Tinnion Leaves Twitter

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, KingHillRed said:

Walked past Tins on Saturday, said hello to each other, nice bloke - if I was him I'd leave Twitter too absolutely vile place

It can be, agreed.  It can also be a fantastic medium for communication.

I just block people who aren’t interacting with me in the right way.  That’s not blocking people with opposing views, just the odd ***** on there that doesn’t warrant my time and effort.

FWIW, I don’t think Tins got any “abuse” on there when it prompted him to leave.  He got criticism, some of it perhaps not in the respectful way you or I might provide criticism, but it want vile stuff like you see.

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, KingHillRed said:

I think this is a very valid post, pretty much spot on

I'm not defending anyone, perhaps more devils advocate, but what say would Tins have had in the decision to not grant Nige transfer funds and ultimately, influence his sacking?  Genuinely curious

I think it’s a fair Q…and this is where we don’t know “who” made the decision….although likelihood is that it was a “collective”…yes?

[RedRoss]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

I think it’s a fair Q…and this is where we don’t know “who” made the decision….although likelihood is that it was a “collective”…yes?

Is it really that black and white? This is what I don't get though.

I asked for examples of what specifically Tinnion had done previously in this topic that could be proved and every answer was conjecture of sorts. However with that he's been called all sorts of names on here.

I don't know and can't say definitively one way or the other so I just don't think it's right to completely condemn somebody for hearsay at best. Even if he was part of it personal comments are low in my eyes. You can disagree with someone and that can get heated but it's embarrassing when our fans act like that.

It's funny Richard Gould is treated like our Lord and saviour on here but jumped at the next best thing straight away. Yet Tinnion has committed most of his life to us and showed utmost loyalty and is treated like shit. I know people will say he's in his job for the wrong reasons and he's not qualified to be in that position. I think he deserves a chance and some respect atleast.

[FNQ]

10 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

Is it really that black and white? This is what I don't get though.

I asked for examples of what specifically Tinnion had done previously in this topic that could be proved and every answer was conjecture of sorts. However with that he's been called all sorts of names on here.

I don't know and can't say definitively one way or the other so I just don't think it's right to completely condemn somebody for hearsay at best. Even if he was part of it personal comments are low in my eyes. You can disagree with someone and that can get heated but it's embarrassing when our fans act like that.

It's funny Richard Gould is treated like our Lord and saviour on here but jumped at the next best thing straight away. Yet Tinnion has committed most of his life to us and showed utmost loyalty and is treated like shit. I know people will say he's in his job for the wrong reasons and he's not qualified to be in that position. I think he deserves a chance and some respect atleast.

As an example, wasn’t it Tinnion the one who was openly criticising Nige for playing Andy King at CB during our injury crisis? It wouldnt take too much imagination to see an environment whereby he would be bleating about an academy product not being given an opportunity and undermining Nige to the welcoming ear of the Lansdowns.. We used to see BT from time to time on RTV, no longer though, he’s lying low..

[Numero Uno]

8 minutes ago, FNQ said:

As an example, wasn’t it Tinnion the one who was openly criticising Nige for playing Andy King at CB during our injury crisis? It wouldnt take too much imagination to see an environment whereby he would be bleating about an academy product not being given an opportunity and undermining Nige to the welcoming ear of the Lansdowns.. We used to see BT from time to time on RTV, no longer though, he’s lying low..

The same Andy King brought straight into the squad by Manning as soon as he was fit enough. You would almost be mistaken into thinking Andy King is a good pro or something................................

[chinapig]

36 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

It's funny Richard Gould is treated like our Lord and saviour on here but jumped at the next best thing straight away.

Richard Gould is a hugely respected sports administrator and has a much higher status than Tinnion. As soon as the ECB were looking for a CEO he was hot favourite especially as his former boss at Surrey CCC is the Chairman.

Fortunately we had the benefit of his skills in turning the club around before we lost him but it's no different to Scott leaving for the Premier League. Though we don't need a CEO anyway because Tinnion is growing into the job according to Jon.

