The Project

[Redrobbin]

1 hour ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Well Nick you may think not but Mr L seems ok with the projects progress

 

That's us told then 

What year was that interview recorded? Because it fits with the "Project" coding for the last 10 years or so. 

[NickJ]

5 hours ago, NickJ said:

ACADEMY

Is this any more of a success now than at any time in the past? I still have an email from none other than Mr Jon Lansdown, dated October 2013, in which he discusses the 5 pillars (or at least what he thought they were), and in relation to Academy, I quote:

"There have been regular starts for both Joe Bryan and Bobby Reid, and Joe Morrell became the youngest player to make his City debut since 1999. This is a sure sign that the player pathway from Academy to first team is well and truly in operation."

So three and a half years on, and 2 of the 3 successes are the same, Joe Morrell is 20 years old and so far as I recall has not been included in a Johnson squad at all, and Vyner has made one squad as an unused substitute.

Hardly a tangible success is it.

 

 

And right on cue as evidence of my point, not even on our official site yet, but nevertheless:

 

 

[exAtyeoMax]

8 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Wang Chung

[Carey 6]

I also don't get the myth about this clear pathway to the first team. 

Bryan, Burns and Reid came through years ago at a time when everyone would say our academy was rubbish. So they don't count & cant be mentioned as part of it.

Vyner has played one and a half games of championship football for us in two seasons? LJ had the chance to back up this statement I keep hearing by starting him against Fulham, but he couldn't even get a start when Little is injured and Matthews is lazy, unfit and uninterested. 

Dowling playing last season doesn't count either, was in nothing games & hasn't had a look in since.

McCoulsky played 15 mins against Hull, but even Engvall played so we all know how little that match obviously meant to Johnson. 

[Alessandro]

17 hours ago, NickJ said:

ACADEMY

Is this any more of a success now than at any time in the past? I still have an email from none other than Mr Jon Lansdown, dated October 2013, in which he discusses the 5 pillars (or at least what he thought they were), and in relation to Academy, I quote:

"There have been regular starts for both Joe Bryan and Bobby Reid, and Joe Morrell became the youngest player to make his City debut since 1999. This is a sure sign that the player pathway from Academy to first team is well and truly in operation."

So three and a half years on, and 2 of the 3 successes are the same, Joe Morrell is 20 years old and so far as I recall has not been included in a Johnson squad at all, and Vyner has made one squad as an unused substitute.

Hardly a tangible success is it.

Many interesting and valid points in this post. I'm not SL or a spokesperson for the club, so you might want to attend the AGM and other supports meetings, or address them to the relevant people at the club. But i'm happy to talk broad brush strokes.

Academy: I think you actually do us a disservice when it comes to the academy. Would it surprise you to know we are the fifth highest club in the division to give our youth players game time? 

The U'23's development squad has only existed in it's current form for a short time, I think realistically you need to give it at least 2 or 3 years to really judge it's success.

Ultimately, we should use comparisons though, because you obviously believe having four or five academy products around the first team is not many:

Premier league teams average 2 youth players (who joined the club before 18) that play more than 10 games a year.

In the Championship, the very best teams for using youth are Leeds and Wolves, using I believe around 7 or 8 academy products. Both having very different seasons though. We are not that far behind that, and i'd expect our number to be higher over the next two years.

We could talk for hours about the academy (cohorts/intakes, search nets, keeping best assets from poaching by premier league teams etc) - but ultimately, despite some cynical comments from some, the figures show we are producing and using young players. The path from the academy, into the u23's (or loans to other clubs), through into the first team is there and possible, but the players still have to make the grade. 

 

17 hours ago, NickJ said:

 

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

I cannot comment on this as I do not know, other than to say my email from Mr Lansdown does not mention "Community Engagement". It does however mention "Bristol Sport" as a pillar, which confused me at the time and appears to have been thankfully replaced with something more meaningful.

I would though be interested on an elaboration by @Cowshed (see below).

This isn't my area of expertise, but there are some insinuations in this thread that perhaps it is a problem that the trust's activities are linked to financial input. Why is that a problem? Should it all be free? The community trust is a registered charity and relies on income, sponsorship and fund raising events. The School's partnership shown above is only one area of what they do. Well over 50,000 are involved in the activities with the trust each year, in other areas like education as well as sport.

In these successful free education programs, kids have gained B-TEC qualifications which lead to higher education and jobs, sometimes in the club itself. Making a difference to many young people's lives, i'd say.

17 hours ago, NickJ said:

 

PLAYER RECRUITMENT & TALENT IDENTIFICATION

The test of success, surely, is not a "wider geographical selection of players". We have purchased this season a Bosnian forward who will never ever hit double figures in a Championship season, and a Swede who has played a few minutes and wants to go home. I believe they cost £3m between them; I would very much disagree that they offer "better value".

