Ashton tells it like it is .

['Orns]

26 minutes ago, spudski said:

Agreed...I think many SC fans fail to understand the long term damage he was doing to this Club...they only see 'that promotion'.

He only thought about himself and the first team. A complete control freak.

We may as well have done away with the Academy and development teams, as he had no interest in them what so ever.

Perhaps people will understand if it wasn't for 'holes' in certain pre contracts then the whole summer wouldn't have gone Pete Tong.

If people think the board were totally at fault for the summer fiasco...then they are wrong. And that's coming from someone who isn't a big fan of the board.

How would fans feel if SL walked away from the Club...kept the Rugby and Basketball...found a new backer, but kept the stadium and leased it back to the club? ;-)

And the proof for all you've said above, Spud?

I'd love to hear about the 'holes' in the pre contracts

As for SC being a control freak, I think I want the manager of my football club to be like that. I don't think that's a problem in this position?

[Roe]

29 minutes ago, Chairman Mao said:

Kodjia (First Team) good, Fredericks (Pointless), Hamer (Played 4 games then left), Baker (Good), Cox (played about 90 mins total), Moore (Played about 4 times), Bennett (Good), Robinson (Played about once), O'Donnell good

He also let go Tavernier, Cunningham and Jet (awful)

that was with a whole summer and 1 week 1/2 of January. Ashton has made vital signings in a couple of weeks, imagine if he had a summer?

Based on what?

We all know the transfers have been poor this season but why are we pretending that it's any different now?

We've signed 4 players since Cotterill went, 2 aren't playing, 1 is a full back and 1 is an attacking midfielder who most on here will be classing as a luxury by the end of the month.

[Kid in the Riot]

8 minutes ago, Woodsy said:

And the proof for all you've said above, Spud?

I'd love to hear about the 'holes' in the pre contracts

As for SC being a control freak, I think I want the manager of my football club to be like that. I don't think that's a problem in this position?

I think it's becoming an increasingly outdated attribute for a manager to have, in terms of importance. Most managers/head coaches now work within a much larger team than previously. SC is from a non-league background where I'd imagine he had free reign to do what he wanted. But the most professional clubs in this country have large teams of people to assist in on and off-field matters so that the manager can get on and concentrate on delivering results by getting the best out of his squad.

Tinpot clubs like Bristol R#vers, fair enough, they have no internal infrastructure (since Lennie left) so a manager goes in and can do what they like.

If 'control freak' means going off and doing your own deals with people that you want to deal with, not listening to anyone who's telling you the system ain't working, refusing to fill your bench to score points against people at the club, refusing kids going out on loan to gain league experience, shouting at your groundsmen because you don't like the look of the pitch...then frankly we're best off without it.

See being a control freak can actually be divisive and in this particularly case I think it was harming the club, not helping it.

['Orns]

7 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I think it's becoming an increasingly outdated attribute for a manager to have, in terms of importance. Most managers/head coaches now work within a much larger team than previously. SC is from a non-league background where I'd imagine he had free reign to do what he wanted. But the most professional clubs in this country have large teams of people to assist in on and off-field matters so that the manager can get on and concentrate on delivering results by getting the best out of his squad.

Tinpot clubs like Bristol R#vers, fair enough, they have no internal infrastructure (since Lennie left) so a manager goes in and can do what they like.

If 'control freak' means going off and doing your own deals with people that you want to deal with, not listening to anyone who's telling you the system ain't working, refusing to fill your bench to score points against people at the club, refusing kids going out on loan to gain league experience, shouting at your groundsmen because you don't like the look of the pitch...then frankly we're best off without it.

See being a control freak can actually be divisive and in this particularly case I think it was harming the club, not helping it.

Don't get me wrong, Kid - SC done my nut with the lack of substitutions, not filling the bench and refusal to budge from 3 at the back

Maybe I'm looking at being a control freak from a different angle than you are, and maybe from how Spud suggested. I was thinking that it was in terms of wanting to know the ins and outs of everything, listening to the points of view of people within the team, but ultimately having the final say. He's the man that takes the bullet ultimately, so I don't have a problem with that. That was the angle I was coming at it from

The 'holes' in the pre contracts are worth elaborating on though please @spudski please

[Bris Red]

Talk is cheap for me. Just going from the few interviews ive seen lf this Ashton ive got to be honest something just dosnt sit right with me, comes across as a smarmy PR kind of bloke who of course comes across brilliantly and says all the right shite for the masses to hopefully buy. We will see if he brings us success but man i am not holding my breath.

