What does Lansdown see that most of us can't ?

[AppyDAZE]

3 minutes ago, RumRed said:

 

It's like watching Star Trek, none of the main characters are going to take a fall, only the guys in (ironically) red shirts. At the end of the series we'll be in the same place but with the 'talent' demanding more money.

Rum, where are the magic mushrooms out already? Are we talking Dundry, or Ashton Court?

[RumRed]

1 minute ago, AppyDAZE said:

Rum, where are the magic mushrooms out already? Are we taslking Dundry, or Ashton Court?

Im in Brighton at the mo, plenty to go round!

[AppyDAZE]

Just now, RumRed said:

Im in Brighton at the mo, plenty to go round!

:laugh:

[BobBobSuperBob]

14 minutes ago, AppyDAZE said:

Still directing the band, Bob.. can i play 2nd fiddle?

Probably still (In certain people's opinion )

All I do is give an opinion, and a reason for those opinions

I don't slate LJ , - question him - yes 

Have real doubts about him - absolutely

Still stick up for him where I can (e.g. Tomlin)

Nit going to be bullied out of a view taken when looking at everything carefully 

Not just him  - the whole recruitment set up is another concern for me

All,a ongoing assessment for me and I hope he proves he has / can learn and take us forward

 

[spudski]

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

For the major part of SL's time as owner, we have lurched from one knee jerk reaction to another, with managers sacked after a run of poor results and a new manager bringing in a new coaching set up and different outlook and philosophy. This makes us little different from the majority of clubs at this level. At the same time we brought in far too many journey men at the end of their careers and looking for a decent pay day and because of us being seen as a footballing backwater we paid in order to get players here. When things went tits up we could;t shift those high paid players off the wage bill.

The plan we are now working to ( as I see it) is based on the club becoming financially self sufficient. This was somewhat forced upon SL because of the impact of football's financial rules, that limit how much an owner can plough into the club/team, no matter how much he is worth. One of the start points of that self sufficiency was the redevelopment of Ashton Gate, once plans for the brand new stadium at AV had to be shelved, as I think I am right in saying that financial rules do not restrict the amount that SL could invest in the stadium. However, that investment will then mean the stadium generating much greater revenues in the future and for the long term, firstly because the match day income will increase with higher attendances and also additional revenue streams, like corporate boxes. The stadium will also generate income on non match days because of the use of the stadium facilities for things like conferences.

At the same time, it seems that the club has devised a strategy for player recruitment by looking at young players with potential. The hope is that their potential will be realised and then benefit the team, but if we do see them then we would be looking to do so at a profit, not as an end in itself, but so the profit can then be used to further develop the team. The other part of the strategy is to develop the academy ( another area where SL can invest without too much restriction by financial rules) and develop our own players with the aim of more of them coming not the first team squad.

If all these plans were formed and put into action 15 years ago when SL took charge, then we would be right in asking how long it will take to come together, but the false dawns and disappointments of most of the last 15 years came about because we had no coherent long term plan and instead lurched from one option to another and going back to scratch with every new manager.

One of the main bones of contention with many fans is the head coach, and I can understand why this is the case, and in particular that he survived the awful run up to last Christmas. SL says that LJ's future was discussed at board level, but I admire Sl's balls in sticking by his head coach, when it would he been much easier to sack him and look for someone else, but this would have just been to continue the trend of the last 15 years, and we all know how that went! I think that SL has resolved that if his long term plan is to work, then it can't be ditched at the first sign of adversity, however my feeling is that I cannot see the plan working if we are relegated, so LJ's future is ever more dependant on avoiding a repeat of last season as I don't believe that SL will be so supportive of his head coach in similar circumstances.

Given all of this long winded diatribe,  how long is long enough? The only answer I can give is when we see tangible signs that it is working, and this brings me back to the slightly facetious comment in my previous post, in that many fans see immediate "success" as their measure that the long term plan is working. For what it's worth I think LJ needs to demonstrate over this season that there is real improvement on the pitch. There were signs of this at the start of the season, with the way we were playing, but we seem to have got bogged down in the last couple of games, which brings the naysayers out in droves , and understandably so, but after last season LJ's room for manoeuvre is more limited. I also think that this season we all want to see players really improving, but I think this can only happen if the team is improving both in performance and results, because it's tough performing at your best when scraping at the wrong end of the table.

We've already seen this season how wildly fans opinions change from game to game  and especially those fans who are are really anti LJ, and this is perhaps going to be the hardest element of achieving success, as many fabs patience gets thinner with every setback and no matter that SL is the one paying the bills, he must also know that it is not a good idea to alienate the fans base and sadly in SL he has someone that divides the fan base. LJ can unite fans by getting results and performance see all want to see. The only other way he will unite all fans is for results to be so dire that we all want the same thing and if that happens, I think Sl will want the same thing as well! 

