Phil Alexander Gone (Confirmed)

[spudski]

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

If you put all the recent goings ons together then it does look like a takeover could be imminent. However the total lack of any rumours doesn't make me think there could be. However these things are of course subject to confidentiality. 

New owners often bring in their own people. So that could make sense, especially as the club didn't include "we will now begin a vigorous recruitment process" in the statement.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

That may be so, but as a takeover doesn't appear to be imminent, according to those that know, that provides no reason for his departure.

I suppose - *maximum conjecture mode engaged* - it's vaguely possible that Lansdown thinks Alexander bollocksed up negotiations with one prospective purchaser/investor and wanted him out because of that. 

Possibilities with both assumptions.

[LondonBristolian]

4 minutes ago, RedRock said:

All very bizarre. 

Just don’t understand what’s going on. That ‘dead bat’ interview of Radio Bristol, an ultra-low profile, the parting statement referencing solely Nige and Brian - it’s all very suspect. 

Think with the Lansdown’s you have to tread a very delicate path. Gould got it just right. Ashton played a blinder and treated them like royalty - but just for his own interests. Alexander, I suspect, was too strong-willed. 

Quite where this leaves Nige I’ve no idea. If the Lansdown’s wanted him out, they had the opportunity after that West Brom match around Xmas. They stood by him though. If Nige wanted out he could just walk. 
 

Let’s just hope there is a plan and that Nige and Brian are signed to it.  Need some clarity soon before the Club becomes unsettled. 
 

 

Others have said this already but the parting statement referencing NP and Tinnion might be a bit of a red herring - the club would have signed off what was said and are unlikely to have included it if it was a direct dig at the owner…

[Leveller]

Perhaps, just perhaps, Phil Alexander wasn’t as good at the job as expected?

[headhunter]

34 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

I thought that as well.  It's an unusual departure, but I feel in my bones that at its heart it's because the Bristol City "vision" Alexander was sold when he came here didn't match the reality of the job. Probably he was allowed less independence and creativity than he thought he'd have, so a clash occurred and it was "agreed" he'd leave.

Of course, we may never know the actual reason.  I no longer know anyone who works or plays for the club, so I'm as in the dark as 99% of this forum. 

Couldn't agree more [that's a first ] and in my line of work that is often the reason why people leave after a short tenure following an otherwise stable employment record

It could well explain PA's low profile since he's been here, i.e. realising within a matter of weeks that this was a not an "as sold" opportunity but going with the flow for a few months to preserve personal dignity.

[LondonBristolian]

17 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

That may be so, but as a takeover doesn't appear to be imminent, according to those that know, that provides no reason for his departure.

I suppose - *maximum conjecture mode engaged* - it's vaguely possible that Lansdown thinks Alexander bollocksed up negotiations with one prospective purchaser/investor and wanted him out because of that. 

I find the latter more plausible than the former simply because - even were a takeover about to happen - the CEO would surely depart at the point when the takeover was agreed and the new person came in. It’s not in his interests to leave in a way that raises question marks and it not in the club’s interests to have a period with nobody in place.

[W-S-M Seagull]

3 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Others have said this already but the parting statement referencing NP and Tinnion might be a bit of a red herring - the club would have signed off what was said and are unlikely to have included it if it was a direct dig at the owner…

I think it was probably included because of his RB interview the other week where he appeared to give Nige no credit. 

Had that line of not been included then rumours would have been about him and Nige not getting along.

[Red-Robbo]

1 minute ago, LondonBristolian said:

I find the latter more plausible than the former simply because - even were a takeover about to happen - the CEO would surely depart at the point when the takeover was agreed and the new person came in. It’s not in his interests to leave in a way that raises question marks and it not in the club’s interests to have a period with nobody in place.

 

Quite. If there was a new owner/co-owner incoming, you'd need a CEO to manage that transition. 

[LondonBristolian]

2 minutes ago, Leveller said:

Perhaps, just perhaps, Phil Alexander wasn’t as good at the job as expected?

I suspect the truth lies somewhere between this and the posts saying the job wasn’t the job Alexander expected. Not all CEO roles are the same and it may be there was a mismatch of expectations on both sides. That may not even be anyone’s “fault” but simply a misunderstanding that wasn’t picked up in the interview process. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

Just now, Red-Robbo said:

 

Quite. If there was a new owner/co-owner incoming, you'd need a CEO to manage that transition. 

