Steve Lansdown……..

[REDOXO]

Personally I think the majority of this thread is garbage with a few basic points being summed up to support an argument one way or the other. 

The way I see it is, when you are a multi billionaire (or just plain rich guy)that has effectively retired from his day job you have little to do except to entertain yourself.
 

One of the ways Mr Lansdown entertains himself is with a whole package of sports teams that he wants to turn into something great with his name attached! 

Yes at some point he wants to retire from his retirement and not have to control Bristol Sport particularly rid himself of the whining Bristol City supporters who come on here to tell him he is a failure after they clock out of their job or we have lost on a Saturday, but a seller needs a buyer of some or all of his shares and it seems unless the bloke is going to give it away right now there isn’t one (the success or failure of the Rugby WC may have a baring here)

However the one thing SL wants is ‘Sir’ SL to add to his CBE or whatever gong he has, as mere money creation  counts for nothing at this point so I reckon we have SL and Jon being associated at the very least with BristolSport unless the title can be associated with a sale

I guess we will see!

 

[Glen hump]

5 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Personally I think the majority of this thread is garbage with a few basic points being summed up to support an argument one way or the other. 

The way I see it is, when you are a multi billionaire (or just plain rich guy)that has effectively retired from his day job you have little to do except to entertain yourself.
 

One of the ways Mr Lansdown entertains himself is with a whole package of sports teams that he wants to turn into something great with his name attached! 

Yes at some point he wants to retire from his retirement and not have to control Bristol Sport particularly rid himself of the whining Bristol City supporters who come on here to tell him he is a failure after they clock out of their job or we have lost on a Saturday, but a seller needs a buyer of some or all of his shares and it seems unless the bloke is going to give it away right now there isn’t one (the success or failure of the Rugby WC may have a baring here)

However the one thing SL wants is ‘Sir’ SL to add to his CBE or whatever gong he has, as mere money creation  counts for nothing at this point so I reckon we have SL and Jon being associated at the very least with BristolSport unless the title can be associated with a sale

I guess we will see!

 

Personally think what you’ve just posted is garbage 

[downendcity]

On 03/09/2023 at 08:48, JAWS said:

His lack of support for Pearson is disgusting 

Cornick, Mehmeti, Dickie. McCrorie, Knight and Roberts in 2023 doesn't strike me as providing Pearson with a lack of support.

The elephant in the room is, of course, Alex Scott - or more importantly his sale. 

Pearson is on record as saying that he had a plan with Alex Scott and one without, and I think think that many fans have interpreted the plan without AS as being one with a replacement for him. However, the harsh reality is that, at our level,  AS is irreplaceable - at least within the sort of budget we have. 

 Perhaps NP's plan for life without Scott wasn't to bring in a direct replacement, but to bring in someone like Knight and change the playing style a little, although I understand that this would not fit the narrative with which this tread seems jam packed.  I've read many posts where it appears  posters have Mystic Meg like powers , as they seem exactly what SL is thinking, what he thinks of NP , why SL will not offer NP a new contract and that SL is personally pocketing the £25m from Scott's sale and all of this is implied as being fact.

It all reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld's famous quote "There are known knowns, things we know that we know; and there are known unknowns, things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns, things we do not know we don't know. "

[ExiledAjax]

So I was googling. I was trying to find the interview where the "football can spend what football earns" quote as I wanted to read that in context.

I didn't find what I was looking for, but what I did find was interesting. An article from July 2013, just after our last Championship > League 1 relegation. In this piece Lansdown is quoted as follows:

"I'm embarrassed by how much I've spent, I daren't add it up, and although I have no regrets in doing it, it's probably over £50m.

"We started paying out bigger wages because we felt we needed that extra class, and it hasn't worked for us.

"I look back and it was a mistake."

"We must now work within our means, we are going to support the academy and get the right recruitment.

"The mission statement is there: we will develop and grow and won't spend excessive money on wages going forward."

Big words. Words that could have been spoken and written just last week. If he was embarrassed then, then how embarrassed must he have been 3 years ago after allowing the wage budget we had under Ashton. I can see why Lansdown might have decided to actually enforce and implement the above sentiment. Wage austerity is not some new-fangled idea of his that he came up with in the aftermath of Scott's sale. It's a long-harboured belief of his. He's not doing it because he hates Pearson, he's doing it because he's embarrassed and, maybe, hates himself.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/23501929

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

So I was googling. I was trying to find the interview where the "football can spend what football earns" quote as I wanted to read that in context.