 

 

I enjoyed reading that...well thought out and well written.

It crossed my mind the other day, when hearing fans talk about New Managers, just how pathetic football clubs are run by owners.

If they ran their businesses the same way, they'd be broke.

Just because it's become the norm to sack managers frequently in the football world, it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

It's a constant merry go round of managers going from one Club to the next in a very short time scale.

If all these managers are so great...they wouldn't be getting the sack in the first place. They'd be staying at Clubs for longer.

As we also know...it's not just the manager/coach, it's all the other staff that come and go when someone leaves. Complete upheaval...and expected to turn things around in season or two.

If you owned a business, sacked the manager, changed the staff every 18 months, were allowed to only do business a couple months of the year, how do you think you'd fair?

The only upside to it, is that you are competing against other businesses making exactly the same mistakes as you...making it a level playing field of idiots together.

The football world is mental for running itself like this imo.

[AppyDAZE]

1 minute ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Probably still (In certain people's opinion )

All I do is give an opinion, and a reason for those opinions

I don't slate LJ , - question him - yes 

Have real doubts about him - absolutely

Still stick up for him where I can (e.g. Tomlin)

Nit going to be bullied out of a view taken when looking at everything carefully 

Not just him  - the whole recruitment set up is anotherIts a ongoing assessment for me and I hope he proves he has / can learn and take us forward

Spot on. I got labelled thick ****, non-fan everything you can imagine on Tuesday, after Brentford, and i think it's unfair. After all, it is only my feeling that the future might not be as  bright as some would have us believe.

Bob, let's hear .. I did it my way

1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4 ..

[Kid in the Riot]

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

For the major part of SL's time as owner, we have lurched from one knee jerk reaction to another, with managers sacked after a run of poor results and a new manager bringing in a new coaching set up and different outlook and philosophy. This makes us little different from the majority of clubs at this level. At the same time we brought in far too many journey men at the end of their careers and looking for a decent pay day and because of us being seen as a footballing backwater we paid in order to get players here. When things went tits up we could;t shift those high paid players off the wage bill.

The plan we are now working to ( as I see it) is based on the club becoming financially self sufficient. This was somewhat forced upon SL because of the impact of football's financial rules, that limit how much an owner can plough into the club/team, no matter how much he is worth. One of the start points of that self sufficiency was the redevelopment of Ashton Gate, once plans for the brand new stadium at AV had to be shelved, as I think I am right in saying that financial rules do not restrict the amount that SL could invest in the stadium. However, that investment will then mean the stadium generating much greater revenues in the future and for the long term, firstly because the match day income will increase with higher attendances and also additional revenue streams, like corporate boxes. The stadium will also generate income on non match days because of the use of the stadium facilities for things like conferences.

At the same time, it seems that the club has devised a strategy for player recruitment by looking at young players with potential. The hope is that their potential will be realised and then benefit the team, but if we do see them then we would be looking to do so at a profit, not as an end in itself, but so the profit can then be used to further develop the team. The other part of the strategy is to develop the academy ( another area where SL can invest without too much restriction by financial rules) and develop our own players with the aim of more of them coming not the first team squad.

If all these plans were formed and put into action 15 years ago when SL took charge, then we would be right in asking how long it will take to come together, but the false dawns and disappointments of most of the last 15 years came about because we had no coherent long term plan and instead lurched from one option to another and going back to scratch with every new manager.

One of the main bones of contention with many fans is the head coach, and I can understand why this is the case, and in particular that he survived the awful run up to last Christmas. SL says that LJ's future was discussed at board level, but I admire Sl's balls in sticking by his head coach, when it would he been much easier to sack him and look for someone else, but this would have just been to continue the trend of the last 15 years, and we all know how that went! I think that SL has resolved that if his long term plan is to work, then it can't be ditched at the first sign of adversity, however my feeling is that I cannot see the plan working if we are relegated, so LJ's future is ever more dependant on avoiding a repeat of last season as I don't believe that SL will be so supportive of his head coach in similar circumstances.

Given all of this long winded diatribe,  how long is long enough? The only answer I can give is when we see tangible signs that it is working, and this brings me back to the slightly facetious comment in my previous post, in that many fans see immediate "success" as their measure that the long term plan is working. For what it's worth I think LJ needs to demonstrate over this season that there is real improvement on the pitch. There were signs of this at the start of the season, with the way we were playing, but we seem to have got bogged down in the last couple of games, which brings the naysayers out in droves , and understandably so, but after last season LJ's room for manoeuvre is more limited. I also think that this season we all want to see players really improving, but I think this can only happen if the team is improving both in performance and results, because it's tough performing at your best when scraping at the wrong end of the table.

