Lasting Damage

[Major Isewater]

4 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I don't know about anyone else but this sorry episode is going to have lasting damage on my relationship with City and particularly my faith in Steve Lansdown.

Steve is the custodian of the football club for a relatively short time span, he is lucky enough to be in a position where he can afford to have such control of the club. But his duty is to serve the tens of thousands of supporters of this club and do what's best for the club overall NOT to serve his own personal interests and relationships by giving 'jobs for the boys'.

Deep down he must know that this is not working and will not work and surely must have people around him telling him this. Do what's best for the football club, not you or any of your friends Steve.

But the real lasting damage will be that I won't forget in a hurry that I now feel it necessary to not attend Ashton Gate again until Lee Johnson is removed from post. That is not a decision I have taken lightly given it is pretty much my main outlet of socialising with mates on a regular basis. But I cannot stand by and watch one man blindly pursue with a faint hope that one day Lee Johnson might turn out to be a good manager. All and sundry can see the clear evidence in front of our eyes that Johnson cannot turn the club around from this position. The question is can Steve Lansdown?

I am very pessimistic unfortunately and my hopes have not been raised by my visit to the barber's this morning. Not because the barber accidentally stuck a pair of scissors in my eye, but because a senior employee at AG who is a regular told my barber just a few weeks ago that Johnson is very much here to stay...it's becoming very apparent that that is the case and so it looks like I'm in for an extended stay away from supporting the club I love...

Well if your barber says so ... 

 

My barber talks about my , remaining hair, my holidays and the crap on the telly .

 I did try to introduce a conversation about politics the other day but that rapidly fizzled out .

Perhaps your barber is an undercover journalist like Stockhausen ? 

[RedM]

2 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

It's those that just drift off quietly in a "pained daze" as you eloquently described that won't just be gone for the season, but possibly never come back. Same with new supporters, imagine if this was your first season as a City fan? There's nothing that'd make you want to come back at the moment.

I agree that it won't be as easy as they might think to get their 'customers' back. To return to League One is just too soon, it can't be allowed to happen but it is before our eyes. I'm watching send it feels my hands are tied as I can't stop it, it's like a nightmare dream, but unfortunately I'm not asleep. 

I feel I'm being mugged off at the moment. I'm hearing things my heart wants to hear but my sensible head is overruling my emotional heart and shouting this isn't working, nor is it showing any green shoots of recovery.

The club will have their hands full ringing round trying to persuade people to renew their ST's, why would we unless substantially reduced? I will bet any money there will be no reduction and the club will expect us to renew without question, well I for want want to be wooed back with bells on!

[havanatopia]

51 minutes ago, RumRed said:

We're even more ****** than I thought, and I thought we were really ****** already.

Sounds like the board member guy saying he could manage the team because he feels he could do a better job. Nothing of real note there.

[Kid in the Riot]

11 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

Well if your barber says so ... 

 

My barber talks about my , remaining hair, my holidays and the crap on the telly .

That's great to hear.

My barber is a huge football fan both English and Italian so we always talk about the beautiful game. He has and continues to have many City players (and at least one other pro footballer I can think of) past and present as clients over the years.

It's a continual source of amusement to me that people find it so hard to believe that some footballers/people who work at football clubs are just ordinary people who go about their daily lives just as you or I. Sometimes they even talk about their jobs!

[RumRed]

2 minutes ago, havanatopia said:

Sounds like the board member guy saying he could manage the team because he feels he could do a better job. Nothing of real note there.

I read it that they have regular meetings to discuss team selection..  maybe I'm reading it wrong

[Tears in rain]

1 hour ago, Atticus said:

This is making sense.

Just look at the Cotterill situation. When he came in he was Manager. Not head coach. Manager. He wanted the running of the playing side. He wanted and felt he needed full control to make the club progress. At the time, it was Burt's decision wasn't it?

It worked. We played exciting football, got some great players in, pissed the league and won the league trophy.

Suddenly it starts going wrong. Lack of investment in playing staff. Cotterill blatantly looking incredibly frustrated. And at the first sign of struggle, he is gone.

Suddenly Lee Johnson comes in. He is not a manager but "head coach". Doesn't have much in the way of a pedigree and zero championship experience. In the summer, BANG. transfers coming in all over the place. Heavy investment. Why not the season before?

We are now terrible. He has gone on a hell of a worse run then Cotterill ever did, yet Johnson keeps his job.

I don't believe you have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that SL and or the board want some kind of input and control over the playing aspect of the club. It would make sense as to why Cotterill was given the boot super quick. Why he was being frustrated in the transfer windows, and why under Johnson we are signing players left right and centre and he is still keeping his job.