If a takeover was imminent then a new ceo may already be behind the desk. Could have been shadowing Phil for a while. Who knows. 

[Red-Robbo]

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

If a takeover was imminent then a new ceo may already be behind the desk. Could have been shadowing Phil for a while. Who knows. 

Being City fans, nothing should surprise us!

[mozo]

10 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Others have said this already but the parting statement referencing NP and Tinnion might be a bit of a red herring - the club would have signed off what was said and are unlikely to have included it if it was a direct dig at the owner…

 

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

I think it was probably included because of his RB interview the other week where he appeared to give Nige no credit. 

Had that line of not been included then rumours would have been about him and Nige not getting along.

This was my first thought too. They'd have been aware of the speculation from the radio interview.

1 minute ago, Red-Robbo said:

Being City fans, nothing should surprise us!

Yep, always expect the ridiculous. Probably followed by the disastrous. Eventually a false dawn. Then repeat.

[headhunter]

1 minute ago, LondonBristolian said:

I suspect the truth lies somewhere between this and the posts saying the job wasn’t the job Alexander expected. Not all CEO roles are the same and it may be there was a mismatch of expectations on both sides. That may not even be anyone’s “fault” but simply a misunderstanding that wasn’t picked up in the interview process. 

You're assuming the interview process was our usual "vigorous & rigorous" approach. 

How many people were seen or was it simply, as rumour has it, SL sought Richard Scudamore's advice and went with PA whose track record, on paper, is exemplary - if he could survive Ron Noades & Simon Jordan, I would say SL is a puppy in comparison!

[W-S-M Seagull]

6 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Being City fans, nothing should surprise us!

Yet for some bizarre reason, I am continually surprised by the clubs lack of communication. 

[maxjak]

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

Yet for some bizarre reason, I am continually surprised by the clubs lack of communication. 

Absolutely correct................constant lack of communication with the loyal fan base (Despite always claiming how important and supportive we are?) is a really ongoing irritating feature of Bristol City FC.   

[Harry]

1 hour ago, ciderwithtommy said:

Two things stand out for me:

1) if you appoint someone senior and they leave inside 12 months then it’s on the employer, simple. You didn’t get the right person. Ideally someone at the club with some humility would own that and explain but that’s doubtful

2) if you are say, a billionaire chairman, and appoint a C suite to lead the company, your role becomes a figurehead.  Cutting ribbons, nice interviews, community work, aspirational stuff. You wouldn’t and shouldn’t be a day to day person, that’s what you employ people to do. If you find yourself getting “hands on” perhaps in fact you are still to some extent an active C suite member yourself in all but title, which is far from ideal, and leads to a lack of clarity in the business itself. 
 

neither of these points are specific to our club, but resonate to me. 

It’s Point 2). Always has been since Steve ‘stepped aside’ a few years ago. 
 

He’s appointed people in senior positions to run the club but he doesn’t give them freedom. 
If he still wants to be involved himself then he should still be part of the board himself. 
He wants the best of both worlds - ie let other people do the day to day shit but then get involved whenever he feels like it. 
But then he just can’t help himself can he - even when he was present, he’d often be found in the dressing room - a place where he’d appointed someone to run the team but just couldn’t help himself getting involved. 
 

Steve - either run the club or let others run the club. You can’t have both. It steps on toes and breeds mistrust. 
 

The fact that one of the people he’s ‘appointed’ to run this club is his vastly under qualified son is the main problem. 
Mainly because the vastly under qualified son also has lots of his vastly under qualified mates running many areas of the club. 
It’s not so much a ‘jobs for the boys’ culture, it’s ‘job for the boy and his mates’. 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Harry

[exAtyeoMax]

46 minutes ago, Bristol Oil Services said:

I am currently reading Jonathan Wilson's Brian Clough biography, and if you think that pettiness is beyond people that run football clubs, manage football clubs or have a lot of money, you are very much mistaken (I don't think you are, AMax). Au contraire.

Not that I am saying anything about this particular development at AG. Only that all human foibles and many flaws can be found amongst the great, the good and the Guernsey in football. 