Whether you agree with that or not, the test of success, surely, is league position.

Not saying it will not improve, but, at the moment, by definition, this pillar is a failure.

Well, this is very much your opinion. Obviously, right now, given our league position this is an easy stick to beat the club with. But you cannot deny better 'value for money' is abroad right now. We've also not just looked to scout for the first team, but also for the U23's with players such as De Girolamo, Tin Platovic, Freddie Hines who will hopefully develop over the next few seasons and make the first team. 

Also, it's worth remembering this pillar is about increasing our search fields for players, we've done that. There is nothing in there about guarantees of success, just increasing our scouting networks and Kodjia is proof this can, and has worked for us, financially.

Back to your examples - Milan Djuric has played a handful of games so is a bad example and slightly unfair to judge (although he has 2 in 6 apps). Engvall you've also picked, and so far is the worse case scenario, he may well come good, but not every signing is guaranteed, home or abroad. However, with Engvall, when we signed him was an 'international' player for his country, as is Djuric, how many of those are available for that price in this country? 

To counter Engvall we have Kodjia, a huge success financially and Hegeler. How many players with over 100 appearances in the (equivalent) premier league and with champions league experience do you think are available for a few hundred thousand pounds in the UK?

17 hours ago, NickJ said:

 

FINANCIAL CONTROL

Again I cannot comment with certainty as I do not know, but I would hazard a guess that with the addition of 20 odd players, including the likes of Tomlin, O'Neill, Abraham, and a much smaller number exiting, the cost of Johnson's 2016/17 squad is considerably higher than Cotterill's 2015/16 squad.

Obviously there are different elements to this pillar, but you've focussed on wages. When this pillar was introduced, it was mainly to get our wage bill under control. To avoid the situation we had after GJ with over-paid deadwood on the wage bill. 

Those players have now been moved on and the club aiming to have a clearer wage structure under better control. Regarding the number of new signings, they needed to be made and we still have a below average squad size for the Championship.

I'm sure you know how to access our accounts, our last 'confirmed' player wage bill was in the region of £10-12 million (most likely a higher now) but this is very much a lower end championship wage bill. Cardiff City have a wage bill around £40m. Nottingham Forest, 4 points ahead of us with a wage bill in excess of double ours at around £27m. Bolton went down with a wage bill in excess of £20m. 

17 hours ago, NickJ said:

 

FACILITIES

If I were to be churlish, I would say I am not completely impressed. The ownership of the ground is very different to how it should - IMO - be and it no longer has the feel of a Bristol City stadium.

Nevertheless, taking the objective at its literal, the stadium is impressive, and is the one and only pillar where IMO the promise has been fulfilled.

 

Again, this comes down to opinion. Whether one likes the development or not, the club has delivered fantastic new, up to date facilities. Every visitor to the Gate now is impressed with what they see. Add to this the increased revenue streams. A win win for BCFC.

[NickJ]

3 hours ago, Alessandro said:

Many interesting and valid points in this post. I'm not SL or a spokesperson for the club, so you might want to attend the AGM and other supports meetings, or address them to the relevant people at the club. But i'm happy to talk broad brush strokes.

Academy: I think you actually do us a disservice when it comes to the academy. Would it surprise you to know we are the fifth highest club in the division to give our youth players game time? 

The U'23's development squad has only existed in it's current form for a short time, I think realistically you need to give it at least 2 or 3 years to really judge it's success.

Ultimately, we should use comparisons though, because you obviously believe having four or five academy products around the first team is not many:

Premier league teams average 2 youth players (who joined the club before 18) that play more than 10 games a year.

In the Championship, the very best teams for using youth are Leeds and Wolves, using I believe around 7 or 8 academy products. Both having very different seasons though. We are not that far behind that, and i'd expect our number to be higher over the next two years.

We could talk for hours about the academy (cohorts/intakes, search nets, keeping best assets from poaching by premier league teams etc) - but ultimately, despite some cynical comments from some, the figures show we are producing and using young players. The path from the academy, into the u23's (or loans to other clubs), through into the first team is there and possible, but the players still have to make the grade. 

 

This isn't my area of expertise, but there are some insinuations in this thread that perhaps it is a problem that the trust's activities are linked to financial input. Why is that a problem? Should it all be free? The community trust is a registered charity and relies on income, sponsorship and fund raising events. The School's partnership shown above is only one area of what they do. Well over 50,000 are involved in the activities with the trust each year, in other areas like education as well as sport.

In these successful free education programs, kids have gained B-TEC qualifications which lead to higher education and jobs, sometimes in the club itself. Making a difference to many young people's lives, i'd say.

