Where is our CEO...who is he?

[W-S-M Seagull]

30 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, I tweeted something the other day to a Watford “fanalyst” when he was getting stick for supporting Ismael, and the moaners were quoting Luton and Coventry…and that was “trajectory” is key.  As you and Graham point out they have been increasing their wage bills / spending, and although I have little sympathy for Watford (sorry @Markthehorn) due to Udinese stuff, they are finally trying to cut their cloth accordingly.  They sold Pedro for £30m in the summer, that’s recognition in my eyes.

It’s quite simple, the budget set in March with most of the “known known” playing out, was set too low.  If you set a budget based on several players leaving, e.g. Scott, Kalas, Massengo, Moore and Dasilva, where one of them is gonna also bring in £20-25m and you replace with players (I won’t  list them) that fit the wage structure and re-contract a few others…and you’re maxed out…you’ve set it too low.

I totally get the process PA explained, including how Cashflow is important when fees received (but also paid) are in instalments, but SL has set the budget too low, unjustifiably so based on his expectation levels.

I think Nige and Tins have done well to recruit who they have for such little money.

22/23’s accounts are likely to paint a picture of unnecessary austerity, other than SL’s latest thinking of doing “a Luton”.  Perhaps he should’ve consulted Mick Harford, Gary Sweet and Phil Chapple before making rash statements.

 

Coventry and Luton weren't really impacted by Covid. They got promoted and due to that had a windfall of cash that that brings and therefore were able to spend it at the time clubs like ours were in a mess. Take nothing away from their achievements but it was a perfect storm for them both that they were able to take advantage of. 

I'd suggest what Lansdown is wanting us to do is more along the lines of when Blackpool got promoted? Without the taking money from the club of course. 

We've spoken about this before and neither of us wants us to go out and spend upto 8 million on Simms or millions on random foreign players. 

Our transfer dealings have been really good so just a continuation of that sort of buisness by bringing in 1 or 2 more would have given us all a lot of belief. Now we are all worried about us picking up injuries. It's a big gamble from us to hope that we compete plus don't pick up any more injuries. 

There are 21 fixtures between now and Jan the 1st (including NYD game) with a lot of sat-tues games. We will pick up injuries and that worries me.

[Ian M]

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

Coventry and Luton weren't really impacted by Covid. They got promoted and due to that had a windfall of cash that that brings and therefore were able to spend it at the time clubs like ours were in a mess. Take nothing away from their achievements but it was a perfect storm for them both that they were able to take advantage of. 

I'd suggest what Lansdown is wanting us to do is more along the lines of when Blackpool got promoted? Without the taking money from the club of course. 

We've spoken about this before and neither of us wants us to go out and spend upto 8 million on Simms or millions on random foreign players. 

Our transfer dealings have been really good so just a continuation of that sort of buisness by bringing in 1 or 2 more would have given us all a lot of belief. Now we are all worried about us picking up injuries. It's a big gamble from us to hope that we compete plus don't pick up any more injuries. 

There are 21 fixtures between now and Jan the 1st (including NYD game) with a lot of sat-tues games. We will pick up injuries and that worries me.

Teams involved at the top often ban the P word so not to jinx it, maybe we need to ban the I word? We simply cannot suffer many more if we want to continue in the top half.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I wouldn't worry on one level too much about the £25m hope although SL mentioning it worries me.

If it's cash break even don't worry at all, about that subject to our Businsss model, if it is pure breakeven £10-15m per year.

If we intend to try and underpin a higher wagw bill and set of expenditures with £25m in sales a season that is mental! Especially given how it all went wrong last time.

To say nothing of growth of the side, cohesion etc.

[SydneyCity]

I’m amazed so many people got so much out of that interview.

My criticism of it is, he really didn’t say much at all. It was a standard corporate message, from a CEO. No unexpected answers from no unexpected questions. He played it well but wasn’t really put under any pressure. I would have loved 20man, or someone more vocal about the fans, to have conducted that interview.