Truly, football clubs, at times, are like the fowl on the water: serene above ("all under control, nothing to see here"), thrashing about wildly underneath  ("wtf is going on!")

 

Yes, nowt strange as folk!

You only have to look in any place of institutional power, or any hierarchal structure then you get some really petty behaviour. 

[Spike]

I mean no-one actually knows what's going on, loads of guessing, assumptions etc but the way I see it is if Lansdown sells up I think our new owners won't be so willing to pay away all of our losses, they'll want the club to be in a strong financial situation and I can honestly see any new owner losing interest in us when they can't make that happen.
I'm genuinely interested to know who would buy a club that's never been in the Premier League, only had one season where it looked a possibility and despite having all the potential in the world keep falling short. The only owner I see buying that is one that has an insane ego and thinks he can "fix it". 
The club isn't going to share what's led to this and unless Steve Lansdown says "I've had an offer" we're business as usual IMO. Same as anyone in here my guess is just that, a guess, but I think it could be the hugely negative reaction to us not spending and reducing the costs of the club that's caused this. I'd hazard a guess that SL has said "Make the club run on it's own money rather than me having to pay out so a buyer sees it as a much better prospect to buy" and so Phil Alexander has done that which has probably resulted in Nigel Pearsons saying he needs to get players in, Phil saying "My hands are tied" and probably feeling like the man in the middle with SL saying make the club work of it's own money and Nigel Pearson saying he can't be competitive without backing. My guess is Phil got fed up of playing piggy in the middle but just to reiterate, purely guesswork, nothing this guess is founded on etc

I do worry about this club though, I think a lot of the fans have forgotten the club a lot of us "older fans" have watched over the years and how we've seen some awful times under different ownership and how during those times Ashton Gate looked like a tin can, the training facilities were a muddy pitch and you saw a youth player make the first team once in a blue moon. It's easy to complain about this club when you've only known it under an owner who literally throws money at it year after year and then the one season he doesn't he becomes a pariah and "greedy" having probably lost money every year that he's owned the club.

[exAtyeoMax]

28 minutes ago, headhunter said:

You're assuming the interview process was our usual "vigorous & rigorous" approach. 

How many people were seen or was it simply, as rumour has it, SL sought Richard Scudamore's advice and went with PA whose track record, on paper, is exemplary - if he could survive Ron Noades & Simon Jordan, I would say SL is a puppy in comparison!

yes but puppies… 

Edited September 18, 2023 by exAtyeoMax

[Selred]

5 minutes ago, Harry said:

Mainly because the vastly under qualified son also has lots of his vastly under qualified mates running many areas of the club. 

Who are they?? I look at the club and it's lots of experience people in the right places. Honestly the only job which someone doesn't deserve is Jons.

[tin]

5 minutes ago, Harry said:

It’s Point 2). Always has been since Steve ‘stepped aside’ a few years ago. 
 

He’s appointed people in senior positions to run the club but he doesn’t give them freedom. 
If he still wants to be involved himself then he should still be part of the board himself. 
He wants the best of both worlds - ie let other people do the day to day shit but then get involved whenever he feels like it. 
But then he just can’t help himself can he - even when he was present, he’d often be found in the dressing room - a place where he’d appointed someone to run the team but just couldn’t help himself getting involved. 
 

Steve - either run the club or let others run the club. You can’t have both. It steps on toes and breeds mistrust. 
 

The fact that one of the people he’s ‘appointed’ to run this club is his vastly under qualified son is the main problem. 
Mainly because the vastly under qualified son also has lots of his vastly under qualified mates running many areas of the club. 
It’s not so much a ‘jobs for the boys’ culture, it’s ‘job for the boy and his mates’. 

A lot of truth in that. And to add, the only executive he did give freedom to recklessly racked up costs without a care in the world. We share the same opinion on him! 

[Davefevs]

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

I believe the planning for the next window happens right about now? 

I also believe Dave that most of the groundwork on transfers happens outside of the window. Once we've identified our targets we'll begin talks with their agents/clubs. 

And who does that liaison with agents and clubs…predominantly Tins - the Tech Director (Tins) and Sean Gilhespy.

