Where is our CEO...who is he?

[exAtyeoMax]

 

https://x.com/bbcmotd/status/1698649354725126389?s=61&t=wrMLvXcntX1MDBSChMyZhA

Edited September 5, 2023 by exAtyeoMax

[spudski]

36 minutes ago, 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 put his own club into FFP difficulty this last 2-3 years. 
What a major own-goal and total embarrassment for him. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it our former Financial Director John Pelling ( he who stepped in on Cotterhills deals) that was part of the ' team' that wrote up the rules for FFP? 

Was pretty close to SL. 

[Sturgess]

40 minutes ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

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! 

Let alone the playing side having to dish-out £12m+ in sales each year. Granted, the Academy has produced, but I’d argue it’s not sustainable to rely on profit from player sales.

[lenred]

1 minute ago, exAtyeoMax said:

 

https://x.com/bbcmotd/status/1698649354725126389?s=61&t=wrMLvXcntX1MDBSChMyZhA

Amazing that this is our ‘aim’ now isn’t it - to emulate a club getting shafted every week. Never mind though - the clone club will change again next season to whoever is successful this year -  as was eloquently put by someone earlier in the thread! 

[headhunter]

1 hour ago, Jacki said:

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. 

I posted this on Palace forum earlier this year and it is clear from this [and in another thread from summer 22 when he resigned] that PA's skill is on commercial opportunities not player contracts:  https://www.holmesdale.net/page.php?id=106&tid=181641 

A little worrying that a CEO of obvious standing but not on player contracts was "leading" the negotiations on the sale for our prized asset - who's telling the truth here, PA or SL

When the deal was done SL said we achieved "asking price" which is the £25M but for all we know that could be £18M plus £7M in add ons - we did after all sell Alex in a "crocked" state and our desire to get this over the line to fund the acquisitions made "in advance" may have played a part in all of this 

[Alessandro]

I've been giving the board the benefit of the doubt recently - hell, I feel like I've been writing their PR on OTIB at times...

But I have to say, despite being onboard with the strategy to build and be more 'sustainable' (within realistic limits) the discrepancies between words and actions, as others have pointed out, is plain to see.

And the different messaging from board and manager, worrying to see. 

I'd still like to partially reserve judgement until the next few windows, however...as others have said, 'put up or get out' - a middle ground longer term simply doesn't work.

I don't have the anger towards SL that many do, but I share many of the same frustrations - I'm more than OK with him selling up. But I still think we are in a damn good position as a club right now (admittedly largely in spite of SL at times) but he would leave without me throwing a huge party.

You could argue we are at a bit of a crossroads moment, potentially on the cusp of something special, where a lot of these foundations could also be washed away if we don't make the right decisions going forward - investment, manager.. we can't be viewed as "treading water" from inside or outside the club. If we stand still we go backwards. 

Whatever happens though, it seems we are very much at the beginning of the end for the Lansdowns at the club. 

[Henry]

I found the stuff on the arena interesting. He said it wasn’t his area so didn’t know when building would start then waffled on about it’s being a great 10k capacity arena. 
 

Just showed the bluffing and incompetence of it all. I got some Mark Ashton vibes, praise the Lansdown family, praise the facilities, prem ready etc.

[Harry]

1 hour ago, Olé said:

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.

I think in this case it doesn’t appear to have just been a ‘final sign off’. 
The impression Phil gave was that he was “leading” the negotiations but that Steve was “very much involved all along the way”. 
 

He also said that the talks had been going on for a long period of time. 
So we can assume from this that there was a lot of back and forth between clubs and agents, and given that Steve was involved all through the process this wasn’t just a final ratification from Steve. 
 

It gives the impression that after every phone call Phil had to run it past Steve. 
“Hi, Wolves here. How does £18m + £3m add ons sound?”  
“Ok. I’ll check with Steve”. “Steve says No”. 
 

“Hi Bournemouth here. How does £18m + £4m add ons sound?”  
“Ok, I’ll check with Steve”. “Steve says no”. 

Etc etc….. 
 

I’m happy with Steve setting an overall financial target for the club. And I’m also happy with him putting a valuation on assets. If he says “we value Scott at £25m”, then he should leave it to the other important people he’s put in place to conduct those negotiations. 
 

Him being directly involved “all through the lengthy process” on this one smacks to me of a bloke who wanted to do the best for Guernsey as much as he wanted to do the best for City. 

[Andre_The_Giant]

36 minutes ago, Henry said:

I found the stuff on the arena interesting. He said it wasn’t his area so didn’t know when building would start then waffled on about it’s being a great 10k capacity arena. 
 