Well, this is very much your opinion. Obviously, right now, given our league position this is an easy stick to beat the club with. But you cannot deny better 'value for money' is abroad right now. We've also not just looked to scout for the first team, but also for the U23's with players such as De Girolamo, Tin Platovic, Freddie Hines who will hopefully develop over the next few seasons and make the first team. 

Also, it's worth remembering this pillar is about increasing our search fields for players, we've done that. There is nothing in there about guarantees of success, just increasing our scouting networks and Kodjia is proof this can, and has worked for us, financially.

Back to your examples - Milan Djuric has played a handful of games so is a bad example and slightly unfair to judge (although he has 2 in 6 apps). Engvall you've also picked, and so far is the worse case scenario, he may well come good, but not every signing is guaranteed, home or abroad. However, with Engvall, when we signed him was an 'international' player for his country, as is Djuric, how many of those are available for that price in this country? 

To counter Engvall we have Kodjia, a huge success financially and Hegeler. How many players with over 100 appearances in the (equivalent) premier league and with champions league experience do you think are available for a few hundred thousand pounds in the UK?

Obviously there are different elements to this pillar, but you've focussed on wages. When this pillar was introduced, it was mainly to get our wage bill under control. To avoid the situation we had after GJ with over-paid deadwood on the wage bill. 

Those players have now been moved on and the club aiming to have a clearer wage structure under better control. Regarding the number of new signings, they needed to be made and we still have a below average squad size for the Championship.

I'm sure you know how to access our accounts, our last 'confirmed' player wage bill was in the region of £10-12 million (most likely a higher now) but this is very much a lower end championship wage bill. Cardiff City have a wage bill around £40m. Nottingham Forest, 4 points ahead of us with a wage bill in excess of double ours at around £27m. Bolton went down with a wage bill in excess of £20m. 

Again, this comes down to opinion. Whether one likes the development or not, the club has delivered fantastic new, up to date facilities. Every visitor to the Gate now is impressed with what they see. Add to this the increased revenue streams. A win win for BCFC.

Cheers, just to pick up on a couple of your comments.

Community trust - the comment about that was Cowshed's not mine, as said I did not know. Now that I do, I have to say I am a little disappointed. The club generates an incredible amount of money from not only Steve Lansdown but also the local and wider community, and in reality "belongs" to the local and wider community. It would be very possible for Bristol City to give back to sections of the community for free, and this is what I would have assumed from the words "community trust". I did not expect to click on the web page link and first thing I see is a price list for schools.

Academy - yes, it would surprise me if the club is the fifth highest in the division to give youth players game time. I would be very interested to see how the statistic supporting that is calculated, given that since 2013 when Jon Lansdown sent his email, the only new players from the academy I can think of is a handful of games between them for Burns, O'Leary, Vyner and Dowling,

Player recruitment - yes Kodja was a great acquisition, and it has to be said was one of several very impressive signings under the previous manager. We could go around in circles about this but with virtually a new squad now compared with this time last season, the current league position and well documented issues with certain players would indicate the "player identification" under the current regime is not far short of a car crash.

Wage bill - the "pillar" is financial prudence, not the size of the wage bill. I would suggest that financial prudence would imply matching revenues with costs, not taking satisfaction that our net loss is lower than other clubs.

Accounts/AGM/stadium

Here we get to the nub of the source of my dissatisfaction with the ownership of the club. Note ownership, not owner.

As one of the little people who, as a poor student in 1982 invested my £20 in the club in order to help save it from permanent extinction, I was a shareholder and used to regularly attend AGM's, and indeed raised questions regarding proposed changes to the ownership of Ashton Gate. Due to the change in ownership of the club in the past 10 years (ie one dominant shareholder), Bristol City can, quite legally, dispense with the formality of an AGM. So, attending an AGM is no longer an option, and the meeting which has replaced it is irrelevant in terms of raising similar issues.

Connected with this is the ultimate ownership of the stadium, which used to be Bristol City Holdings, which in turn used to be owned by thousands of shareholders. Through share issues over recent years the stadium is now effectively owned by Steve Lansdown. Now of course, I did not expect my paltry £20 to give me a meaningful share in Ashton Gate. What I did expect however, was that the constitution of 1982, that no one shareholder would ever own more than 25% of Bristol City, would be respected.

I understand why Steve Lansdown has invested his money in return for a greater and greater percentage ownership of the club and therefore the stadium, as opposed to loans, of course I do. He probably would not have invested the sums he has in any other way. But Steve's investment has come at a price for Bristol City supporters; what one man says, goes.

And so the stadium is now not Bristol City's stadium, it is a stadium owned by Steve Lansdown where Bristol City happen to play its matches. Does that subtle difference matter? Yes, I think it does, as I will explain.

