Phil Alexander Gone (Confirmed)

[SecretSam]

This is deeply worrying.

[frenchred]

2 hours ago, GrahamC said:

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.

Your first sentence is a bit misleading. 

They may be mates now, as I'm sure you have mates at work. But that's it?

[42nite]

If Steve sells....what happens to Jon?

 

 

[exAtyeoMax]

Just now, 42nite said:

If Steve sells....what happens to Jon?

 

 

he carry on with his business stuff in Bermuda, I guess

[Silvio Dante]

36 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

I politely disagree, you are only considering one aspect of impact, 3 CEO's regardless of how when or why they left is terrible from a cultural point of view.  

The rest of the business are are going to get a 4th person at the healm soon with new ideas, and things will no doubt change again, as they will have done under the previous 2 CEO's.  

There is complete uncertainty at the moment as you can't trust that whoever comes in will stick around either.  This again is not great for the culture of the business.

If we want to get to the Prem then we need to be all on the same page across the board, from the top down, we need consistency and longevity, not chopping and changing, whether the CEO had a valid reason to leave it not.

I don’t necessarily disagree but it’s a bit of a different point - I don’t think the “3 CEOs in 3 years” makes it difficult to attract a top candidate, which was the original assertion. Candidates will rightly look at Ashton/Gould leaving and be relatively relaxed about it, but be more concerned over Alexander. 
 

I totally agree that culturally it’s not great to have a turnover of CEOs, because they’ll all have their own ideas and want their own teams - in just the same way as quick turnover of managers can lead to a bloated and disjointed squad so I’m with you on that, but I definitely disagree that people will see “3 in 3” and think somethings amiss (again they might through PA only). It’d be more concerning if we’d had (for example) 4 in 6 years and didn’t understand the reasons for any of them going - as stands, PA is the only one we’re really unsure of.

[GrahamC]

4 minutes ago, frenchred said:

Your first sentence is a bit misleading. 

They may be mates now, as I'm sure you have mates at work. But that's it?

My understanding is that he knew both well before they were in their current roles, both (?) went to school with him I think? Clearer?

I don’t have “mates” at work, certainly no one who works in the service I run (circa 150) is one, that just doesn’t work.

Edited September 18, 2023 by GrahamC

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, IAmNick said:

The problem I have is that I don't know what I'm backing if I don't "back" SL.

I don't want absolutely any change as there are lots which I think would be worse for a whole host of reasons.

But I also think SL has pretty much run his course - and I don't want to support him just due to fear of the possible alternative. I hoped a few strong characters around SL, like Nige, would have gradually helped him hand over the reins and become the benevolent owner passively watching from the stands with our undying gratitude, like he should be.

That doesn't look likely though, so I don't know what to think now! One of the options is a total unknown.

Quite.

It's why I lean towards an investor to come in alongside SL rather than a complete sale. Such an investor could of course then progressively takeover the whole club, going from a minority to majority stake in due course.

Perhaps I stupidly still hold out some misguided hope that a billionaire in his seventies might be persuaded to change the habit of a (financially successful) lifetime and accept taking a backseat and letting others run his business.

As you put it, I back SL becoming the benevolent owner who sits in his corporate box watching his trusted generals and lieutenants run the operation.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

SL is succession planning he's 71.  Not sure this Phil Alexander thing is anything to do with that or not.  Either way people will speculate because of the fairly brief explanation.  

Very odd.

[!james]

7 minutes ago, 42nite said:

If Steve sells....what happens to Jon?

 

 

[marmite]

The majority of fans only turn up for games and are completely unaware of what happens outside of matchday. 

Who knew that Keith Dawe was our chairman for several years and many still think that SL is chairman. 

There is more knowledge on this forum which breeds healthy debate, as in this case.

Until the club tells us what's happening for fact, it's all pure conjecture. 

Something appears to be going wrong off the pitch however. My main complaint is the lack of communication from the club. They don't need to go into detail but they shouldn't just ignore the fans concerns. We are the lifeblood of the club. 

