The Project

[BCFC Rich]

On 2/24/2017 at 09:37, NickJ said:

ACADEMY

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

PLAYER RECRUITMENT & TALENT IDENTIFICATION

FINANCIAL CONTROL

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.

 

 

Academy: we do really well, compared to most championship clubs here:

Club		Former academy players	League matches	League goals	Total value
	Aston Villa	6	83	5	12,50 Mill. €
	Ipswich Town	6	427	26	4,85 Mill. €
	Bristol City	6	183	10	1,85 Mill. €
	Wolverhampton Wanderers	5	427	10	4,35 Mill. €
	Nottingham Forest	5	149	11	1,05 Mill. €
	Reading FC	5	156	3	2,65 Mill. €
	Blackburn Rovers	4	259	2	2,90 Mill. €
	Birmingham City	4	37	0	350 Th. €
	Fulham FC	4	84	2	2,75 Mill. €
	Burton Albion	4	64	1	1,63 Mill. €
	Derby County	3	161	9	8,10 Mill. €
	Leeds United	3	27	1	450 Th. €
	Newcastle United	3	38	0	8,00 Mill. €
	Sheffield Wednesday	3	122	0	800 Th. €
	Brighton & Hove Albion	3	215	15	4,80 Mill. €
	Cardiff City	2	134	9	1,00 Mill. €
	Queens Park Rangers	2	7	0	300 Th. €
	Huddersfield Town	2	27	3	100 Th. €
	Norwich City	2	59	9	1,35 Mill. €
	Brentford FC	2	45	3	150 Th. €
	Rotherham United	2	14	1	100 Th. €
	Barnsley FC	1	0	0	50 Th. €
	Preston North End	1	1	0	-

Community Engagement: Difficult to comment as I recently relocted to USA so couldn't comment on this at present (but defnatley not something we were bad at.

Recruitment/ talent ID: Well I guess this is subjective, but most people agree we have done well here with players for the now, and some for the future who look really promising. (in fact most people on here fall into one of two camps on this - LJ had done well with this and deserves credit. MA has done well with this (LJ deserves no credit) and we should be doing better with the talent we have.

Financial - We are undoubtedly financially secure and careful with our finances. 

Facilities - I'd say we are doing amazingly at developing these.

 

So I disagree, generally speaking I'd say we are doing really well in all these areas.

[cidered abroad]

2 hours ago, Midred said:

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

Yes it was but we didn't spend more than a few thousand each summer on transfers and even allowing for the change in value of money, nowhere near £1 million let alone £12 / £15 million. 

The biggest transfer fee was,if memory serves, about £30,000 for Cheesley. Gerry Sweeney cost £22,000. Most of the squad were academy boys and free transfers. Jimmy Mann was a free from Leeds, I think. 

[Lack of Action Man]

1 minute ago, cidered abroad said:

Yes it was but we didn't spend more than a few thousand each summer on transfers and even allowing for the change in value of money, nowhere near £1 million let alone £12 / £15 million. 

The biggest transfer fee was,if memory serves, about £30,000 for Cheesley. Gerry Sweeney cost £22,000. Most of the squad were academy boys and free transfers. Jimmy Mann was a free from Leeds, I think. 

This what I think people are most angry about. We had some very austere times under O'Driscoll, followed by shall we say "controlled spending" under Cotterill and now we just seem to spaff our money around like we're pissing in the wind!

We should, without any shadow of a doubt, be up around 15th or possibly slightly higher with the money we have invested. 

 

[BCFC Rich]

9 minutes ago, OddBallJim said:

This what I think people are most angry about. We had some very austere times under O'Driscoll, followed by shall we say "controlled spending" under Cotterill and now we just seem to spaff our money around like we're pissing in the wind!

We should, without any shadow of a doubt, be up around 15th or possibly slightly higher with the money we have invested. 

 

Just not true: 15th most expensive starting line up in the league. 16th most expensive bench we are where we are. 

[Port Said Red]

1 hour ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

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 !!!!!