Remember after we sacked Cotterill we immediately started signing players while having NO manager in place........

It all sits uncomfortably with me.

 

 

 

Oh god next it will be signing Andre Schevshenko and demanding he is played! 

[Ivorguy]

Whatever the truth of this particular revelation, it is as clear as a pikestaff that something is desperately wrong with the management of the club:-

A silent Chairman and Board, a missing MA, a deluded and broken Head Coach, a demoralised team (I use that word loosely as we don't seem anywhere near having a settled 11), and an owner who is openly disparaging of the fans and who extended the Coach's contract for reasons undeclared.  

One of the worst aspects of this management, whether of City or the wider BS, is their total lack of transparency.

I agree with those who have posted that this is the worst situation the club has been in in its history; as they have said there was a sense of unity when we reached rock bottom.  This time the gulf between fans and management is as wide as the Atlantic Ocean.

[Natchfever]

2 minutes ago, Ivorguy said:

Whatever the truth of this particular revelation, it is as clear as a pikestaff that something is desperately wrong with the management of the club:-

A silent Chairman and Board, a missing MA, a deluded and broken Head Coach, a demoralised team (I use that word loosely as we don't seem anywhere near having a settled 11), and an owner who is openly disparaging of the fans and who extended the Coach's contract for reasons undeclared.  

One of the worst aspects of this management, whether of City or the wider BS, is their total lack of transparency.

I agree with those who have posted that this is the worst situation the club has been in in its history; as they have said there was a sense of unity when we reached rock bottom.  This time the gulf between fans and management is as wide as the Atlantic Ocean.

Sorry Ivor but being about to go out of existence just about shades the current situation for me.

I am gnashing my teeth most of the time I think about City, but we ain't in sh it creek like we were in 1982.

[NickJ]

27 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

Unless i've missed your point?

Not making any point - Ole and Atticus seemed to be discussing influence from outside the dressing room, I am just repeating exactly what I have been told in relation to that. I cannot of course confirm the veracity of the information from the source, but I can 100% confirm that he/she is close to the person at the club.

 

10 minutes ago, havanatopia said:

Sounds like the board member guy saying he could manage the team because he feels he could do a better job. Nothing of real note there.

I did not say board member I said club hierarchy, might be board might not, but yes, I understand that he does feel he could do at least just as a good a job......

 

8 minutes ago, RumRed said:

I read it that they have regular meetings to discuss team selection..  maybe I'm reading it wrong

.......and also correct that happens according to what I was told.

 

No inference from me whether this is good bad or indifferent, all make your own judgment.

[...]

IF we go down this season - which is looking more likely with every single game, it's going to cost a packet to sort the mess out. We will have wasted a small fortune on players, many of whom will leave.

Our better players will go.

Our promising players will go too.

New manager will have to start from scratch rebuilding.

Could take 2-3 seasons to get back up.

Forget seeing anything like Tammy anywhere near BS3 any time soon, unless we het through to FA Cup R3.

On the bright side? We usually do OK in the Leyland Daf ................

 

 

tfj  

[BobBobSuperBob]

Jon Lansdown 2/5

Mark Ashton.  Evens

Linda the cleaner 15/1

SL 100/1

Anyone else with any football knowledge 500/1

 

Where would you put your tenner @NickJ ? 

 

 

 

 

[stawey]

3 hours ago, Ivorguy said:

Landsdown is destroying our club

What will it take for him to go

It is now beyond depressing, and still no statement from our puppet Board or from the puppeteer

Disgraceful

Just go

Now

surely you mean destroying his clubGo To Topic ListingFootball Chat

[RumRed]

It's a sad situation.  We should really be behind SL but he is losing a lot of the goodwill he's built up.  

This relegation (if it happens) looks the most patently avoidable of all those I've witnessed.

It's also the first that is totally perplexing.

 

 

[Ivorguy]

2 hours ago, stawey said:

surely you mean destroying his clubGo To Topic ListingFootball Chat

No it certainly isn't his club he is but a temporary guardian of it - and doing very badly in my opinion.  I was supporting City before he was even born and I will, dv, be supporting City after he is yesterday's chip paper 

[The Coach]

5 hours ago, Atticus said:

This is making sense.

Just look at the Cotterill situation. When he came in he was Manager. Not head coach. Manager. He wanted the running of the playing side. He wanted and felt he needed full control to make the club progress. At the time, it was Burt's decision wasn't it?