Personally my faith in S L is fading rapidly but that is because he,  or the club,  doesn't keep us informed of developments. 

I've always been a supporter of Steve but I think his "it's my club and my money" stance is beginning to alienate people.

[View from the Dolman]

3 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

My understanding is that he knew both well before they were in their current roles, both (?) went to school with him I think? Clearer?

The Post previously said that Sean Gilhespy went to Gordano School. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd be surprised if JL had gone there too.

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, BUTOR said:

Is it? I wasn’t aware I had an agenda around Lansdown either way, I’m fairly neutral towards the guy. He’s made mistakes and continues to make them. I’m more in the stick than twist camp because of associated risks but I understand most angles from the anti-SL camp. I guess from my previous posts you’re suggesting I come across as an OTT pro-Sl’er. I’m not, I just try to focus on the situations at hand and struggle with the way oddly dark intentions are often assumed of SL/JL. I just don’t buy it because I believe that broadly speaking, and from having conversations with people who know and have worked with them closely, the Lancdowns, despite their howlers, have the good of the club at heart. Maybe that’s the fundamental disagreement, which is fine. 

Based on the posts I see from you, you’re far more accomplished at basing perspective on the evidence/actual situation at hand than myself, particularly in the heat of post match (which is bloody hard), so it confuses me when I see you suggesting things like PA has gone because he wanted to give Nige a contract and Lansdown didn’t! That’s a real deep bitterness and pettiness you’re suggesting SL holds towards Pearson, that he would dismiss a senior executive primarily because of a personal vendetta. I guess I’d like to know what is that actually based on? It just seems to me that it’s beyond reading between the lines and drifting into completely unfounded speculative territory. If he was capable of that sort of thing then with a life spent in business and football I think it would be more generally understood that he is a bit of a ***. There’d be more cases of similar conduct to point to. The truth has a way of escaping these days. We all know the stories around MA, who is genuinely the type of man to sack someone based on personal vendettas. So I do think the dark conspiratorial assumptions are unfair and I tend to call them out. Still don’t really see that as an agenda. 

Goes without saying this isn’t a dig as I always enjoy your takes regardless if I disagree. 

I agree with some of the above, in fairness.

But what I’m saying (maybe poorly) is that just because someone is posting negatively, doesn’t mean they have an agenda…either.

FWIW my views are positioned on things like this with “I reckon” or ended with “speculation on my part”, because they are drawn from things heard, read, as well as gut feel too.  I’m pretty selective on who I listen to and I don’t believe there is no smoke without fire.

I don’t think SL would jeopardise the club either, which is a big part behind my resistance to the “be careful what you wish for” type posts.

But I do think that every time I hear him, he’s grates more and more.

I am intrigued how a CEO can go from Nige is a legend / royalty to not giving any credit whatsoever, and then commend him and Tins in his leaving statement. FWIW (again) I wasn’t one of the ones slagging PA off after his interview a fortnight ago.  I do think SL (and JL) have had their noses put out of joint by some of Nige’s comments.  Don’t you?

Its always good debating with people who are prepared to explain why they might have a different view or why my view might be seen one way or the other.

 

[GrahamC]

1 minute ago, View from the Dolman said:

The Post previously said that Sean Gilhespy went to Gordano School. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd be surprised if JL had gone there too.

That bit (on my part) is wrong then.

[REDOXO]

Ok. So what I know for certain! Alexander has stepped down. 

In his statement he mentioned NP and BT but noticeably not JL or SL. 

The club thanked him for his service. 

No one has said why he has left  

So the rumour mill concludes

1 That he was fired

2 He walked away 

3 He didn’t get on with SL

4 Didn’t get on with NP

5 Didn’t get on with JL

6 Didn’t like the club structure

7 Didn’t like nepotism 

8 Didn’t like SL interference

9 SL thought he was crap

10 He was crap at his job

11 ETC ETC EYC ETC

I love the way things get twisted on here to support the posters existing view. 
 