[LondonBristolian]

24 minutes ago, Woodsy said:

And the proof for all you've said above, Spud?

I'd love to hear about the 'holes' in the pre contracts

As for SC being a control freak, I think I want the manager of my football club to be like that. I don't think that's a problem in this position?

Thing is, it's absolutely fine for a manager to want to have clear control over the areas within his remit - team selection, coaching methods, final say on any players coming in etc. - but where it becomes a problem is where that clashes with the long-term plan for the club.  For purposes of clarity, everything I am about to write is speaking generally, not about SC per se.

 We have to remember that managers  will go into jobs knowing they are likely to be in charge for a year or two - probably three at the most (14 out of the 92 football league clubs have had anyone longer than 3 years, 6 more than 4 years and 3 more than 5 years) and it's in their best interests to maximise short-term gains over long-term ones.  To sign players who can do a job now rather than develop talent in the long-term.  To spend money on this season's promotion challenge rather than be financially sustainable in the future.  And to do everything possible to ensure that the club does everything it can to make him look good and get promotions and trophies on his CV, regardless of the long-term cost.  For example, I doubt Harry Redknapp loses sleep over the financial situation Portsmouth got in after he got them the FA Cup or the midtable Championship mini-crisis QPR are in after they spent oodles of cash getting promoted via the play-offs.

None of that is necessarily a bad thing.  Everyone wants to get promoted and win trophies so there doesn't need to be a contradiction between what the manager wants and what the board wants.  And with Portsmouth and QPR, it's about the board being strong and standing up to the managers' attempts to over-spend, not the managers fault for wanting the best resources possible.

However it becomes a problem if what the manager wants in the short-term contradicts what the club want in the long-term.  So if the board want to develop young talent for the future and the manager has no interest in bringing players through the youth set-up, that's a problem.

If the club want to be known for entertaining football and the manager insists on playing defensively or playing long-ball, that's a problem.

If the club want to grow slowly over a number of years and the manager wants to bet the house now, that's a problem.

Ultimately it's absolutely fine to be a 'control freak' in your particular domain as long as that's consistent with the long-term vision of the club.  But if the manager and club are pulling in different directions, that's a real issue.  And it's not always a good idea to go with the manager, who has a vested interest in short-termism, rather than building for the long-term. Which is precisely why so many clubs are appointing Directors of Football, or Chief Operative Officers or whatever else to ensure there is someone in charge of a long-term strategy.

[Nogbad the Bad]

3 hours ago, View from the Dolman said:

What makes Ashton a 'yes man'?

Why did SC say in his interview that he didn't offer Zach Clough the wages that would turn his head?

Are you sure?

Cotterill would have had no say whatsoever in wage negotiations for potential new recruits.

His job would be to help identify the player and then attempt to sell BCFC to him, the financial package would be for others to sort out.

 

 

[Kid in the Riot]

14 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

Cotterill would have had no say whatsoever in wage negotiations for potential new recruits.

His job would be to help identify the player and then attempt to sell BCFC to him, the financial package would be for others to sort out.

Yeah, in theory.... the reality appears to be a little different.

[spudski]

33 minutes ago, Woodsy said:

Don't get me wrong, Kid - SC done my nut with the lack of substitutions, not filling the bench and refusal to budge from 3 at the back

Maybe I'm looking at being a control freak from a different angle than you are, and maybe from how Spud suggested. I was thinking that it was in terms of wanting to know the ins and outs of everything, listening to the points of view of people within the team, but ultimately having the final say. He's the man that takes the bullet ultimately, so I don't have a problem with that. That was the angle I was coming at it from

The 'holes' in the pre contracts are worth elaborating on though please @spudski please

It was touched on recently, in a thread that was deleted by Mods for obvious reasons.

[View from the Dolman]

25 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

Are you sure?

Cotterill would have had no say whatsoever in wage negotiations for potential new recruits.

His job would be to help identify the player and then attempt to sell BCFC to him, the financial package would be for others to sort out.

 

 

Yep, I know what I heard.

[Major Isewater]

36 minutes ago, Woodsy said:

Don't get me wrong, Kid - SC done my nut with the lack of substitutions, not filling the bench and refusal to budge from 3 at the back

Maybe I'm looking at being a control freak from a different angle than you are, and maybe from how Spud suggested. I was thinking that it was in terms of wanting to know the ins and outs of everything, listening to the points of view of people within the team, but ultimately having the final say. He's the man that takes the bullet ultimately, so I don't have a problem with that. That was the angle I was coming at it from

The 'holes' in the pre contracts are worth elaborating on though please @spudski please

It's obvious what the ' holes ' In the precontracts were ...

