Jack Dawe Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 I think it is also worth saying that in the absence of any detail or useful/relevant information - the vacuum created by this - from the board, regarding the transfer window difficulties, Cotts dismissal, etc (which they have some good reason for not divulging. I'm not saying they should tell us everything), in the absence of this it is no surprise that people fill the hole with their own thoughts. Again, if you don't enjoy reading all this and feel more down and depressed having done so, do something else! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniro Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 10 hours ago, Bowie said: 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. SL has ensured that, for all the money he has invested, his backside is covered - he owns the real estate. He made his billions in financial services and you can bet your bottom dollar that every risk to his own wealth has been carefully weighed up so that, should the football club fail, he'll be OK. So, for all those who think that he's been so generous giving away all that money, remember that he owns all the valuable assets. He's even going to make millions from the housing development of the Ashton Vale site - his backside was covered there too. Now, before you get all cross that I dare to point that out, I don't necessarily think that's a problem at all. It's sensible. The problem is that neither he or the yes-men he has put in place like Dawe and his own son have the slightest clue about the business of football. All these failed transfer deals were an embarrassment. The world of transfer is, as everyone know, a jungle - riddled with spiv greedy agents who will say one thing and do another to get the biggest fee for themselves. We look like ten year olds pitching in to these deals. Yes, SC was naive and narrow-minded but that is precisely why we need someone with long and deep experience of the BUSINESS of football to guide us through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 25 minutes ago, NickJ said: 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. Nick, I'm only bias in the same way that you are bias in favour of SC because you think he is one of our greatest ever managers and shouldn't have been sacked. So, naturally you are going to defend him at every opportunity. If you are seriously suggesting that at the start of the summer we couldn't afford to sign a L2 player then we might as well have told the football league "thanks for the opportunity of playing in the C'ship but actually we're going to give L1 another bash". Also, if you don't think we could've afforded a L2 player's wages or matched what Brentford (turnover smaller than ours) were offering for that matter at the start of the summer then why oh why were we bothering chasing Gray/Gayle whose wages were going to be far higher? I've no issue with a tight squad but not having enough players to fill the bench on more than one occassion? That's just careless I'm afraid or piss poor management in other language. And as for SC 'relying on the development squad if neccessary' - well, that made me laugh!! He wasn't willing to rely on any of them - even when he didn't have enough players to fill the bench. Of course Maguire/Gray would've improved us but it was still baffling that there didn't appear to be much in the way of other interest after the deals fell through AND the dust had settled following the fall-out from that. Collectively, it was an omnishambles and I think trying to absolve SC of any responsibility is just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 15 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said: If you are seriously suggesting that at the start of the summer we couldn't afford to sign a L2 player then we might as well have told the football league "thanks for the opportunity of playing in the C'ship but actually we're going to give L1 another bash". Also, if you don't think we could've afforded a L2 player's wages or matched what Brentford (turnover smaller than ours) were offering for that matter at the start of the summer then why oh why were we bothering chasing Gray/Gayle whose wages were going to be far higher? Luckily mate I'm not saying that because it isn't relevant. We allegedly had a deal lined up to sign a proven Championship player, so why we would we need to be interested at the start of the summer to sign a L2 player. By the time it was maybe necessary to look at alternatives, Brentford were in a position to pay a lot more, ironically because of the Grey deal, smaller turnover than us or not. I would agree that a creative midfield player would have been desirable, but your comment we needed 5 or 6 players is all very well, but how do you know what budget SC had? Maybe he thought - going back to assembling a lean quality squad rather than several make weights - that was the best way he could spend the money. History is on his side. As far as the other wages, it would allegedly appear that we could chase Grey because £14k pw was within our budget, but when that deal was ****** up Burnley came in and offered something that we couldn't afford. Your mate(!) robin4ever has been quite clear on several occasions that chasing Grey at £8m was a waste of time because we wouldn't meet his wage demands. I appreciate that some of what I say is based upon the information on here by posters I don't even know, however the information is so detailed from both (have a look) that if it isn't close to being true they should take up writing fiction for a living. I tend to believe towards a ring of truth at the very least. Finally I'm not saying SC should be absolved of blame, however many people (with you at the forefront!) have been very quick to slate the guy when maybe he deserves sympathy for the lack of summer signings, no matter what caused the board to review the alleged done deals in the first place. Taking that into consideration he deserved better, and indeed unless you completely disregard the extraordinary feat of the 18 months prior to summer 2015 (which I know you would like to!), he deserved to be cut a bit of slack. 