We'll see in time how well Brian does and whether he is head hunted by a bigger club but he was hardly likely to turn down the Technical Director job in the absence of other offers.

Edited January 4 by chinapig

[RedRoss]

7 minutes ago, FNQ said:

As an example, wasn’t it Tinnion the one who was openly criticising Nige for playing Andy King at CB during our injury crisis? It wouldnt take too much imagination to see an environment whereby he would be bleating about an academy product not being given an opportunity and undermining Nige to the welcoming ear of the Lansdowns.. We used to see BT from time to time on RTV, no longer though, he’s lying low..

Was it? Show me where?

It was on here people made up their minds it was Tinnion.

 

[Silvio Dante]

2 hours ago, KingHillRed said:

I think this is a very valid post, pretty much spot on

I'm not defending anyone, perhaps more devils advocate, but what say would Tins have had in the decision to not grant Nige transfer funds and ultimately, influence his sacking?  Genuinely curious

Ultimately you’ll never know so you have to look at logic.

Tinnion was the most senior “football” man in the organisation. For Jon Lansdown not to have consulted him would have been odd in the extreme bearing that in mind.

However, it is nonetheless plausible that Tinnion was consulted but Lansdown didn’t agree with him on the biggest footballing decision at the club.

But - using logic - if that were the case, and Tinnion didn’t agree with the board strategy, why would the board then expand Tinnions role to make him more important in delivering that strategy. That wouldn’t happen in any organisation as it would naturally lead to conflict, which was one of the issues with NP. That point is further relevant as Tinnion appears to be under qualified for the “growing into CEO” position and no business would appoint someone who both didn’t agree with the strategy and didn’t have experience of delivering the new role!

So your answer which passes logic is that even though the final say was with Jon Lansdown, Brian Tinnion had to support the decisions to justify his expanded role. Any other reading is blinkered in wanting to support Tinnion.

[Numero Uno]

13 hours ago, TV Tom said:

Lets really piss Plymouth off and put in a bid for Whittaker 

Good player, that's for sure.

[Dave L]

1 hour ago, RedRoss said:

Was it? Show me where?

It was on here people made up their minds it was Tinnion.

 

Absolutely. Far too much opinion stated as fact on this and other threads. I don't have a problem with people having differing opinions, but the disrespect and childish insults being bandied about to suit some people's personal agendas are way below the belt.

For years, many on this forum have criticised the Lansdowns for not knowing enough about football (wrongly in my view). 'We need a football man' they cried - with a certain vagueness about exactly what is meant by a football man. Often I got the impression that it meant 'me', or quite possibly 'my mate down the pub who once played Semi-Pro for Mangotsfield'.

So now they have appointed a football man. A club legend who has played over 500 games for the club, has extensive experience as a coach and manager and a proven track record of success in developing and nurturing young talent both in the UK and abroad. And now some say 'no, not that football man - we meant somebody else'. And when that football man does the job he was employed to do, along with his employers, and replaces a manager who was well-liked but not exactly pulling up trees, he is suddenly a snake?

By all means lets have debate about decisions made. We are never going to agree about everything, and mistakes have been made down the line, and will no doubt be made again in the future. But to suggest that Steve, Jon, Brian et al (and whoever is next in the firing line) don't have the best interests of the club at heart is wrong and disrespectful. 

[Natchfever]

8 minutes ago, Dave L said:

Absolutely. Far too much opinion stated as fact on this and other threads. I don't have a problem with people having differing opinions, but the disrespect and childish insults being bandied about to suit some people's personal agendas are way below the belt.

For years, many on this forum have criticised the Lansdowns for not knowing enough about football (wrongly in my view). 'We need a football man' they cried - with a certain vagueness about exactly what is meant by a football man. Often I got the impression that it meant 'me', or quite possibly 'my mate down the pub who once played Semi-Pro for Mangotsfield'.

So now they have appointed a football man. A club legend who has played over 500 games for the club, has extensive experience as a coach and manager and a proven track record of success in developing and nurturing young talent both in the UK and abroad. And now some say 'no, not that football man - we meant somebody else'. And when that football man does the job he was employed to do, along with his employers, and replaces a manager who was well-liked but not exactly pulling up trees, he is suddenly a snake?