Steve's vision is Bristol Sport, and in particular rugby sharing the facilities and the costs. I have no problem with rugby using the stadium, it makes perfect sense, but they should be a tenant of the football club, not using the stadium on an equal footing. In fact, when I think about how the stadium looks now, its worse than that. The Dolman is decorated with pictures of dozens of local sporting heroes. It does not say or give the impression of "Bristol City Football Club".  I went in the South Stand concourse for the first time earlier this year, the cup game against Fleetwood. This is now the main entrance into and focal point of the stadium, and if I had been dropped into that area from Mars, I would have thought I was at the home of Bristol Rugby. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I do not think that any part of Ashton Gate has such a dominant display in terms of "Bristol City Football Cub".

Yes, Ashton Gate is now a fantastic stadium now, but it is no longer our (Bristol City's, as in spiritually) stadium, and I do not think I am alone in being dissatisfied with that.

 

Finally, a comment on today's result, a result which cost me a significantly tidier sum than my 1982 investment in Bristol City. I rarely gamble, and have never previously bet against Bristol City, but noticing a thread on OTIB earlier today regarding the odds, it seemed to me that the bookies, given the league positions and our lamentable display against Fulham, had been overly generous in terms of a Newcastle win. So I made a calculated investment based purely on mathematics, risk and probability, as a consequence of which current Ladbrokes shareholders will see a healthy increase in their next dividend payment. So once again Johnson has ****** up, the man can do nothing right in my eyes.

 

 

[Ivorguy]

It's just the old New Labour speak of Blair, and adds up to the same thing - precisely nothing. Corporate speak rules, ok!

[AshtonGreat]

On 24/02/2017 at 17:37, NickJ said:

Thanks for the replies everyone. I've chosen this one to respond to as it appears to be the only one which is a totally serious reply and is from a poster who would know.

I honestly did not know that the pillars were now The Project.

So, if this is The Project, why is it so special, and why do they keep banging on about it. Any well run football club should have all of these as standard.

 

Notwithstanding the above, I disagree that we have made progress on these basics.

 

ACADEMY

Is this any more of a success now than at any time in the past? I still have an email from none other than Mr Jon Lansdown, dated October 2013, in which he discusses the 5 pillars (or at least what he thought they were), and in relation to Academy, I quote:

"There have been regular starts for both Joe Bryan and Bobby Reid, and Joe Morrell became the youngest player to make his City debut since 1999. This is a sure sign that the player pathway from Academy to first team is well and truly in operation."

So three and a half years on, and 2 of the 3 successes are the same, Joe Morrell is 20 years old and so far as I recall has not been included in a Johnson squad at all, and Vyner has made one squad as an unused substitute.

Hardly a tangible success is it.

 

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

I cannot comment on this as I do not know, other than to say my email from Mr Lansdown does not mention "Community Engagement". It does however mention "Bristol Sport" as a pillar, which confused me at the time and appears to have been thankfully replaced with something more meaningful.

I would though be interested on an elaboration by @Cowshed (see below).

 

PLAYER RECRUITMENT & TALENT IDENTIFICATION

The test of success, surely, is not a "wider geographical selection of players". We have purchased this season a Bosnian forward who will never ever hit double figures in a Championship season, and a Swede who has played a few minutes and wants to go home. I believe they cost £3m between them; I would very much disagree that they offer "better value".

Whether you agree with that or not, the test of success, surely, is league position.

Not saying it will not improve, but, at the moment, by definition, this pillar is a failure.

 

FINANCIAL CONTROL

Again I cannot comment with certainty as I do not know, but I would hazard a guess that with the addition of 20 odd players, including the likes of Tomlin, O'Neill, Abraham, and a much smaller number exiting, the cost of Johnson's 2016/17 squad is considerably higher than Cotterill's 2015/16 squad.

 

FACILITIES

If I were to be churlish, I would say I am not completely impressed. The ownership of the ground is very different to how it should - IMO - be and it no longer has the feel of a Bristol City stadium.

Nevertheless, taking the objective at its literal, the stadium is impressive, and is the one and only pillar where IMO the promise has been fulfilled.

 

I am intrigued. Can you elaborate?

Top post

[Redrobbin]

43 minutes ago, Ivorguy said:

It's just the old New Labour speak of Blair, and adds up to the same thing - precisely nothing. Corporate speak rules, ok!

It's worth more/less than nothing. It excels that. You start a war in the Middle East. And get appointmented the Middle East peace envoy. Oh the irony! 

[Redrobbin]

As Alessando has aluted to; the wage bill has been over the years, cut back with the five piller strategy because of overspending on extortionate wage billing and "Deadwood" due to the Johnson era. 

His son it seems is buyng up players he is not playing in the first team for the foreseeable future. More deadwood perhaps? 

