Phil Alexander Interview?

[exAtyeoMax]

43 minutes ago, One Team said:

I thought the same, he was doing OK until that point but that just sounded like MA nonsense. 

Yes but he’s got the prestige to get away with it. 

[ExiledAjax]

12 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

What we now know is that Phil Alexander has said he is heavily involved which is clearly more than the odd chat and phone call here and there. 

I've had an opportunity to watch the interview. I agree that the way Alexander describes Scudamore's involvement makes it sound quite involved. In particular he refers to meeting him prior to starting work here. That makes it sound like Scudamore's an important person for a new CEO to meet.

That is unusual.

Scudamore isn't a listed director of any Bristol City company.

He's not listed on the OS.

He's not listed in the "Who's Who" section of the matchday programme. That lists everyone down to the Club Chaplain and the Head of Marketing so if he's not there then I'm fairly confident he's not a strict employee.

I haven't got our annual return to hand so can't check if Scudamore's a shareholder either. If he is then it's a minority non-voting shareholding as Pula Sport owns all the voting shares.

Scudamore could be employed as a consultant and if he's got a formal consultant position then I think it's fine. It's a bit weird the Club aren't open about it, but generally I'd not be concerned by it.

However if he's just a mate of the owner who informally vets new CEOs and is heavily involved in decision making then from a governance perspective it's potentially a bit concerning as it would mean we've got someone influencing the Club who is not in anyway legally accountable. It would sound like he could be acting as a shadow director - although I'd expect someone of his experience to know how to avoid that trap. I was happy with Gould's explanation that it was a few chats and that Scudamore was a bit of a sounding board, but Alexander's description makes it sound like Scudamore has a little more control than the official records suggest he might.

[East Londoner]

Reading between the lines it sounds like Scudamore may have recommended Alexander to us

Strangely what impressed me most about that interview was at no point did he call us Bristol 

[bcfc01]

6 minutes ago, East Londoner said:

Reading between the lines it sounds like Scudamore may have recommended Alexander to us

 

I think that is probably the case.

 

[spudski]

29 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I've had an opportunity to watch the interview. I agree that the way Alexander describes Scudamore's involvement makes it sound quite involved. In particular he refers to meeting him prior to starting work here. That makes it sound like Scudamore's an important person for a new CEO to meet.

That is unusual.

Scudamore isn't a listed director of any Bristol City company.

He's not listed on the OS.

He's not listed in the "Who's Who" section of the matchday programme. That lists everyone down to the Club Chaplain and the Head of Marketing so if he's not there then I'm fairly confident he's not a strict employee.

I haven't got our annual return to hand so can't check if Scudamore's a shareholder either. If he is then it's a minority non-voting shareholding as Pula Sport owns all the voting shares.

Scudamore could be employed as a consultant and if he's got a formal consultant position then I think it's fine. It's a bit weird the Club aren't open about it, but generally I'd not be concerned by it.

However if he's just a mate of the owner who informally vets new CEOs and is heavily involved in decision making then from a governance perspective it's potentially a bit concerning as it would mean we've got someone influencing the Club who is not in anyway legally accountable. It would sound like he could be acting as a shadow director - although I'd expect someone of his experience to know how to avoid that trap. I was happy with Gould's explanation that it was a few chats and that Scudamore was a bit of a sounding board, but Alexander's description makes it sound like Scudamore has a little more control than the official records suggest he might.

Why would someone need to be legally accountable to give a recommendation and advice to the owners, or speak to the employee with the owners permission?

It happens all the time in business, where you ask for advice from people you trust or have built up a rapport with, who don't work for you in any capacity.

It's up to the owner to make the final decision on whether he agrees with the advice or not. 

Not being funny...I just can't see the problem.

[ExiledAjax]

4 minutes ago, spudski said:

Why would someone need to be legally accountable to give a recommendation and advice to the owners, or speak to the employee with the owners permission?

It happens all the time in business, where you ask for advice from people you trust or have built up a rapport with, who don't work for you in any capacity.

It's up to the owner to make the final decision on whether he agrees with the advice or not. 

Not being funny...I just can't see the problem.

I agree that so long as the final decisions are truly made by the directors and shareholders then it's fine to have conversations and use networks behind the scenes.

