Whose responsibility is it~ Relegation?

[Bob Thompson]

So Steve got it wrong. Tough he owns the club. If you don't like it don't go . It's not compulsory. No one at City gains by these negative tweets . We all have our views but we're talking the team and coaches down. 

[...]

7 minutes ago, 8menhadadream said:

I'm definitely no happy clapper tfj but how the hell are we, just the plain old fans, to blame in any way for this fiasco? 

That is why we are number 6) / 6) for blame i.e. last.

We can always cheer a bit louder, so the fans take a small amount of blame.

If you want me to be argumentative on this point, you could say we should have protested about our form more vocally, and earlier: it's our club, and we care about what happens to it.

But I don't want to start an argument on OTIB.

 

 

tfj

[Northern Red]

3 hours ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

SL makes the big decisions, MA is just the mouthpiece.

IF MA really was making such decisions I suspect LJ would have gone some time ago.

It is SL, his project, and a long time wish to see LJ as the coach to deliver it, that keeps him in situ imo.

Completely agree. By all accounts LJ had been earmarked as a future City manager from pretty much the moment he took his first steps into coaching, and Ashton was nothing to do with the club at that point. That's not to say Ashton didn't agree with the appointment at the time, but ultimately it's Lansdown who calls the shots and signs the cheques regardless of what Ashton does.

[Nogbad the Bad]

1 hour ago, 8menhadadream said:

Fair enough NtB but I thought SL works from MA's recommendations? I guess that would make both culpable. I'm in total agreement that SL has the overall veto but I wonder if we aren't underestimating MA's role?

No doubt in many matters he does - MA will identify likely signings with the scouting network, negotiate transfers, contracts etc., take the day to day workload off SL by being the upbeat club spokesman in numerous off field matters - but in the case of LJ's appointment it appears SL had made his mind up he'd manage City at some stage long before MA came on the scene.

It was a matter of when, not if, and in the wake of Cotts. SL clearly decided the time was right.

Just a case of MA rubber stamping this one it seems to me, and of course talking up the appointment in an attempt to play down any rumblings about LJ's lack of experience and probable inadequacies.

MA's strength is he speaks enthusiastically and engagingly and is a convincing wordsmith to most, and all round I expect most feel he does his job very well. But there are limits as to how far his responsibilities extend, and SL (bar SC) will always have the final word when it comes to the manager. If SL wanted LJ, and he clearly did, then MA's job was to appoint him.

If MA had been employed in a similar position by another Championship club, and been given free reign to approach whoever he felt was the best man for the job, do you think he would he have targeted LJ?

I don't. Why would he? 

[Curr Avon]

13 hours ago, ontariored said:

This is not a LJ out thread. We are currently one place above the drop zone as of todays date. IMHO, it lies with the board. They take the responsibility and accountability of putting the "right", management infrastructure, policies and procedures in place. The board should / does not make emotional decisions but is distanced enough to make the "correct" decisions. If we should fail, then it is up to the board to take the appropriate actions, with the management structure and decision making within the club. Now, with respect, lay off of LJ, and ask the appropriate questions of the management at BCFC. 

I'm really sorry to bring this up, but do we have the right to discuss this?

Anyone?

[Ska Junkie]

13 minutes ago, chipdawg said:

I don't really have an answer, I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should probably stop trying to apportion blame because no one is really 'to blame'; LJ is just being the inexperienced, learn-on-the-job coach that he obviously is. SL/the board/Mark Ashton made a decision to take a risk that his learning curve would be sufficiently steep- at times he's looked ahead of that curve and right now he looks like he's behind it. My personal feeling is that we'll stay up with LJ in charge because we have got a bit better in recent weeks, our fixture list gets a bit better after next week and there are other teams playing poorly which means we've been able to keep our heads above water. Is it a risk to keep him in charge? Yes, absolutely. But there are no such things as sure bets in football and there is no guarantee that the new guy would make things better. My loyalty is always to BCFC, not the coach, the board or the players. But the dice were rolled a year ago or so and I think we have to keep playing the game to see if we win (or rather, don't lose)

Great reply fella and well put. The gamble really is sticking or twisting and there are no guarantees that either will work.