I would only believe that last sentence if there had been as little investment in the future as there was under Cotts. I still think there is reason to put a long tern plan in place and stick to it even more when there are setbacks along the way. Southampton did this action few seasons ago. 

As was once said. "Those who choose to ignore history are doomed to repeat it". Although as it was first said in the 1860's I guess that may be considered irrelevant too.

[Lack of Action Man]

3 hours ago, RichardEdd said:

Just not true: 15th most expensive starting line up in the league. 16th most expensive bench we are where we are. 

If we have the 15th most expensive starting line up in the league, then I don't think it's beyond the realms of expectation to say we should be at least 15th?

Also there are teams above us who have spent more prudently (imo).

Will we ever get to the bottom of Engvall-gate? What exactly was the point in his signing? And I don't buy into "for the future" stuff, his comments on social media around the time of Matty Taylor signing made it clear that he thought he had a role to play in our first team and that Taylor's arrival quashed this.

[Cowshed]

On ‎25‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 21:04, Alessandro said:

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.

 

You originally stated that the community trust is doing great things in the community. The expensive partnerships are unaffordable to many  junior clubs and schools.

How have the community trust widened engagement with junior clubs and schools via football who cannot afford these partnerships?

Are the trust scaling back aspects of what they do because of these products which can cost thousands of pounds?

How wide is the community trusts prescience via its football pathway?

The idea of using the Community Trust as a pathway into football is a sound and very socially conscious one for a football based charity. It is not if it is not widely accessible and its accessibility is dictated by its price. The pathway of trust community coaching for kids linked to the academy appears to be in decline.

[Alessandro]

On 26/02/2017 at 12:40, 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".

So basically you disagree with anyone one person or consortium owning more than 25% of the club? You would rather SL had invested the £100m or so in loans?

So we might be in position like the Blackburn fans who have bored owners, looking to get out and wanting their £100m or so of loans back?

You say you're not looking through rose tinted glasses, but modern day football ownership is this way. Bristol City are not alone, a few examples of % of ownership by majority shareholders:

Ipswich - 87.5%
Aston Villa - 100%
Newcastle - 95%
Brighton - between 75/90%
Cardiff - 90%
Wolves 100%

Just a few quick examples.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 hours ago, Cowshed said:

You originally stated that the community trust is doing great things in the community. The expensive partnerships are unaffordable to many  junior clubs and schools.

How have the community trust widened engagement with junior clubs and schools via football who cannot afford these partnerships?

Are the trust scaling back aspects of what they do because of these products which can cost thousands of pounds?

How wide is the community trusts prescience via its football pathway?

The idea of using the Community Trust as a pathway into football is a sound and very socially conscious one for a football based charity. It is not if it is not widely accessible and its accessibility is dictated by its price. The pathway of trust community coaching for kids linked to the academy appears to be in decline.

• I had a quick look at Community Trust site and some things are more accessible by price. Such as Pre Employability course in partnership with Bridgwater College- free. That is a positive. That can be a real boost to someone who had tough circs and finds themselves unemployed, two week get ready for work programme. Excellent.
• Walking Football £4 per person per session, very reasonable.

Also there are other courses or similar which are free to do- with one caveat which is a £200 kit is needed to be purchased but would we class that as quite affordable? These are in the Futsal and Coaching categories.

So is a mixed bag on reflection and offers a variety.

[Red-Robbo]

30 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

So basically you disagree with anyone one person or consortium owning more than 25% of the club? You would rather SL had invested the £100m or so in loans?

So we might be in position like the Blackburn fans who have bored owners, looking to get out and wanting their £100m or so of loans back?

You say you're not looking through rose tinted glasses, but modern day football ownership is this way. Bristol City are not alone, a few examples of % of ownership by majority shareholders:

Ipswich - 87.5%
Aston Villa - 100%
Newcastle - 95%
Brighton - between 75/90%
Cardiff - 90%
Wolves 100%

Just a few quick examples.