Accord should also be given to the EFL Regs and Owners and Directors test. I'm sure the club are confident that Scudamore isn't a "Relevant Person" under this Regs, but some of the definition there is quite broad and includes "a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the persons constituting the management of the Club are accustomed to act". I just hope that "heavily involved" doesn't mean this. 

We see with the current Birmingham case that this is something the EFL are starting to look at seriously.

I'm sure it's all just networking and chats as you say - and as I said earlier that was always the impression I got from Gould - but if it's more than that then his involvement should be properly recorded and structured.

Edited February 22, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[spudski]

46 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I agree that so long as the final decisions are truly made by the directors and shareholders then it's fine to have conversations and use networks behind the scenes.

Accord should also be given to the EFL Regs and Owners and Directors test. I'm sure the club are confident that Scudamore isn't a "Relevant Person" under this Regs, but some of the definition there is quite broad and includes "a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the persons constituting the management of the Club are accustomed to act". I just hope that "heavily involved" doesn't mean this. 

We see with the current Birmingham case that this is something the EFL are starting to look at seriously.

I'm sure it's all just networking and chats as you say - and as I said earlier that was always the impression I got from Gould - but if it's more than that then his involvement should be properly recorded and structured.

I guess that if there were any grey areas, Gould wouldn't have name checked him.

[Red_Alligator]

Welcome Phil and best of luck to you.

Clearly a man with great experience in the game which hopefully will benefit BCFC going forward. Let's see. 

[Johnny Musicworks]

It certainly wouldn’t surprise me if Scudamore with his experience wasn’t either overseeing plans to encourage potential investment or even actively searching for it. Few would have better contacts around the world or be more respected for his knowledge and experience. His role may even evolve or become more apparent after investment or a takeover. He could be the perfect front man for a consortium. After the ‘Massengo to Chelsea Affair’ I would like to stress that this is purely speculation on my part  and nothing more. 

[CyderInACan]

3 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I've had an opportunity to watch the interview. I agree that the way Alexander describes Scudamore's involvement makes it sound quite involved. In particular he refers to meeting him prior to starting work here. That makes it sound like Scudamore's an important person for a new CEO to meet.

That is unusual.

Scudamore isn't a listed director of any Bristol City company.

He's not listed on the OS.

He's not listed in the "Who's Who" section of the matchday programme. That lists everyone down to the Club Chaplain and the Head of Marketing so if he's not there then I'm fairly confident he's not a strict employee.

I haven't got our annual return to hand so can't check if Scudamore's a shareholder either. If he is then it's a minority non-voting shareholding as Pula Sport owns all the voting shares.

Scudamore could be employed as a consultant and if he's got a formal consultant position then I think it's fine. It's a bit weird the Club aren't open about it, but generally I'd not be concerned by it.

However if he's just a mate of the owner who informally vets new CEOs and is heavily involved in decision making then from a governance perspective it's potentially a bit concerning as it would mean we've got someone influencing the Club who is not in anyway legally accountable. It would sound like he could be acting as a shadow director - although I'd expect someone of his experience to know how to avoid that trap. I was happy with Gould's explanation that it was a few chats and that Scudamore was a bit of a sounding board, but Alexander's description makes it sound like Scudamore has a little more control than the official records suggest he might.

Let's have it right - the less hands-on either Steve or Jon Lansdown are, the better, yeah?

[REDOXO]

3 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I've had an opportunity to watch the interview. I agree that the way Alexander describes Scudamore's involvement makes it sound quite involved. In particular he refers to meeting him prior to starting work here. That makes it sound like Scudamore's an important person for a new CEO to meet.

That is unusual.

Scudamore isn't a listed director of any Bristol City company.

He's not listed on the OS.

He's not listed in the "Who's Who" section of the matchday programme. That lists everyone down to the Club Chaplain and the Head of Marketing so if he's not there then I'm fairly confident he's not a strict employee.

I haven't got our annual return to hand so can't check if Scudamore's a shareholder either. If he is then it's a minority non-voting shareholding as Pula Sport owns all the voting shares.

Scudamore could be employed as a consultant and if he's got a formal consultant position then I think it's fine. It's a bit weird the Club aren't open about it, but generally I'd not be concerned by it.

However if he's just a mate of the owner who informally vets new CEOs and is heavily involved in decision making then from a governance perspective it's potentially a bit concerning as it would mean we've got someone influencing the Club who is not in anyway legally accountable. It would sound like he could be acting as a shadow director - although I'd expect someone of his experience to know how to avoid that trap. I was happy with Gould's explanation that it was a few chats and that Scudamore was a bit of a sounding board, but Alexander's description makes it sound like Scudamore has a little more control than the official records suggest he might.