 

It's where the ring binders go .

[spudski]

41 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Thing is, it's absolutely fine for a manager to want to have clear control over the areas within his remit - team selection, coaching methods, final say on any players coming in etc. - but where it becomes a problem is where that clashes with the long-term plan for the club.  For purposes of clarity, everything I am about to write is speaking generally, not about SC per se.

 We have to remember that managers  will go into jobs knowing they are likely to be in charge for a year or two - probably three at the most (14 out of the 92 football league clubs have had anyone longer than 3 years, 6 more than 4 years and 3 more than 5 years) and it's in their best interests to maximise short-term gains over long-term ones.  To sign players who can do a job now rather than develop talent in the long-term.  To spend money on this season's promotion challenge rather than be financially sustainable in the future.  And to do everything possible to ensure that the club does everything it can to make him look good and get promotions and trophies on his CV, regardless of the long-term cost.  For example, I doubt Harry Redknapp loses sleep over the financial situation Portsmouth got in after he got them the FA Cup or the midtable Championship mini-crisis QPR are in after they spent oodles of cash getting promoted via the play-offs.

None of that is necessarily a bad thing.  Everyone wants to get promoted and win trophies so there doesn't need to be a contradiction between what the manager wants and what the board wants.  And with Portsmouth and QPR, it's about the board being strong and standing up to the managers' attempts to over-spend, not the managers fault for wanting the best resources possible.

However it becomes a problem if what the manager wants in the short-term contradicts what the club want in the long-term.  So if the board want to develop young talent for the future and the manager has no interest in bringing players through the youth set-up, that's a problem.

If the club want to be known for entertaining football and the manager insists on playing defensively or playing long-ball, that's a problem.

If the club want to grow slowly over a number of years and the manager wants to bet the house now, that's a problem.

Ultimately it's absolutely fine to be a 'control freak' in your particular domain as long as that's consistent with the long-term vision of the club.  But if the manager and club are pulling in different directions, that's a real issue.  And it's not always a good idea to go with the manager, who has a vested interest in short-termism, rather than building for the long-term. Which is precisely why so many clubs are appointing Directors of Football, or Chief Operative Officers or whatever else to ensure there is someone in charge of a long-term strategy.

Bang on fella...and why many Clubs abroad don't allow one man to control everything.

What other business in the world has a board of directors that employs a manager and say's...'do whatever you want within budget?'

Not one...they give a remit to how they want the company/club to work. For the benefit of the club/company long term and not short term.

If a manager starts acting in a way that doesn't fit with the clubs ethos, then it causes problems.

SC became his own man...we are a club that has said it wants to develop players for the future...build our academy and produce footballers for the first team.

Ask anyone about his interest in the development players and 'squad' players.

How refreshing to see Pembo and Wade bringing the academy and squad players closer to the first team...making us a club again, and not just a first team.

[Nogbad the Bad]

2 hours ago, BCFC Jordan said:

 

Pearce/Gladwin signings are just like the rest of the panic loan signings we made earlier in the summer.

 

I do agree Golbourne was a good bit of business, and hopefully Tomlin will prove his worth too. O'Donnell was already here before SC left. So, two decent signings have been made - but the main positions we've needed (CM and ST) still haven't been improved, and Ashton had plenty of time. Apparently the signings he has brought in were all SC targets anyway.

 

Good points.

The new signings have not been suddenly magically pinpointed by MA, all were apparently already on Cotts' and Burt's list of potential signings and would very likely have been signed had SC remained anyway.

Pearce and Gladwin in particular were not hard to sign as neither had been playing regular first team football, nor were they were match fit, so no huge competition for their signatures, or indeed hurry to clinch their signings while other avenues were explored. These 2 are likely to be squad players like Moore - perhaps proving to be very important ones if we get injuries/suspensions - but squad players nonetheless rather than usurping regulars.

MA's clear priority was to then bring in a striker and midfielder - not an easy job, no doubt, but that's what he's here for and he had a good 2 weeks to do it.

I said on transfer deadline evening I was certain a striker of some description would arrive before 11 pm because it was vital that one did, and achieving the signing of that crucial player on demanding days like that was how MA would earn his corn, and he wouldn't want to be found wanting.

This is where MA could have triumphantly silenced his doubters and showed he made a truly positive difference.

