more tedious than anything, and if the board are daft enough to read too much of this, then more fool them. If they feel "bashed" then stop reading Otib. Simple. Set against this "bashing" as you put it, is the support they have received at the ground, through consistent attendance and no evidence of dissent towards the board on matchdays, as far as I am aware. I think most people get worn down by reading the negative stuff on here, myself included. We all have a choice, we are free to do something else when feeling "bashed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniro Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 On 24 January 2016 at 21:57, Lympsham Red said: Oh, give over mate, the only reason this list is so long is because Bristol Sport have almagamated some aspects of every club under the Bristol Sport brand name to SAVE money. That's why BS has a Head of Marketing, Head of Retail etc and BCFC doesn't. IN which case you 'd expect the BCFC board to be able to focus on what really matters most, the football, and deliver a team that can survive in the second tier ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Alessandro said: Just stop for a minute, take the frustration out of the situation. Let's break the rumour down and put them into perspective. Firstly, it was only two players. Harry Mcguire and Andre Grey. Not a whole list of fantastic new signings. These would not have been 'done deals', medicals completed or contracts signed. They would have only been at the bid stage, so absolutely not done deals, so absolutely no way of knowing those players 'would' have signed regardless. 1) Harry McGuire. Who has sat on Hull's bench all season and been subsequently loaned to Wigan, in L1. Was he the missing jigsaw piece? No. In fact the board supplied us with two superior players in Baker and Moore, both of whom were also chased by several Championship clubs and lauded as good business all round. 2) Andre Grey. What doesn't sit with me, is that if this is true, why would Brentford allow us back in for another bid? And would no one else have been in for him early in the summer? He was highly rated. But let's say it did happen and we went back in for him again. The FACTS are we had a massive bid accept, had him in for talks, and by good authority (contrary to what you say) apparently matched the wages Burnley offered, and he went for the team he felt had a better chance of making the prem. Was that all a publicity stunt? No, so what more could the board do? Blow the wage budget?! That's exactly the sort of reckless action i'm applauding them for not doing. Can't allow that to go unchallenged, mainly as it is incorrect. Maguire - is not on loan to Wigan in League 1, he has been at Hull all season where he has made 22 appearances in the Championship for a team currently TOP of the Championship. He was loaned to Wigan for part of 2014/15 when they were in the Championship. - Maguire has only ever played in League 1 for Sheffield United, where he was in the team of the season and called up for England under-21's. Grey - why wouldn't Brentford allow us back in for another bid? To get the possible price by creating a bidding war, maybe? - the figures quoted are Grey eventually accepted £26kpw from Burnley, if that is correct we could only match that by blowing the wage budget which SL (maybe rightly) will not do, so if those quoted wages are correct, there is no way an offer of £8m or even £80m had a cat in hells chance of happening. 1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said: Good post @Alessandro . We needed probably 5 or 6 players added to the squad in the summer yet we're all concentrating on Maguire Gray/Gayle. Once we failed with these targets where were the other ones? Plan b? Plan c? Why weren't we linked with a midfield replacement for Wade ALL summer? Did SC have any midfield targets aside from David Silva? As I've said numerous times before we could've picked up 'the ginger Pirlo' Ryan Woods at the beginning of the summer for around £650k from Shrewsbury. 22 years old and 20 appearances for Brentford, who ended up snapping him up on deadline day, already this season. He was from L2 and I'm sure there are many other examples. I think SC got confused with 'improving the squad' versus 'improving the first team'. He only wanted players in that would improve his first 11 whereas really all we needed was numbers and competition for places. A few options to have on the bench when things were going wrong... that probably would've been enough to see us a few points better off without chasing marquee signings. Your bias against SC shines through again mate! Has it occurred that Brentford, having received £6m for Grey, were able to offer Ryan Woods a wage that again probably blows any offer we could have made out of the water? And I don't think SC got confused at all. In recent seasons before SC we have had bloated squads of 26-28 mediocre players. SC quite rightly identified that you can only play 11 at a time. If your wage budget is restricted, it makes sense to concentrate on your first 11 and maybe 5 or 6 other versatile players and rely on the development squad if necessary. As proved by SC in 2014/15, and is something I have been banging on about for years on here at various times. To suggest that the addition of just Maguire and Grey wouldn't have improved our squad and first team and league position, probably massively, is just sheer denial for its own sake mate. Ask SC if he'd like to have had just a few of Grey's 19 goals, including the 3 against us! Yes of course maybe other players could have been targeted, however, IF the post by Tetbury is correct, these deals would have happened if not for subsequent interference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.