5 minutes ago, Taxi for Johnson said:

That is why we are number 6) / 6) for blame i.e. last.

We can always cheer a bit louder, so the fans take a small amount of blame.

If you want me to be argumentative on this point, you could say we should have protested about our form more vocally, and earlier: it's our club, and we care about what happens to it.

But I don't want to start an argument on OTIB.

 

 

tfj

Never been called a 'number 6' before, a lot worse but never a number 6. 

Argument on OTIB? Perish the thought! 

[Major Isewater]

38 minutes ago, chipdawg said:

I agree with your second point, but you have absolutely no proof for your first. And even if it was true, you can't completely remove credit from Johnson for that or for our decent start to the season

Lee Johnson is what he is; a young, inexperienced coach who is learning on the job. I don't think anyone (including himself and his boss, SL) would expect a young, inexperienced coach to be flawless in his management. Whether that's an acceptable situation to our club in our predicament right now is debateable, but too often the debate about Johnson descends into hysterical hyperbole and revisionist history

We have a history for young inexperienced managers don't we ? 

Did the Coppell episode frighten SL off appointing experienced coaches ? 

I wonder .

On reflection Cotts and SOD were a bit experienced.

 

[Ska Junkie]

4 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

No doubt in many matters he does - MA will identify likely signings with the scouting network, negotiate transfers, contracts etc., take the day to day workload off SL by being the upbeat club spokesman in numerous off field matters - but in the case of LJ's appointment it appears SL had made his mind up he'd manage City at some stage long before MA came on the scene.

It was a matter of when, not if, and in the wake of Cotts. SL clearly decided the time was right.

Just a case of MA rubber stamping this one it seems to me, and of course talking up the appointment in an attempt to play down any rumblings about LJ's lack of experience and probable inadequacies.

MA's strength is he speaks enthusiastically and engagingly and is a convincing wordsmith to most, and all round I expect most feel he does his job very well. But there are limits as to how far his responsibilities extend, and SL (bar SC) will always have the final word when it comes to the manager. If SL wanted LJ, and he clearly did, then MA's job was to appoint him.

If MA had been employed in a similar position by another Championship club, and been given free reign to approach whoever he felt was the best man for the job, do you think he would he have targeted LJ?

I don't. Why would he? 

MA was saying what 'needed to be said' to protect himself / SL then? Spin, spin and more spin.

On your question, I wouldn't have thought so, he was rumoured to be all for Appleton IIRC.

[Jin]

2 hours ago, chipdawg said:

I don't think we'll get relegated, so I can't really answer the question

Just out of curiosity, how confident are you that we'll stay up? I also think we'll stay up but it does worry me.

[...]

9 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

Completely agree. By all accounts LJ had been earmarked as a future City manager from pretty much the moment he took his first steps into coaching, and Ashton was nothing to do with the club at that point. That's not to say Ashton didn't agree with the appointment at the time, but ultimately it's Lansdown who calls the shots and signs the cheques regardless of what Ashton does.

It bothers me that Steve will not go for a proven manager.

I am not saying he goes for the cheap option, as you have to pay - one assumes - the Championship level of any manager, just the same as a going rate for players.

I smacks of control. Get in a puppet, who does as you want, and you have more 'control' over your club. Hire a strong willed and dominant manager, and you lose some control. That type of manager will want the lions share of control over signings, letting players go, squad size, formations, etc, etc.

Steve seems to go for the soft option.

This is why Pulis (I know ) did not stay.

He could see the clubs soft underbelly, and, frankly, he was right: we have a really soft underbelly.

Then look at that managers track record at small-ish Premier league clubs. It's excellent.

It's a results business, so you have to get in someone who gets the bloody results - we won't do that.

Chairmans right.

 

tfj

 

[Major Isewater]

4 hours ago, Alessandro said:

Knowing when to stand by or fire your manager generally cannot be easy in football. 

I think one of the things that we have to accept about our owner is that (regardless of whether he makes the 'right' appointment or not) he is proving himself to be a chairman who likes to give his managers as much time as possible to turn things around in a crisis.

I don't know if that is worse than a chairman who sacks at the first sign of trouble. Success often rewards stability in football, so I don't blame the board for that.