By all means lets have debate about decisions made. We are never going to agree about everything, and mistakes have been made down the line, and will no doubt be made again in the future. But to suggest that Steve, Jon, Brian et al (and whoever is next in the firing line) don't have the best interests of the club at heart is wrong and disrespectful. 

You may have the best interests of the club at heart (if they align with your own bests interests) but can still be absolutely underqualified and inadequate for the role you have pushed yourself into which means you are absolutely fair game for pelters from fans who most certainly have the best interests of the club at heart.

You state as a fact that these people have such best interests without any real evidence support it just like those you criticise at the start of your post who promote opinion as fact.

As for Lansdown senior, if he had the clubs best interests at heart he would employ the very best people in key roles "upstairs" and keep his nose out of things he patently does not understand as evidenced by decades of poor decisions by him.

[Numero Uno]

14 minutes ago, Dave L said:

Absolutely. Far too much opinion stated as fact on this and other threads. I don't have a problem with people having differing opinions, but the disrespect and childish insults being bandied about to suit some people's personal agendas are way below the belt.

For years, many on this forum have criticised the Lansdowns for not knowing enough about football (wrongly in my view). 'We need a football man' they cried - with a certain vagueness about exactly what is meant by a football man. Often I got the impression that it meant 'me', or quite possibly 'my mate down the pub who once played Semi-Pro for Mangotsfield'.

So now they have appointed a football man. A club legend who has played over 500 games for the club, has extensive experience as a coach and manager and a proven track record of success in developing and nurturing young talent both in the UK and abroad. And now some say 'no, not that football man - we meant somebody else'. And when that football man does the job he was employed to do, along with his employers, and replaces a manager who was well-liked but not exactly pulling up trees, he is suddenly a snake?

By all means lets have debate about decisions made. We are never going to agree about everything, and mistakes have been made down the line, and will no doubt be made again in the future. But to suggest that Steve, Jon, Brian et al (and whoever is next in the firing line) don't have the best interests of the club at heart is wrong and disrespectful. 

I think had the comments around the sacking of the bloke “who wasn’t pulling up trees” as you put it but kept our Championship status whilst a significant FFFP reset was undertaken been more sensible there would be less vitriol aimed at those who made the decision. Instead they tried to bullshit their way through with talk of top end squad etc.

We now have a new manager who is doing alright, very few complaints, but certainly “not pulling up trees” either which shouldn’t be a shock to anybody and the same leadership. The issue is that whilst many can accept the leadership HAVE the best interests of the club at heart they can’t trust them to IMPLEMENT the best interests of the club. That’s where we are I think.

[ExiledAjax]

30 minutes ago, Dave L said:

So now they have appointed a football man. A club legend who has played over 500 games for the club, has extensive experience as a coach and manager and a proven track record of success in developing and nurturing young talent both in the UK and abroad. And now some say 'no, not that football man - we meant somebody else'. And when that football man does the job he was employed to do, along with his employers, and replaces a manager who was well-liked but not exactly pulling up trees, he is suddenly a snake?

I can only speak for myself, but my issue is that Tinnion seems to have been promoted above his skillset. That's an opinion based upon a perception, it's not a fact.

I don't understand how playing 500 games for this club 30 years ago, being a youth coach, or failing as a manager, qualifies a man to fulfil a significant part of the role of chief executive officer of a £30m company. 

I also don't understand why the Lansdowns have seemingly abandoned the idea of bringing in talented people like Gould, Alexander, and even Ashton (who for his faults does have some commercial knowledge and talent) in favour of promotion from within. That's not asking why those three left, we know that. It's asking why the current setup and personnel were chosen as the best option for the future. From my perspective having a dedicated CEO was working. Slowly working, but working well. 

Now we have a "football man" who happily tells people about our commercial activity (I don't have a huge issue with this, but it's absolutely opposite to the way that "real" CEOs like Gould and Alexander operated), and we have a so far invisible and seemingly mute COO. Why?