What I found was interesting. An article from July 2013, just after our last Championship > League 1 relegation. In this piece Lansdown is quoted as follows:

"I'm embarrassed by how much I've spent, I daren't add it up, and although I have no regrets in doing it, it's probably over £50m.

"We started paying out bigger wages because we felt we needed that extra class, and it hasn't worked for us.

"I look back and it was a mistake."

"We must now work within our means, we are going to support the academy and get the right recruitment.

"The mission statement is there: we will develop and grow and won't spend excessive money on wages going forward."

Big words. Words that could have been spoken and written just last week. If he was embarrassed then, then how embarrassed must he have been 3 years ago after allowing the wage budget we had under Ashton. I can see why Lansdown might have decided to actually enforce and implement the above sentiment. Wage austerity is not some new-fangled idea of his that he came up with in the aftermath of Scott's sale. It's a long-harboured belief of his. He's not doing it because he hates Pearson, he's doing it because he's embarrassed and, maybe, hates himself.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/23501929

 

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bristol-city-alex-scott-future-8399046
 

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bristol-city-alex-scott-future-8399046
 

Thanks.

I guess the question to ask Steve then is how do you reconcile or marry up the two statements? Albeit they're made ten years apart, and people are allowed to tweak and change their thoughts and opinions over a decade.

The answer would be illuminating.

[tin]

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Thanks.

I guess the question to ask Steve then is how do you reconcile or marry up the two statements? Albeit they're made ten years apart, and people are allowed to tweak and change their thoughts and opinions over a decade.

The answer would be illuminating.

He’s hardly speaking with clarity, is he? It’s a massive contradiction or move of the goalposts; call it what you will. 

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Thanks.

I guess the question to ask Steve then is how do you reconcile or marry up the two statements? Albeit they're made ten years apart, and people are allowed to tweak and change their thoughts and opinions over a decade.

The answer would be illuminating.

Illuminating?  The National Grid could take a night off!

[Bristol Rob]

7 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Thanks.

I guess the question to ask Steve then is how do you reconcile or marry up the two statements? Albeit they're made ten years apart, and people are allowed to tweak and change their thoughts and opinions over a decade.

The answer would be illuminating.

Things change, people change, landscapes change.

If we were all held to account for things you might have thought 10 years ago, there would be an awful lot of confusion.

That said, a current statement as to where his investment intentions are would be welcome.

[ExiledAjax]

1 minute ago, Bristol Rob said:

Things change, people change, landscapes change.

If we were all held to account for things you might have thought 10 years ago, there would be an awful lot of confusion.

That said, a current statement as to where his investment intentions are would be welcome.

Oh I've changed plenty in the last decade, and I say in my follow up post that change is fine of course. But, I don't think the evidence points to change. 

Ten years ago he was embarrassed about wages and talking about austerity. This summer he's demonstrated that philosophy. It's not change, it's eerily similar. The anomalies lie firstly in the excesses of 2016-2020, and then in the mismatch with the "spend what you earn" sentiment.

[Davefevs]

11 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Oh I've changed plenty in the last decade, and I say in my follow up post that change is fine of course. But, I don't think the evidence points to change. 

Ten years ago he was embarrassed about wages and talking about austerity. This summer he's demonstrated that philosophy. It's not change, it's eerily similar. The anomalies lie firstly in the excesses of 2016-2020, and then in the mismatch with the "spend what you earn" sentiment.

I guess in some respects he’s found a manager who can do one or more of the three a) keep us in this division b) competitive c) challenging, having ripped the waste / cost out of the club and not re-spend it.

[Guest]

All the buying and selling and planning and managers and re-conditioning of the stadium has got us where exactly in your term at this club Steve? .... NO-WHERE exactly imo,

Everything... the debts, the prospects, the dream is all down to you and no-one else, your club after all.

What about the fans of your club, they do spend a few quid on your club, do you even care what they think/want, I`m sure you wouldnt be too bothered whether 10 or 20,000 turn up, your dream will not be affected.