 

Indeed, A.

And the reason it has become the norm not the exception to be owned by one extremely rich man - rather than a collection of moderately successful local businessmen - is the soaring cost of running a football club in the 21st Century. Football really is a very rich man's plaything these days. You need to own an international brand. 

Guys who run regional companies just don't cut it any more.

[Cowshed]

41 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

• I had a quick look at Community Trust site and some things are more accessible by price. Such as Pre Employability course in partnership with Bridgwater College- free. That is a positive. That can be a real boost to someone who had tough circs and finds themselves unemployed, two week get ready for work programme. Excellent.
• Walking Football £4 per person per session, very reasonable.

Also there are other courses or similar which are free to do- with one caveat which is a £200 kit is needed to be purchased but would we class that as quite affordable? These are in the Futsal and Coaching categories.

So is a mixed bag on reflection and offers a variety.

I mentioned specifically football. The trust is a football based charity. I coach for one. The community trust appears to be scaling back elements of what it did - It is offering less variety than it did for grass roots kids football and replacing this with what can be costly partnerships.

 

 

[Major Isewater]

On 24/02/2017 at 17:14, BobBobSuperBob said:

I had a vision of something like this

This kid's taking the Mickey .

[NickJ]

21 hours ago, RichardEdd said:

Academy: we do really well, compared to most championship clubs here:

 

Your table does not show what period is covered, but nevertheless the number of matches will include Joe Bryan and to a lesser extent Bobby Reid. These were players who had already made their debuts before "the five pillars". League appearances by academy players that have come through since "the five pillars" has been negligible.

 

1 hour ago, Alessandro said:

So basically you disagree with anyone one person or consortium owning more than 25% of the club? You would rather SL had invested the £100m or so in loans?

So we might be in position like the Blackburn fans who have bored owners, looking to get out and wanting their £100m or so of loans back?

You say you're not looking through rose tinted glasses, but modern day football ownership is this way. Bristol City are not alone, a few examples of % of ownership by majority shareholders:

Ipswich - 87.5%
Aston Villa - 100%
Newcastle - 95%
Brighton - between 75/90%
Cardiff - 90%
Wolves 100%

Just a few quick examples.

We would only be like Blackburn if Steve had put money in by loan and then had acted like a complete cock. I think we are all agreed he is not that and so no we would not be like Blackburn.

Burnley. Look at their accounts, look at their shareholdings. Small group of businessmen who have loaned their club when necessary but have now been paid back. None of them has a majority.

What is more, the level of investment at Burnley has been very small compared with Steve's. As we all know, a lot of Steve's money has been squandered, maybe if a proper board of directors existed the necessary controls would have been in place to stop that.

55 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Indeed, A.

And the reason it has become the norm not the exception to be owned by one extremely rich man - rather than a collection of moderately successful local businessmen - is the soaring cost of running a football club in the 21st Century. Football really is a very rich man's plaything these days. You need to own an international brand. 

Guys who run regional companies just don't cut it any more.

Again, I give you Burnley.

And before you say that is just one club, it may or may not be as I have not bothered to look up any others, but the point is Burnley are the proof that Steve could have invested his money in a different way, but we would have a board of directors accountable to the shareholders (an therefore the fans) for their decisions.

Does that matter? Yes, it does, the 25% rule was put in place for precisely that reason.

[Kid in the Riot]

So much prefer your work on our club's ownership to your Steve Cotterill stuff Nick

[JamesBCFC]

22 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

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 !!!!!

Unless you look at the teams who have actially stuck by their managers and given them time: Arsenal; Bournmouth, Exeter.

None of those clubs are failing or going backwards.

Arsenal probably should have got a few more trophies, fair enough.

Bournemouth are overachieving in many people view and Exeter, well it's taken a while, but this year they are competing for the playoffs after 4 years of midtable following their relegation.

[View from the Dolman]

30 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Burnley. Look at their accounts, look at their shareholdings. Small group of businessmen who have loaned their club when necessary but have now been paid back. None of them has a majority.