Just showed the bluffing and incompetence of it all. I got some Mark Ashton vibes, praise the Lansdown family, praise the facilities, prem ready etc.

I found that part odd aswell, clearly said 9-10k arena?! 

Unless I have missed something, it would be less than half that size.

Most odd.

As for the general sentiment in this thread, I share it. WE WILL NOT PROGRESS WITH THE CURRENT OWNER. Lansdown, please, sell up and go.

[Merrick's Marvels]

12 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

No value in turning against SL.

The club is for sale. He is quite open about that, There is value in asking questions about what new investors might bring.

When the Club did a pre season in the States (games abandoned due to thunder, possibly a game against Derby?)

A lot was made about taking 'the project' to new markets.

Just don't think it should or would take this long.

Which makes you think, maybe we're "for sale" like Man Utd are - other owners with completely unrealistic expectations about what they can make from selling "their club"?

Alternatively....

11 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

3) sale of the club is imminent 

Woah! Say that again - slowly - Lansdown is close to agreeing a sale of the club?  (No-one else has picked up on this, so am I misreading?)

Edited September 5, 2023 by Merrick's Marvels

[Sir Geoff]

15 hours ago, RedRoss said:

Basically we're gonna be operating very differently going forward. SL won't be topping us up anymore.

So SL has decided to be the only owner in the entire football league not to top the club up. League one here we come then. ps he may be the owner but he is only the current custodian. The Scott money isn't his money it's the clubs money. No one put a gun to his head 20 odd years ago and said buy Bristol City FC. That was his decision and if he hasn't been able to 'flip' the club and make a profit that again is down to him. Tough times ahead for Steve and John boy if NP is let go.

[Son of Fred]

1 hour ago, Alessandro said:

I've been giving the board the benefit of the doubt recently - hell, I feel like I've been writing their PR on OTIB at times...

But I have to say, despite being onboard with the strategy to build and be more 'sustainable' (within realistic limits) the discrepancies between words and actions, as others have pointed out, is plain to see.

And the different messaging from board and manager, worrying to see. 

I'd still like to partially reserve judgement until the next few windows, however...as others have said, 'put up or get out' - a middle ground longer term simply doesn't work.

I don't have the anger towards SL that many do, but I share many of the same frustrations - I'm more than OK with him selling up. But I still think we are in a damn good position as a club right now (admittedly largely in spite of SL at times) but he would leave without me throwing a huge party.

You could argue we are at a bit of a crossroads moment, potentially on the cusp of something special, where a lot of these foundations could also be washed away if we don't make the right decisions going forward - investment, manager.. we can't be viewed as "treading water" from inside or outside the club. If we stand still we go backwards. 

Whatever happens though, it seems we are very much at the beginning of the end for the Lansdowns at the club. 

Excellent post Sir-

Mixed messages & indeed a pivotal moment.

[Davefevs]

8 hours 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.

Yep, the “all clubs were affected by covid” so there’s no excuse for City’s struggles, was bullshit.  Clubs that had been sensible, like Millwall, Luton, Preston, still suffered, but not as heavily as clubs like us, Brum, Cardiff, Stoke, who’d over-extended themselves.

Much as I’m glad we didn’t fall foul of FFP, those prudently run clubs must’ve felt a bit pissed off when the extra covid allowances were agreed.

Your final para is the run isn’t it.  We will probably get through the next batch of 6 up to the Oct break, Weimann hopefully back, then the 5 afterward we might see Conway too.

But then we have a long run:

with no breaks….that will test our depth.

2 hours ago, Jacki said:

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. 

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. 

Good summary.  As you say it’s kinda what we suspected, just hadn’t heard.  We probably didn’t hear the true reason for the change in tack though and the timing of such.

2 hours 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.

bullish? As in putting a figure of £25m out there. It will be interesting to see whether we got that or how it was made up.  I guess for me there’s sustainable and there’s profit-making.  To transition to profitability comes at a huge risk to divisional status.  This is where I agree with @Grey Fox, you either erode your playing squad over time and then have no assets to sell, or you do it quickly and get relegated.  To avoid relegation under this austerity is down to the football people…not the board or finance team.

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.

we need Everton to go bust to drive change.  It won’t happen.  I don’t want them to either, but football needs a lesson!  And then learn from it.  We didn’t learn for ITV Digital with Covid, and it looks like we aren’t learning from covid either.

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.

Not even @headhunter would go on the radio and extrapolate 5 games!

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.