It’s not a worry.  Phil Alexander never got involved at Palace either, it was all Freedman (Sporting Director) and Parish (Owner / Chairman).  If something becomes “too big” for Tins to deal with, it’ll go up the line.  Just like Scott’s, it went up the line, eventually.

Also, we have no budget to bring anyone in anyway  

[headhunter]

20 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

yes but puppies… 

[BrizzleRed]

32 minutes ago, headhunter said:

You're assuming the interview process was our usual "vigorous & rigorous" approach. 

How many people were seen or was it simply, as rumour has it, SL sought Richard Scudamore's advice and went with PA whose track record, on paper, is exemplary - if he could survive Ron Noades & Simon Jordan, I would say SL is a puppy in comparison!

…… Or maybe he’s a right pain in the arse to work for.  

We’ve been continually rebuilding the squad and clearing out managers, head coaches and now CEO’s.  The one constant at this club is SL, and I’m coming to the conclusion that he may be the root cause of the problems and underachievement here and not the solution.

Maybe he just can’t sit back and let the people he employs get on and do the job they’re paid to do.  There are so many rumours of him meddling, that it makes you wonder if this could be the cause of many of our issues.   

Who knows, but we really shouldn’t be such perennial underachievers with the amount of investment he’s piled into the club, so something’s going wrong somewhere.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

I can't see in the reply that he wasn't involved in finance.

The response said he wasn't involved in player recruitment. 

CEOs are involved in financial issues...which would involve transfers. 

Spud, we have a CFO to run the financial side of things.  PA can be involved, but the financial weighing up of any deal / budget will ultimately be done by Gavin Marshall.  It’s a classic roles and responsibilities b chain on command thing.

I’m sure even Tins has some involvement in Finance of the pure-football operation, just like Keith Burt was responsible for the pure football budget in his time here…until Ashton turfed him out to grow his empire.  But there will be a point where you aren’t empowered to make a decision, e.g. like the Scott deal…although I’m sure SL’s ego played a part.

1 hour ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

Think you are being harsh on SL there. Whilst I too think we need a change and he needs to sell, we cannot forget the incredible vision with the stadium and HPC. Though I do agree, when it comes to footballing decisions it leaves a lot to be desired! 

I don’t think I am at all….it’s my view.

Great vision for the HPC, took him how long?

I think you’re being too generous, but you’re entitled to your opinion.

1 hour ago, Fuber said:

It's odd, as PA messaging was basically that he worked on the deal, but he didn't really mention completing it.

Id speculate whether SL got involved, PA got annoyed - had planned out reinvestiture, but was overriden. Hence stepping down due to disagreements at the board level.

It's all very very strange.

Quite likely imho.  Add in trying to sort out Jon-boys messes, and then not being able to, because it will highlight his (JL) incompetence, no wonder you’d want to get out.

[phantom]

28 minutes ago, Selred said:

Who are they?? I look at the club and it's lots of experience people in the right places. Honestly the only job which someone doesn't deserve is Jons.

Is that because these people have been in situ for a while now?

I can only think of one person who works in a high profile position, but wouldn't have any idea whether they were the best available etc

[spudski]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Spud, we have a CFO to run the financial side of things.  PA can be involved, but the financial weighing up of any deal / budget will ultimately be done by Gavin Marshall.  It’s a classic roles and responsibilities b chain on command thing.

I’m sure even Tins has some involvement in Finance of the pure-football operation, just like Keith Burt was responsible for the pure football budget in his time here…until Ashton turfed him out to grow his empire.  But there will be a point where you aren’t empowered to make a decision, e.g. like the Scott deal…although I’m sure SL’s ego played a part.

I don’t think I am at all….it’s my view.

Great vision for the HPC, took him how long?

I think you’re being too generous, but you’re entitled to your opinion.

Quite likely imho.  Add in trying to sort out Jon-boys messes, and then not being able to, because it will highlight his (JL) incompetence, no wonder you’d want to get out.

Yes I realise that Dave.

I was replying saying he wouldn't be involved in player identification and recruitment.

But would be involved in the financial side of any transfer. Along with others in the chain. 

 

[GrahamC]

28 minutes ago, Selred said:

Who are they?? I look at the club and it's lots of experience people in the right places. Honestly the only job which someone doesn't deserve is Jons.

Believe that Gilhespy & the bloke running Project Whitebeam (who used to be City Cat!) are both mates of the chairman.