Someone who knows something could call in to Sound of the City tonight or maybe the show try’s (hard) to get a comment from someone at the club tonight. It’s called journalism FYI!

[Chivs]

10 minutes ago, 42nite said:

If Steve sells....what happens to Jon?

 

 

I imagine the new owners will look at Jon's experience, talent and aptitude for the job, and the way forward will become very apparent...

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

Or we might not.

Everyone making this argument always catastrophizes We will tread water (at best) now if he sticks around, he is incredibly naive if he actually believes this “live completely within your means” nonsense.

 

While I mostly agree, if or when the new 90-80-70 pct proposed financial regulations kick in our stance will be vindicated over a lot of our competitors.

The question is when that will come in- matter or when not if but timing seems to be a total unknown. SL seems to be going too hard and too early betting on something  that may not kick in for years.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, marmite said:

I've always been a supporter of Steve but I think his "it's my club and my money" stance is beginning to alienate people.

That was my turning point which coincided with me having spent a lot of time looking at the other side of football, ie the financial side, FFP, how transfers work etc.  Since then he’s doubled down on a few things.

[frenchred]

10 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

My understanding is that he knew both well before they were in their current roles, both (?) went to school with him I think? Clearer?

I don’t have “mates” at work, certainly no one who works in the service I run (circa 150) is one, that just doesn’t work.

I only know one of them and he certainly didn't go to school with the chairman

[REDOXO]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

That was my turning point which coincided with me having spent a lot of time looking at the other side of football, ie the financial side, FFP, how transfers work etc.  Since then he’s doubled down on a few things.

The my money my choice stance/quote was very much in support of LJ. 

I for one think that has been moderated due to the shit tonnes he threw in after shorty and the fact that he now knows it isn’t his money solely, it is also the clubs money, as it is the club that is fined for excessive spending with attached points deductions. 
 

I’ve said many times that I think the club has been close to (as the industry says, you kiss a lot of frogs) a sale/investment announcement. This is the only thing that really accounts for the silence of our leaders. 
 

My thought is we are close to something for a third time, which may or may not go forward. But those who have been around these things and there are a few here that post and a few that simply read, that silence, sale of some assets, spending caps, non renewal of contracts and termination of non shareholding executives are often signs of impending major change. 
 

Just sayin!
 

 

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

While I mostly agree, if or when the new 90-80-70 pct proposed financial regulations kick in our stance will be vindicated over a lot of our competitors.

The question is when that will come in- matter or when not if but timing seems to be a total unknown. SL seems to be going too hard and too early betting on something  that may not kick in for years.

That is the hope, but still need to know how our large cost base gets reflected on the new rules.

[Sarumred]

Following Redoxo's post, you would like to think that both the BP and BBCRB would be doing their upmost to get some clarity on the situation. 

[Sleepy1968]

3 hours ago, exAtyeoMax said:

yes but puppies… 

I'm waiting for that toddler to break free and make it up the slope.

Either that, or turn round with an exasperated look on his face, and say 'ffs guys, can't you leave me the **** alone for 5 minutes?'.

[Lord Northski]

Apologies for my naivety on the subject of extra investment from a new sugar daddy. But there seems to be a sizeable amount of people who believe a new owner is going to be allowed to invest in the club (give us more money for players) than we are given presently by SL (Scott money aside)

Surely FFP rules will apply to the probable Spiv that comes in a promises sunlit uplands too. 

Plus, Don’t those who want a financial return want the right to flog stuff off if their investment goes pear and they get relegated etc . Sale of the training ground could be a possibility. etc 
Reeducation most welcome  

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Lord Northski

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, REDOXO said:

The my money my choice stance/quote was very much in support of LJ. 

I for one think that has been moderated due to the shit tonnes he threw in after shorty and the fact that he now knows it isn’t his money solely, it is also the clubs money, as it is the club that is fined for excessive spending with attached points deductions. 
 