Just for completeness, they are heavily unbalanced shareholdings though. Two members of the board (Mike Garlick and John Banaszkiewicz) account for 77.44%, five other board members of 16.36%.

[BCFC Rich]

47 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Your table does not show what period is covered, but nevertheless the number of matches will include Joe Bryan and to a lesser extent Bobby Reid. These were players who had already made their debuts before "the five pillars". League appearances by academy players that have come through since "the five pillars" has been negligible.

1

I would argue it's more about there being space in the first team for graduates, so continuing to give  game time to players (even the two you mention) is about continuing to let them develop - I don't think any of us would claim they are yet the finished article, we haven't signed players to replace them in the squad we continue to develop them. If you want to exclude graduates from before and only think about it since the 5 pillars well then you are talking about a 4/5 year period since this was announced - if that is your argument then it's far too soon to expect anything to have changed massively. You would have to think about the academy players who were starting in the academy when the pillars were introduced. I believe our youth teams go down to U13's which would make those players 17/18 years old right now.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Cowshed said:

I mentioned specifically football. The trust is a football based charity. I coach for one. The community trust appears to be scaling back elements of what it did - It is offering less variety than it did for grass roots kids football and replacing this with what can be costly partnerships.

 

 

I will come clean and say I didn't read that post properly- apologies. The only thing I would say about it is that Community Trust obviously, certainly does more in terms of its activities than just football, but focusing on football solely I won't disagree.

As regards the other parts of the project- according to 2016 accounts, the following takeaways:

• Turnover- £10,349,426
• Wages & Salaries- that is for all staff, but exclusive of Directors, Social Security or Pensions- £13,614,238
• Directors- £361,470
• Overall losses (after tax)- unclear but looks like something in the region of £13 million.

Now I appreciate this was last season with a restricted attendance, we were still building the ground and the Kodjia sale in the transfer market really helped. However, I do wonder how close we are to breaking even- or even posting a profit? Not very on this evidence!

I am sure there are plenty on this site who know more about this than me and I am interested what they think of these figures and how well it fits financial sustainability. Or even if it's possible.

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 hour ago, JamesBCFC said:

Unless you look at the teams who have actially stuck by their managers and given them time: Arsenal; Bournmouth, Exeter.

None of those clubs are failing or going backwards.

Arsenal probably should have got a few more trophies, fair enough.

Bournemouth are overachieving in many people view and Exeter, well it's taken a while, but this year they are competing for the playoffs after 4 years of midtable following their relegation.

Arsenal - sorry James but a ridiculous comparison - One of the biggest , richest clubs in the country who have been in the Top 10'for 30-40 years

Bournemouth - Eddie Howes Second Spell - Already experienced at Bournemouth first spell and Burnley

Excellent coach backed heavily financially by Russian owner

 

Exeter - Hats off to Tisdale for keeping them bobbing along in League 2  (just at times) but he's been there how many years ? - as I say , fair enough  but Hardly a good sales pitch

 

Not great comparisons for me - Don't get me wrong - sticking with the right manager if you find a gem is good long term strategy

 

Depends whether you think LJ is a gem I guess

[JamesBCFC]

44 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Arsenal - sorry James but a ridiculous comparison - One of the biggest , richest clubs in the country who have been in the Top 10'for 30-40 years

Bournemouth - Eddie Howes Second Spell - Already experienced at Bournemouth first spell and Burnley

Excellent coach backed heavily financially by Russian owner

 

Exeter - Hats off to Tisdale for keeping them bobbing along in League 2  (just at times) but he's been there how many years ? - as I say , fair enough  but Hardly a good sales pitch

 

Not great comparisons for me - Don't get me wrong - sticking with the right manager if you find a gem is good long term strategy

 

Depends whether you think LJ is a gem I guess

Yes Arsenal is a bit of a ridiculous comparison based on their monetary worth and history, but that's why you scale the expectations as necessary for each club- Exeter should equally be a ridiculous comparison using your standard there, you can't have it both ways. 