I don't see how this decision demonstrates that the owners have the best interests of the club at heart. I don't think that has been explained.

Essentially I perceive a mismatch between the words of the owners and the actions of the owners. Therein lies the source of discord in my opinion.

Edited January 4 by ExiledAjax

[Silvio Dante]

Just an open question to people supporting Tinnion.

If he resigned would you take Louis Carey (played more games, coached youth extensively, failed as assistant at FGR) as his replacement.

Thought not.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Dave L said:

Absolutely. Far too much opinion stated as fact on this and other threads. I don't have a problem with people having differing opinions, but the disrespect and childish insults being bandied about to suit some people's personal agendas are way below the belt.

For years, many on this forum have criticised the Lansdowns for not knowing enough about football (wrongly in my view). 'We need a football man' they cried - with a certain vagueness about exactly what is meant by a football man. Often I got the impression that it meant 'me', or quite possibly 'my mate down the pub who once played Semi-Pro for Mangotsfield'.

So now they have appointed a football man. A club legend who has played over 500 games for the club, has extensive experience as a coach and manager and a proven track record of success in developing and nurturing young talent both in the UK and abroad. And now some say 'no, not that football man - we meant somebody else'. And when that football man does the job he was employed to do, along with his employers, and replaces a manager who was well-liked but not exactly pulling up trees, he is suddenly a snake?

By all means lets have debate about decisions made. We are never going to agree about everything, and mistakes have been made down the line, and will no doubt be made again in the future. But to suggest that Steve, Jon, Brian et al (and whoever is next in the firing line) don't have the best interests of the club at heart is wrong and disrespectful. 

What evidence can you present that the Lansdowns know more about football than the average fan?
The football man they’ve appointed is indeed a club legend (on the pitch), but he failed miserably as a manager, and I think you misrepresent him as an experienced coach, I don’t believe he has held that position at a professional level including City, and I very much doubt if has a Pro coaching licence, but I stand to hear you correct me.

I believe the issue is that 1) The Lansdowns act in a closed environment, nearly always looking inward for people to take on roles for which they not obviously qualified, there have been exceptions and Gould, Pearson, Cotterill and Gary Johnson spring to mind.

2) Brian seems unable to say no to them about anything, and in particular taking on new roles.
By his own admission he was not ready to become the manager when offered the job, but said yes.

A CEO by definition is the highest ranking person in a company ultimately responsible for taking managerial decisions, that does not to me say Brian Tinnion.

Your loyalty to them is admirable, and as a long standing supporter of many years it gives me zero pleasure to say the evidence shows that they are not the people to take the club forward.

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, RedRoss said:

Is it really that black and white? This is what I don't get though.

I asked for examples of what specifically Tinnion had done previously in this topic that could be proved and every answer was conjecture of sorts. However with that he's been called all sorts of names on here.

I don't know and can't say definitively one way or the other so I just don't think it's right to completely condemn somebody for hearsay at best. Even if he was part of it personal comments are low in my eyes. You can disagree with someone and that can get heated but it's embarrassing when our fans act like that.

It's funny Richard Gould is treated like our Lord and saviour on here but jumped at the next best thing straight away. Yet Tinnion has committed most of his life to us and showed utmost loyalty and is treated like shit. I know people will say he's in his job for the wrong reasons and he's not qualified to be in that position. I think he deserves a chance and some respect atleast.

I don’t think name calling is necessary.  And at some point banter strays into being rude / vile.

I think @Dave L and @Natchfever’s replies are good, coming at it from both sides, as is @Numero Uno’s too.

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

Richard Gould is a hugely respected sports administrator and has a much higher status than Tinnion. As soon as the ECB were looking for a CEO he was hot favourite especially as his former boss at Surrey CCC is the Chairman.

Fortunately we had the benefit of his skills in turning the club around before we lost him but it's no different to Scott leaving for the Premier League. Though we don't need a CEO anyway because Tinnion is growing into the job according to Jon.

We'll see in time how well Brian does and whether he is head hunted by a bigger club but he was hardly likely to turn down the Technical Director job in the absence of other offers.

