Where is our CEO...who is he?

[Davefevs]

44 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Same as the Massengo situation, absolute horseshit for Alexander to claim last night the compensation for him was “already factored in”.

HNM (well, mainly his Dad) pissed about nearly all summer before going back to their first offer from Burnley, so it is ludicrous for him to claim we knew all along what the compensation figure would be, when as I understand it, the rules are different if he joined an English club as opposed to a foreign one.

I guess they will say Gardiner-Hickman was signed on loan instead of Thomason, Tim is absolutely spot on however about Bryan, no way is his replacement signing (Haydon Roberts) on the same money, the Kalas contract, HNM, loads of this narrative simply doesn’t ring true.

Notwithstanding the Massengo stuff, where it’s possible we agreed less “fee” for better add-ons, rather than going to tribunal.

But all the stuff you, Harry and others mention show some inconsistent messaging and a bit of re-inventing of the story.  It is what it is I guess.  But it’s still frustrating.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Davefevs

[Shauntaylor85]

33 minutes ago, Harry said:

There sure are some oddities to the official story aren’t there. 

Absolute nonsense as many have said, pre agreed deal with Burnley fine but element of risk to include. We aren’t being told the full story. 

[Shauntaylor85]

11 hours ago, tin said:

Excellent post. For me, Nige has been as straight as a dye with us whenever he’s been interviewed and I have no doubt Tinnion has the club’s best interests at heart. The fact both of them were singing off the same hymn sheet speaks volumes.

Reading between the lines, I think it’s pretty clear the goalposts have been  moved since March and there were not two separate budgets set in March (one with Scott, one without). 

What I also found interesting is that PA insisted it was a risk for SL to bring in four players before we received the Scott cash, completely ignoring the £10m we brought in from Semenyo. PA also made is very clear IMO that SL is responsible for every decision, right down to the details of the Scott deal. 

SL is misleading people and cowardly dodging explaining his rationale. Either that or he’s losing his marbles. If he no longer wants to invest, he can’t sell up soon enough IMO. 

Just be mindful of what allegedly happened with Danny Wilson here. I am not sure there is the alignment felt by many. Loved him as player, but some of the posts liked on Twitter seems to be very much aligned with the board. 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Shauntaylor85

[Ian M]

If the reason for cutting back on funding now is because SL believes there's a reasonable chance of selling up during this season, do we really think work will actually begin on the Arena? I think that decision would be delayed and let any prospective new owners decide if they want to go ahead with the plans as they are.

[W-S-M Seagull]

14 hours ago, Andre_The_Giant said:

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.

With a bit of digging I found this. 

Unsure if that means 5202 standing + 3626 which would make it almost 9k or if the 5202 is seating and standing combined.

Edited September 5, 2023 by W-S-M Seagull

[95red]

8 hours ago, Ian M said:

If the reason for cutting back on funding now is because SL believes there's a reasonable chance of selling up during this season, do we really think work will actually begin on the Arena? I think that decision would be delayed and let any prospective new owners decide if they want to go ahead with the plans as they are.

Diggers ain't in yet ,selling  with planning  is highly  desirable. 

[Guest]

[CyderInACan]

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

I don't really like how it is called the sporting quarter when it's use for sport is limited. 

I don't really think it's a misnomer if you consider it will host home games for Bristol City Men, Bristol City Women*, Bristol Bears Men and Bristol Flyers. Plus the Women's Rugby World Cup in 2025.

Obviously there are other things going on but the Sporting Quarter sounds about right if you ask me. 

*for as long as they stay in the WSL. 

[Merrick's Marvels]

9 hours ago, Harry said:

Good thoughts. 
I posted earlier about the budget, asking - if we’ve maxed out now, where is the money that was supposed to be used for the Thomason and Murphy transfers? They both turned us down. So that money hasn’t been used? 
But I also forgot to mention Kalas. We’d apparently offered him a contract. So, if he’d have accepted, would we have been over budget?? If not, there’s spare funds there too. 
So thats 3 players to whom we were going to offer salaries. And 2 of them were going to be fees too. 
But we’re apparently maxed out now? 

Perhaps we were going to sign just one,  not both, of Thomason and Murphy? Thomason said no, so we moved on to Murphy? 