[Superjack]

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Cornick, Mehmeti, Dickie. McCrorie, Knight and Roberts in 2023 doesn't strike me as providing Pearson with a lack of support.

The elephant in the room is, of course, Alex Scott - or more importantly his sale. 

Pearson is on record as saying that he had a plan with Alex Scott and one without, and I think think that many fans have interpreted the plan without AS as being one with a replacement for him. However, the harsh reality is that, at our level,  AS is irreplaceable - at least within the sort of budget we have. 

 Perhaps NP's plan for life without Scott wasn't to bring in a direct replacement, but to bring in someone like Knight and change the playing style a little, although I understand that this would not fit the narrative with which this tread seems jam packed.  I've read many posts where it appears  posters have Mystic Meg like powers , as they seem exactly what SL is thinking, what he thinks of NP , why SL will not offer NP a new contract and that SL is personally pocketing the £25m from Scott's sale and all of this is implied as being fact.

It all reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld's famous quote "There are known knowns, things we know that we know; and there are known unknowns, things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns, things we do not know we don't know. "

Pearson stated that he didn't bring in Knight to replace Scott, but to play with him. 

So this is where your rather patronising post falls down.

[tin]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I guess in some respects he’s found a manager who can do one or more of the three a) keep us in this division b) competitive c) challenging, having ripped the waste / cost out of the club and not re-spend it.

And surely if SL had a manager who achieved those goals, he’d be keen to praise those achievements and secure his long-term future…

Edited September 10, 2023 by tin

[JAWS]

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Cornick, Mehmeti, Dickie. McCrorie, Knight and Roberts in 2023 doesn't strike me as providing Pearson with a lack of support.

The elephant in the room is, of course, Alex Scott - or more importantly his sale. 

Pearson is on record as saying that he had a plan with Alex Scott and one without, and I think think that many fans have interpreted the plan without AS as being one with a replacement for him. However, the harsh reality is that, at our level,  AS is irreplaceable - at least within the sort of budget we have. 

 Perhaps NP's plan for life without Scott wasn't to bring in a direct replacement, but to bring in someone like Knight and change the playing style a little, although I understand that this would not fit the narrative with which this tread seems jam packed.  I've read many posts where it appears  posters have Mystic Meg like powers , as they seem exactly what SL is thinking, what he thinks of NP , why SL will not offer NP a new contract and that SL is personally pocketing the £25m from Scott's sale and all of this is implied as being fact.

It all reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld's famous quote "There are known knowns, things we know that we know; and there are known unknowns, things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns, things we do not know we don't know. "

I shouldv'e clarified that I meant vocal support which has been non exisisent.

In terms of the Scott sale & a replacement, or not, I believe NP inferred, in not so many words, that he was disappointed some of the receipts couldn't be re-invested especially when we desperately need a striker.

 

[Superjack]

53 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

So I was googling. I was trying to find the interview where the "football can spend what football earns" quote as I wanted to read that in context.

I didn't find what I was looking for, but what I did find was interesting. An article from July 2013, just after our last Championship > League 1 relegation. In this piece Lansdown is quoted as follows:

"I'm embarrassed by how much I've spent, I daren't add it up, and although I have no regrets in doing it, it's probably over £50m.

"We started paying out bigger wages because we felt we needed that extra class, and it hasn't worked for us.

"I look back and it was a mistake."

"We must now work within our means, we are going to support the academy and get the right recruitment.

"The mission statement is there: we will develop and grow and won't spend excessive money on wages going forward."

Big words. Words that could have been spoken and written just last week. If he was embarrassed then, then how embarrassed must he have been 3 years ago after allowing the wage budget we had under Ashton. I can see why Lansdown might have decided to actually enforce and implement the above sentiment. Wage austerity is not some new-fangled idea of his that he came up with in the aftermath of Scott's sale. It's a long-harboured belief of his. He's not doing it because he hates Pearson, he's doing it because he's embarrassed and, maybe, hates himself.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/23501929

 

So if he was embarrassed by it in 2013, why did he open his war chest for Johnson junior?

This logic doesn't add up. 

The fact is, he supports rookies financially. Managers with bigger reputations in the game and more popularity than himself, he shuts the purse for.