There are too few clubs who do stick by their managers and that's why there are so few to draw comparisons too, I haven't picked out specific examples, just the ones off the top of my head.

Howe at Bournemouth may be in his second spell, but they stuck with him through the first spell even when things weren't looking all that great.

Tisdale took over Exeter with them in the Conference back in 2006, he then got 2 promotions and a good finish in League 1 before relegation, he now has them in the League 2 playoffs with a tiny budget- when they went up to League 1 before it was back to back promotions and possibly a bit too much too soon for them, this time they have build towards it and should they go up, they will be better placed to push on. 

Nigel Clough was at Burton for 10 years, joining them when they were in the regional leagues and leaving when they were in League 2.

 

[Alessandro]

4 hours ago, NickJ said:

Your table does not show what period is covered, but nevertheless the number of matches will include Joe Bryan and to a lesser extent Bobby Reid. These were players who had already made their debuts before "the five pillars". League appearances by academy players that have come through since "the five pillars" has been negligible.

 

We would only be like Blackburn if Steve had put money in by loan and then had acted like a complete cock. I think we are all agreed he is not that and so no we would not be like Blackburn.

Burnley. Look at their accounts, look at their shareholdings. Small group of businessmen who have loaned their club when necessary but have now been paid back. None of them has a majority.

What is more, the level of investment at Burnley has been very small compared with Steve's. As we all know, a lot of Steve's money has been squandered, maybe if a proper board of directors existed the necessary controls would have been in place to stop that.

Again, I give you Burnley.

And before you say that is just one club, it may or may not be as I have not bothered to look up any others, but the point is Burnley are the proof that Steve could have invested his money in a different way, but we would have a board of directors accountable to the shareholders (an therefore the fans) for their decisions.

Does that matter? Yes, it does, the 25% rule was put in place for precisely that reason.

Well I'll save you the bother of looking up. It's two.

2 out of 18 premier league teams do not have one owner/consortium controlling the vast majority of the clubs shares. So the '1982 agreement' is looking very out of date.

Burnley and Swansea. Two examples that people hold up, but all is perhaps not as rosy as it seems.

Burnley - firstly, nonsense to say the level of investment at Burnley has been very small compared to SL's. Please back this up with figures.

What I can say is that when Burnley first went up, they were not dissimilar to us or any other championship clubs in terms of revenue, expenditure and debt. Where they have been clever is taking the premier league money, not over spending, investing their parachute payments wisely, it still took them four or so years to return to the prem and are only now in the black.

Swansea having had several years in the premier league, have begun the tighten the spending reigns and are really struggling to compete in the league. Very much in danger to go down this year or the next. 

The jury is very much out on whether this kind of set up gives the financial clout for a club, as @Red-Robbo said, to really establish themselves and compete, rather than yo-yo. Burnley are doing well this season, but aren't investing on a 'premiership' level, will they follow Swansea over the course of the next few seasons. Jury is out.

Anyway, you've admitted that you don't think SL will do a Venky's and go crazy, so the ownership doesn't really matter, loans or shares?

So reading between the lines, what you want is more voices within the club to challenge Steve with his decision making? And probably most likely in the area of hiring and firing managers??

I'll refer you to one of the clubs you  inadvertently highlighted, Swansea City.  Despite having the ownership structure you wish for and a section of the fans in control of, I believe 20% or so of the club, they were over-ruled in the decision to sack Guidolin and sections of the support wanted to rip up their season tickets. 

So perhaps it's a case of be careful what you wish for.

[Red-Robbo]

.... and of course, @Alessandro could add, alternative ownership models might be more feasible when your local council gives you the degree of help Swansea have had from their's. Fat chance that happening in Bristol! 

[BobBobSuperBob]

18 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

.... and of course, @Alessandro could add, alternative ownership models might be more feasible when your local council gives you the degree of help Swansea have had from their's. Fat chance that happening in Bristol! 