My two cents re: Steve and budgets… possibly the worst thing for a businessman who is responsible for handling and investing other people’s money, is a headline saying they have failed financially. The reputational damage that failing FFP would have on Hargreaves Lansdown as a business - and as a knock on effect those who have invested their savings in it - cannot be underestimated. It would have had huge ramifications for us as a club and a lot of people around the country - City fans, or not. An over tightening of the belt is not an unsurprising response.

[Markthehorn]

5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, I tweeted something the other day to a Watford “fanalyst” when he was getting stick for supporting Ismael, and the moaners were quoting Luton and Coventry…and that was “trajectory” is key.  As you and Graham point out they have been increasing their wage bills / spending, and although I have little sympathy for Watford (sorry @Markthehorn) due to Udinese stuff, they are finally trying to cut their cloth accordingly.  They sold Pedro for £30m in the summer, that’s recognition in my eyes.

It’s quite simple, the budget set in March with most of the “known known” playing out, was set too low.  If you set a budget based on several players leaving, e.g. Scott, Kalas, Massengo, Moore and Dasilva, where one of them is gonna also bring in £20-25m and you replace with players (I won’t  list them) that fit the wage structure and re-contract a few others…and you’re maxed out…you’ve set it too low.

I totally get the process PA explained, including how Cashflow is important when fees received (but also paid) are in instalments, but SL has set the budget too low, unjustifiably so based on his expectation levels.

I think Nige and Tins have done well to recruit who they have for such little money.

22/23’s accounts are likely to paint a picture of unnecessary austerity, other than SL’s latest thinking of doing “a Luton”.  Perhaps he should’ve consulted Mick Harford, Gary Sweet and Phil Chapple before making rash statements.

 

I’d like to think there was no one wanting Ismael out really but guess some will expect instant results.

Ok not great on that front but performances have been encouraging and fans have actually enjoyed the the football.

Probably the sane ones who then complain the owners sack too many managers too soon!

I think most accept the club cutting cost and Pedro was going to leave .

There has been disappointment we didn’t get more players in maybe but it’s not as easy as football manager .
 

 

 

 

[fisherrich]

Obvious to most on here, Lansdown’s now want out. Just heard the “interview” again.
An owner who has no ££s to spend, no connection with true City fans, a Chairman who doesn’t exist, a CEO who hides behind the curtains. Shambles. Us Bristol City fans deserve better than this. Get em out!

Edited September 5, 2023 by fisherrich

[Jacki]

As many others have said, this interview really didn’t tell us a lot that we didn’t already know, or at least suspect. SL has had enough of funding huge losses and isn’t going to do it anymore. That has seemed obvious from everything Pearson has been saying in his press conferences for a long while. It’s absolutely his right to stop doing this, but it doesn’t tally up at all with the repeatedly stated (in this interview) aim of us pushing for the top 6 this season. SL is asking Pearson to perform a miracle which he knows isn’t going to happen and, when we’re predictably falling short, will bin him off saying his failed and bring in the next yes man. If Nige achieves a top 10 finish under these constraints it will be remarkable. 

One thing I’ve not seen commented on that Alexander said more than once was his keenness to get it out there that he was ‘honoured’ to lead on the Alex Scott negotiations. Lansdown had implied in his own interview that he’d overseen it and I read that as Alexander trying to prove his credentials and show that he’s the boss on the football side of things. A small detail but I thought that was telling.

Other than that I thought the interview was exactly what I would have expected. A defence of Lansdown’s record and a load of fawning about the money he’s put in, a reiteration of budgets, a load of rubbish about how expect to finish top 6 like Luton and a load of corporate waffle about cash flow.

Overall I’m in the same camp as most others on here now. SL appears to be slowly pulling the plug and wants out. I think we need a new owner but it’s so important we get the right one. I’d hate for us to become a sports washing project like Newcastle or be bled dry like Cardiff or Birmingham. The next year or two will be very interesting as we see which way it all goes. 

[Slack Bladder]

All this makes me realise what a great job NP is doing with the team and how he leaves a club in a better place than when he started.