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, Jack Dawe said: 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." You've taken my use of the word "bashing" a little more literally than I expect and gone slightly to the extreme here, don't you think? I guess that's to be expected. Give a dog a bone..... I think it's pretty clear that when I started this post, it was aimed at the forum, not at dissent at games or furious letters or calls which I didn't allude to or suggest in anyway, but that is your interpretation of my use of the word bashing. I was hoping to have an open discussion about the board, not my use of the word bashing. Simple. Anyway, I didn't realise that I had to justify starting a post on an open forum, but as I've said already, I felt I wanted to say something along the lines of "yeah, they're not perfect, but we could be a lot worse off". Why did I want write that? Well to counter threads like the "do you still not blame the board" and all this chat about summer transfer dealings which I believe has been blown wildly out of proportion since SC left to suit the conspiracy theorists among us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Dawe Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 6 minutes ago, Alessandro said: You've taken my use of the word "bashing" a little more literally than I expect and gone slightly to the extreme here, don't you think? I guess that's to be expected. Give a dog a bone..... I think it's pretty clear that when I started this post, it was aimed at the forum, not at dissent at games or furious letters or calls which I didn't allude to or suggest in anyway, but that is your interpretation of my use of the word bashing. I was hoping to have an open discussion about the board, not my use of the word bashing. Simple. Anyway, I didn't realise that I had to justify starting a post on an open forum, but as I've said already, I felt I wanted to say something along the lines of "yeah, they're not perfect, but we could be a lot worse off". Why did I want write that? Well to counter threads like the "do you still not blame the board" and all this chat about summer transfer dealings which I believe has been blown wildly out of proportion since SC left to suit the conspiracy theorists among us. Fair enough, mate. Let's hope things improve soon 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: 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. Hands up, thanks for pointing that out. Does it not seem a little strange therefore that a done deal to move here becomes a regular for them?? We will never know if, regardless of any potential deal in place, the player would leave, or more likely wanted to stay and fight for his place. 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. Wages are discussed after the transfer bid is made, right? Are you suggesting we knew his wage demands before we bid for him? Bid first, then talk to the player, otherwise that's called tapping up. So therefore when we bid, we would have every intention of making a deal for him. You also quote £26k PW like it is fact. Please show me the proof, and don't say "someone wrote it somewhere". I would be surprised if it is public knowledge what Grey is on, but wait for you to prove me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 Talking of stick for the board I did hear that extra stewards were deployed near the boardroom sometime between December and present owing to foul language. Now I dunno if that was just general part of football as you get or if it was aimed at members of the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 5 hours ago, Alessandro said: Hands up, thanks for pointing that out. Does it not seem a little strange therefore that a done deal to move here becomes a regular for them?? We will never know if, regardless of any potential deal in place, the player would leave, or more likely wanted to stay and fight for his place. Wages are discussed after the transfer bid is made, right? Are you suggesting we knew his wage demands before we bid for him? Bid first, then talk to the player, otherwise that's called tapping up. So therefore when we bid, we would have every intention of making a deal for him. You also quote £26k PW like it is fact. Please show me the proof, and don't say "someone wrote it somewhere". I would be surprised if it is public knowledge what Grey is on, but wait for you to prove me wrong. Maguire Respect for acknowledging I am right on the facts. If you can't even get simple facts right it sort of undermines the remainder of your argument does it not. Maguire was in competition against lots of quality defenders. Probably the reason he struggled to get in the Hull team last season and probably why he agreed to go to Wigan - another CHAMPIONSHIP team - in 2014/15. By then he probably accepted he would struggle to get in Hull first team. His wages had probably fallen behind. Along comes a club that stormed the division below the season before, on the up, going places with a proven manager, a big city, cash to splash (or not!), huge potential, almost certainly offered better terms, new stadium, of course he would agree to come. The fact he didn't due to the alleged interference with the deals, and subsequently managed to fight his way back into Hull first team TOP of the CHAMPIONSHIP is testimony to whoever identified him to come here in the first place. Grey Sigh. When we made the first bid "we" had every intention of buying him, as the wage demands at that time were within budget. After that deal was ****** up, "the club" made a headlining bid but the bid could not succeed because by then the player realised he could get more elsewhere. What proof do you require? Sorry don't have a copy of his wage slip but I have at least half a brain and I can put two and two together and read between the lines, and no I cannot say with certainty what he is on at Burnley but I would bet strong money the figure quoted is not far off and I would put equal strong money the figure quoted to come here is not far off either. Your opening post was all about stop bashing the board. Fine. I'm not doing that. My comments are about stop bashing the ex manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Posted January 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2016 @NickJ So you actually have no proof? Thought not....and you have the audacity to talk about 'facts'. Do you have any proof or facts about anything at all Nick?? Anything?!? Because