And how much help,the Welsh have had from the EU

 

 

 

Sorry wrong forum 

[NickJ]

14 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

So much prefer your work on our club's ownership to your Steve Cotterill stuff Nick

What about my Lee Johnson stuff?

9 hours ago, Alessandro said:

Well I'll save you the bother of looking up. It's two.

2 out of 18 premier league teams do not have one owner/consortium controlling the vast majority of the clubs shares. So the '1982 agreement' is looking very out of date.

Burnley and Swansea. Two examples that people hold up, but all is perhaps not as rosy as it seems.

Burnley - firstly, nonsense to say the level of investment at Burnley has been very small compared to SL's. Please back this up with figures.

What I can say is that when Burnley first went up, they were not dissimilar to us or any other championship clubs in terms of revenue, expenditure and debt. Where they have been clever is taking the premier league money, not over spending, investing their parachute payments wisely, it still took them four or so years to return to the prem and are only now in the black.

Swansea having had several years in the premier league, have begun the tighten the spending reigns and are really struggling to compete in the league. Very much in danger to go down this year or the next. 

The jury is very much out on whether this kind of set up gives the financial clout for a club, as @Red-Robbo said, to really establish themselves and compete, rather than yo-yo. Burnley are doing well this season, but aren't investing on a 'premiership' level, will they follow Swansea over the course of the next few seasons. Jury is out.

Anyway, you've admitted that you don't think SL will do a Venky's and go crazy, so the ownership doesn't really matter, loans or shares?

So reading between the lines, what you want is more voices within the club to challenge Steve with his decision making? And probably most likely in the area of hiring and firing managers??

I'll refer you to one of the clubs you  inadvertently highlighted, Swansea City.  Despite having the ownership structure you wish for and a section of the fans in control of, I believe 20% or so of the club, they were over-ruled in the decision to sack Guidolin and sections of the support wanted to rip up their season tickets. 

So perhaps it's a case of be careful what you wish for.

I'm surprised you even challenge the level of investment issue, but backing it up with figures is quite easy. Over the past 10 years our P&L deficit (well Steve's now) has increased by almost £100 million. Burnley's hasn't, and by the way I believe they have a fans representative on their board of directors, none of whom unlike ours are paid.

You say Burnley are unlikely to ever be any more than a yo-yo club. I agree. Same as us, but between different divisions.

 

I haven't "admitted" Steve will not go crazy, because I have never said or implied that he would or is in the first place. But the ownership and control does matter for precisely the reasons I have already outlined. Do you really think that the past 10 years have been as successful as they should have been given the money pumped in, and if not why not?

Look at the composition of the directors of the holding company, and of the football club. Are they of the necessary calibre and experience? Do they even make the big decisions? Who for example decided that a manager who had been outrageously successful on a relatively low budget for 18 of his 24 months in charge (and that's without even going into who was responsible for the less successful other 6) should be bombed out rather than supported at a difficult time and replaced with a complete novice with a win rate of 36% in League One and seemingly minimal man management skills?

I once had to recruit junior members of staff for a new department I was setting up at a company I worked for, and on the basis that as you don't really know what you are going to get, agreed with my boss that they would be female, attractive with blond hair and certain other attributes, the rationale being that if nothing else they would at least be pleasing on the eye. In the event the policy was enormously successful for all of the right reasons as well as the wrong ones.

You do wonder sometimes what the selection criteria is for Bristol City managers.

[spudski]

Interesting thread this...some well made and well thought out posts.

Lots of facts and figures thrown around...plus lots of questions.

My questions are...what's the point of the conversation?

It's interesting reading about the ownership and the board etc,etc...but, it is what it is. I'm trying to get my head around the reason the 'debate' has been brought forward.

Is it just to moan again about the Club, or for another reason?

It looks to me like some people just want to moan about EVERY thing the Club are trying to do...and then pick random Clubs in the league system, if they suit, and use them to fit their agenda, as to how they think the Club should be run.