We've already seen this season how wildly fans opinions change from game to game  and especially those fans who are are really anti LJ, and this is perhaps going to be the hardest element of achieving success, as many fabs patience gets thinner with every setback and no matter that SL is the one paying the bills, he must also know that it is not a good idea to alienate the fans base and sadly in SL he has someone that divides the fan base. LJ can unite fans by getting results and performance see all want to see. The only other way he will unite all fans is for results to be so dire that we all want the same thing and if that happens, I think Sl will want the same thing as well! 

A valiant effort at defending SL/LJ.

What has the long term strategy including recruitment and self sufficiency got to do with retaining LJ as manager though?

The whole point of the structure at the club having the likes of MA and a strong scouting network is that, if anything,  the role of head coach can be more interchangeable. See Chelsea and Watford of similar examples who have in fact enjoyed success by changing their head coach on a yearly basis.

The plan and structure has been in place since SOD was at the club. Why not give him or SC massive stays of execution? Why is LJ being treated differently?

SC was right when he said it's all very well having a long term strategy but you need to keep your eye firmly on the present too. 

[BobBobSuperBob]

14 minutes ago, AppyDAZE said:

Spot on. I got labelled thick ****, non-fan everything you can imagine on Tuesday, after Brentford, and i think it's unfair. After all, it is only my feeling that the future might not be as  bright as some would have us believe.

Bob, let's hear .. I did it my way

1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4 ..

I did lose my **** with LJ last season and have tried to sit back a bit  , watch , read and listen and reasses

I'm trying but In all honesty - lots of worrying indicators abound for me as it currently stands 

I'm still trying to see what some appear to ,  just not convinced in any way  right now

If we can get away without another relegation battle , in theory we should be seeing some consistency and progress 

[spudski]

9 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

A valiant effort at defending SL/LJ.

What has the long term strategy including recruitment and self sufficiency got to do with retaining LJ as manager though?

The whole point of the structure at the club having the likes of MA and a strong scouting network is that, if anything,  the role of head coach can be more interchangeable. See Chelsea and Watford of similar examples who have in fact enjoyed success by changing their head coach on a yearly basis.

The plan and structure has been in place since SOD was at the club. Why not give him or SC massive stays of execution? Why is LJ being treated differently?

SC was right when he said it's all very well having a long term strategy but you need to keep your eye firmly on the present too. 

I don't think LJ is being treated any differently KID, just because he's LJ perse....

It could have been anyone in charge at the time.

I think it was more to do with SL changing tact and not sacking, and instead keeping. Plus...the important fact, that LJ has agreed to work within the confines of SL's blueprint. And still continues to do so. If he had done a Cotts or SoD, then he would have gone too.

I agree about the structure being in place, to allow an easy transition if there is any change in coach. That makes total sense. However...I still think that 'structure' needs to be added to in Quality. Our Scouting needs to expand and improve, and it doesn't sit comfortable with me, how much 'control' MA has as one man.

You sight Chelsea and Watford as examples...would you prefer to have new managers as much as they do? Just interested.

[Olé]

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

the club has devised a strategy for player recruitment by looking at young players with potential. The hope is that their potential will be realised and then benefit the team, but if we do sell them then we would be looking to do so at a profit, not as an end in itself, but so the profit can then be used to further develop the team

Your long post was quite logical and reasonable and I don't think many, whatever their view of LJ, would take issue with much you have to say. However I do want to flag up the above point about transfers, which for me is completely at odds with the rest you say about 'how long is long enough' and visible signs of results on the pitch.

Absolutely the club and the head coach have bought into a model where we buy young promising players and develop a team around them, in doing so developing the value of those players as key assets or investments that we can release the value of through sale, to sustainably fund the continued improvement of the squad.

No arguments from me on that, but then surely it's paramount to have someone who is actually going to develop those young players and improve upon their value. In the parallel thread running today about which players Johnson has improved, there isn't much support for the idea many (any?) players developed under his watch.

As such there is a fundamental disconnect here. The owner and by extension the club are committed to a player development strategy as a basis for building our first team, and yet that same owner, for personal indulgence, employs inexperienced coaches with little track record or positive recent signs of actual player development. 

As @billywedlock says, we're throwing millions at young players to develop, but then peanuts on a bunch of mates to develop them. It just doesn't wash and it shows SL's "strategy" up for the total hypocrisy it is. But of course it's his money so good luck to him, he can do what he wants, but spare us the lip service about strategy!