so far, everything I've read that you've said, all these scenarios you've created and padded out with little details are all composed from comments and whispers you've read on an historically unreliable open forum. I'll give you one thing Nick, you certainly have a vivid imagination, because you've created a very detailed account of dealings of which no have absolutely no first hand knowledge or indisputable facts of whatsoever. IMO, you only have half a brain if you go around taking as gospel what is written on here. But whatever helps you sleep better at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 On 25/01/2016 at 23:39, 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. On 25/01/2016 at 23:57, 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. On 26/01/2016 at 07:55, Alessandro said: 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. On 26/01/2016 at 09:47, NickJ said: 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. On 26/01/2016 at 18:05, Alessandro said: Hands up, thanks for pointing that out. Does it not seem a little strange therefore that a done deal to move here becomes a regular for them?? We will never know if, regardless of any potential deal in place, the player would leave, or more likely wanted to stay and fight for his place. Wages are discussed after the transfer bid is made, right? Are you suggesting we knew his wage demands before we bid for him? Bid first, then talk to the player, otherwise that's called tapping up. So therefore when we bid, we would have every intention of making a deal for him. You also quote £26k PW like it is fact. Please show me the proof, and don't say "someone wrote it somewhere". I would be surprised if it is public knowledge what Grey is on, but wait for you to prove me wrong. On 26/01/2016 at 23:10, NickJ said: Maguire Respect for acknowledging I am right on the facts. If you can't even get simple facts right it sort of undermines the remainder of your argument does it not. Maguire was in competition against lots of quality defenders. Probably the reason he struggled to get in the Hull team last season and probably why he agreed to go to Wigan - another CHAMPIONSHIP team - in 2014/15. By then he probably accepted he would struggle to get in Hull first team. His wages had probably fallen behind. Along comes a club that stormed the division below the season before, on the up, going places with a proven manager, a big city, cash to splash (or not!), huge potential, almost certainly offered better terms, new stadium, of course he would agree to come. The fact he didn't due to the alleged interference with the deals, and subsequently managed to fight his way back into Hull first team TOP of the CHAMPIONSHIP is testimony to whoever identified him to come here in the first place. Grey Sigh. When we made the first bid "we" had every intention of buying him, as the wage demands at that time were within budget. After that deal was ****** up, "the club" made a headlining bid but the bid could not succeed because by then the player realised he could get more elsewhere. What proof do you require? Sorry don't have a copy of his wage slip but I have at least half a brain and I can put two and two together and read between the lines, and no I cannot say with certainty what he is on at Burnley but I would bet strong money the figure quoted is not far off and I would put equal strong money the figure quoted to come here is not far off either. Your opening post was all about stop bashing the board. Fine. I'm not doing that. My comments are about stop bashing the ex manager. On 27/01/2016 at 07:17, Alessandro said: @NickJ So you actually have no proof? Thought not....and you have the audacity to talk about 'facts'. Do you have any proof or facts about anything at all Nick?? Anything?!? Because so far, everything I've read that you've said, all these scenarios you've created and padded out with little details are all composed from comments and whispers you've read on an historically unreliable open forum. I'll give you one thing Nick, you certainly have a vivid imagination, because you've created a very detailed account of dealings of which no have absolutely no first hand knowledge or indisputable facts of whatsoever. IMO, you only have half a brain if you go around taking as gospel what is written on here. But whatever helps you sleep better at night. On another thread this week, I have been intrigued to understand why you have been so intent on having a pop at me. Your underlying perception seems to be that I have been blaming the board for what has gone on in the SC/transfers etc affair. Hence my questions on that thread, TBH I thought maybe you had a vested interest in speaking up for the board. My question about age and number of years watching City was not infantile, and regretfully I am not a student, it was because....... well that does not matter. But looking back through the above, I think it is simply a case that you are as indignant about the bashing of the board (to use your thread title) as I have been about the bashing of SC. I pride myself in being fair and objective. Look at the comments I made above which demonstrate this to be the case, ie those comments enlarged. For whatever reason, you took my comments above as being me saying that is the truth of what happened. As you can see, I was not. I was simply stating the position as it could have been looked at from the other side. Most obviously that is because I am a big fan of SC as a football manager and what he did for our club. Nevertheless, I don't think you picked up on my enlarged comments. Maybe I should have enlarged these comments in the first place for clarity. Yes I have views on the quality of the board of our football club. But I try not to let that cloud my judgment to the extent I blame them for every single thing that goes wrong. Unlike the vast majority on here I am happy to lend my real name to my comments. I am totally honest, open, transparent and in my view, fair. I could do a similar exercise on the other thread and demonstrate much the same thing. But that would be pointless. I used to have blazing rows on here with somebody who I did not previously know, we have since become friends, albeit he is always wrong and I am always right. Who knows..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.