I personally would rather the manager is given a few extra months so we can find out if they can steer us out the crisis. We will be stronger in the long run for it. But those few months have to stop somewhere, and for me, that end has to be very close indeed for LJ if results don't come over the next few games.

I would be happier if I believed that LJ was being kept on because of cold hard factual improvements and not because he  was a nice bloke and an old friend of the owner .

[Lrrr]

IF it happens then a combination of LJ and the players, criticisms can be made of LJ's team selection etc but there are performances this season where the players have to take responsibility for not getting more from games.

[Ska Junkie]

15 minutes ago, Bob Thompson said:

So Steve got it wrong. Tough he owns the club. If you don't like it don't go . It's not compulsory. No one at City gains by these negative tweets . We all have our views but we're talking the team and coaches down. 

Are we 'talking the club down' Bob? I thought we were discussing where things had gone wrong TBH and discussing this and our club on our clubs discussion forum.

Thanks for the advice about not attending by the way. After 42 seasons, I think I will make my own mind up on whether to attend games or not, thanks though. I take it anyone with anything but positive thoughts shouldn't go? Be a bloody small crowd tomorrow if that happened. 

[glynriley]

16 minutes ago, Bob Thompson said:

So Steve got it wrong. Tough he owns the club. If you don't like it don't go . It's not compulsory. No one at City gains by these negative tweets . We all have our views but we're talking the team and coaches down. 

I was  going to Ashton Gate long before SL appeared on the scene.

Just because he makes decisions I don't agree with, it's not going to stop me going, and as a football club owner, he should have broad enough shoulders to accept criticism and negativity, it's the nature of the beast.

[...]

Just now, hodge said:

IF it happens then a combination of LJ and the players, criticisms can be made of LJ's team selection etc but there are performances this season where the players have to take responsibility for not getting more from games.

If you run the stationary team, and the stationary team is shit, you look at the manager or supervisor.

it's his job to get the best out of the assets - no-one else.

If you have given him lots of money to buy what stationary he see's fit, then there is even less excuse.

Now Lee has not really blamed the players, to his great credit, so we look at him, and HIS results.

LJ knows that better than any of us.

 

tfj

 

[Ska Junkie]

2 minutes ago, glynriley said:

I was  going to Ashton Gate long before SL appeared on the scene.

Just because he makes decisions I don't agree with, it's not going to stop me going, and as a football club owner, he should have broad enough shoulders to accept criticism and negativity, it's the nature of the beast.

Spot on Glyn!

[ontariored]

15 minutes ago, Curr Avon said:

I'm really sorry to bring this up, but do we have the right to discuss this?

Anyone?

Good Question! Personally, I think we do; by the shear fact that this is a forum whereby individuals voice / write their opinions then I have voiced my opinion. You are correct that as the majority of us are not board members, little or no shares for voting rights, it comes back to this being a forum for opinions.

[Nogbad the Bad]

26 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

I would be happier if I believed that LJ was being kept on because of cold hard factual improvements and not because he  was a nice bloke and an old friend of the owner .

...and the owner's son.

My theory - may be wrong - has long been LJ is a long term appointment to be in place as SL gradually takes a back seat and Jon takes over.

Jon takes the BCFC baton and has a long term trusted friend, about the same age, to work with.

Not a terrible plan at all on the face of it, provided the coach merits the job when appointed and goes on to be at least reasonably successful of course.

[Alessandro]

7 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

I would be happier if I believed that LJ was being kept on because of cold hard factual improvements and not because he  was a nice bloke and an old friend of the owner .

Well that's certainly an opinion that has been cultivated on OTIB.

Do people honestly believe a multi-billionaire businessman who has put his hard earned millions into the club would risk that simply because it's a 'mate'? I personally think not. SL doesn't owe LJ anything, if he gets sacked he'll bounce back and be in work again soon, that's football.

One concept that I find hard to understand is that a bad run makes him a 'shit' manager. Full stop. He is black listed, no come back. You can't lose as many games in a row and be a good manager ever again? Why can't you bounce back? In four months, he has gone from an intelligent, articulate, forward thinking young, albeit unproven, manager - to forever labelled 'shit'. I've even read people predicting his future management career (scraping around the lower leagues) which is just stupid, no one knows how LJ will develop or not in the future.