It worked. We played exciting football, got some great players in, pissed the league and won the league trophy.

Suddenly it starts going wrong. Lack of investment in playing staff. Cotterill blatantly looking incredibly frustrated. And at the first sign of struggle, he is gone.

Suddenly Lee Johnson comes in. He is not a manager but "head coach". Doesn't have much in the way of a pedigree and zero championship experience. In the summer, BANG. transfers coming in all over the place. Heavy investment. Why not the season before?

We are now terrible. He has gone on a hell of a worse run then Cotterill ever did, yet Johnson keeps his job.

I don't believe you have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that SL and or the board want some kind of input and control over the playing aspect of the club. It would make sense as to why Cotterill was given the boot super quick. Why he was being frustrated in the transfer windows, and why under Johnson we are signing players left right and centre and he is still keeping his job.

Remember after we sacked Cotterill we immediately started signing players while having NO manager in place........

It all sits uncomfortably with me.

 

 

 

 

This fits perfectly to what I was thinking about last week. I am starting to wonder if SL himself is the root of all the problems this decade. Even though he has put the time and money into BCFC (I say time and money not wonders btw). We still have not progressed. People can talk about the new stadium, but it really becomes obsolete playing in League 1 in front of 10,000 fans. People can big-up the training facilities, but look where we are in the league, and how we play. SL can big-up the major funding into the Academy, but who have we produced that makes you think "We got a gem here".

I really am leaning towards thinking SL should sell up the club and move on if the right buyer comes along. Although someone can throw the old "Who wants to get took over from a foreign owner, that will ruin the club." Although you get your Venkys, your Tans etc. Even in this country you got your Oystons, and your Hearns etc. You cannot dismiss all foreign owners, Bournemouth and Southampton aren't doing too bad for two examples. Hence why I say "right buyer".

The club needs overall change, and I'm starting to believe that begins with the Ownership. 

 

[stawey]

5 minutes ago, Ivorguy said:

No it certainly isn't his club he is but a temporary guardian of it - and doing very badly in my opinion.  I was supporting City before he was even born and I will, dv, be supporting City after he is yesterday's chip paper 

i like others had money tied up in the old bcfc and i seem to recall all claims were waved aside to form the new club  and have no further claim on what was owed from the assets  ie the ground and i think if i remember correctly a couple of other properties. it was also agreed at that time the club ie ground would be owned by the fans who would have a rep on the board. but as is the way of the world somewhere along the line with so many directors coming and going the agreement got changed when various self seekers loned money to the club and the assets was used as security. thus we arrive as we are today. . 

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

8 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Were McInnes, O'Driscoll, Cotterill afforded the same time as Johnson? If this exact same situation had occurred with any of these three men in charge you think they'd still be in post?

No, you're right that they weren't, but then Lansdown did make it clear that he was trying to make a different type of appointment, one that would not be terminated in a knee-jack reaction at the first sign of trouble.  You might not agree with that, though I think many did at the time, but in this at least Lansdown has been true to his word.  You might argue that it is time girls a change, but comparisons with Millen, O'Driscoll and McInnes aren't relevant.  

For what it's worth, I think O'Driscoll and Cotterill had to go when they did, for different reasons.  Cotterill almost asked to be sacked through his outrageous behaviour.  McInnes is an interesting one.  He showed significant errors of judgement in his signings, but I suspect was a decent manager who couldn't deal with the baggage he inherited.

[steviestevieneville]

Have to agree with op . Been watching city for 41 years and I've never felt this pissed off . Can anyone remember this much discontent amongst the fan base ? People even squaring up to one another Saturday. How the **** is this allowed to happen. I'm another one who won't be back until he's gone and it's a really tough decision for me to make but enough is enough. 

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

6 hours ago, CotswoldRed said:

SL's job is to run the club in its best interests without responding to the kneejerk views of passionate fans. 

We're no longer anywhere near kneejerk and I'd suggest he's no longer fit to run BCFC. Other than pots of cash, he's lacking the next key attribute. 

I'd rather be supporting a L1 Bristol City running on a tiny budget in the old ground with proper fans representation than this. **** the Championship or Premier League if it means this.  

But is it?  Lansdown is the majority shareholder, but it isn't his job to run the club.  Isn't that a combination of Jon Lansdown and Mark Ashton?

[CyderInACan]

4 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

No, you're right that they weren't, but then Lansdown did make it clear that he was trying to make a different type of appointment, one that would not be terminated in a knee-jack reaction at the first sign of trouble.  You might not agree with that, though I think many did at the time, but in this at least Lansdown has been true to his word.  You might argue that it is time girls a change, but comparisons with Millen, O'Driscoll and McInnes aren't relevant.  