Look at the Leicester team that won the Prem

 

[Red Exile]

It was a depressing listen. 'Hoping for the best' - I thought. As for Lansdown - I'm not sure why anyone would invest in football if it wasn't for the glory. The idea of a financially sustainable Championship football club is almost laughable. We don't have to speculate on the health of a 71 year old billionaire to appreciate that 20 years of investment - the best years of his billionaire life - have delivered precious little glory....a cup win in the lesser cup (followed by a defeat), some lower league promotions (to compensate for relegations) a solitary play-off 15 years ago (which we lost). His media recognition is at best the occasional local radio interview...the promotion of a golf venture in Guernsey is hardly 'hold the front page'. If he's known for anything its stupendous investment in one of the most mediocre under-achieving British football clubs...but with a nice ground. Other than as a legacy project for his unimpressive son I'm not sure why he bothers - from that interview you'd have to assume that he appears to be thinking the same. 

[ExiledAjax]

Just caught up.

As PA says, SL wants the Club to be financially sustainable. That means not depending so much on a sugar daddy pumping in £££ every season. To my mind the transfer and wage policy this summer is consistent with that. This also explains why we were so bullish on the Scott price. We had to achieve £X in order to meet our plan. This sustainability drive is not a new position, it's a model Lansdown has looked to move towards for a few seasons now and has openly stated. I wish more owners looked to do this.

It might be, as @Harry says, utopian, but I'd argue it is quite brave. Some might say foolhardy, but it's the way football should go and if we lead that then I'm happy with that. Clubs need to sustain themselves. I wish it didn't need the sale of exciting young players, I wish instead it involved a fairer distribution of riches, but that's out of our control. However, Phil mentioned that fan-led review based talks on distribution may "crystallise" over the next few months, leading to further distribution from the PL. That's good and it sounds like we might in part be considering that in our budgeting. I don't have an issue with us trying to do something different and actually fairly impressive.

I do though have an issue with saying that we're simultaneously not cutting ambition. That's the madness, and it's stupid to tell fans that we think we can go up under this more sustainable model when most other clubs aren't doing it. In that unbalanced division it's incredibly unlikely we will get top 6, and the Club should be honest about that. It's not "realistic" as Alexander said. The spin that we've "come out of the transfer window in 8th" is hilarious. Phil. We've played 5 games out of 46 and got fairly beaten in one of those plus a cup game against an apparent promotion rival. Table means nothing right now.

Interesting that it's cashflow now not FFP accounting that is restraining us. It's a fair point not to spend contingent unrealised income, that's very wise. But don't insult the intelligence of the fans by saying that known future instalments can't be allocated to incoming transfers now.

To those wishing Lansdown would sell, I'm broadly with you but we know be wants to sell, he's said it for years. Most of the reason we went to Tampa in 2019 was to let Ashton meet potential investors. And as Hoskin said Lansdown spoke about this in April as well. He's yet to find someone willing to buy/invest in the way he wants to sell or bring someone in. The criticism is that he needs to be more flexible rather than wants to sell at all.

Accounts: @Mr Popodopolous at about 23:30 he's asked about "your next set of accounts", ie those for 22/23 that we currently await. He says to expect around about £(20)m in losses for that period, and less again for 23/24, they were even described as possibly being "rosier". You know my projections. I'm less surprised than you are. Although I'm surprised he didn't project a profit for 23/24...maybe just being cautious there as if we do spend (unlikely but possible) in January then that becomes less likely.

To be honest I heard a fairly honest interview. I'm annoyed he didn't get questioned on the kit, on communication generally, and the FLR point should have been pushed as that's massive if something is happening there. I also don't buy his ignorance around the position re investment/ownership, but also understand why he doesn't want to speak about that behind Steve's back.

As I've posted elsewhere, I don't really care if Pearson gets a new contract or not, so I'm not bothered about that part of the interview.