[Merrick's Marvels]

1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

Chris Hughton had "little experience at this level" before managing Brighton?

Apart from his spells at Newcastle, Birmingham and Norwich, presumably?

 

1 hour ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

No the Chris Hughton who was U21 coach at Spurs , then reserve team coach , then first team coach , all at Tottenham , serving under TEN managers over 14 years 

Then first team coach at Newcastle , then assistant manager .......

All before he got his chance to manage at Newcastle

Learnt his trade I'd suggest

And then recruited quality throughout the team, without a single "one for the future" signing in sight. Recruitment with the club's stated goal of promotion to the Prem very much in mind, not just paying lip service to it.

Ditto Huddersfield. I'm sure Lansdown and Johnson go to bed at night convinced we can emulate them but fail to realise that investing in Gary O'Neill really doesn't cut it compared to Aaron Mooy, just as one obvious for instance.

[spudski]

5 minutes ago, Olé said:

Your long post was quite logical and reasonable and I don't think many, whatever their view of LJ, would take issue with much you have to say. However I do want to flag up the above point about transfers, which for me is completely at odds with the rest you say about 'how long is long enough' and visible signs of results on the pitch.

Absolutely the club and the head coach have bought into a model where we buy young promising players and develop a team around them, in doing so developing the value of those players as key assets or investments that we can release the value of through sale, to sustainably fund the continued improvement of the squad.

No arguments from me on that, but then surely it's paramount to have someone who is actually going to develop those young players and improve upon their value. In the parallel thread running today about which players Johnson has improved, there isn't much support for the idea many (any?) players developed under his watch.

As such there is a fundamental disconnect here. The owner and by extension the club are committed to a player development strategy as a basis for building our first team, and yet that same owner, for personal indulgence, employs inexperienced coaches with little track record or positive recent signs of actual player development. 

As @billywedlock says, we're throwing millions at young players to develop, but then peanuts on a bunch of mates to develop them. It just doesn't wash and it shows SL's "strategy" up for the total hypocrisy it is. But of course it's his money so good luck to him, he can do what he wants, but spare us the lip service about strategy!

Totally agree with that mate.

I guess it begs the question...apart from LJ, what experienced manager would come and work for SL with his blueprint, and agree to work for him under those terms?

Are their any managers/coach's with that 'experience' certain fans crave, that would risk their reputation, by not being allowed to manage a team 'their way'?

I'm not sure their would be that many that would take up such a job.

[Robbored]

2 minutes ago, spudski said:

 

I guess it begs the question...apart from LJ, what experienced manager would come and work for SL with his blueprint, and agree to work for him under those terms?

Are their any managers/coach's with that 'experience' certain fans crave, that would risk their reputation, by not being allowed to manage a team 'their way'?

I'm not sure their would be that many that would take up such a job.

I'm not so sure about that. I reckon that plenty of experienced managers would love to work under SL and accept the strategy model he want to establish. He has a reputation now for giving managers time to develop a team and its lack of time that plenty of out of work managers complain of.

The problem with some previous managers is that at interview they agree to adopt his strategy but when in post don't actually do so. SL knows that LJ believes inthe strategy and trusts that he'll work with it. That's the main reason LJ wasn't sacked last season.

[downendcity]

50 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

A valiant effort at defending SL/LJ.

What has the long term strategy including recruitment and self sufficiency got to do with retaining LJ as manager though?

The whole point of the structure at the club having the likes of MA and a strong scouting network is that, if anything,  the role of head coach can be more interchangeable. See Chelsea and Watford of similar examples who have in fact enjoyed success by changing their head coach on a yearly basis.

The plan and structure has been in place since SOD was at the club. Why not give him or SC massive stays of execution? Why is LJ being treated differently?

SC was right when he said it's all very well having a long term strategy but you need to keep your eye firmly on the present too. 

Not defending SL/LJ, merely saying that I can see what Sl is aiming for with his plan. I also think I would rather have this plan in place and being worked to, than having no plan in place - which seems to have been the case too often in the past and for much of SL's time at the helm (if that is defending SL, then so be it)

I'm not suggesting everything with the plan is perfect and , as `i mentioned, key in much of this is LJ's role. Also as I mentioned, there has to be some evidence of improvement - an area that many question regularly, especially as far as player development is concerned.