[Alessandro]

11 minutes ago, Redrobbin said:

As Alessando has aluted to; the wage bill has been over the years, cut back with the five piller strategy of overspending on extortionate wage billing and "Deadwood" due to the Johnson era. 

His son it seems is buyng up players he is not playing the the first team for the foreseeable future. More deadwood perhaps? 

Out of interest, who would say is, or might become deadwood from our current squad?

[Tears in rain]

12 minutes ago, Redrobbin said:

As Alessando has aluted to; the wage bill has been over the years, cut back with the five piller strategy because of overspending on extortionate wage billing and "Deadwood" due to the Johnson era. 

His son it seems is buyng up players he is not playing in the first team for the foreseeable future. More deadwood perhaps? 

I would blame copell as well when he signed some utter rubbish 

[Redrobbin]

15 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

Out of interest, who would say is, or might become deadwood from our current squad?

You tell me. Who has Lee signed and has not used, or in a limited capability?

[Redrobbin]

16 minutes ago, MattRSp95 said:

I would blame copell as well when he signed some utter rubbish 

As said. I had not directly quoted Alessandro ( as clicked on quote) but he mentioned " Deadwood"  within the Johnson (senior) era. 

[B block]

On 24 February 2017 at 14:05, DANWRENBCFC4LIFE said:

He has to hand it in by the end of term 

D- could try harder, tends to be easily distracted and make rash decisions 

[Redrobbin]

2 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

I think it's only really been this season that we have finally got it right with our academy. If you watch a Brian tinnion interview from a few weeks back, I think it is starting to sound very promising. I do agree that these little 10 minutes of game time at the end of a game doesnt really mean too much. But when you read that we beat an experienced Swansea 4-0 away with 5 under 18s in the side, it is beginning to look better. We're bringing plenty in like hinds and Johnny Smith who look talented. Mccolskey has scored loads for the under 23s. Dowling apparently did well out on loan, oleary currently doing well for bath. Lloyd kelly looked good in a game I saw. Plavotic doing well at Cheltenham. Vyner did well at Accrington and apparently played well today against the best team in the championship. If a few of those make it for us then it's all worth it.

 Of course Jon, good for our academy Status. But unless we ulatise these players before the big fish snap them up ( and we don't, as is the past precedence resist the big fishes coming in for such players)  We will not benifit from their presence (on the pitch). 

[Alessandro]

1 hour ago, NickJ said:

Cheers, just to pick up on a couple of your comments.

Community trust - the comment about that was Cowshed's not mine, as said I did not know. Now that I do, I have to say I am a little disappointed. The club generates an incredible amount of money from not only Steve Lansdown but also the local and wider community, and in reality "belongs" to the local and wider community. It would be very possible for Bristol City to give back to sections of the community for free, and this is what I would have assumed from the words "community trust". I did not expect to click on the web page link and first thing I see is a price list for schools.

As I said, that is one element of what the community trust does. There are other aspects that are free of charge, the education side as I mentioned, so the club is as such giving back to the community.

Quote

Academy - yes, it would surprise me if the club is the fifth highest in the division to give youth players game time. I would be very interested to see how the statistic supporting that is calculated, given that since 2013 when Jon Lansdown sent his email, the only new players from the academy I can think of is a handful of games between them for Burns, O'Leary, Vyner and Dowling,

Bristol City are 5th in the championship for using youth players, based on the number of minutes played by players who joined the club before turning 18.

Quote

Player recruitment - yes Kodja was a great acquisition, and it has to be said was one of several very impressive signings under the previous manager. We could go around in circles about this but with virtually a new squad now compared with this time last season, the current league position and well documented issues with certain players would indicate the "player identification" under the current regime is not far short of a car crash.

Agree to disagree. 

Quote

Wage bill - the "pillar" is financial prudence, not the size of the wage bill. I would suggest that financial prudence would imply matching revenues with costs, not taking satisfaction that our net loss is lower than other clubs.

Name me two clubs in the championship that are matching revenue with costs. It's fairy tale land to think that is achievable.

There is vast debt in the championship, and pretty much 99% of the clubs are running with operating losses, so yes, we could take some satisfaction from our net losses and club debt being at the lower end of the scale.

Quote

Accounts/AGM/stadium

Here we get to the nub of the source of my dissatisfaction with the ownership of the club. Note ownership, not owner.

As one of the little people who, as a poor student in 1982 invested my £20 in the club in order to help save it from permanent extinction, I was a shareholder and used to regularly attend AGM's, and indeed raised questions regarding proposed changes to the ownership of Ashton Gate. Due to the change in ownership of the club in the past 10 years (ie one dominant shareholder), Bristol City can, quite legally, dispense with the formality of an AGM. So, attending an AGM is no longer an option, and the meeting which has replaced it is irrelevant in terms of raising similar issues.