What is blindingly obvious & I was thinking this on Saturday watching our shape out of possession & how well coached we appear, is that those brought in by Nige, so Fleming, Euell and Rennie are bloody good at their jobs.

No evidence of bluffers or mates getting jobs on a spurious basis.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, RedRock said:

All very bizarre. 

Just don’t understand what’s going on. That ‘dead bat’ interview of Radio Bristol, an ultra-low profile, the parting statement referencing solely Nige and Brian - it’s all very suspect. 

Think with the Lansdown’s you have to tread a very delicate path. Gould got it just right. Ashton played a blinder and treated them like royalty - but just for his own interests. Alexander, I suspect, was too strong-willed. 

Quite where this leaves Nige I’ve no idea. If the Lansdown’s wanted him out, they had the opportunity after that West Brom match around Xmas. They stood by him though. If Nige wanted out he could just walk. 
 

Let’s just hope there is a plan and that Nige and Brian are signed to it.  Need some clarity soon before the Club becomes unsettled. 
 

 

Nige - as decent a bloke as I get the impression he is, would’ve expected full pay-off had he gone with 18 months left on his contract.  Whatever pay-off terms they were.

At a time where we were still battling (playing nicely) with the EFL over FFP / Covid allowances, I’m not sure sacking and paying off your manager* and then the likelihood of paying compo to a club for a new manager would’ve looked that great, would it?

Nige wasn’t going to walk…he really wants to make a success here.

(* and possibly payoff staff too)

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

I suspect the truth lies somewhere between this and the posts saying the job wasn’t the job Alexander expected. Not all CEO roles are the same and it may be there was a mismatch of expectations on both sides. That may not even be anyone’s “fault” but simply a misunderstanding that wasn’t picked up in the interview process. 

PA was brought in to sweat the commercial side.  It’s why the structure changed to appoint Tins so that PA could concentrate on predominantly the commercial side.  It’s the main part of what he did at Palace.

Imagine then rocking up to find a crap kit deal had been signed.  Imagine rocking up to find people in roles based on nepotism (and beyond) and you can’t do anything about them.

As @headhunter says, sounds like he just served as much time as he could, unable to execute the role he expected to be able to.

32 minutes ago, Harry said:

It’s Point 2). Always has been since Steve ‘stepped aside’ a few years ago. 
 

He’s appointed people in senior positions to run the club but he doesn’t give them freedom. 
If he still wants to be involved himself then he should still be part of the board himself. 
He wants the best of both worlds - ie let other people do the day to day shit but then get involved whenever he feels like it. 
But then he just can’t help himself can he - even when he was present, he’d often be found in the dressing room - a place where he’d appointed someone to run the team but just couldn’t help himself getting involved. 
 

Steve - either run the club or let others run the club. You can’t have both. It steps on toes and breeds mistrust. 
 

The fact that one of the people he’s ‘appointed’ to run this club is his vastly under qualified son is the main problem. 
Mainly because the vastly under qualified son also has lots of his vastly under qualified mates running many areas of the club. 
It’s not so much a ‘jobs for the boys’ culture, it’s ‘job for the boy and his mates’. 

Boom  

25 minutes ago, Selred said:

Who are they?? I look at the club and it's lots of experience people in the right places. Honestly the only job which someone doesn't deserve is Jons.

You need to look beyond pure-BCFC!!!

[mozo]

36 minutes ago, Spike said:

I'm genuinely interested to know who would buy a club that's never been in the Premier League, only had one season where it looked a possibility and despite having all the potential in the world keep falling short. The only owner I see buying that is one that has an insane ego and thinks he can "fix it". 

What is the comparison with Ipswich here? Similar sized club and mostly been stinking out the football league for the past decades. US investors saw it as a project they'd like to take on and so far with good success. Aren't the obstacles at Ipswich similar to those here? 

[exAtyeoMax]

45 minutes ago, Spike said:

I'm genuinely interested to know who would buy a club that's never been in the Premier League, only had one season where it looked a possibility and despite having all the potential in the world keep falling short. The only owner I see buying that is one that has an insane ego and thinks he can "fix it". 

I don't buy that! If the reason we keep falling apart is personnel, that surely is easy to fix?