If LJ is to not up to the job, then we will see a repeat of last season's travails, and if this happens then, despite what the sceptics say, I am pretty certain that SL will not be prepared to run the risk that Lee Houdini will not manage another great escape and and would pull the trigger end look for another manager/head coach. If that happens, it will be interesting to see how the long term plan will fare, as it will be to see what type of manager would be brought in. The ideal candidate as far as most of the anti LJ brigade is concerned, would most likely be exactly the type of manager that would not want to be tied to or limited by the demands of the owners long term strategy. 

Hopefully all of this is academic and LJ will lead the team to mid table security , or better, but only time will tell.

[paulcityfan]

Dunno about any of you but I look forward to the day when we have some FIRE back again into the whole club set up.

Surely this facade cannot continue indefinately

[Olé]

41 minutes ago, spudski said:

If they ran their businesses the same way, they'd be broke.

Just because it's become the norm to sack managers frequently in the football world, it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do

I don't think anyone really defends the sack happy culture of football, although sometimes I feel alone in recognising that it's not meant to be a business strategy, it is often precisely the opposite - a reflection of the owners personal gratification from winning football matches and frustration and lost personal pride when they're not.

But I do find the business analogy interesting however, (and that's without repeating the well trodden path of 'would a serious business owner hire a Lee Johnson type into a senior leadership role'). The point that interests me is this idea that business is so different. You'd be forgiven for thinking that in real life no one ever loses a job.

First of all, permanent jobs are not really a fitting analogy for a football manager. You don't sign a 3 year deal in your new job. By their whole commercial construct and 'project' oriented focus, a contract role is a better comparison. And it is quite common to have a contract terminated with little notice if the project isn't working out.

Furthermore, in the real world when you recruit externally, there is an understanding and expectation of the risk that a hire doesn't work out. Most people will be familiar with the idea of 'probation period' (in ambitious startups I've seen >50% dismissed then) while severance laws mean there is often a sack/stay checkpoint inside year 1.

If you were talking about a sales leadership role, the odds and frequency of early dismissal are even higher - and even easier for the business to justify (targets). So even in permanent work it's not quite so rosy as implied in the football analogy, and in contract work - the true comparison - not any less results oriented and cut-throat.

All of this is to say nothing of engineered dismissal - I know a business that promoted into an MD role, bit of a punt, wasn't working out, so they hired a second MD over the top of him, leaving him two options, step down into a middle management role or walk away. These sorts of games go on all the time, the outcome is the same.

Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that football is sack happy, but to my eyes most of it is emotional and egotistical on the part of an owner. The point is business is not so different as is always made out. And in any case, SL has his fair share of sackings under his belt, LJ's retention is a product of personal indulgence, not loyalty.

[Olé]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

I don't think LJ is being treated any differently KID, just because he's LJ perse....

It could have been anyone in charge at the time.

I think it was more to do with SL changing tact and not sacking, and instead keeping. Plus...the important fact, that LJ has agreed to work within the confines of SL's blueprint. And still continues to do so. If he had done a Cotts or SoD, then he would have gone too.

100% agree Spud - but for some of us this is the great charade at the club which frustrates so much.

I know you won't call it out, but it is there even in your own comment above: if LJ didn't do what SL told him to do, he would be gone too. I'll go further (since we know other areas Cotts or SoD 'didn't work') and say if LJ didn't afford SL the level of access and influence, he would be gone.

When you add all these things up, SL is not suddenly a footballing pragmatist preaching loyalty in a sack-happy industry, he is just protecting a marriage of convenience between an inexperienced coach and an indulgent owner, who has a personal stake in retaining the current status-quo.

[Olé]

50 minutes ago, spudski said:

I guess it begs the question...apart from LJ, what experienced manager would come and work for SL with his blueprint, and agree to work for him under those terms?

Are their any managers/coach's with that 'experience' certain fans crave, that would risk their reputation, by not being allowed to manage a team 'their way'?

I have a feeling they would be foreign, but that's as good as I can manage for now!

From my own knowledge of European football I feel pretty certain most managers would be comfortable with most of Lansdown's construct: we'll buy you the players and tell you how we want the team to perform (although perhaps even for them the phone calls and visits from the owner pre/post match might be a bit much).

In Portugal at least, the DoF buys the players with significant input from the President (equivalent of owner, but nominally main shareholder or shareholder appointed leader). The President also issues instructions/objectives to the manager/head coach. Any Portuguese coach would be relatively used to Lansdown's approach.

[WTFiGO!?!]