For what it's worth, I think O'Driscoll and Cotterill had to go when they did, for different reasons.  Cotterill almost asked to be sacked through his outrageous behaviour.  McInnes is an interesting one.  He showed significant errors of judgement in his signings, but I suspect was a decent manager who couldn't deal with the baggage he inherited.

I think the first sign of trouble was quite some time ago!

[Jack Dawe]

9 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

 Lansdown did make it clear that he was trying to make a different type of appointment, one that would not be terminated in a knee-jack reaction at the first sign of trouble.  

Is there a proper quote to go with this? From something solid, like the club's official website, or an interview given to the Post.

[Dynamite Red]

15 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

But is it?  Lansdown is the majority shareholder, but it isn't his job to run the club.  Isn't that a combination of Jon Lansdown and Mark Ashton?

Do you genuinely believe that. Puppet master springs to mind. 

[Olé]

2 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

But is it?  Lansdown is the majority shareholder, but it isn't his job to run the club.  Isn't that a combination of Jon Lansdown and Mark Ashton?

You're right - but it's Steve Lansdown that overlooks that more than anyone else. 

Mark Ashton introduced Lee Johnson as his man (LJ presumably reports to MA), but Steve Lansdown delivers the vote of confidence and public defence of Johnson, and talks about his multiple weekly 1-to-1's with the manager. SL can do what he wants, but it's odd to me that MA (a full time employee) can operate properly in this structure, and if it's so easy for SL to pick and choose where to abandon the operating model, on what else does it happen?  

Not to say this is an issue in relation to our form, but speaks volumes to me about the operating of the club being anything but the well defined business-minded roles and responsibilities MA was brought in raving about, and something more akin to an old world of top-down owner indulging personal control wherever he sees fit. And inevitably you start to wonder how far that goes? Either way it annoys me given the amount of lip service about "structure"

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

18 minutes ago, Olé said:

You're right - but it's Steve Lansdown that overlooks that more than anyone else. 

Mark Ashton introduced Lee Johnson as his man (LJ presumably reports to MA), but Steve Lansdown delivers the vote of confidence and public defence of Johnson, and talks about his multiple weekly 1-to-1's with the manager. SL can do what he wants, but it's odd to me that MA (a full time employee) can operate properly in this structure, and if it's so easy for SL to pick and choose where to abandon the operating model, on what else does it happen?  

Not to say this is an issue in relation to our form, but speaks volumes to me about the operating of the club being anything but the well defined business-minded roles and responsibilities MA was brought in raving about, and something more akin to an old world of top-down owner indulging personal control wherever he sees fit. And inevitably you start to wonder how far that goes? Either way it annoys me given the amount of lip service about "structure"

I wonder to what extent the change of loan rules is a factor in all this?  Bringing in a new manager in February or March would previously have meant new players, but not this season.  Perhaps the effect of the bar on out of window loans may have been underestimated.  It certainly may have led to managers, coaches and owners making significant mistakes during the transfer window, leaving them up the proverbial creek afterwards.

A comment you made in an earlier post fascinates me.  I actually thought Cotterill had to go (and would have let him go earlier) because of his inflexibility and the way he showed that he thought he was bigger than the club, but I have never understood how players were signed before the new manager was in place.  That seemed to me extraordinary at the time.

I wonder whether Bristol rugby's defeat last night which pretty much guarantees them relegation will have put Steve Lansdown in a different frame of mind about Bristol Sport today?

I've fought against the rabble mentality on this forum, and instinctively I can't feel happy about people asking for a decent man to be put out of work, but I do accept that if we don't win tomorrow night something has to change.  That doesn't make me feel good though.

[Olé]

8 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

A comment you made in an earlier post fascinates me.  I actually thought Cotterill had to go (and would have let him go earlier) because of his inflexibility and the way he showed that he thought he was bigger than the club, but I have never understood how players were signed before the new manager was in place.  That seemed to me extraordinary at the time.

I don't think that was my comment about Cotterill, unless you mean more generally the club recruiting players without a manager, being equivalent to my suspicions of the operating model around LJ which keeps him in a job? In which case, yes, those are all flavours of the same thing. FWIW I never believed that LJ would have wanted to sign Tomlin as his tactics since have shown so little room for him. But he made a great trophy signing for someone.