Still leaves the question what happened to the Kalas money, though. The Post were quoting Nige on Aug 3 as saying he hadn't completely closed the door on Kalas coming back, so presumably at that stage there was a wage available for him. 

Maybe some of that has gone on Taylor G-H plus pay increases for Pring and Vyner?

Just a guess though. What we know - for sure - is Pearson ain't getting a penny more! 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Merrick's Marvels

[Tim Monaghan]

10 hours ago, Barrs Court Red said:

What constant abuse? There’s a couple, and I mean a couple of knob heads on here who take things way to far, but that’s it? And if a billionaire is reading a sodding football forum, I would be shocked. 

Trust me, he reads this forum, he even used to be signed up. 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Ghost Rider

[Davefevs]

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

With a bit of digging I found this. 

Unsure if that means 5202 standing + 3626 which would make it almost 9k or if the 5202 is seating and standing combined.

I believe what they mean is that when the arena is set up for basketball it will be all-seater and capacity will be 3,626.

However when it’s set up for say a concert it could be 5,202. Of course for some events it might be part seating part standing but the highest capacity with be when it’s all-standing.

I’ve been involved (to a very small degree) on the basketball stuff through the Flyers Supporters Group.  Had a couple of zooms with Pete Smith.

[mozo]

1 hour ago, CyderInACan said:

I don't really think it's a misnomer if you consider it will host home games for Bristol City Men, Bristol City Women*, Bristol Bears Men and Bristol Flyers. Plus the Women's Rugby World Cup in 2025.

Obviously there are other things going on but the Sporting Quarter sounds about right if you ask me. 

*for as long as they stay in the WSL. 

But do they do kabaddi?! And if not, why not?!

[Phileas Fogg]

I've only just got round' to listening to this - after reading most of the comments.

It was a very sanitised interview and obviously a bit of a PR exercise. He was quite evasive about some key areas, but he'd clearly gone in with a brief about what and what not to discuss.

The thing I found odd though, and it's been something that's been happening for years and years, was all the praise about SL. I've never heard anything quite like it - it's very odd that there's so much focus on how amazing the Lansdown family are. It's really OTT and unnecessary. 

We don't need to be told how great SL is from a relative newcomer - he's been owner for ages now, fans have an informed opinion based on years of experience. It felt like at least a third of the interview was Alexander praising Lansdown either directly or indirectly. 

Also - a couple of answers were strange. 

1. Describing Scott as our "best player" - notwithstanding whether it's true or not, I just don't think you'd hear that from a club with serious ambition. My interpretation of that is that implies that the level Scott is at is far beyond our reach which contradicts all the talk of wanting a top 6 finish. 
2. Pretending there was some sort of risk about buying players that we were intending to fund with Scott money - Anyone sensible knew that Scott was going this summer. We aren't stupid - so please don't pretend that spending a % of anticipated income in advance of a sale was some sort of gamble. 
3. Pretending not to know about macro issues ie potential change of ownership - Not being able to talk about it in the public domain is understandable, but he'll obviously know about it so don't pretend otherwise. 

Overall - I think he did ok, just frustrating he was clearly keeping to a party line. I didn't rate Gould as a speaker particularly, but appreciated the way he generally approached questions with a straight bat. Pearson does the same, so when you have someone who gives a bit of spin in answers it's just tiresome, especially after years of Ashton. 

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

27 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I believe what they mean is that when the arena is set up for basketball it will be all-seater and capacity will be 3,626.

However when it’s set up for say a concert it could be 5,202. Of course for some events it might be part seating part standing but the highest capacity with be when it’s all-standing.

I’ve been involved (to a very small degree) on the basketball stuff through the Flyers Supporters Group.  Had a couple of zooms with Pete Smith.

I guess the stands will be retractable? To offer maximum flexibility of the space.

Firstly it's great for the Flyers to have a home. 

But secondly to have an arena that is in the same sort of bracket as Utilita Cardiff is absolutely fantastic for the whole region. I'm quite surprised they've not really mentioned this much. But I understand why they'd want to focus on the basketball. Framing it as a sporting venue makes the planning easier. Framing it as a events centre would probably have got all sorts of complaints. 