I fully understand results have been very poor - but I suppose given the fact he doesn't have a proven CV, people are just not prepared to put mistakes down to experience, but ability.

[Steve Watts]

1 hour ago, 8menhadadream said:

All valid points Chipdawg but what's the potential answer then? Going down would be an absolute disaster both financially and for ambition. Should the powers that be be looking at experienced help while LJ 'learns on the job' or do they stick or twist and look the serious result of relegation square in the face?

It's very concerning for the future of the club IMHO.

I see this mentioned a lot...and whilst I obviously wouldn't welcome relegation I have to ask....would it?  Was it an absolute disaster last time?  One season of struggle and consolidation and then one of the best seasons many of us have witnessed.  

Did anyone watch us beat Sheffield United and think "well that's great and all, but I wish it was Huddersfield we'd beaten"?  

We all enjoy victories no matter who they're against, don't we?  

The key would be who we manage to actually keep hold of if the unthinkable were to happen.  If we were to retain everyone on the playing staff that we wanted to then on paper there's no reason to believe that we would have to have that season of consolidation. 

I really do think that no matter anyway what happens, LJ is going to be given the opportunity to grow in the role and we're just going along for the roller coaster ride that is supporting Bristol City!

[Ska Junkie]

1 minute ago, Steve Watts said:

I see this mentioned a lot...and whilst I obviously wouldn't welcome relegation I have to ask....would it?  Was it an absolute disaster last time?  One season of struggle and consolidation and then one of the best seasons many of us have witnessed.  

Did anyone watch us beat Sheffield United and think "well that's great and all, but I wish it was Huddersfield we'd beaten"?  

We all enjoy victories no matter who they're against, don't we?  

The key would be who we manage to actually keep hold of if the unthinkable were to happen.  If we were to retain everyone on the playing staff that we wanted to then on paper there's no reason to believe that we would have to have that season of consolidation. 

I really do think that no matter anyway what happens, LJ is going to be given the opportunity to grow in the role and we're just going along for the roller coaster ride that is supporting Bristol City!

With the squad we've got, their wages / costs, the drop in crowds and supposedly a £4M-£6M drop in revenues (no idea if that's an accurate figure TBH, just read it somewhere), I would say it's a bit of a blow financially TBH Steve. It would probably mean we would have to 'clear the decks' again with players leaving for much less than their value, once again a financial hit and then another squad rebuild.

I don't know about you but I think that's a pretty bad situation WTGR.

[Lrrr]

41 minutes ago, Taxi for Johnson said:

If you run the stationary team, and the stationary team is shit, you look at the manager or supervisor.

it's his job to get the best out of the assets - no-one else.

If you have given him lots of money to buy what stationary he see's fit, then there is even less excuse.

Now Lee has not really blamed the players, to his great credit, so we look at him, and HIS results.

LJ knows that better than any of us.

 

tfj

 

And in other areas of work if workers aren't pulling their weight and meeting targets they're the ones let go, I'm not defending LJ he probably needs to go even if we stay up but the amount of points we've let slip where its been player mistakes that have cost us points rather than Johnson's tactics would probably see us in a much safer position in itself.

[Steve Watts]

15 minutes ago, 8menhadadream said:

With the squad we've got, their wages / costs, the drop in crowds and supposedly a £4M-£6M drop in revenues (no idea if that's an accurate figure TBH, just read it somewhere), I would say it's a bit of a blow financially TBH Steve. It would probably mean we would have to 'clear the decks' again with players leaving for much less than their value, once again a financial hit and then another squad rebuild.

I don't know about you but I think that's a pretty bad situation WTGR.

But who would it be a blow to?  FFP doesn't apply to league one and SL will underwrite the losses as he has before, without affecting our spending power.

It would obviously make us a less attractive proposition to potential signings, granted, but I don't think we'd be forced to sell anyone.  We weren't last time.  Those that left when we went down last time were those that chose to, not that we could no longer afford.  SL is the only one who takes a financial hit and he's shown time and again that he's prepared to do so.