3 hours ago, downendcity said:

Given all of this long winded diatribe,  how long is long enough? The only answer I can give is when we see tangible signs that it is working, and this brings me back to the slightly facetious comment in my previous post, in that many fans see immediate "success" as their measure that the long term plan is working. For what it's worth I think LJ needs to demonstrate over this season that there is real improvement on the pitch. There were signs of this at the start of the season, with the way we were playing, but we seem to have got bogged down in the last couple of games, which brings the naysayers out in droves , and understandably so, but after last season LJ's room for manoeuvre is more limited. I also think that this season we all want to see players really improving, but I think this can only happen if the team is improving both in performance and results, because it's tough performing at your best when scraping at the wrong end of the table.

So the time to judge how long is long enough, is when there are tangible signs that it is working?

Judging by that logic, I can't really take your opinion on what 'many fans' think seriously.

Also, being bogged down by the last couple of games?  We survived last season due to having slightly more drive when it mattered than the three that dropped.  Piss-easy wins vs Barnsley and Plymouth were welcome but not a sign of the norm to be.   We put four past both Palace and Cardiff at home in August, during our last relegation season.  The results fooled no one.  

My only hope is that we can survive again this season as I don't anticipate any other 'tangible signs' of progress presenting themselves, whatsoever.

[The Constant Rabbit]

19 hours ago, 29AR said:

Take a step back; he isn't a UK resident anymore. He s not using Bristol sport to mitigate tax, because he's tax resident in Guernsey in the first place 

There's tax that his companies must pay, which are entirely separate from the tax he pays on his personal income. He lives in G to lower the tax on the 'wage' his companies pay him.

His companies are not registered off-shore as far as I know?

That's the whole point.

[CyderInACan]

6 hours ago, Olé said:

I have a feeling they would be foreign, but that's as good as I can manage for now!

From my own knowledge of European football I feel pretty certain most managers would be comfortable with most of Lansdown's construct: we'll buy you the players and tell you how we want the team to perform (although perhaps even for them the phone calls and visits from the owner pre/post match might be a bit much).

In Portugal at least, the DoF buys the players with significant input from the President (equivalent of owner, but nominally main shareholder or shareholder appointed leader). The President also issues instructions/objectives to the manager/head coach. Any Portuguese coach would be relatively used to Lansdown's approach.

This is actually an interesting and mainly well thought out thread rather than some of the namecalling nonsense we see on others that discuss the same theories. 

The main thrust here is that SL tells LJ what to do, how to play, who to buy or whatever. Has an influence that is not usual in the English game. Indulges his own ego thru the club at large etc etc. 

I just wonder how LJ himself actually copes with this? He's seemingly quite a clever lad, certainly big on personal development if you believe his back-story and irrespective of the fact he played under his old man here was actually part of a (in the context of City in the last 30 or so years) pretty damned successful team. Does being undermined (maybe not the right word) by SL grate with him? Surely he would want to do this "his way" rather than be a puppet of the régime? Or is HIS ego so big that he thinks he can do it anyway? In terms of his ongoing career wouldn't he be something of a damaged product if his reputation in the football world was one of a lapdog to a benevolent but interfering owner? That's assuming this is all true, of course. 

Perhaps he'll say enough is enough before SL if he keeps getting players like Engvall, Magnússon, Moore, Taylor foisted on him that he possibly never wanted in the first place. 

Intesting thread. 

[spudski]

6 hours ago, Olé said:

I have a feeling they would be foreign, but that's as good as I can manage for now!

From my own knowledge of European football I feel pretty certain most managers would be comfortable with most of Lansdown's construct: we'll buy you the players and tell you how we want the team to perform (although perhaps even for them the phone calls and visits from the owner pre/post match might be a bit much).

In Portugal at least, the DoF buys the players with significant input from the President (equivalent of owner, but nominally main shareholder or shareholder appointed leader). The President also issues instructions/objectives to the manager/head coach. Any Portuguese coach would be relatively used to Lansdown's approach.

Yes...I agree mate. It is a common approach across much of Europe. However...they do seem to have more of a 'collective' rather than one in the MA position.

Needless to say...the great majority wouldn't have Championship experience and would be a 'punt'.

6 hours ago, Olé said:

100% agree Spud - but for some of us this is the great charade at the club which frustrates so much.

I know you won't call it out, but it is there even in your own comment above: if LJ didn't do what SL told him to do, he would be gone too. I'll go further (since we know other areas Cotts or SoD 'didn't work') and say if LJ didn't afford SL the level of access and influence, he would be gone.

When you add all these things up, SL is not suddenly a footballing pragmatist preaching loyalty in a sack-happy industry, he is just protecting a marriage of convenience between an inexperienced coach and an indulgent owner, who has a personal stake in retaining the current status-quo.