I think that was misleading and done on purpose.  Flip-flopping between P&L, FFP, Cashflow and Payment Terms / Add-ons with an aim to cover tracks.

Cashflow is of course important, but let’s just say we got £20m transfer fee and £5m realistic add-ons (ignore sell-on fee).  That £20m is guaranteed, it’s not contingent.  We might get that £20m spread over a period of time.  Likewise, PA said we do the same on players bought too.  But I thought he did on this bit get away with it from RH, because RH isn’t Swiss Ramble or Kieran Maguire!  But we do now know it’s not just losses that SL won’t cover in full, but Cashflow too.  The big question is why?  Golf course costing too much???

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.

I suspect he wants too much  

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.

I’ll be surprised if it’s a £20m loss with Antoine’s sale.  If it is it won’t be the football side that’s losing it!

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.

no, of course he knows.  He could’ve given a better “get out of jail” excuse than he did though.

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

Comments in line above  

@Harry I hit delete on your quote re SL / Guernsey / Scott (at least I think it was yours), saying that SL sees Alex Scott as his.  Not sure wgat you meant by this, but he maybe introduced the relationship between Guernsey FC and City / Tony Vance and Brian Tinnion, but that Scott wasn’t the start.  The start was City loaning Cam Pring and Jake Andrews to Guernsey way back in 2016 / 2017…Alex probably still at Saints then!

So a bit of credit for introducing the two football people to each other, but zilch credit to SL for Alex Scott.

1 hour ago, Harry said:

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

Exactly.

[Sir Geoff]

15 hours ago, Hello Dave said:

Has Pearson done all this though? It was only last week that people were saying he’s only involved on the playing side, and not to be asked questions on financial matters!

He personally, obviously hasn’t generated money from sales, as he didn’t want any of them to go. He also hasn’t reduced the wage bill, as I’m sure as shit he’d want a decent budget so he could attract better players.

Apart from your last statement, everything else would’ve been decided above him.

Blooding a 17 year old in a pre season friendly against a Premier League team and watching said teenager run the game. Then giving that same teenager 96 first team games over the next couple of years might have helped generate a sale.

[Merrick's Marvels]

11 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 went for the flame emoji on reading this but I've already run out of likes reading just this thread today. 

So have a few of these  and some of these  

Why the journalist conducting the interview couldn't point this out to our CEO is anyone's guess.  

[Bristol Oil Services]

13 hours ago, cidercity1987 said:

I dread to think what is going to happen without Pearson and without a new owner. 

It'll be Ipswich, when they were last in the Championship, under the previous owner. In fact, for Mick McCarthy see Nigel Pearson. Which one's Adam Webster?

[Hello Dave]

34 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Blooding a 17 year old in a pre season friendly against a Premier League team and watching said teenager run the game. Then giving that same teenager 96 first team games over the next couple of years might have helped generate a sale.

My point is, he didn’t want to sell, the decision was taken out of his hands by those above him. So they generated the money, not him. Bit pedantic maybe I know.

[Harry]

36 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

@Harry I hit delete on your quote re SL / Guernsey / Scott (at least I think it was yours), saying that SL sees Alex Scott as his.  Not sure wgat you meant by this, but he maybe introduced the relationship between Guernsey FC and City / Tony Vance and Brian Tinnion, but that Scott wasn’t the start.  The start was City loaning Cam Pring and Jake Andrews to Guernsey way back in 2016 / 2017…Alex probably still at Saints then!

So a bit of credit for introducing the two football people to each other, but zilch credit to SL for Alex Scott.

Yes, whilst Steve isn’t directly responsible for Alex Scott, I think he sees the Guernsey links he’s clearly established as being a key factor. 
I’m absolutely certain that he’s put his reputation as a Guernsey resident to the fore here. 
Scott is a product of Guernsey, which has been packaged up and sold by Bristol City. Steve views this as all his work, by virtue of him living in Guernsey and owning City. 
I’m certain of it. 
Look at the joy on his face and in his voice when he was recently interviewed by that Guernsey chap. I haven’t heard him that enthusiastic for years. Scott was his baby. He’s over the moon that this puts his reputation and standing as a Guernsey resident up another few notches. 

[Harry]

6 minutes ago, Hello Dave said:

My point is, he didn’t want to sell, the decision was taken out of his hands by those above him. So they generated the money, not him. Bit pedantic maybe I know.