Whatever reasons, excuses etc. people generously put forward, the fact is he didn't deliver and we go into a possibly season defining match at the Valley with a strikeforce that with just a paltry single goal in Pemberton's 4 games in charge is clearly inadequate.

 

[Nogbad the Bad]

45 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Yep, I know what I heard.

If SC said 'I didn't offer Zach Clough the wages that would turn his head' he would clearly be speaking on behalf of the club.

Cotterill wasn't in a position to offer potential recruits wages, or financial packages.

That was for others to negotiate, and nothing at all to do with him.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I dunno if it's the board or DOF or manager to blame/credit the Cotterill short termist claims or accusations don't really stack up. Our squad he left us was far from aging, average age was 25 and perhaps less.

[bs3]

8 hours ago, nathredwood said:

MA has recent history with the club as a consultant. He helped build the squad that won League 1 last term.

At the time I gave the credit to Cotts for what was a great summer of signings for our club. Now with hindsight I have to question how much Cotts had to do with it and how much was MA.

Without MA this summer we did nothing. Now he's back and he's made signings that have made an immediate impact. Imagine what it will be like when we stay up and have him for the summer window!

Your wrong on this . Ashton worked as a consultant for Bristol City in 2013. He was not involved in the summer signings of 2014. Source for this information was Mark Ashton interview on Radio Bristol,

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

Good points.

The new signings have not been suddenly magically pinpointed by MA, all were apparently already on Cotts' and Burt's list of potential signings and would very likely have been signed had SC remained anyway.

Pearce and Gladwin in particular were not hard to sign as neither had been playing regular first team football, nor were they were match fit, so no huge competition for their signatures, or indeed hurry to clinch their signings while other avenues were explored. These 2 are likely to be squad players like Moore - perhaps proving to be very important ones if we get injuries/suspensions - but squad players nonetheless rather than usurping regulars.

MA's clear priority was to then bring in a striker and midfielder - not an easy job, no doubt, but that's what he's here for and he had a good 2 weeks to do it.

I said on transfer deadline evening I was certain a striker of some description would arrive before 11 pm because it was vital that one did, and achieving the signing of that crucial player on demanding days like that was how MA would earn his corn, and he wouldn't want to be found wanting.

This is where MA could have triumphantly silenced his doubters and showed he made a truly positive difference.

Whatever reasons, excuses etc. people generously put forward, the fact is he didn't deliver and we go into a possibly season defining match at the Valley with a strikeforce that with just a paltry single goal in Pemberton's 4 games in charge is clearly inadequate.

 

Top post Nogs spot on,

it surprisingly came as a shock to the suits just how much players in this league were on apparently, well they obviously are way out of touch then.

[Cornacix the Druid]

I seem to remember SC saying last season that he already had players in mind, etc. I appreciate that he may not have had anything to do with wages but surely with the information that SC had on those players, those whose job it was to consider the finances should have done their homework to find out the cost implications. I just cant believe that "Businessmen" are so unaware.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, spudski said:

Agreed...I think many SC fans fail to understand the long term damage he was doing to this Club...they only see 'that promotion'. as I see it SC took us from the gutter to Wembley and div champs, and was halfway through a season in the championship; the board it seems were shocked at how much some recruits wanted.

He only thought about himself and the first team. A complete control freak. You don't know that at all, you didn't know him at all, complete unfounded statement

We may as well have done away with the Academy and development teams, as he had no interest in them what so ever. see above

Perhaps people will understand if it wasn't for 'holes' in certain pre contracts then the whole summer wouldn't have gone Pete Tong.Evidence?

If people think the board were totally at fault for the summer fiasco...then they are wrong. And that's coming from someone who isn't a big fan of the board. you don't know that either, where is the proof

How would fans feel if SL walked away from the Club...kept the Rugby and Basketball...found a new backer, but kept the stadium and leased it back to the club? ;-) we managed before we`ll manage again

Please convert me, where are the facts for the above statements

[Kid in the Riot]

36 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

Good points.

The new signings have not been suddenly magically pinpointed by MA, all were apparently already on Cotts' and Burt's list of potential signings and would very likely have been signed had SC remained anyway.

Pearce and Gladwin in particular were not hard to sign as neither had been playing regular first team football, nor were they were match fit, so no huge competition for their signatures, or indeed hurry to clinch their signings while other avenues were explored. These 2 are likely to be squad players like Moore - perhaps proving to be very important ones if we get injuries/suspensions - but squad players nonetheless rather than usurping regulars.