Connected with this is the ultimate ownership of the stadium, which used to be Bristol City Holdings, which in turn used to be owned by thousands of shareholders. Through share issues over recent years the stadium is now effectively owned by Steve Lansdown. Now of course, I did not expect my paltry £20 to give me a meaningful share in Ashton Gate. What I did expect however, was that the constitution of 1982, that no one shareholder would ever own more than 25% of Bristol City, would be respected.

I understand why Steve Lansdown has invested his money in return for a greater and greater percentage ownership of the club and therefore the stadium, as opposed to loans, of course I do. He probably would not have invested the sums he has in any other way. But Steve's investment has come at a price for Bristol City supporters; what one man says, goes.

And so the stadium is now not Bristol City's stadium, it is a stadium owned by Steve Lansdown where Bristol City happen to play its matches. Does that subtle difference matter? Yes, I think it does, as I will explain.

Steve's vision is Bristol Sport, and in particular rugby sharing the facilities and the costs. I have no problem with rugby using the stadium, it makes perfect sense, but they should be a tenant of the football club, not using the stadium on an equal footing. In fact, when I think about how the stadium looks now, its worse than that. The Dolman is decorated with pictures of dozens of local sporting heroes. It does not say or give the impression of "Bristol City Football Club".  I went in the South Stand concourse for the first time earlier this year, the cup game against Fleetwood. This is now the main entrance into and focal point of the stadium, and if I had been dropped into that area from Mars, I would have thought I was at the home of Bristol Rugby. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I do not think that any part of Ashton Gate has such a dominant display in terms of "Bristol City Football Cub".

Yes, Ashton Gate is now a fantastic stadium now, but it is no longer our (Bristol City's, as in spiritually) stadium, and I do not think I am alone in being dissatisfied with that.

You don't need me to tell you quite how long ago 1982 was. How much of the club did Scott Davidson own, out of interest? I'd wager that constitution was 'disrespected' long before Steve Lansdown. Eitherway, again we are in a fairy tale land where fans have any control, or real say, in the running of the football club. How many fan owned and controlled football clubs are there in the top 3 divisions? None.

Yes, you were there for an important chapter of Bristol City's history in 1982, but we can't write the next one while still reading the last. We all know football has changed. You're problem with the way the club is owned is a problem indicative of football as a whole, not just Bristol City. We are the same as every other team in the top two tiers. That is life now.

Where I wholeheartedly disagree with you, is in the picture you've painted of Bristol Sport and Ashton Gate. I'm not possessive of Ashton Gate, I see this as an exciting way to move forwards for the club and City, personally. Ashton Gate still feels very much at home for me. I have many happy memories sat in each stand over the years, but I know progress doesn't really wait for sentimentality. 

Final thought: 57% of the club's in the top two divisions are owned by foreign owners. Foreign owners who have repeatedly gone against the will of the fans to disregard the history of football at their clubs. Tan, Cellino, the Glaziers, Randy Lerner, Assem Allam, Shahid Khan, Al Hasawi, The Venky's, Roland Duchâtelet.

We have a man who has 110%, the well being of BCFC at his heart. A respect for our club and history, with continued near unconditional financial investment in our future and the City as a whole. Looking to build a legacy Bristol can be proud of. Not re-brand us. Not change the colour of our kits or the name of our club. Not sell all our best players and not invest in new ones. Not take us on tour's to China. Not sack a manager every 2 months. 

 

Quote

 

Finally, a comment on today's result, a result which cost me a significantly tidier sum than my 1982 investment in Bristol City. I rarely gamble, and have never previously bet against Bristol City, but noticing a thread on OTIB earlier today regarding the odds, it seemed to me that the bookies, given the league positions and our lamentable display against Fulham, had been overly generous in terms of a Newcastle win. So I made a calculated investment based purely on mathematics, risk and probability, as a consequence of which current Ladbrokes shareholders will see a healthy increase in their next dividend payment. So once again Johnson has ****** up, the man can do nothing right in my eyes.

 

 

I'm sure LJ made sure we didn't lose, just for you. He knows you're a huge fan of his! 

[Guest]

Is "the project" a rename of the 5 pillars ?

[Ivorguy]

1 hour ago, Wilco said:

Is "the project" a rename of the 5 pillars ?

It's pure Orwell.  It can mean anything Big Brother, SL, wants it to mean

 

 

 

[View from the Dolman]

3 hours ago, NickJ said:

I went in the South Stand concourse for the first time earlier this year, the cup game against Fleetwood. This is now the main entrance into and focal point of the stadium, and if I had been dropped into that area from Mars, I would have thought I was at the home of Bristol Rugby.

I must have missed the stories of John Atyeo, Scott Murray, Wade Elliott et al playing for Bristol Rugby.