Yep, to all intense and purposes RG wanted the head job in cricket.  He missed out so needed a different challenge until the opportunity came about again.  He actually moved from a bigger business (Surrey) to a smaller business (City).  Some might find that hard to believe, but Surrey CCC is much bigger than Bristol City, it’s bigger than Bristol City and Ashton Gate combined.  People think of cricket as small fry compared to football, but for a County with a test playing ground like Surrey, it’s large!

 

38 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I don't understand how playing 500 games for this club 30 years ago, being a youth coach, or failing as a manager, qualifies a man to fulfil a significant part of the role of chief executive officer of a £30m company. 

I still don’t think Tins is being groomed to be CEO, I just think it’s yet another example of Jon not being able to think on his feet when given a question that shouldn’t be that difficult to answer.  Especially when it had already been answered in some part in the restructure comms.

For info, Bristol City CEO is only the CEO of a £17m business (pedant alert).  Your point most definitely stands if what Jon said is true though - I just think he gave a terrible answer.

Edited January 4 by Davefevs

[Numero Uno]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

For info, Bristol City CEO is only the CEO of a £17m business (pedant alert).  Your point most definitely stands if what Jon said is true though - I just think he gave a terrible answer.

This is an area of concern for me. How do we get to a situation where the Chairman cannot stand up and tell the Senior Reds when asked a direct question that the accounts are being issued the next day yet another member of the hierarchy can apparently go on X and divulge details in a DM of a bid we have made for a player that ends up all over X anyway? This is where standards, consistency, attention to detail, trust and professionalism kick in.......everything you want from the people who run the operation. We do not appear to be "tight" in the way that we operate.........to the untrained eye you could be forgiven for thinking everything is done on the hoof.

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

I still don’t think Tins is being groomed to be CEO, I just think it’s yet another example of Jon not being able to think on his feet when given a question that shouldn’t be that difficult to answer.  Especially when it had already been answered in some part in the restructure comms.

If true then this reinforces my point about a mismatch between words and actions. It's the foundation of trust in any relationship - if your words do not match your actions then people will notice and in general won't like it. 

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

For info, Bristol City CEO is only the CEO of a £17m business (pedant alert).  Your point most definitely stands if what Jon said is true though - I just think he gave a terrible answer.

Pedantic point accepted. 

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

If true then this reinforces my point about a mismatch between words and actions. It's the foundation of trust in any relationship - if your words do not match your actions then people will notice and in general won't like it. 

Pedantic point accepted. 

There is nothing in there (from my reading) that suggest Tins is being groomed to be CEO.

[ExiledAjax]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

There is nothing in there (from my reading) that suggest Tins is being groomed to be CEO.

I don't think Tinnion is going to be promoted to full CEO. I'm not accusing the club of ever suggesting that either.

But in the fans forum and Senior Reds meetings recently was there not the suggestion that part of the reason for not replacing Alexander with another CEO was that between Tinnion, Rawcliffe, and Marshall we could cover all of the things that Alexander and Gould previously did? That implies that Tinnion is, in part, covering that role. I've not got direct quotes to hand but I thought that was what came across from JL. 

Again, if he contradicts in live questioning what has previously been put out in written print, then that's poor. Obviously I don't expect him to give the saem verbatim robotic answer every time but if there is not some consistency then questions naturally arise.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I don't think Tinnion is going to be promoted to full CEO. I'm not accusing the club of ever suggesting that either.

But in the fans forum and Senior Reds meetings recently was there not the suggestion that part of the reason for not replacing Alexander with another CEO was that between Tinnion, Rawcliffe, and Marshall we could cover all of the things that Alexander and Gould previously did? That implies that Tinnion is, in part, covering that role. I've not got direct quotes to hand but I thought that was what came across from JL. 

Again, if he contradicts in live questioning what has previously been put out in written print, then that's poor. Obviously I don't expect him to give the saem verbatim robotic answer every time but if there is not some consistency then questions naturally arise.

Yes, I completely agree….that was what was said.