And there in lies the situation fella...100%

Hence why I don't get frustrated about it anymore (only Millwall and refs do that :laugh: )

That's why I feel when people post about different managers etc, it's futile. 'We should have him, we should do this etc,etc'....waste of time because no one knows whether that manager of coach would work within the confines SL has set out.

The only way it will change, is if SL changes his blueprint or left. Until then...we are stuck with it. Personally I don't think it's a bad thing, being the Club we are and our particular recent history between divisions.

Whatever peoples views are on LJ being 'not good enough', they have to take into consideration, that being 'not good enough' has beaten many better teams in this league and shown considerable  amounts of flair in others...mixed with all the downsides. Which imo, makes him what he is. A young manager, trying his best for the club, getting experienced, making mistakes along the way, winning some, losing some, and showing what most of us think we are....'AVERAGE'.

I for one am happy to see how it goes this season under him. I'm enjoying watching his 'experience and development' as much as the players.

No ones perfect...and yes there is probably an upgrade on LJ out there that could do the job under SL's confines...but I'm happy to see how it goes, and give the lad a chance.

I'm not going to get in a fluster about it...gonna enjoy the ride with all it's highs and lows...Because we as fans have no control over it  ;-)

[spudski]

7 hours ago, Robbored said:

I'm not so sure about that. I reckon that plenty of experienced managers would love to work under SL and accept the strategy model he want to establish. He has a reputation now for giving managers time to develop a team and its lack of time that plenty of out of work managers complain of.

The problem with some previous managers is that at interview they agree to adopt his strategy but when in post don't actually do so. SL knows that LJ believes inthe strategy and trusts that he'll work with it. That's the main reason LJ wasn't sacked last season.

As you said Robbo...previous managers have all agreed to the 'strategy' then gone Ferral....there's a reason for that.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

7 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

This is actually an interesting and mainly well thought out thread rather than some of the namecalling nonsense we see on others that discuss the same theories. 

The main thrust here is that SL tells LJ what to do, how to play, who to buy or whatever. Has an influence that is not usual in the English game. Indulges his own ego thru the club at large etc etc. 

I just wonder how LJ himself actually copes with this? He's seemingly quite a clever lad, certainly big on personal development if you believe his back-story and irrespective of the fact he played under his old man here was actually part of a (in the context of City in the last 30 or so years) pretty damned successful team. Does being undermined (maybe not the right word) by SL grate with him? Surely he would want to do this "his way" rather than be a puppet of the régime? Or is HIS ego so big that he thinks he can do it anyway? In terms of his ongoing career wouldn't he be something of a damaged product if his reputation in the football world was one of a lapdog to a benevolent but interfering owner? That's assuming this is all true, of course. 

Perhaps he'll say enough is enough before SL if he keeps getting players like Engvall, Magnússon, Moore, Taylor foisted on him that he possibly never wanted in the first place. 

Intesting thread. 

It is an interesting thread, but the trouble with many threads at the moment is that a theory is put forward which, through a process rather like chinese whispers, becomes fact.  You've done that above yourself, by saying 'the main thrust is that SL tells LJ what to do...' and then you go on to wonder how LJ copes with it.  I don't believe for a moment that it is true.  I see no evidence that Steve Lansdown has any more influence than any other Chair/Owner might have, and a lot less than many.  Even at City we have had Chairmen interfering with team selection and transfers before (most notably Scott Davidson signing Tony Thorpe without consulting John Ward) but I see no evidence that Lansdown is doing any more than maintaining a close interest in his investment.  Yes there is a management team structure at City, which to me has to be a good thing, but I suspect that everyone is contributing to decisions.

I've said this before, but I do thing that City fans should count themselves lucky that they have a Chairman who is prepared to put his money where his mouth is and clearly loves the club.  You don't have to look far to see what other models are out there.

What we need is to give this project time, and see where it goes.  Of course if it all went whatsits up we'd need to reconsider but that has happened yet and there is very sign, in my view, that things can and will get better.  I've been really excited by what's going on this season and not at all downhearted about the last couple of results.  Early season results are often variable and confusing, but it's what is happening in  October and November that counts.

[CyderInACan]

13 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

It is an interesting thread, but the trouble with many threads at the moment is that a theory is put forward which, through a process rather like chinese whispers, becomes fact.  You've done that above yourself, by saying 'the main thrust is that SL tells LJ what to do...' and then you go on to wonder how LJ copes with it.

No - my post is based on thinking about how LJ feels in the role of the hypothesis is correct. Just turning it around somewhat. 