Finally, lovely to hear the old "Premier League ready" line

[Harry]

8 minutes ago, Jacki said:

One thing I’ve not seen commented on that Alexander said more than once was his keenness to get it out there that he was ‘honoured’ to lead on the Alex Scott negotiations. Lansdown had implied in his own interview that he’d overseen it and I read that as Alexander trying to prove his credentials and show that he’s the boss on the football side of things. A small detail but I thought that was telling. 

Yes. I was thinking about these comments too. 
He mentioned it a few times and was very very keen to stress that he’d “led the negotiations”. 
Almost TOO keen to stress that! 
It seems that Phil was the one talking to the other clubs and agents whilst he wasn’t actually able to agree on anything and had to go back to get Steve’s agreement on anything. 
“Yep, thanks for the offer, I’ll just need to check that with my boss and I’ll come back to”. 
That’s not a great look. 
In my opinion, I believe Steve looked upon Alex Scott as his own pet project. Guernsey lad recommended to Steve through personal connections in Guernsey. Steve took this one personally and wanted this to be a big tick on an achievement box stating “great things that have happened because of my Guernsey status”. 

Steve needs to shit or get off the pot. Either he is in charge of the financial dealings of the club or he’s appointed others to manage that. A CEO having to “just check with the boss” is bloody ridiculous. 
 

I think the Alex Scott sale is another example of Steve showing his egotistical side. It’s an example of him wanting to do the best for his reputation as a Guernsey resident as much as it was for the benefit of Bristol City. 

[exAtyeoMax]

8 hours ago, Ian M said:

I am still digesting tonight's interview and a few things don't add up for me:

• Earlier in the summer, Brian Tinnion stated that there was a Plan A for recruitment if Alex stayed and a Plan B for recruitment if Alex was sold.
• Meanwhile, Pearson, said in answer to the press that the signing of Jason Knight was to play with Alex and not in place of him.
• However, Alex Scott was sold to Bournemouth in August for £25m.
• Following that sale, when the press asked Pearson for comment, he seemed genuinely annoyed/upset by the decision and said “it was the club that sold him” insinuating he was not pleased, almost sulky at the time.
• Since that sale, Bristol City signed just one player on loan, a midfielder capable of covering at full-back due to a long-term injury to Ross McCrorie.
• We have also since learned that the wage budget was set in March of this year, several months ahead of selling Alex and that we have maxed that and cannot sign anyone else.
• Tonight on Radio Bristol, Phil Alexander, the club’s CEO, revealed that the club was always working towards that budget set in March and that we had bought early to pre-spend the money that selling Alex would bring in. He also stated that TGH was not planned for and was a response to injuries.

Based on these facts, it is difficult to determine whether Tinnion and Pearson were complicit in misleading fans or whether they were misled themselves. However, it is clear that there is a discrepancy between what was said earlier in the summer and what has been revealed tonight. It is up to fans to decide what they believe based on these facts.

I reckon Nige and co were misled too. He seemed really annoyed about AS going, plus SL said he was in charge of the sale, which I took to mean it was my decision, end of.

I thought there was a plan B too. 

[Shauntaylor85]

4 minutes ago, Harry said:

Yes. I was thinking about these comments too. 
He mentioned it a few times and was very very keen to stress that he’d “led the negotiations”. 
Almost TOO keen to stress that! 
It seems that Phil was the one talking to the other clubs and agents whilst he wasn’t actually able to agree on anything and had to go back to get Steve’s agreement on anything. 
“Yep, thanks for the offer, I’ll just need to check that with my boss and I’ll come back to”. 
That’s not a great look. 
In my opinion, I believe Steve looked upon Alex Scott as his own pet project. Guernsey lad recommended to Steve through personal connections in Guernsey. Steve took this one personally and wanted this to be a big tick on an achievement box stating “great things that have happened because of my Guernsey status”. 

Steve needs to shit or get off the pot. Either he is in charge of the financial dealings of the club or he’s appointed others to manage that. A CEO having to “just check with the boss” is bloody ridiculous. 
 