What we don’t know was how pure a CEO role PA was doing.  He might’ve been doing things that a CEO wouldn’t normally do, but needed him to do it for lack of anyone else.

For example - if PA was responsible for holding talks with Agents, and that shifted to Tins, that would make sense wouldn’t it?

 

[Sheltons Army]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

There is nothing in there (from my reading) that suggest Tins is being groomed to be CEO.

It wasn’t or shouldn’t have been difficult to articulate (By JL) Dave 

But my understanding is in simple terms they’ve split a CEOs responsibilities between various people - Is that fair ?

Tinnion is basically heading and overseeing the recruitment , academy , and providing football opinions , he won’t be sat long hours into the night,  doing the books or negotiating commercial deals etc etc

In some ways it seems a pretty sound mix of skill sets (Dependant on how good those individuals are in their areas of course)

From the outside I would say it appears Tinnions power and status has grown rapidly as he is the single voice , above LM and staff that has any football pedigree

His ongoing , football calls , and opinions appear to be a very significant part in the Clubs success , or otherwise in the coming months , years , as it stands.

 

* FWIW I’m not convinced that LM will be a shrinking violet (Internally) and is clearly focused and driven , and pretty sure he won’t be afraid to have his input (In a business , analytical manner) 

That , If right , is good and important IMHO

[ExiledAjax]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

For example - if PA was responsible for holding talks with Agents, and that shifted to Tins, that would make sense wouldn’t it?

Not sure I would be comfortable with the Technical Director being wholly in charge of negotiating player wages, bonuses etc. I'd hope that someone from the CEO/CFO type side of things was involved. You've also then got the same person identifying talent (a footballing decision), then getting the head coach's stamp of approval (working closely with the coaching team), and then negotiating terms (a corporate/commercial decision). Does someone else negotiate transfer fees with selling clubs or is that Tinnion as well? I am not expecting you to have the answers hear btw, but I think this is CEO/CFO stuff - or at least their department - rather then Technical Director.

11 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

In some ways it seems a pretty sound mix of skill sets (Dependant on how good those individuals are in their areas of course)

See above my answer to Fevs.

My main concern is that if you have the roles and responsibilities traditionally covered by one person/job role spread across three then you bring in the danger of job creep, or of certain jobs not being done, or of people fighting (maybe not openly and directly) over who does what. I am not saying for certain this is happening at City...but we saw an inkling of that kind of culture in the summer where both Alexander and SL seemed to claim credit for the Scott sale.

[Silvio Dante]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Not sure I would be comfortable with the Technical Director being wholly in charge of negotiating player wages, bonuses etc. I'd hope that someone from the CEO/CFO type side of things was involved. You've also then got the same person identifying talent (a footballing decision), then getting the head coach's stamp of approval (working closely with the coaching team), and then negotiating terms (a corporate/commercial decision). Does someone else negotiate transfer fees with selling clubs or is that Tinnion as well? I am not expecting you to have the answers hear btw, but I think this is CEO/CFO stuff - or at least their department - rather then Technical Director.

See above my answer to Fevs.

My main concern is that if you have the roles and responsibilities traditionally covered by one person/job role spread across three then you bring in the danger of job creep, or of certain jobs not being done, or of people fighting (maybe not openly and directly) over who does what. I am not saying for certain this is happening at City...but we saw an inkling of that kind of culture in the summer where both Alexander and SL seemed to claim credit for the Scott sale.

Interestingly enough (and it may be just James Piercy wording) in a post article recently re TGH he stated and as part of his season long loan technical director Brian Tinnion negotiated an option to buy which is believed to be £1.3m

I have noticed JPs articles have given a bit of credit (not flowering up things but it’s noticeable tonally) to Tinnion recently and at times when you wouldn’t expect so this may be an example of that as opposed to knowing that Tinnion did the negotiations but if true it suggests his role is blurring into financial 

[BCFC Rich]

This is what Pearson said about BT stepping into the role -

Quote

We’re delighted for him obviously, 

It needs real collaboration and we’ve got that. It’s a reward for Brian, it’s a smart appointment by the club. What it does is it gives Brian the ability to operate in an official capacity in what he is already doing and that is working very closely with the first-team operation but also overseeing the academy and the recruitment. 