[CyderInACan]

23 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

 

I've said this before, but I do thing that City fans should count themselves lucky that they have a Chairman who is prepared to put his money where his mouth is and clearly loves the club.  You don't have to look far to see what other models are out there

And just to be pedantic, SL isn't our Chairman 

[spudski]

41 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

It is an interesting thread, but the trouble with many threads at the moment is that a theory is put forward which, through a process rather like chinese whispers, becomes fact.  You've done that above yourself, by saying 'the main thrust is that SL tells LJ what to do...' and then you go on to wonder how LJ copes with it.  I don't believe for a moment that it is true.  I see no evidence that Steve Lansdown has any more influence than any other Chair/Owner might have, and a lot less than many.  Even at City we have had Chairmen interfering with team selection and transfers before (most notably Scott Davidson signing Tony Thorpe without consulting John Ward) but I see no evidence that Lansdown is doing any more than maintaining a close interest in his investment.  Yes there is a management team structure at City, which to me has to be a good thing, but I suspect that everyone is contributing to decisions.

I've said this before, but I do thing that City fans should count themselves lucky that they have a Chairman who is prepared to put his money where his mouth is and clearly loves the club.  You don't have to look far to see what other models are out there.

What we need is to give this project time, and see where it goes.  Of course if it all went whatsits up we'd need to reconsider but that has happened yet and there is very sign, in my view, that things can and will get better.  I've been really excited by what's going on this season and not at all downhearted about the last couple of results.  Early season results are often variable and confusing, but it's what is happening in  October and November that counts.

Clearly a massive problem on OTIB...where 'theories' are discussed and over time become fact.

 

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

34 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

And just to be pedantic, SL isn't our Chairman 

Fair point.  I love a bit of pedantry, me!

[spudski]

41 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Just to continue on this theme, we have spent millions on Engvall, Moore and Magnússon for example, all 3 are nowhere near the first team, and all 3 seemingly making no progress. What coach  do we have that has experience of developing players , of playing in the championship, never mind the Premiership or of improving talent. You cannot have a strategy of buying young and developing (which is not a bad way to go I should add) and then rely on the three coaches we have. It is quite evidently BS of the highest order, and a charade. 

When people talk of having agendas against LJ, that really is a cheap shot, because there is no agenda, people just want to see some evidence that we are backing the right man. He has had millions spent, more than any manager in our history, and an open book on recruitment on and off the field. With that in mind, you now have to show something. For example , against teams that are going to battle and bruise you, and there are many, what are we going to do ? Hey it's no shock, anyone who has watched Milwall knew what they would do, as will Cardiff for example (Wolves had a similar issue) so now LJ has a chance to show we have an action plan if we face this again, that should have been lesson learnt last season. No one expects promotion, even on the wildest OTIB threads I have not read about promotion. But people do want to see something. 

Criticise SC all you want (and I did too, and he is one arrogant chap) but I personally did see him save a side from relegation, and turn around our form, find a playing style, apply it and win promotion in unprecedented fashion in 18 months. Wagner did it in a year at Huddersfield, Hughton in 24 months at Brighton. I think if people could see , even a snap shot of what we are trying to achieve in clear evidence, than people will buy into it.

For now, it looks an elaborate charade and indulgence , where words do not match the action. The approach on paper is credible, but the application and deployment laughable. 

Hire a proper coaching and scouting team and then see what we can do with the money spent. 

Good Points BW.

I agree about the coaching and scouting.

However...what Coach of better experience and quality, is going to come here if you are only paying a wage, the equivalent of a Trolley Dolly on GWR. Serving snacks and drinks in first class, or coaching a football team, that is made up of £Million players...and doing it for a similar wage.

It boils my piss when I see how much staff like Scouts and Assistant and development Coach's are paid....compared to players and agents.

I've spoken about 'infrastructures' at clubs for years....get that right, and things start to work. Doing it on a shoe string...what's the point? How are you going to attract better quality staff with the experience you want if you pay peanuts?

 

[Red Exile]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

Clearly a massive problem on OTIB...where 'theories' are discussed and over time become fact.

That's true, but equally what strikes me is that out here amongst the support base quite a lot of people know quite a lot about the way professional sport works, the sports media, business in general, people management, and indeed what goes on at Ashton Gate. Some of the more intelligent and successful people I know are City fans, hugely successful in...off the top of my head...business, finance, sports administration, journalism, international politics. All of the people I'm thinking of have followed the club for years, many have met the Lansdowns publicly and privately, know about the profile of the club, its management, its players. Their opinions are always with listening to.

Some of the posters on here are in that bracket. Not everyone is shooting from the hip. But equally not everyone is sharing all they know. Which is what makes reading the more considered observations on OTIB so worth while! The trick of course is spotting the gems amongst the dross. I reckon this thread contains more than a few grains of truth.