Was he worth £25m 2 seasons ago? 
I guess that’s the point. 
Yes, he was a talented player with huge potential. But you’ll only maximise the value of the potential by exposing it and giving it experience. 
So whilst any manager is not ever fully responsible for the value of which players are sold, they are responsible for coaching their progress and providing them with the shop window. And therefore they play a very big part in the increased valuation of that player. 

[Merrick's Marvels]

46 minutes ago, Bristol Oil Services said:

It'll be Ipswich, when they were last in the Championship, under the previous owner. In fact, for Mick McCarthy see Nigel Pearson. Which one's Adam Webster?

Yep, very similar scenario.

A silent owner, looking to sell the club, who decides to turn the taps off, leaving a gruff, old school manager to carry the can while his best players are sold from under him.

Ended well for Ipswich didn't it.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Merrick's Marvels

[Merrick's Marvels]

11 minutes ago, Harry said:

Yes, whilst Steve isn’t directly responsible for Alex Scott, I think he sees the Guernsey links he’s clearly established as being a key factor. 
I’m absolutely certain that he’s put his reputation as a Guernsey resident to the fore here. 
Scott is a product of Guernsey, which has been packaged up and sold by Bristol City. Steve views this as all his work, by virtue of him living in Guernsey and owning City. 
I’m certain of it. 
Look at the joy on his face and in his voice when he was recently interviewed by that Guernsey chap. I haven’t heard him that enthusiastic for years. Scott was his baby. He’s over the moon that this puts his reputation and standing as a Guernsey resident up another few notches. 

He's cock of the walk down at the golf club now.

Dear god, just imagine it in the bar - a load of cranky rich pensioners, badly dressed, expressing their "interesting" opinions. You gotta love golf.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Merrick's Marvels

[JP Hampton]

With regards to general comments about Richard Hoskins handling of the interview.  I’d say give him a chance! He’s got some big shoes to fill and I’m sure Geoff wasn’t the finished article when he took the main stage. 

I don’t think he let him off, I just don’t think there’s anywhere else to go, when the response is “I’m not going to get into that”!

 Short of being rude what’s he going to say to that. He reworded the question but got the same response. He’s not going to risk making enemies from the get go. 

[CyderInACan]

3 hours ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

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. 

Feels like any success we have this season will be in spite of Guernsey Steve, rather than because of his new strategy of "be more Luton". Nige must be fired right up to do as well as humanly possible. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, 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 put his own club into FFP difficulty this last 2-3 years. 
What a major own-goal and total embarrassment for him. 

Him and Gibson as I recall were key crusaders in 2019 especially. Maybe a little later too. Others joined sides but these two were the ones.

[frenchred]

11 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

He's cock of the walk down at the golf club now.

Dear god, just imagine it in the bar - a load of cranky rich pensioners, badly dressed, expressing their "interesting" opinions. You gotta love golf.

Believe me after speaking with several locals while visiting Guernsey, he's not! He's pissing off a hell of a lot of locals!

[Merrick's Marvels]

8 minutes ago, frenchred said:

Believe me after speaking with several locals while visiting Guernsey, he's not! He's pissing off a hell of a lot of locals!

Good info!  Tell us more.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Merrick's Marvels

[spudski]

From 26.15 mins in...this is a recent insight into where SLs head is at...worth a listen.

 

[2015]

I miss Richard Gould

[Mr Popodopolous]

That £20m figure again. Makes little sense whichever way we look at it. I'm going to listen back to the interview again later just in general.

It could have meant:

A) Profit (Ha) well Loss Before Tax..

B) Operating Loss ie before Profit on Disposal of Players and also before Interest Paid and Received.

C) Cash Flow.

Worth noting too that 13 months instead of 12 for the 2022-23 accounts which may add £1-2m to the more likely £12-13m loss but £20m just doesn't stack up.

52 minutes ago, 2015 said:

I miss Richard Gould

Much better wasn't he.

Seemed more fan-centred too..think he 'got' the club, the fans etc more.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[DaveF]

43 minutes ago, Harry said:

Yes, whilst Steve isn’t directly responsible for Alex Scott, I think he sees the Guernsey links he’s clearly established as being a key factor. 
I’m absolutely certain that he’s put his reputation as a Guernsey resident to the fore here. 
Scott is a product of Guernsey, which has been packaged up and sold by Bristol City. Steve views this as all his work, by virtue of him living in Guernsey and owning City. 
I’m certain of it. 
Look at the joy on his face and in his voice when he was recently interviewed by that Guernsey chap. I haven’t heard him that enthusiastic for years. Scott was his baby. He’s over the moon that this puts his reputation and standing as a Guernsey resident up another few notches. 

Is that based on anything specific or just a hunch?