MA's clear priority was to then bring in a striker and midfielder - not an easy job, no doubt, but that's what he's here for and he had a good 2 weeks to do it.

I said on transfer deadline evening I was certain a striker of some description would arrive before 11 pm because it was vital that one did, and achieving the signing of that crucial player on demanding days like that was how MA would earn his corn, and he wouldn't want to be found wanting.

This is where MA could have triumphantly silenced his doubters and showed he made a truly positive difference.

Whatever reasons, excuses etc. people generously put forward, the fact is he didn't deliver and we go into a possibly season defining match at the Valley with a strikeforce that with just a paltry single goal in Pemberton's 4 games in charge is clearly inadequate.

A ridiculous yet unsurprisingly harsh post on MA there Nogbad. MA had a "good 2 weeks" to sign a striker and midfielder!! Well WTF did SC have??!! Let me remind you: 2.5 transfer windows!! An entire January, followed by an entire summer, followed by half of last month and his 'dealings' left us with pretty much the square root of f--- all! In fact he left us fielding a weaker first XI than we were in L1 last season - a shambolic situation that he showed no sign of being able to rescue. Yet MA is criticised for 'not delivering' in 2 weeks? You surely MUST be taking the piss?

26 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

If SC said 'I didn't offer Zach Clough the wages that would turn his head' he would clearly be speaking on behalf of the club.

Cotterill wasn't in a position to offer potential recruits wages, or financial packages.

That was for others to negotiate, and nothing at all to do with him.

SC is an old school wheeler dealer. If you seriously think he wasn't involved in talking numbers with players and agents and indeed negotiating deals then you are delusional. Even Titbury Massive's post (largely taken as gospel on here it seems) clearly states that SC and KB went and sorted deals for Maguire and Gray including fees and wages.

20 minutes ago, bs3 said:

Your wrong on this . Ashton worked as a consultant for Bristol City in 2013. He was not involved in the summer signings of 2014. Source for this information was Mark Ashton interview on Radio Bristol,

This does need clarification as the web site said when MA joined that he was part of the successful recruitment in 2014, yet on the radio he said he worked for the club whilst McInnes was here. Mostly on Academy matters I understood. It is of course possible he had two stints here. But no reason to disbelieve the official web site which stated clearly he helped with recruitment in summer 2014.

[RedYoshi]

59 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

This does need clarification as the web site said when MA joined that he was part of the successful recruitment in 2014, yet on the radio he said he worked for the club whilst McInnes was here. Mostly on Academy matters I understood. It is of course possible he had two stints here. But no reason to disbelieve the official web site which stated clearly he helped with recruitment in summer 2014.

Quote from the website:

"He was heavily involved in establishing the talent identification and recruitment system which was the foundation of player recruitment in spring / early summer 2014"

Think they've probably deliberately worded it like that, but - especially seeing as he joined Oxford "in the first half of 2014" (also referenced on the site) - it doesn't say he was here during that summer, merely that he'd established the system which was then used.

So, hopefully, it was the system that worked, but something subsequently has gone wrong/been changed with it, and he'll now be able to fix it.

I remember, as you say, him acting as a consultant while McInnes was here. Not sure if that overlapped into O'Driscoll's reign, or when he left exactly, but pretty sure he had already moved on by the time Cotterill arrived.

 

(Link, if anyone's interested: http://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/article/mark-ashton-appointed-chief-operating-officer-2904667.aspx)

[steviestevieneville]

7 hours ago, BCFC Jordan said:

The fact we have this corporate Lansdown 'yes man' running things at the club now, instead of SC, makes this season twice as depressing. At least with SC I knew we had someone with ambitions for this club, who was just being held back by his lack of support from the board.

It's all your opinion though ain't it ? You have no idea really do you ? Just like everyone else on here. Especially certain people who want everyone to believe they're ITK but really they know Jack shit. 

[redsquirrel]

1 hour ago, RedYoshi said:

Quote from the website:

"He was heavily involved in establishing the talent identification and recruitment system which was the foundation of player recruitment in spring / early summer 2014"

Think they've probably deliberately worded it like that, but - especially seeing as he joined Oxford "in the first half of 2014" (also referenced on the site) - it doesn't say he was here during that summer, merely that he'd established the system which was then used.

So, hopefully, it was the system that worked, but something subsequently has gone wrong/been changed with it, and he'll now be able to fix it.

I remember, as you say, him acting as a consultant while McInnes was here. Not sure if that overlapped into O'Driscoll's reign, or when he left exactly, but pretty sure he had already moved on by the time Cotterill arrived.