I’ve said many times that I think the club has been close to (as the industry says, you kiss a lot of frogs) a sale/investment announcement. This is the only thing that really accounts for the silence of our leaders. 
 

My thought is we are close to something for a third time, which may or may not go forward. But those who have been around these things and there are a few here that post and a few that simply read, that silence, sale of some assets, spending caps, non renewal of contracts and termination of non shareholding executives are often signs of impending major change. 
 

Just sayin!
 

 

I agree.  And there are some things that aren’t for public domain either.  Certainly how close we are to new investors / an ownership change isn’t one for sure.  Silence is one thing, and right in many situations, but not for everything.  That is not to say I expected a reason to accompany PA’s departure either…I most certainly did not.

My main issues over the past fortnight (since PA spoke on SOTC), are the mixed messages, and how they play-back to what has been said over the past 6-7 years, even as recently as SL’s Guernsey radio interview, or as far back as your LJ reference, or support of MA (really dismissing the fans).

Ducks are not aligned, not even when telling a few fibs.

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

That is the hope, but still need to know how our large cost base gets reflected on the new rules.

Agreed.

It's so frustrating following this club tbh. Thinking about this the other day.

There are times when we have 2/4 elements in place and the other sides flawed or chaotic.

In the past we were willing to throw money and lots but at a manager who wasn't suitable. The academy was definitely on an upward trajectory but not as productive as now but we did produce. (The Johnson and Ashton era). Then a number of players here in that time we didn't get the best of etc..whereas a more experienced manager may have.

Now we have a Manager and Technical Director but especially NP who has a strong track record and we switch the taps off. Mad! Precisely the wrong time.

We lost one excellent CEO in Gould, can't be helped- Alexander a bit meh IMO but who knows whether he had stronger views behind the scenes but was thwarted.

It's infuriating. We have a number of boxes ticked and yet..some needless uncertainty over manager, overspending in the past That could have cost us dear and now a major overcorrection when we have a manager who can make the most of resources.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Lord Northski said:

Apologies for my naivety on the subject of extra investment from a new sugar daddy. But there seems to be a sizeable amount of people who believe a new owner new going to be allowed to invest in the club (give us more money for players) than spend more money than we get at present from SL (Scott money aside) Surely FFP rules will apply to the Spiv that comes in an promises sunlit uplands too. 
Reeducation most welcome  

 

 

 

No, you’re correct.

Of course some people think he’s given all City’s money to the Bears or the Flyers!

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agreed.

It's so frustrating following this club tbh. Thinking about this the other day.

There are times when we have 2/4 elements in place and the other sides flawed or chaotic.

In the past we were willing to throw money and lots but at a manager who wasn't suitable. The academy was definitely on an upward trajectory but not as productive as now but we did produce. (The Johnson and Ashton era). Then a number of players here in that time we didn't get the best of etc..whereas a more experienced manager may have.

Now we have a Manager and Technical Director but especially NP who has a strong track record and we switch the taps off. Mad! Precisely the wrong time.

We lost one excellent CEO in Gould, can't be helped- Alexander a bit meh IMO but who knows whether he had stronger views behind the scenes but was thwarted.

It's infuriating. We have a number of boxes ticked and yet..some needless uncertainty over manager, overspending in the past That could have cost us feat and now a major overcorrection when we have a manager who can make the most of resources.

OTIB would be boring otherwise.

[Kid in the Riot]

54 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

That bit (on my part) is wrong then.

You are correct on Jon and Pete.

[CiderJar]

https://twitter.com/StateOfLinkedIn/status/1703495561096081625/photo/1

[Superjack]

1 hour ago, View from the Dolman said:

The Post previously said that Sean Gilhespy went to Gordano School. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd be surprised if JL had gone there too.

Well I don't remember him.

[cheese]

4 hours ago, exAtyeoMax said:

yes but puppies… 

Not quite the puppies I'm used to seeing on the internet but a refreshing change nonetheless.