As I said, I obviously don't want us to go down, and I still don't believe we will in any case.  I just think that people overplay the disaster scenario when recent history under SL shows that to not be the case.

[Ska Junkie]

1 minute ago, Steve Watts said:

But who would it be a blow to?  FFP doesn't apply to league one and SL will underwrite the losses as he has before, without affecting our spending power.

It would obviously make us a less attractive proposition to potential signings, granted, but I don't think we'd be forced to sell anyone.  We weren't last time.  Those that left when we went down last time were those that chose to, not that we could no longer afford.  SL is the only one who takes a financial hit and he's shown time and again that he's prepared to do so.

As I said, I obviously don't want us to go down, and I still don't believe we will in any case.  I just think that people overplay the disaster scenario when recent history under SL shows that to not be the case.

Good reply Steve but I'm sure we would all like SL to be ploughing some of his undoubted wealth into strengthening a Championship squad rather than underwriting further debt to sustain the existing squad in the division below? Surely that's a real setback? I have no reason to doubt that he would continue but it's an unsustainable model long term isn't it?

[Ray White]

Lansdown and who ever else sits on the board with him...

[shelts]

Massively blame the players. 

[REDOXO]

15 hours ago, ontariored said:

This is not a LJ out thread. We are currently one place above the drop zone as of todays date. IMHO, it lies with the board. They take the responsibility and accountability of putting the "right", management infrastructure, policies and procedures in place. The board should / does not make emotional decisions but is distanced enough to make the "correct" decisions. If we should fail, then it is up to the board to take the appropriate actions, with the management structure and decision making within the club. Now, with respect, lay off of LJ, and ask the appropriate questions of the management at BCFC. 

Interesting one. Unless something changes we will go down. However that change may be forced upon us as TA is not available and forces a two up situation or at very least a change in style that could make us less predictable. 

The board at BCFC effectively only exist because SL say it does and effectively does not make decisions that effect anything big without a Webex with SL. ERGO the board is a puppet. 

If we go down 90% of the responsibility will lay with LJ. This squad should be no where near bottom three. There are other elements Ashton (now vacationing with Shergar and lord Lucan) talks complete toss and has gone along and supported crap decisions. However SL MADE THE APPOINTMENT. He is not responsible for the relegation battle but he is wholly responsible for putting LJ in place that has lead to it!

[chipdawg]

2 hours ago, CityLew said:

Just out of curiosity, how confident are you that we'll stay up? I also think we'll stay up but it does worry me.

I would say "fairly", but I won't be betting significant cash on it. It's a different situation to our previous relegation seasons; we have a better squad, we're trying to keep out of the mire (or at least the most horrible part of it) rather than trying to escape it and (and I accept this is pure superstition) I feel that we've had our awful run and others are losing form or are not going to sustain the upturn. At the end of the day, play like we did against Wednesday, an hour at Derby, or even second half at Leeds, we'll pick up points against a lot of teams. I think we'll remain inconsistent but I think we'll pick up enough points to maybe finish 16-20th

[Monkeh]

2 hours ago, Taxi for Johnson said:

It bothers me that Steve will not go for a proven manager.

I am not saying he goes for the cheap option, as you have to pay - one assumes - the Championship level of any manager, just the same as a going rate for players.

I smacks of control. Get in a puppet, who does as you want, and you have more 'control' over your club. Hire a strong willed and dominant manager, and you lose some control. That type of manager will want the lions share of control over signings, letting players go, squad size, formations, etc, etc.

Steve seems to go for the soft option.

This is why Pulis (I know ) did not stay.

He could see the clubs soft underbelly, and, frankly, he was right: we have a really soft underbelly.

Then look at that managers track record at small-ish Premier league clubs. It's excellent.

It's a results business, so you have to get in someone who gets the bloody results - we won't do that.

Chairmans right.

 

tfj

 

what like steve coppell or shaun o'driscall?

[Mr Hankey]

Mark Ashton will be the one left hung out to dry by the man who is ultimately responsible for letting this fiasco rumble on.

In fact, regardless of whatever division we end up in i still see LJ here but not Ashton come July, which will be a damn shame, think Ashton has done a hell of a lot of good and don't for one minute believe he would of appointed LJ if he wasn't told to by a certain someone.