[JAWS]

4 hours ago, Glen hump said:

Personally think what you’ve just posted is garbage 

Think REDOXO is very close to the truth.

An obscenely wealthy bloke who is massaging his ego & can't let go. I think he's made any invites for bids so unattractive (though doubt he can see it) that no one has come forward.

He probably wants to either maintain overall control or insert a clause that he still has a major say.

[JAWS]

I think the most telling (& worrying) factor for me is his overwhelming belief that a championship club can be self-sustaining. 

[Superjack]

5 minutes ago, JAWS said:

Think REDOXO is very close to the truth.

An obscenely wealthy bloke who is massaging his ego & can't let go. I think he's made any invites for bids so unattractive (though doubt he can see it) that no one has come forward.

He probably wants to either maintain overall control or insert a clause that he still has a major say.

Yes. Massaging his ego. 

And your last paragraph is probably spot on too. 

And people say that he loves the club. 

He loves himself. 

There. I've said it.

[ExiledAjax]

25 minutes ago, Superjack said:

So if he was embarrassed by it in 2013, why did he open his war chest for Johnson junior?

This logic doesn't add up. 

The fact is, he supports rookies financially. Managers with bigger reputations in the game and more popularity than himself, he shuts the purse for.

That's the question I have as well.

Personally my suspicion is that what Steve would say is that what the market demanded of a championship club in the late 2010s was the kind of wages we paid out under Johnson/Ashton. Whether that's true, and whether that's truly his conviction, and whether those are his own words or the echoes of what Ashton told him, I don't know, but it was a more expensive market pre-Covid than it is now...just...it is coming back.

It's possible that it's a correlation of timing rather than causation that makes it appear the way you describe. I'm not saying that's my personal view, but I think you have to be open to that possibility. It's what I think he should explain as well.

Edited September 10, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[Bristol Rob]

10 minutes ago, JAWS said:

Think REDOXO is very close to the truth.

An obscenely wealthy bloke who is massaging his ego & can't let go. I think he's made any invites for bids so unattractive (though doubt he can see it) that no one has come forward.

He probably wants to either maintain overall control or insert a clause that he still has a major say.

If we assume your ego massaging statement is correct (and I doubt it, I honestly think Steve would love Bristol Sport, the Sporting Quarter to be his legacy, but he hasn't found another member of the family he trusts to continue it), he would need to find someone of similar wealth who has 'a similar ego' to want to buy it.

Not exactly an easy pitch is it, 'wanna buy a load of clubs, the all lose money every year, but the potential is huge... what do you mean 'no'?

[Superjack]

8 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Personally my suspicion is that what Steve would say is that what the market demanded of a championship club in the late 2010s was the kind of wages we paid out under Johnson/Ashton. Whether that's true, and whether that's truly his conviction, and whether those are his own words or the echoes of what Ashton told him, I don't know, but it was a more expensive market pre-Covid than it is now...just...it is coming back.

It's possible that it's a correlation of timing rather than causation that makes it appear the way you describe. I'm not saying that's my personal view, but I think you have to be open to that possibility.

And in that more expensive pre-covid market, he failed to back (and strong rumour has it, undermined) the most successful manager in his tenure in the summer of 2015. 

Coincidentally, a manager of experience that wouldn't cowtow to him.

I respect your reasoned argument, but for the above reason, I am not open to said possibility.

[GrahamC]

12 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

If we assume your ego massaging statement is correct (and I doubt it, I honestly think Steve would love Bristol Sport, the Sporting Quarter to be his legacy, but he hasn't found another member of the family he trusts to continue it), he would need to find someone of similar wealth who has 'a similar ego' to want to buy it.

Not exactly an easy pitch is it, 'wanna buy a load of clubs, the all lose money every year, but the potential is huge... what do you mean 'no'?

Weird then that new owners have been found by the likes of Coventry, Derby, Huddersfield, Ipswich & Sheffield United in very recent times.

Sort of understand the latter with Prem money but hard to avoid the conclusion SL is either asking too high a price or doesn’t want to relinquish control because we are no less attractive than the other 4, arguably more so than a couple of these.

 

[HitchinRed]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

Thanks.

I guess the question to ask Steve then is how do you reconcile or marry up the two statements? Albeit they're made ten years apart, and people are allowed to tweak and change their thoughts and opinions over a decade.