He will be important for us recruitment-wise in the first-team environment as well

NP is the one person recently involved with the club whose football opinion I would really trust. He is also the one person I would expect to be honest about his feelings on something like this or abstain from commenting. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, Numero Uno said:

Good player, that's for sure.

Wonder how much he would cost..

I don't see Plymouth considering selling this Janaury unless they get stupid money- already lost the manager and a key creator. Would be an excellent addition though.

[KingHillRed]

4 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Ultimately you’ll never know so you have to look at logic.

Tinnion was the most senior “football” man in the organisation. For Jon Lansdown not to have consulted him would have been odd in the extreme bearing that in mind.

However, it is nonetheless plausible that Tinnion was consulted but Lansdown didn’t agree with him on the biggest footballing decision at the club.

But - using logic - if that were the case, and Tinnion didn’t agree with the board strategy, why would the board then expand Tinnions role to make him more important in delivering that strategy. That wouldn’t happen in any organisation as it would naturally lead to conflict, which was one of the issues with NP. That point is further relevant as Tinnion appears to be under qualified for the “growing into CEO” position and no business would appoint someone who both didn’t agree with the strategy and didn’t have experience of delivering the new role!

So your answer which passes logic is that even though the final say was with Jon Lansdown, Brian Tinnion had to support the decisions to justify his expanded role. Any other reading is blinkered in wanting to support Tinnion.

I don't disagree with you - like you say, lots of unknowns

I think what you are talking about is perhaps a moral dilemma for Tins

If Jon comes to Tins and says, look we're thinking about letting Nige go, we want you to step up (blow smoke up his arse) - what do we expect Tins to do?  Morally I understand the point that Tins should have said woah hang on I don't agree with this, but the choice may have been between Nige's job or his own - I think to include Tins in the blame is a bit short sighted personally but I get the moral angle

Tins, you would think, is not indispensable himself so perhaps it is just the structure that he fits into (at the moment)

[KingHillRed]

2 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Just an open question to people supporting Tinnion.

If he resigned would you take Louis Carey (played more games, coached youth extensively, failed as assistant at FGR) as his replacement.

Thought not.

I get the point you make but it isn't like for like

Tins has worked his nuts off for the club, grafted with the academy and has been promoted (rightly or wrongly) to a level which the club feels he deserves - that is the key point

For Tins to get blamed for that is wrong, that is the clubs fault

I personally think he deserves a bit more respect and some clubs would kill for someone as dedicated to their club as Tins has been for us

 

[CityReds]

10 minutes ago, KingHillRed said:

I get the point you make but it isn't like for like

Tins has worked his nuts off for the club, grafted with the academy and has been promoted (rightly or wrongly) to a level which the club feels he deserves - that is the key point

For Tins to get blamed for that is wrong, that is the clubs fault

I personally think he deserves a bit more respect and some clubs would kill for someone as dedicated to their club as Tins has been for us

 

Perhaps, but direct messaging fans on social media regarding a deal is not how you conduct yourself as someone in a position as senior as that. You brief the media and share your message that way. Sometimes people want to be in senior positions but can’t relinquish nor set up the barriers to those ‘at the coal face’ and actually find themselves moving back down.

Communication from the club has been abysmal at all times this season, that doesn’t mean that in an attempt to improve this I want our senior leadership sharing this type of information privately on social media.

[Cowshed]

19 hours ago, Lrrr said:

You're acting like SGS has always been generous towards City, Hockaday certainly did little to help City including inviting a friend of his who was head of academy at a Cat 1 side to come watch a player City had agreed to offer a deal to. SGS made a tidy sum off City for doing very little on the basis they couldn't really go anywhere else. 

It is quite right that David Hockaday invites clubs to watch SGS players, in the same manner that Ash Morgan invites clubs to see players at Merchants Academy, finding playing opportunities is part of the programme. These player pathway programmes to professional football are not the hegemony of BCFC.