Jump to content
IGNORED

Phil Alexander Gone (Confirmed)

Selred

By Selred
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

petehinton

petehinton

Posted
Posted
Just now, Kid in the Riot said:

Two ways of looking at this:

1) It could empower Tins and Nige further as there's no CEO to answer to

2) Not having a CEO is one less experienced voice at boardroom level and so decision-making in the Lansdown echo chamber will only increase 

As a gambling man, I’ll stick all my chips on option 2 please barkeep

  • Like 9
  • Haha 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrahamC

GrahamC

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Two ways of looking at this:

1) It could empower Tins and Nige further as there's no CEO to answer to

2) Not having a CEO is one less experienced voice at boardroom level and so decision-making in the Lansdown echo chamber will only increase 

Frankly bizarre that an organisation of this size is apparently now being run in this way.

This appears to suggest that all commercial decisions are in the hands of Richard Cromwell, I mean Jon Lansdown, blimey, that’s really great, isn’t it?

  • Like 7
  • Flames 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Henry

Henry

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

Tbh I think Sunday was just a case of them having to get something, anything, announced ASAP because it had leaked that PA had gone.

There’s a big difference between saying PA resigned to NP saying that the club decided to move him on for a restructure.

Shambles as ever

Link to comment
Share on other sites
And Its Smith

And Its Smith

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Henry said:

There’s a big difference between saying PA resigned to NP saying that the club decided to move him on for a restructure.

Shambles as ever

Not really. He did resign. And we have decided on a restructure.  His resignation moved him on.  As said previously on this thread, it’s very common to basically force someone to resign 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Henry

Henry

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Not really. He did resign. And we have decided on a restructure.  His resignation moved him on.  As said previously on this thread, it’s very common to basically force someone to resign 

If you read the original statement, listen to Nige and think it’s the same message…fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silvio Dante

Silvio Dante

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, glynriley said:

No mention of Nige from JL then. Don’t reckon his contract is getting renewed any time soon. 
 

****

Probably reading too much into that. The manager isn’t on the board/exec level (and hasn’t been since TC) - this is an announcement about the level above the manager and mention of Nige wouldn’t be expected.

(Doesn’t mean I don’t agree with the conclusion, but I think there is a lot of people over analysing statements at present and there’s nothing amiss with this one)

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Selred

Selred

Posted
  • Author
Posted
8 minutes ago, glynriley said:

No mention of Nige from JL then. Don’t reckon his contract is getting renewed any time soon. 
 

****

What is the role of Barton? 
Talks of rifts between SL, JL and Nigel, why doesn’t JL just pretend to praise Nigel even if he doesn’t believe it. Really is incredible the disrespect 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kid in the Riot

Kid in the Riot

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Chivs said:

This sounds awful. C-level people don't just take on another C- level job. 

Also, CFOs don't know how businesses work. They understand numbers. Period. I give you Steve Lansdown as an example. 

Imagine making these decisions!!

And with all due respect to Tom Rawcliffe he's a mid-30s something guy with very limited experience. A couple of years at AFC Wimbledon and a couple at City, and elevated to CFO.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Two ways of looking at this:

1) It could empower Tins and Nige further as there's no CEO to answer to

2) Not having a CEO is one less experienced voice at boardroom level and so decision-making in the Lansdown echo chamber will only increase 

Do you see this as:

what’s the point of going through the whole recruitment process, bringing a new person in, and then ownership changes and they might want to move them on immeduately.

Feels like a “holding” restructure whilst the new investment stuff goes on slowly behind the scenes.

Anyone shiver at this:

IMG_8721.thumb.jpeg.ea7ea03b5082d1b856ac93079fd9341f.jpeg

From Post.

Of course Werhun became COO once his relative Ashton assumed the role of CEO!!!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
W-S-M Seagull

W-S-M Seagull

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Do you see this as:

what’s the point of going through the whole recruitment process, bringing a new person in, and then ownership changes and they might want to move them on immeduately.

Feels like a “holding” restructure whilst the new investment stuff goes on slowly behind the scenes.

Anyone shiver at this:

IMG_8721.thumb.jpeg.ea7ea03b5082d1b856ac93079fd9341f.jpeg

From Post.