If we can attract half of the events that the Utilita does then we're on to a real winner. 

I vaguely remember that SL once said that Ashton Vale could possibly have had an arena alongside the new stadium. 

He's getting a lot of stick for the footballing side (justified) but on this sort of thing he can't be criticised. He could have packed it all in after the AV fiasco but over the past decade or so has tried to deliver the AV project at Ashton Gate instead. 

He certainly seems like a guy that likes a project!

 

 

 

[exAtyeoMax]

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

I guess the stands will be retractable? To offer maximum flexibility of the space.

Firstly it's great for the Flyers to have a home. 

But secondly to have an arena that is in the same sort of bracket as Utilita Cardiff is absolutely fantastic for the whole region. I'm quite surprised they've not really mentioned this much. But I understand why they'd want to focus on the basketball. Framing it as a sporting venue makes the planning easier. Framing it as a events centre would probably have got all sorts of complaints. 

If we can attract half of the events that the Utilita does then we're on to a real winner. 

I vaguely remember that SL once said that Ashton Vale could possibly have had an arena alongside the new stadium. 

He's getting a lot of stick for the footballing side (justified) but on this sort of thing he can't be criticised. He could have packed it all in after the AV fiasco but over the past decade or so has tried to deliver the AV project at Ashton Gate instead. 

He certainly seems like a guy that likes a project!

 

 

 

The Grand Mare golf project interview that Spud posted earlier in this thread reinforces that idea. 

[ExiledAjax]

21 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Pretending there was some sort of risk about buying players that we were intending to fund with Scott money - Anyone sensible knew that Scott was going this summer. We aren't stupid - so please don't pretend that spending a % of anticipated income in advance of a sale was some sort of gamble. 

I agree with most of what you say, although I'd say there is a difference between "spin" and "withholding some truth". I think Alexander did more of the latter, whereas Ashton was more of the former.

But that aside, I don't think the bit I've quoted is fair. There's always a risk that a deal doesn't happen. Scott could have broken his leg in 3 places during pre-season. Hell he could have been killed in a car crash on the way to the airport. Any number of suitor clubs could have gone for someone else. A global pandemic could have broken out and crashed the market. Football deals fall through all the time, most don't even get reported in the press, but they do fall over a lot. It was a gamble.

Alexander admitted the Club wanted to sell Scott, hence they felt ok pre-spending the money (presumably at a certain point). That's risk management, and it's a normal part of business. Lansdown was willing to cover the cost, but really doesn't want to, so we sold Scott.

[Tim Monaghan]

I've had the opportunity to carefully listen to the interview, and I must admit, my perspective differs from the prevailing sentiment. In my view, Phil conducted himself quite commendably, and it's becoming increasingly apparent that Nigel is unlikely to receive or may not even desire a new contract. This signals a shift in SL's approach, as he appears to be scaling back his financial support for the club.

The rationale behind SL's change in strategy remains somewhat elusive, and we may never truly grasp it unless someone directly poses the question to him. Nonetheless, it's evident that the seemingly endless source of funds has been curtailed. I found it intriguing how SL displayed a keen interest in the sale of AS, as it suggests that without such revenue, he might need to inject more capital into the club by the end of the financial year. Consequently, it appears that the era of lavish spending is drawing to a close.

As an ardent supporter, I find myself pondering a pertinent question: "If the owner is no longer committed to injecting funds, should we, the fans, continue to pay some of the highest ticket prices in the league?" While I fully appreciate that it's SL's prerogative to manage his money as he sees fit, it's equally important for him to recognize that we, as fans, are also investing our hard-earned money based on our financial capacities. This calls for a balanced consideration of both perspectives.

 

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

and it's becoming increasingly apparent that Nigel is unlikely to receive or may not even desire a new contract.

I think that is more speculation that gleaned from what PA said per se.

All the stuff about financial support I totally agree with though.

[Dr Balls]

My take is that SL is not getting any younger, and that despite the amounts he has put into the club, we are no nearer to becoming a Premier League team than we were 15 years ago, and in some ways, further away. We have seen spending turned on and off, with in some cases dire effects, but actually my impression is that SL’s interest in Bristol City has waned and there are other projects beyond Bristol Sport in which he is far more interested.