[NickJ]

14 hours ago, Alessandro said:

You don't need me to tell you quite how long ago 1982 was. How much of the club did Scott Davidson own, out of interest? I'd wager that constitution was 'disrespected' long before Steve Lansdown. Eitherway, again we are in a fairy tale land where fans have any control, or real say, in the running of the football club. How many fan owned and controlled football clubs are there in the top 3 divisions? None.

Yes, you were there for an important chapter of Bristol City's history in 1982, but we can't write the next one while still reading the last. We all know football has changed. You're problem with the way the club is owned is a problem indicative of football as a whole, not just Bristol City. We are the same as every other team in the top two tiers. That is life now.

Where I wholeheartedly disagree with you, is in the picture you've painted of Bristol Sport and Ashton Gate. I'm not possessive of Ashton Gate, I see this as an exciting way to move forwards for the club and City, personally. Ashton Gate still feels very much at home for me. I have many happy memories sat in each stand over the years, but I know progress doesn't really wait for sentimentality. 

Final thought: 57% of the club's in the top two divisions are owned by foreign owners. Foreign owners who have repeatedly gone against the will of the fans to disregard the history of football at their clubs. Tan, Cellino, the Glaziers, Randy Lerner, Assem Allam, Shahid Khan, Al Hasawi, The Venky's, Roland Duchâtelet.

We have a man who has 110%, the well being of BCFC at his heart. A respect for our club and history, with continued near unconditional financial investment in our future and the City as a whole. Looking to build a legacy Bristol can be proud of. Not re-brand us. Not change the colour of our kits or the name of our club. Not sell all our best players and not invest in new ones. Not take us on tour's to China. Not sack a manager every 2 months. 

 

Scott Davidson never owned more than 25%. Him and John Laycock owned shares and obtained any additional finance needed by personally guaranteeing bank loans.

No director since 1982 owned substantially more than 25%, before Steve Lansdown.

If I recall correctly, Steve was able to increase his percentage holding with a resolution which was passed removing pre-emption rights. This would have been gobbledygook to the majority of shareholders; indeed, I recall thinking at the time that it seemed a fairly innocuous event in Bristol City's financial history.

However Steve could have put his millions into the club by loan rather than share capital. Does it make any difference? Yes, it does.

When it was not possible for any one director to be dominant in terms of shareholding, each director was accountable to the shareholders. Indeed, Scott Davidson despite his popularity with City fans was ousted as chairman not long after Steve Lansdown bought shares and joined the board.

Steve is not subject to this accountability.

The board of directors and significant shareholders used to be custodians (note plural) of Bristol City. Directors came and went, there was a natural and gradual succession in place.

I have reached the conclusion that Steve being a Bristolian is a perceived rather than real benefit to Bristol City. In reality, what have any of the foreign owners you mention been able to permanently change for the worse that is any different to anything which Steve has or has not done? I would be prouder if I saw several Bristolians out on the pitch every week.

Nobody really knows what will happen when Steve Lansdown no longer controls Bristol City, but what we do know is that, as things stand at the moment, supporters of Bristol City will no longer own Ashton Gate. That will not be a good thing, for the supporters of Bristol City.

When making these type of posts I nowadays feel the need to emphasise I like Steve and do not question his motives. Because if I do not, some people will accuse me of all sorts of things, some probably will anyway, on the basis of occasional less measured comments.

But I do not as you imply live in la la land with a rose tinted eye on the past. I just know that the nature of the financial restructuring and ownership of club and assets was not necessary to achieve what has been achieved.

Meanwhile, it would appear that The Project is an illusion, just something that all clubs should be doing, and we can agree to disagree as to the success or otherwise of our project here at Bristol City, but either way it is good, because, The Project being an illusion, there is no longer any excuse not to sack Johnson, just because he buys into "The Project".

[Redandy]

On 24/02/2017 at 15:52, Port Said Red said:

I have highlighted that bit above because that is what Alan Dicks did with Harry Dolmans backing. The thing is, we flirted with relegation in several of the seasons he was doing the building. It has been said before, but I do wonder what this forum would have looked like throughout the early 70's and whether AD would have survived to see us into the 1st Division. For what it's worth, I think he would because HD ignored the man on the terrace and his own board of directors to stick with "his man", does that sound familiar? 

Are you saying Johnson is as good as Alan Dicks. The problem is not sticking with a Manager that has demonstrated ability to improve the team but sticking with one that has shown nothing. We are no better now than at the start of the season.

[Port Said Red]

1 hour ago, Redandy said:

Are you saying Johnson is as good as Alan Dicks. The problem is not sticking with a Manager that has demonstrated ability to improve the team but sticking with one that has shown nothing. We are no better now than at the start of the season.