So you've got all these facts and figures...you've debated. You've come to your own conclusions. What are you going to do about it, to make the changes you want. Or are you just going to debate about it on here?

[exAtyeoMax]

2 minutes ago, spudski said:

Interesting thread this...some well made and well thought out posts.

Lots of facts and figures thrown around...plus lots of questions.

My questions are...what's the point of the conversation?

It's interesting reading about the ownership and the board etc,etc...but, it is what it is. I'm trying to get my head around the reason the 'debate' has been brought forward.

Is it just to moan again about the Club, or for another reason?

It looks to me like some people just want to moan about EVERY thing the Club are trying to do...and then pick random Clubs in the league system, if they suit, and use them to fit their agenda, as to how they think the Club should be run.

So you've got all these facts and figures...you've debated. You've come to your own conclusions. What are you going to do about it, to make the changes you want. Or are you just going to debate about it on here?

There's never a bad reason to open a discussion. I've found it really interesting. It's important to discuss and debate and question.

[spudski]

1 minute ago, exAtyeoMax said:

There's never a bad reason to open a discussion. I've found it really interesting. It's important to discuss and debate and question.

I didn't say or imply there was EAM...I was just interested in why? I agree, it is good to know about certain things. Perhaps it's the timing...everything being written on the forum right now, seems to be knocking the club in a round a bout way.

It seems 'Topics' are being put up about all parts of the Club, and a negative slant put on them.

Funny they never appear when we're doing ok.

Whilst I like the info and debate...in this instance, with it's timing, IMO, it's just a way to have another pop at the Club. Team on a poor run...manager under pressure, every member of staff questioned by certain forum members...add this topic into the mix and Boom...it's all about the timing. A very effective way to get people to question everything about the Club and slate SL imo.

When things get tough on the pitch...it seems to me, that everything gets nit picked as to what's going wrong.

Go back a few months, when we were doing ok, and you could find similar threads on how much better the Club were doing throughout, and how much we've progressed.

Just an observation as to how people think, depending on how well we are doing, and how it will fit into a way of thinking to suit

[Cowshed]

43 minutes ago, spudski said:

Interesting thread this...some well made and well thought out posts.

Lots of facts and figures thrown around...plus lots of questions.

My questions are...what's the point of the conversation?

It's interesting reading about the ownership and the board etc,etc...but, it is what it is. I'm trying to get my head around the reason the 'debate' has been brought forward.

Is it just to moan again about the Club, or for another reason?

It looks to me like some people just want to moan about EVERY thing the Club are trying to do...and then pick random Clubs in the league system, if they suit, and use them to fit their agenda, as to how they think the Club should be run.

So you've got all these facts and figures...you've debated. You've come to your own conclusions. What are you going to do about it, to make the changes you want. Or are you just going to debate about it on here?

I have been involved in purchasing Community Trust products (their words). I have been involved in bringing vey large groups of kids to Ashton Gate.

I answered a post on a forum. Specifically in regards to the Community Trust as I have over seasons. As somebody who works and coaches football for charities in the community a charity that coaches football in the community will be of interest. In threads I have posted facts, personal observation, and opinion.

That is I think what forums are often for.

And that was it ...

[spudski]

11 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

I have been involved in purchasing Community Trust products (their words). I have been involved in bringing vey large groups of kids to Ashton Gate.

I answered a post on a forum. Specifically in regards to the Community Trust as I have over seasons. As somebody who works and coaches football for charities in the community a charity that coaches football in the community will be of interest. In threads I have posted facts, personal observation, and opinion.

That is I think what forums are often for.

And that was it ...

From your posts and observations...would you say the 'decline' in your eyes has happened since Amy 'departed'? And that since MA has had more influence, it's become more 'business' orientated?

[Cowshed]

2 minutes ago, spudski said:

From your posts and observations...would you say the 'decline' in your eyes has happened since Amy 'departed'? And that since MA has had more influence, it's become more 'business' orientated?

Yes and yes.