On that basis, it does look like the football club at least is being set up for a sale. I am less clear that he would want to sell Ashton Gate and the rest of the “Sporting Quarter”, assuming that’s built, as property is much less likely to lose its value, plus it can still bring in a considerable income, whereas the men’s football team particularly is a constant drain on resources.

There is the element of be careful what you wish for in terms of new owners, but most football fans have only a limited moral compass when it comes to the funding of their team (how many Geordies really care about the Saudi human rights record or Chelsea fans that Abrahamovic was a close mate of Putin’s) as long as the money is coming in and the team is successful. You would suggest that compared to some English clubs we should be an attractive option - big city, no nearby PL teams, decent stadium, but it does somewhat depend on the financial state of the club, which fits with a newly tightened wage structure and no new big purchases over the summer despite 2 relative big sales in the last 9 months to bump up the reserves or SL walking away with less of a loss.

[Alessandro]

Absolutely mental to think - after just fielding a team with only 2 LJ/Mark Ashton era signings - the rest all but gone from the squad bar Weimann (all 3 also with virtually no sell on value now too) - that it's taken 2 home developed academy players to balance the books from that whole period of signings. 

Imagine how much SL would have been down to cover if it wasn't for Scott and Semenyo - no wonder he was keen to sell them. 

[CyderInACan]

2 hours ago, mozo said:

But do they do kabaddi?! And if not, why not?!

Yeah they have lots of different food offerings on a matchday 

[Dolman Queen]

and it's becoming increasingly apparent that Nigel is unlikely to receive or may not even desire a new contract.

There was a radio interview a little while back when Nigel commented re a new contract something like this:

"the club may or may not offer me a contract and I may or may not accept it if it was offered" which led me to think that he may have already told the club he wouldn't re-sign.  That would be very disappointing from my perspective.

 

DQ

[Numero Uno]

36 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

Absolutely mental to think - after just fielding a team with only 2 LJ/Mark Ashton era signings - the rest all but gone from the squad bar Weimann (all 3 also with virtually no sell on value now too) - that it's taken 2 home developed academy players to balance the books from that whole period of signings. 

Imagine how much SL would have been down to cover if it wasn't for Scott and Semenyo - no wonder he was keen to sell them. 

The interesting thing, whatever his critics might think, is that Nige is building a squad with lots of sell on value. Sykes and Tanner definitely have far more sell on value than the amounts we paid for them. Knight won't take long to reach that position imo and then you have the likes of Pring, Conway, Bell and potentially Yeboah if the things being said about him materialise. Vyner is also twice the player he was 18 months ago and is now tied up for three years so if anyone wants him they've got to pay for him and you would hope that the likes of Roberts and Mehmeti get there in time. Before people say Nige doesn't get the credit for the Academy boys you have to remember there are plenty of managers out there who wouldn't blood youngsters if their lives depended on it. They only bring value if they are given real minutes on the Championship pitch to show it.

You can't do it with every player though and you do have to bring in a few for the here and now (the likes of Cornick, Williams, James, King, Naismith and Dickie) and keep one or two experienced heads (Wells and Weimann) which is what we've done. The worry for many is that the more players we "cash in" on the more we have to bring in lads who are "here and now" players who will only recoup your initial outlay at best. Building up your nest egg with £10-25m players is great until the tap runs dry.............and Academies do tend to be cyclical in that regard.

[One Team]

1 hour ago, Alessandro said:

Absolutely mental to think - after just fielding a team with only 2 LJ/Mark Ashton era signings - the rest all but gone from the squad bar Weimann (all 3 also with virtually no sell on value now too) - that it's taken 2 home developed academy players to balance the books from that whole period of signings. 

Imagine how much SL would have been down to cover if it wasn't for Scott and Semenyo - no wonder he was keen to sell them. 

Good comment, although let’s put into context SL’s wealth; circa £1.7 billion. 

Covering the costs of Scott and Semenyo would be negligible to SL. 

It we made it analogous to the wealth of the average man on the street it wouldn’t be much at all.  

I’m not even sure it’s about the money for him, I get the perception he just wants out. 