I am saying that Dicks had 8 seasons to prove how good a Manager he was, but I believe that people would have been dismissing him as rubbish at several stages of his career, LJ has had one year in which we have had ups and downs, but it is only one year..

[Meryl Goodrum]

On 24/02/2017 at 13:56, NickJ said:

I keep hearing Lansdown and Johnson refer to "The Project".

Humorous replies welcome, but I genuinely do not know what they think the project currently is, enlightenment gratefully received.

To completely dismantle any semblance of the great team we used to have, ruin morale amongst the players and make the fans wonder why the hell they bother?

[Midred]

4 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

I am saying that Dicks had 8 seasons to prove how good a Manager he was, but I believe that people would have been dismissing him as rubbish at several stages of his career, LJ has had one year in which we have had ups and downs, but it is only one year..

A season like this was a regular occurrence in the late 60s early 70s!

[havanatopia]

On 25/02/2017 at 01:37, NickJ said:

ACADEMY

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

PLAYER RECRUITMENT & TALENT IDENTIFICATION

FINANCIAL CONTROL

FACILITIES

Nevertheless, taking the objective at its literal, the stadium is impressive, and is the one and only pillar where IMO the promise has been fulfilled.

I am intrigued. Can you elaborate?

I think we have actually accomplished all 5 but in my opinion there should be a 6th; success. I don't see it or is success the outcome of those 5? I guess we just gotta wait and see.

[BobBobSuperBob]

2 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

I am saying that Dicks had 8 seasons to prove how good a Manager he was, but I believe that people would have been dismissing him as rubbish at several stages of his career, LJ has had one year in which we have had ups and downs, but it is only one year..

So a comparison between the Football World of the 70s 

and 

Now

 

Is there anything that can be compared ?

[Red-Robbo]

3 hours ago, NickJ said:

Scott Davidson never owned more than 25%. Him and John Laycock owned shares and obtained any additional finance needed by personally guaranteeing bank loans.

No director since 1982 owned substantially more than 25%, before Steve Lansdown.

If I recall correctly, Steve was able to increase his percentage holding with a resolution which was passed removing pre-emption rights. This would have been gobbledygook to the majority of shareholders; indeed, I recall thinking at the time that it seemed a fairly innocuous event in Bristol City's financial history.

However Steve could have put his millions into the club by loan rather than share capital. Does it make any difference? Yes, it does.

When it was not possible for any one director to be dominant in terms of shareholding, each director was accountable to the shareholders. Indeed, Scott Davidson despite his popularity with City fans was ousted as chairman not long after Steve Lansdown bought shares and joined the board.

Steve is not subject to this accountability.

The board of directors and significant shareholders used to be custodians (note plural) of Bristol City. Directors came and went, there was a natural and gradual succession in place.

I have reached the conclusion that Steve being a Bristolian is a perceived rather than real benefit to Bristol City. In reality, what have any of the foreign owners you mention been able to permanently change for the worse that is any different to anything which Steve has or has not done? I would be prouder if I saw several Bristolians out on the pitch every week.

Nobody really knows what will happen when Steve Lansdown no longer controls Bristol City, but what we do know is that, as things stand at the moment, supporters of Bristol City will no longer own Ashton Gate. That will not be a good thing, for the supporters of Bristol City.

When making these type of posts I nowadays feel the need to emphasise I like Steve and do not question his motives. Because if I do not, some people will accuse me of all sorts of things, some probably will anyway, on the basis of occasional less measured comments.

But I do not as you imply live in la la land with a rose tinted eye on the past. I just know that the nature of the financial restructuring and ownership of club and assets was not necessary to achieve what has been achieved.

Meanwhile, it would appear that The Project is an illusion, just something that all clubs should be doing, and we can agree to disagree as to the success or otherwise of our project here at Bristol City, but either way it is good, because, The Project being an illusion, there is no longer any excuse not to sack Johnson, just because he buys into "The Project".

There were two yesterday and one other youth team product.  Few clubs in the top divisions outside London/Manchester/Liverpool have many hometown players.

[Port Said Red]

13 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

So a comparison between the Football World of the 70s 

and 

Now

 

Is there anything that can be compared ?

Bob  my only intention is to point out that the most successful manager in my time, was only able to achieve that success with time and patience. If that has changed in the last 40 years then I think it has changed for worst.

[BobBobSuperBob]

2 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

Bob  my only intention is to point out that the most successful manager in my time, was only able to achieve that success with time and patience. If that has changed in the last 40 years then I think it has changed for worst.

Accept that but due to the money involved it has changed 

Tread water and you eventually drown -

Unfortunately we are in the Lions Pit in the Championship and wandering aimlessly about as a gentle Gazelle is going to end in tears !!!!!