The answer would be illuminating.

I must admit that I don’t find these statements contradictory at all. SL said “What football makes, football can spend.” The problem is that football hasn’t made any money in decades. He didn’t say that football can spend all the income it receives and can ignore any expenses. Indeed, he specifically said “But it’s got to make it and obviously going back to Covid, football couldn’t make anything.”

My take on SL is that we have no right to insist that he spends tens of millions of pounds each year on the club, regardless of how many millions he has or because he owns the club. 

The only thing we can insist on is that he does not prevent anyone else who does wish to invest in the club from doing so. From my perspective is doesn’t appear to have done that (in fact he’s actively encouraging it). On this basis we could end up in a much worse position should he be encouraged to simply walk any. A little look at our neigbours illustrates that nicely.

Edited September 10, 2023 by HitchinRed

[Superjack]

12 minutes ago, HitchinRed said:

I must admit that I don’t find these statements contradictory at all. SL said “What football makes, football can spend.” The problem is that football hasn’t made any money in decades. He didn’t say that football can spend all the income it receives and can ignore any expenses. Indeed, he specifically said “But it’s got to make it and obviously going back to Covid, football couldn’t make anything.”

My take on SL is that we have no right to insist that he spends tens of millions of pounds each year on the club, regardless of how many millions he has or because he owns the club. 

The only thing we can insist on is that he does not prevent anyone else who does wish to invest in the club from doing so. From my perspective is doesn’t appear to have done that (in fact he’s actively encouraging it). On this basis we could end up in a much worse position should he be encouraged to simply walk any. A little look at our neigbours illustrates that nicely.

My take is that nobody is asking him to do that. 

All we are asking him to do is release a little leeway for a manager that has carried out his brief admirably without any apparent appreciation or praise. 

Not a fortune. Just a little fraction of what this manager has enabled him to recoup.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Superjack

[Show Me The Money!]

I'd just like SL to have not left the country to avoid paying the tax he should pay on his crazy wealth.

Not just a dig at SL but all British born multi million and billionaires who pay hardly any tax in this country.

 

[JAWS]

32 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

If we assume your ego massaging statement is correct (and I doubt it, I honestly think Steve would love Bristol Sport, the Sporting Quarter to be his legacy, but he hasn't found another member of the family he trusts to continue it), he would need to find someone of similar wealth who has 'a similar ego' to want to buy it.

Not exactly an easy pitch is it, 'wanna buy a load of clubs, the all lose money every year, but the potential is huge... what do you mean 'no'?

The difference being that AN Other would hopefully be ambitious & inteterested in success. Lansdown is clearly not prepared to speculate. He just wants to be a public figure which he has achieved but is finding it hard to let go.

Let's be honest, owning a football club isn't sustainable, unless you make it to the promised land. For most owners it is a 'trophy' for their ego cabinet but they see it as that & accept they could & probabaly will lose money along the way & are prepared to speculate. Lansclown appears begrudging of his investment & is no doubt intent on recovering it. Others just want to spend money on something that is a welcome distraction to their business life & are not obessessed about sustainability so they go for it. In short, you can't tread water in the championship & be sustainable & you shouldn't use Luton, & similar clubs that Have gone before them, as a yardstick.

 

[Superjack]

1 minute ago, Show Me The Money! said:

I'd just like SL to have not left the country to avoid paying the tax he should pay on his crazy wealth.

Not just a dig at SL but all British born multi million and billionaires who pay hardly any tax in this country.

 

But we give him our money after tax. 

I know that statements like this are often spouted on this forum...

...but if NP is let go, I swear that that I will never give him another penny of my money. 

[bpexile]

On 03/09/2023 at 18:35, Davefevs said:

Imho SL has made in unnecessarily hard for Nige

Yes that's the bottom line isn't it ?

I just hope it's not just Nige that has the balls to point that out to SL, considering the amount of money blown in the past it wouldn't have taken a huge amount to have helped Nige continue with his building & I really hope we can keep NP at the club after all this..................but I am concerned that he'll walk.

[BS15_RED]

Something tells me that when Nige does leave us, he won’t be quiet  like his predecessors have. I think he’ll have plenty to say about the way the club is run.