I think the Alex Scott sale is another example of Steve showing his egotistical side. It’s an example of him wanting to do the best for his reputation as a Guernsey resident as much as it was for the benefit of Bristol City. 

In the corporate world, a CEO having to check with the majority shareholder over every deal just doesnt happen. Too hands on still, but then it’s his money isn’t it as we keep being told. Clear that there is a loss of appetite with a hope to being able to fluke the Luton model which is like saying I hope to win the lottery next year! 

[Roe]

Pretty rubbish interview. Not necessarily Richard Hoskins' fault although the questions weren't great imo

Phil Alexander essentially said nothing we didn't already know

For what it's worth, I'm fine with the club cutting the budget but the lack of communication about everything is abysmal

[Harry]

12 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Just caught up.

As PA says, SL wants the Club to be financially sustainable. That means not depending so much on a sugar daddy pumping in £££ every season. To my mind the transfer and wage policy this summer is consistent with that. This also explains why we were so bullish on the Scott price. We had to achieve £X in order to meet our plan. This sustainability drive is not a new position, it's a model Lansdown has looked to move towards for a few seasons now and has openly stated. I wish more owners looked to do this.

It might be, as @Harry says, utopian, but I'd argue it is quite brave. Some might say foolhardy, but it's the way football should go and if we lead that then I'm happy with that. Clubs need to sustain themselves. I wish it didn't need the sale of exciting young players, I wish instead it involved a fairer distribution of riches, but that's out of our control. However, Phil mentioned that fan-led review based talks on distribution may "crystallise" over the next few months, leading to further distribution from the PL. That's good and it sounds like we might in part be considering that in our budgeting. I don't have an issue with us trying to do something different and actually fairly impressive.

Steve has been on a one man crusade against FFP rule breakers for years. I think he thinks he can change football and change the financial rules because he’s a successful financial businessman. It is definitely his utopia. And yet, after being the sanctimonious ‘financial constraint’ preacher for years, how ironic that it’s his own decisions that put his own club into FFP difficulty this last 2-3 years. 
What a major own-goal and total embarrassment for him. 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Harry

[The Bard]

9 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

1) doesn't particularly like/rate the current manager

2) doesn't get the power and influence over footballing matters that he has enjoyed under previous managers

3) sale of the club is imminent 

It's not a fortune to him, mind. It's relative peanuts.

He's certainty got a manager who can manage upwards hasn't he? 

 

However,  the change of CEO seems to have changed things a bit. Nige was talking about 'when Richard was here' in a press conference recently.

[Shauntaylor85]

6 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Beat me to it, Harr.

Thats kinda his job.

Whilst also trying to cover up / resolve the cluster#### his son has made over things like the kit / suppliers.

I’m not anti-Phil, in fact he provided me with all the clarity I needed tonight.  This is all on SL.

What annoyed me was what felt like the complete disregard for the work Nigel has done with the academy players, wage bill and improving average players which Johnson had sent on loan to Aberdeen and pretty much every club in League Two whilst wasting money left right and centre! Really is a bit of a joke. Johnson would get praise all the time, even if a losing run. Unbelievable. Nigel just needs to prove the board doubters wrong, keep improving and hopefully have a good season, just get the feeling only way he stays is if we get top 6 which is grossly unfair with restrictions in place and amount of reprieves LJ had with a much bigger budget. 

[Shauntaylor85]

5 minutes ago, Roe said:

Pretty rubbish interview. Not necessarily Richard Hoskins' fault although the questions weren't great imo

Phil Alexander essentially said nothing we didn't already know

For what it's worth, I'm fine with the club cutting the budget but the lack of communication about everything is abysmal

Is it not his fault? Geoff T would have gone in for the fans. What a miss Geoff is. 

[GrahamC]

7 hours ago, Harry said:

All businesses except most football clubs, who are mostly run at a debt where wealthy philanthropic owners massage their ego’s by throwing their millions into the club. 
Until they get bored and decide they don’t want to throw £13m a year down the drain any more. 
Steve Lansdown lives in a parallel universe of a football utopia, where football clubs only spend what they earn. 
Unless your recruitment, coaching and management is top top top notch, you’re gonna need to spend a lot of spondoolies to get out of this league. 