 

(Link, if anyone's interested: http://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/article/mark-ashton-appointed-chief-operating-officer-2904667.aspx)

cheers RY, that sort of answers what i was going to ask. 

[RedYoshi]

8 minutes ago, redsquirrel said:

cheers RY, that sort of answers what i was going to ask. 

No worries.

Oh, and the prediction thread will be up later tonight, to answer you from t'other day 

[The Swan and Cemetery]

It's been said elsewhere, but the chances of a tippity top striker joining us permanently, whilst always possible (let's assumed we tried), wasn't necessarily probable. Securing O'Donnell (he didn't have to sign, Wigan didn't have to sell) and freeing up a loan slot, which maybe far more attractive for a good quality striker thinking "not sure about perm there, but Championship football until the end of the season and then review" doesn't sound unreasonable (obviously we'll need to wait and see)? No reason to believe MA is the messiah, but a bit harsh to be calling him out as failing yet.

And 'suit' doesn't really wash either. There are always complaints about City not being professional enough, but pretty sure the Etihad isn't being run by a couple of straight talking geezers in cloth caps shouting "man on" at Aguero, whilst sipping Bovril and trying to convince Paul Lake to give away the prizes at the end of season meat raffle fund raiser. 

[BS4 on Tour...]

6 hours ago, BCFC Jordan said:

 

Just the general vibe he's given off since he got here, see my post above.

 

On the 2nd part, I'm not sure? I never claimed to know otherwise.

How can you know the 'general vibe' that MA has 'given off since he got here'??!

Have you been following him around behind the scenes at BCFC? How can you detect a vibe when you aren't within 100 yards of him?

Or are you?! 

[BCFC Jordan]

1 hour ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

How can you know the 'general vibe' that MA has 'given off since he got here'??!

Have you been following him around behind the scenes at BCFC? How can you detect a vibe when you aren't within 100 yards of him?

Or are you?! 

It's my impression of him. Sorry if that's not to your satisfaction.

[View from the Dolman]

5 hours ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

If SC said 'I didn't offer Zach Clough the wages that would turn his head' he would clearly be speaking on behalf of the club.

Cotterill wasn't in a position to offer potential recruits wages, or financial packages.

That was for others to negotiate, and nothing at all to do with him.

Well, if you listen to the interview with Mark Perrow pre-Boro and the press conference pre-Boro, SC is singing a very different tune to you.

If he wasn't involved in those negotiations, it's interesting that
(a) SC thinks it was a fair offer
(b) SC says it put him in the same region as our other players (which presumably to your logic he wouldn't know either)
(c) SC says he knew what he was earning at Bolton.

If that was nothing to do with him, why did he seem to know about it? And why did he speak about it as though he was involved?

He says that initially ZC, his father and agent weren't sure about moving to Bristol City but that after conversations with him, they were a little more interested. But then he speaks about the offer, where it fits the club and how he knew ZC's earnings at Bolton.

Surely, if he wasn't privy to financial details, his explanation would be along the lines of "initially ZC, his father and agent weren't sure about moving to Bristol City but that after conversations with me, they were a little more interested. The club couldn't put an offer that met ZC's requirements."

Where does your version of history emanate from and why does it differ from SC's version of affairs?

You can try writing your version of history but I won't be subscribing to it.

20 minutes ago, BCFC Jordan said:

It's my impression of him. Sorry if that's not to your satisfaction.

Would it be fair if we started giving our opinion of the vibe we get from you? We don't know you at all but we can throw words around too.

[BCFC Jordan]

1 minute ago, View from the Dolman said:

Would it be fair if we started giving our opinion of the vibe we get from you? We don't know you at all but we can throw words around too.

This is a forum, there will be a variety of opinions. I've said that I think Ashton is a yes man for Lansdown, going by the timing and the interviews he's given since joining. It's my opinion, like I said, sorry if it's not to your satisfaction.

 

It's no different to the people that have called Cotterill a control freak, or that he's unpleasant to work with, or even the people making libelous accusations against him in relation to transfers. They didn't know him either.

 

I've said that I'll hold the opinion that he's a corporate yes man until he starts proving otherwise. If he does, I'll accept that I was wrong.

[spudski]

It's frightening how some users speak with such authority, about what a manager does and does not do...and what he knows regarding wages etc.

Why make a comment and speak in such a way, unless you actually know how it works?

Anyone who thinks a manager doesn't know what a player earns, or has access to that information, might as well give up understanding football now. It's the most basic of knowledge.