You sound like your in MnA! :laugh:! Mr Scudamore is obviously consulting to his friends at the club, maybe not even in a paid capacity, who knows, and as you allude has been a little while.

As you know people at high level in business talk to gain perspective and maybe even a little advice about associated areas that are not core competencies, which I think fits the bill here. I would not list any of that for public consumption, as someone once said to me, “ who I choose to have coffee with is none of anyones business” 

Nevertheless it’s no longer a secret that there is an association beyond a season ticket, and one or two who gave me abuse when I said it months ago may officially now go **** themselves  (not you Ajax) 

 

[cidered abroad]

3 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I've had an opportunity to watch the interview. I agree that the way Alexander describes Scudamore's involvement makes it sound quite involved. In particular he refers to meeting him prior to starting work here. That makes it sound like Scudamore's an important person for a new CEO to meet.

That is unusual.

Scudamore isn't a listed director of any Bristol City company.

He's not listed on the OS.

He's not listed in the "Who's Who" section of the matchday programme. That lists everyone down to the Club Chaplain and the Head of Marketing so if he's not there then I'm fairly confident he's not a strict employee.

I haven't got our annual return to hand so can't check if Scudamore's a shareholder either. If he is then it's a minority non-voting shareholding as Pula Sport owns all the voting shares.

Scudamore could be employed as a consultant and if he's got a formal consultant position then I think it's fine. It's a bit weird the Club aren't open about it, but generally I'd not be concerned by it.

However if he's just a mate of the owner who informally vets new CEOs and is heavily involved in decision making then from a governance perspective it's potentially a bit concerning as it would mean we've got someone influencing the Club who is not in anyway legally accountable. It would sound like he could be acting as a shadow director - although I'd expect someone of his experience to know how to avoid that trap. I was happy with Gould's explanation that it was a few chats and that Scudamore was a bit of a sounding board, but Alexander's description makes it sound like Scudamore has a little more control than the official records suggest he might.

I consider that you may be a bit to cautious about Scudamore's involvement. We've had some really inept administratators at City with the last one before Gould being the worst we could have possibly employed.

We have seen the benefits in the past two years of recruiting "professional" persons to the most important jobs in a football club: Gould in administration, Tinnion in the development of young players, and of course Pearson. Alexander, also with a long and apparently successful time in football has now replaced Gould and there doesn't appear to be any inkling that he isn't suitable.

So if Scudamore, with his long spell of experience at the Premier League, is willing to offer his advice, with or without payment, we would be really stupid to decline.

PS.I have no contact or know any of those mentioned so solely my opinion.

[RedM]

5 hours ago, Robbored said:

Let’s hope that Alexander is a approachable as RG was.

Hmmm, I hear he is very corporate, and I don't necessarily take that as a compliment

I really liked Richard Gould, a hard act to follow.

[Robbored]

34 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

I consider that you may be a bit to cautious about Scudamore's involvement. We've had some really inept administratators at City with the last one before Gould being the worst we could have possibly employed.

We have seen the benefits in the past two years of recruiting "professional" persons to the most important jobs in a football club: Gould in administration, Tinnion in the development of young players, and of course Pearson. Alexander, also with a long and apparently successful time in football has now replaced Gould and there doesn't appear to be any inkling that he isn't suitable.

So if Scudamore, with his long spell of experience at the Premier League, is willing to offer his advice, with or without payment, we would be really stupid to decline.

PS.I have no contact or know any of those mentioned so solely my opinion.

I don’t see Scudamore’s involvement as odd or negative in any way - quite the opposite in fact. 

No doubt at all that RS and Alexander will know each from both their previous roles in the industry and if Alexander comes  on the recommendation from RS then SL isn’t likely not to act on it.

The bottom line is at this that the new CEO can’t be anywhere near as dismissive of fan’s opinions as Ashton was. That’s what I mean by hoping he’s as approachable as RG was.

[Davefevs]

5 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I agree that so long as the final decisions are truly made by the directors and shareholders then it's fine to have conversations and use networks behind the scenes.