100%.

For me this is why he & Alexander are starting to reference Luton all the time.

Whatever we think of them their recruitment is consistently excellent & whilst they have increased costs, they still have a relatively small budget.

However what they did last season is a massive outlier in how sides get promoted & you also need a year where parachute payment sides don’t do well & that’s rare too.

We are basically at the lottery win to go up likelihood stage of SL’s ownership.

Sides like Birmingham, Stoke & even those jokers over the bridge supposedly under an embargo are bringing in far more players.

SL thinks we’re stupid or plebs, or both.

Sell up now.

[ExiledAjax]

Just now, Harry said:

Steve has been on a one man crusade against FFP rule breakers for years. I think he thinks he can change football and change the financial rules because he’s a successful financial businessman. It is definitely his utopia. And yet, after being the sanctimonious ‘financial constraint’ preacher for years, how ironic that it’s his own decisions that out his own club into FFP difficulty this last 2-3 years. 
What a major own-goal and total embarrassment for him. 

Plenty of people want football to change its model. We flew close to the sun on FFP but I suspect Steve would tell you that a) we never actually broke the thresholds b) made the tough decisions to correct that overspend, and c) stayed mid table all through that period. He'd see it as a fair go at maxing FFP without breaking it I think.

It's a shame that promotion didn't come off when we went for it but the correction that followed - under Gould and the finance team and then implemented by Pearson, Tinnion and the staff - is impressive. I do agree that those people should be publicly praised for that, and it's a shame that's not happened yet. This interview was a good opportunity to do so 

Boom and bust, but always within the limits. 

I agree with your other post, and with @Jacki btw. Alexander and Lansdown having a public fight over the credit for our record transfer fee received is laughable and unprofessional. He was definitely at pains to point out that he "led" those negotiations, a little too at pains.

[The Bard]

13 minutes ago, Harry said:

Yes. I was thinking about these comments too. 
He mentioned it a few times and was very very keen to stress that he’d “led the negotiations”. 
Almost TOO keen to stress that! 
It seems that Phil was the one talking to the other clubs and agents whilst he wasn’t actually able to agree on anything and had to go back to get Steve’s agreement on anything. 
“Yep, thanks for the offer, I’ll just need to check that with my boss and I’ll come back to”. 
That’s not a great look. 
In my opinion, I believe Steve looked upon Alex Scott as his own pet project. Guernsey lad recommended to Steve through personal connections in Guernsey. Steve took this one personally and wanted this to be a big tick on an achievement box stating “great things that have happened because of my Guernsey status”. 

Steve needs to shit or get off the pot. Either he is in charge of the financial dealings of the club or he’s appointed others to manage that. A CEO having to “just check with the boss” is bloody ridiculous. 
 

I think the Alex Scott sale is another example of Steve showing his egotistical side. It’s an example of him wanting to do the best for his reputation as a Guernsey resident as much as it was for the benefit of Bristol City. 

Definitely get the Guernsey resident bit. He's lived there for some time now hasn't he? 

His connection to Bristol is inevitably going to wane. 

 

[Monkeh]

5 hours ago, SydneyCity said:

I’m amazed so many people got so much out of that interview.

My criticism of it is, he really didn’t say much at all. It was a standard corporate message, from a CEO. No unexpected answers from no unexpected questions. He played it well but wasn’t really put under any pressure. I would have loved 20man, or someone more vocal about the fans, to have conducted that interview.

My two cents re: Steve and budgets… possibly the worst thing for a businessman who is responsible for handling and investing other people’s money, is a headline saying they have failed financially. The reputational damage that failing FFP would have on Hargreaves Lansdown as a business - and as a knock on effect those who have invested their savings in it - cannot be underestimated. It would have had huge ramifications for us as a club and a lot of people around the country - City fans, or not. An over tightening of the belt is not an unsurprising response.