It's not that unusual on the signings front. It's how most European clubs operate and what a DoF does (or in this case COO). The head coach can make recommendations but is ultimately there to work with what he's given. None of this on its own should be a cause for alarm, but I'm trying to understand what else it is that LJ defers to a rich benefactor and a business-minded former West Brom goalkeeper, that makes him still so nice to have around.

Since you mentioned Cotterill, let me share what first got me thinking about the access and influence around LJ. It is such a throwaway thing but always stuck with me. Right after we won the L1 title at AG, one of the City Youtube videos in the changing room caught Cotterill pulling his players together for a talk. He sees the camera and shouts bluntly "turn that off" and waves the person out. I read that as some things are just for a manager and his team.

I'm always reminded of it as it just seemed like such a sharp but perfect example of what being a leader involves and that siege mentality. I've no doubt it also made SC very hard to work with - single minded, defiantly loyal to his players. But when I read SL's description of what "hands off" entails (access to LJ before/after games and a +24h debrief as a sounding board) AND think about LJ's routine disection of players in the media, it does make you wonder.

[samo II]

31 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

I wonder to what extent the change of loan rules is a factor in all this?  Bringing in a new manager in February or March would previously have meant new players, but not this season.  Perhaps the effect of the bar on out of window loans may have been underestimated.  It certainly may have led to managers, coaches and owners making significant mistakes during the transfer window, leaving them up the proverbial creek afterwards.

A comment you made in an earlier post fascinates me.  I actually thought Cotterill had to go (and would have let him go earlier) because of his inflexibility and the way he showed that he thought he was bigger than the club, but I have never understood how players were signed before the new manager was in place.  That seemed to me extraordinary at the time.

I wonder whether Bristol rugby's defeat last night which pretty much guarantees them relegation will have put Steve Lansdown in a different frame of mind about Bristol Sport today?

I've fought against the rabble mentality on this forum, and instinctively I can't feel happy about people asking for a decent man to be put out of work, but I do accept that if we don't win tomorrow night something has to change.  That doesn't make me feel good though.

There may be a degree of truth to the loan window aspect, and it also bemused me how we could bring in several players post-Cotts but pre-LJ last season, which made me wonder about quite how we were structured regards transfers.

I do wonder often about Ashton's role in all this; SL's front-and-centre defence of LJ has very much made Ashton seem almost irrelevant, and I question what is function is in a day-to-day sense - I'd understood he would be the 'conduit' between SL and LJ/the footballing aspect, allowing for that kind of 'distance' that would let the board/SL make hard, but informed decisions on things like hiring and firing.

I don't think the system is working, if that is the objective.  And I agree; baying for the firing of a manager is crass.  But what else is there now?  I do not see any progression under the current regime, and I hold significant concerns we will struggle to manage the transition back to League One in a similar way than we did after our last relegation.  We'll lose any real playing 'assets' without obtaining value, and any rebuilding we do will have to be done in the shadow of FFP, and likely impacted by this.

[CotswoldRed]

1 hour ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

No, you're right that they weren't, but then Lansdown did make it clear that he was trying to make a different type of appointment, one that would not be terminated in a knee-jack reaction at the first sign of trouble.  

How about the 137th sign of trouble? I reckon we're not far off that with LJ. 

[Toffee dog]

If this is true i am speechless! This can go one way & it's not good.

[bh_red]

Some of the comments I'm reading are honestly terrifying me, to the extent I just think it's crap.

But then I see it's

NickJ (who many years ago sat down with him to discuss his concerns) and has been a solid sensible poster ever since

& Ole, who I remember from the NetCentre days

frankly it scares the shit out of me that this club is still run in the way it is in 2017.

 

 

[Jacki]

29 minutes ago, bh_red said:

Some of the comments I'm reading are honestly terrifying me, to the extent I just think it's crap.

But then I see it's

NickJ (who many years ago sat down with him to discuss his concerns) and has been a solid sensible poster ever since

& Ole, who I remember from the NetCentre days

frankly it scares the shit out of me that this club is still run in the way it is in 2017.

 

 

Know what you mean. I'd love to take these theories with a pinch of salt, but they are being discussed by posters who talk a lot of sense and have no alterior motive for putting them out there. 

I've felt for a good while now that there must be more to this situation than meets the eye. How on earth can LJ still be in post if there isn't? Going by SL's previous behaviour regarding managers there has to be more to it. 

I called LJ a yes man on a thread some time ago. By that I meant that he is happy to run the club, or 'project' as he likes to call it, in exactly the way SL wants him to. I didn't think it would be quite as extreme as SL exerting the kind of influence that is being discussed on this thread, but maybe that is the reality. It's becoming increasingly hard to think of other plausible explanations.