Edited September 6, 2023 by One Team

[Riaz]

1 hour ago, Ghost Rider said:

I've had the opportunity to carefully listen to the interview, and I must admit, my perspective differs from the prevailing sentiment. In my view, Phil conducted himself quite commendably, and it's becoming increasingly apparent that Nigel is unlikely to receive or may not even desire a new contract. This signals a shift in SL's approach, as he appears to be scaling back his financial support for the club.

The rationale behind SL's change in strategy remains somewhat elusive, and we may never truly grasp it unless someone directly poses the question to him. Nonetheless, it's evident that the seemingly endless source of funds has been curtailed. I found it intriguing how SL displayed a keen interest in the sale of AS, as it suggests that without such revenue, he might need to inject more capital into the club by the end of the financial year. Consequently, it appears that the era of lavish spending is drawing to a close.

As an ardent supporter, I find myself pondering a pertinent question: "If the owner is no longer committed to injecting funds, should we, the fans, continue to pay some of the highest ticket prices in the league?" While I fully appreciate that it's SL's prerogative to manage his money as he sees fit, it's equally important for him to recognize that we, as fans, are also investing our hard-earned money based on our financial capacities. This calls for a balanced consideration of both perspectives.

 

Cant see that - why would Pearson stick around now, if he has no intention of being here next season?

[chinapig]

25 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

and Academies do tend to be cyclical in that regard.

Talking of which:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2023/sep/05/youth-academies-premier-league-clubs-revenue-stream

It doesn't just apply to Prem clubs as Steve's expectation/fantasy that we might raise £25m a year from selling academy graduates shows.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Perhaps we were going to sign just one,  not both, of Thomason and Murphy? Thomason said no, so we moved on to Murphy? 

Still leaves the question what happened to the Kalas money, though. The Post were quoting Nige on Aug 3 as saying he hadn't completely closed the door on Kalas coming back, so presumably at that stage there was a wage available for him. 

Maybe some of that has gone on Taylor G-H plus pay increases for Pring and Vyner?

Just a guess though. What we know - for sure - is Pearson ain't getting a penny more! 

Vyner and Pring would have been a bit of it, perhaps they have also budgeted for anticipated/hoped for deals for Bell and Conway.

Gardner-Hickman was very much unplanned and a £700,000 loan fee plus whatever percentage of wages could...although a loan fee wouldn't be in the wage pot surely.

Not arguing that the budget isn't too low but it could align a bit.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Sir Geoff]

3 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I agree with most of what you say, although I'd say there is a difference between "spin" and "withholding some truth". I think Alexander did more of the latter, whereas Ashton was more of the former.

But that aside, I don't think the bit I've quoted is fair. There's always a risk that a deal doesn't happen. Scott could have broken his leg in 3 places during pre-season. Hell he could have been killed in a car crash on the way to the airport. Any number of suitor clubs could have gone for someone else. A global pandemic could have broken out and crashed the market. Football deals fall through all the time, most don't even get reported in the press, but they do fall over a lot. It was a gamble.

Alexander admitted the Club wanted to sell Scott, hence they felt ok pre-spending the money (presumably at a certain point). That's risk management, and it's a normal part of business. Lansdown was willing to cover the cost, but really doesn't want to, so we sold Scott.

But but but....we had £10 million from the Semenyo sale and would have used that to fund Mehmeti, Cornick, Roberts, Mcrorie, and Knight with change left over. The Scott sale was a bonus 

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

But but but....we had £10 million from the Semenyo sale and would have used that to fund Mehmeti, Cornick, Roberts, Mcrorie, and Knight with change left over. The Scott sale was a bonus 

Although if the £20m loss laat season even if Semenyo was accurate then that actually would have meant we maybe would have breached FFP this season without the Scott sale. All the same we will be well clear by now.

That loss seems £5-7m too high to me but shows the cost base if true, once the accounts are our we will know more.

[Sir Geoff]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Although if the £20m loss laat season even if Semenyo was accurate then that actually would have meant we maybe would have breached FFP this season without the Scott sale. All the same we will be well clear by now.

That loss seems £5-7m too high to me but shows the cost base if true, once the accounts are our we will know more.

Not according to Richard Gould at the fans forum last November. We were within limits although close and as he said ( I think) better to have a points penalty than have to sell our best players