Of course Werhun became COO once his relative Ashton assumed the role of CEO!!!

It does seem that way. It has to be that way, surely? 

I guess pretty much every club has a CEO so seems bizarre for us to think we can be successful without one. 

Isn't it kind of akin to getting rid of Pearson (or any manager) and allowing the coaches to perform that role, alongside their existing roles, just to save on a managers wages? 

Edited by W-S-M Seagull
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedRoss

RedRoss

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Do you see this as:

what’s the point of going through the whole recruitment process, bringing a new person in, and then ownership changes and they might want to move them on immeduately.

Feels like a “holding” restructure whilst the new investment stuff goes on slowly behind the scenes.

Anyone shiver at this:

IMG_8721.thumb.jpeg.ea7ea03b5082d1b856ac93079fd9341f.jpeg

From Post.

Of course Werhun became COO once his relative Ashton assumed the role of CEO!!!

That would make sense to be fair.

If there is a new establishment on the way, it would be likely they'd want to get their own people in maybe we've just accelerated that in preparation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Admin
Ian M

Ian M

Posted
  • Admin
Posted
9 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

It does seem that way. It has to be that way, surely? 

I guess pretty much every club has a CEO so seems bizarre for us to think we can be successful without one. 

Isn't it kind of akin to getting rid of Pearson (or any manager) and allowing the coaches to perform that role, alongside their existing roles, just to save on a managers wages? 

In this analogy wouldn't having a COO be akin to having a Head Coach in place of a Manager?

I note that people with better knowledge than me say it costs too much in non-playing staff costs to generate each £. With many of the day to day decisions of a normal football club falling to Bristol Sport (see latest answers to the SC&T meeting with City officials), I'm optimistic that this could actually work for us as a cost cutting measure without seeing much difference off-the-pitch.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Merrick's Marvels

Merrick's Marvels

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, GlastonburyRed said:

What on earth would SL & JL do if we actually reached the promised land at the end of the season?!

An interesting thought.

Which prompts another - perhaps they know they won't be here if we do? 

Because perhaps a sale is closer than we think? 

If not, it's just more of their daftness. 

Who knows? Clear as mud, more questions than answers at the minute.

Edited by Merrick's Marvels
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Magicdaps

Magicdaps

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Do you see this as:

what’s the point of going through the whole recruitment process, bringing a new person in, and then ownership changes and they might want to move them on immeduately.

Feels like a “holding” restructure whilst the new investment stuff goes on slowly behind the scenes.

Anyone shiver at this:

IMG_8721.thumb.jpeg.ea7ea03b5082d1b856ac93079fd9341f.jpeg

From Post.

Of course Werhun became COO once his relative Ashton assumed the role of CEO!!!

Precisely my conclusion.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Ian M said:

In this analogy wouldn't having a COO be akin to having a Head Coach in place of a Manager?

I note that people with better knowledge than me say it costs too much in non-playing staff costs to generate each £. With many of the day to day decisions of a normal football club falling to Bristol Sport (see latest answers to the SC&T meeting with City officials), I'm optimistic that this could actually work for us as a cost cutting measure without seeing much difference off-the-pitch.

The big question for me, is if PA was brought in for his commercial sales ability, where does a Finance Officer fit into filling that “capability” gap?

Or are we just paying lip-service to the commercial side, because if we don’t grow that, we have to cut costs elsewhere…and recently it’s been the football side that has made those cuts.

I’d like an explanation.  I won’t get one.  I won’t lose any sleep over it either.

But it further fuels my view that PA was undermined and that’s why he was “asked” to resign. All imho.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
eardun

eardun

Posted
Posted

It seems to me (based on what Pearson said last night and the statement today) that the club has simply realised that they don’t need an expensive CEO in the building - that big role isn’t needed any more seeing how Tinnion’s role has developed. Why pay for a senior, big hitting CEO when one isn’t needed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hxj

Hxj

Posted
Posted

My view is that everyone is in danger of running down lots of rabbit holes with this one.

Personally, following the 'Bristol Sport' reorganisation that took place earlier this year, it doesn't make sense to have a Football CEO and a Group CEO.

The actual operations of the football club are relatively straightforward as are the finances.

Football side director, everything else director, and NP keeping himself far away from anything but his day job - perfect.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...