People are seeing what they want to see

[Harry]

1 minute ago, Monkeh said:

People are seeing what they want to see

Nah. People are satisfied that this interview provided the clarity to our suspicions. 

[The Journalist]

2 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

People are seeing what they want to see

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I'm seeing what I didn't want to see.

[Lack of Action Man]

I’ve listened to the interview between RH and PA. My thoughts are:

1. There were some aspects of Mark Ashton-ism with his deflection of answering the actual question, and steering the discussion in the direction he was comfortable with it going. 

2. Hoskins let him off far too easy with certain lines of questioning.

3. The response to NP’s future - not sure what to make of this. Doesn’t fill me with confidence, but equally doesn’t scream “Nige out” either. Bit of a weird one.

4. The comment about how cutting budgets doesn’t equate to cutting ambition - calling BS on that. If you sell a Rolls Royce, and then go on to buy a Vauxhall Astra, you’ve hardly matched like for like. This is analogous to our transfer dealings in the recent window imo. Despite our recruitment strategy of generally younger players, with either potential to improve or sell on for profit, it’s patently obvious that this squad is crying out for an injection of proven quality - especially up front.

Final thoughts - neutral. Some things irked me, others were understandable. Time will tell whether the club really does have the ambition to reach the Premier League.

[glynriley]

Heard it all before. Just this time not in a shit Brummie accent. 
“Isn’t Steve wonderful”

[The Bard]

13 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

100%.

For me this is why he & Alexander are starting to reference Luton all the time.

Whatever we think of them their recruitment is consistently excellent & whilst they have increased costs, they still have a relatively small budget.

However what they did last season is a massive outlier in how sides get promoted & you also need a year where parachute payment sides don’t do well & that’s rare too.

We are basically at the lottery win to go up likelihood stage of SL’s ownership.

Sides like Birmingham, Stoke & even those jokers over the bridge supposedly under an embargo are bringing in far more players.

SL thinks we’re stupid or plebs, or both.

Sell up now.

If he is selling then there's no way he'll get rid of Pearson. Remove and we suddenly look as rudderless as we did during the Holden interregnum. That would drive down the sale price.  

[Olé]

22 minutes ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

In the corporate world, a CEO having to check with the majority shareholder over every deal just doesnt happen.

On a small point of order, it actually does. If a business is going to conduct a large transaction (in this case equivalent to the turnover of the entire business) they will often submit it for board approval as good governance since the board will be made up of people whose job it is to represent owners/investors interests. This wasn't "every deal", it was the largest deal in the club's history. The only bit that is a little less conventional is we don't really have a board in the true sense, SL is the one and only person who needs contacting.

[exAtyeoMax]

18 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Plenty of people want football to change its model. We flew close to the sun on FFP but I suspect Steve would tell you that a) we never actually broke the thresholds b) made the tough decisions to correct that overspend, and c) stayed mid table all through that period. He'd see it as a fair go at maxing FFP without breaking it I think.

It's a shame that promotion didn't come off when we went for it but the correction that followed - under Gould and the finance team and then implemented by Pearson, Tinnion and the staff - is impressive. I do agree that those people should be publicly praised for that, and it's a shame that's not happened yet. This interview was a good opportunity to do so 

Boom and bust, but always within the limits. 

I agree with your other post, and with @Jacki btw. Alexander and Lansdown having a public fight over the credit for our record transfer fee received is laughable and unprofessional. He was definitely at pains to point out that he "led" those negotiations, a little too at pains.

I’ll have to listen again but I took the “honour” bit repeated over and over to be a diversion tactic, so not to answer the question put to him. He kept reiterating how much of an honour it was to lead discussions… just preface that with a “let’s be clear” 

[Son of Fred]

Just now, exAtyeoMax said:

I’ll have to listen again but I took the “honour” bit repeated over and over to be a diversion tactic, so not to answer the question put to him. He kept reiterating how much of an honour it was to lead discussions… just preface that with a “let’s be clear” 

Or "let's not be clear"