Accord should also be given to the EFL Regs and Owners and Directors test. I'm sure the club are confident that Scudamore isn't a "Relevant Person" under this Regs, but some of the definition there is quite broad and includes "a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the persons constituting the management of the Club are accustomed to act". I just hope that "heavily involved" doesn't mean this. 

We see with the current Birmingham case that this is something the EFL are starting to look at seriously.

I'm sure it's all just networking and chats as you say - and as I said earlier that was always the impression I got from Gould - but if it's more than that then his involvement should be properly recorded and structured.

Might be a b2b (Business to Business) relationship.  Scudamore is a Director of Scudamore1 Limited…I can only assume this is some form of Consultancy business.

[ExiledAjax]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Might be a b2b (Business to Business) relationship.  Scudamore is a Director of Scudamore1 Limited…I can only assume this is some form of Consultancy business.

Yeh I saw that on CH as well. It's almost certainly a consultantcy company.

To those who've responded to me @spudski @REDOXO @cidered abroad @CyderInACan I'm not suggesting that there is impropriety. It is simply the case that if Scudamore is making decisions then it is poor governance to have that done in the shadows. If he is merely providing advice, consultancy, or counsel, then that is fine - whether it be paid (in money or in lunches) or unpaid.

I know for certain that the latter happens, but Alexander's use of "heavily involved" could be interpreted to suggest the former.

That's it.

[REDOXO]

9 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Yeh I saw that on CH as well. It's almost certainly a consultantcy company.

To those who've responded to me @spudski @REDOXO @cidered abroad @CyderInACan I'm not suggesting that there is impropriety. It is simply the case that if Scudamore is making decisions then it is poor governance to have that done in the shadows. If he is merely providing advice, consultancy, or counsel, then that is fine - whether it be paid (in money or in lunches) or unpaid.

I know for certain that the latter happens, but Alexander's use of "heavily involved" could be interpreted to suggest the former.

That's it.

Yep. But we don’t know about decision making the bloke now responsible has thrown out his name and that’s that, unless you know something? 

Im just happy Scudamor is in someway involved in an effective way and I think I would be hard pressed to find anyone that wasn’t  

A privately held (which we effectively are) corporation tends to worry a lot less  about governance, for obvious reasons, particularly as it’s clear who the ‘governor’ is and that individual is aware of what’s being done in his name. 
 

I would be interested to know if there is any potential buyers around right now!

Edited February 22, 2023 by REDOXO

[W-S-M Seagull]

I think our club is in the best shape it has ever been in. 

Modern stadium

Top class training facilities

And in Pearson we have a manager like we have never had before. We also then have Alexander and Scudamore. Finally for the 1st time ever we actually have experienced top flight proper football people running our club. 

We have never been so well run. 

It's only a matter of time before we climb up the league. 

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

26 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

I would be interested to know if there is any potential buyers around right now!

If SL sold now, what benefit would that have? Surely a new owner would still face the same FFP restrictions that Steve faces? 

For Steve the best thing for him to do would be for us to get to the premier league and then sell then. He's more likely to claw back more of his money doing it that way and I suspect that's probably his plan.

[REDOXO]

35 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

If SL sold now, what benefit would that have? Surely a new owner would still face the same FFP restrictions that Steve faces? 

For Steve the best thing for him to do would be for us to get to the premier league and then sell then. He's more likely to claw back more of his money doing it that way and I suspect that's probably his plan.

Who knows what his plan is outside of his already stated intent to invite investment, which in MnA terms (and fairly obviously) is signaling in of itself. If that’s a sale of shares wholly or partially that’s up to him if there is a willing buyer 

Selling sooner or down the line is dependent on interest and whether an offer is made that is acceptable 

As for FFP nothing change’s obviously. The wild card here is SL inviting ‘ investment’ for Bristol City and/or Bristol Sport and/ or all facilities?

If you are a seller of an entity/business that has value and you have effective complete ownership it’s often about wanting to move on as much as the financial value and SLs life won’t change because he may of Put in more than he gets financially from the club/s he owns!

 

 

 

[Tinmans Love Child]

Talking of Peter Scudamore, stumbled across this interview with Gary Neville in the brilliant Overlap series of interviews Gary does on YouTube (The Roy Keane one is great), he mentions his first ever game was Atyeo's testimonial game and also one of his first jobs in football was with the Bristol and District League! https://youtu.be/H0joKOIqguA

Edited February 22, 2023 by Tinmans Love Child