Steve L

[Guest The Codfather 0312]

After reading all the answers to the questions that he answered today(Thanks to Steve for doing so) (I'm going to get stick for this) But I feel it is time steve moved on, Yes he has got money which is helpfull but there are others out there with money, people that will respect the fans.

I read his answers and it just gave me a weird feeling, A feeling like we are not respected by the club, A feeling of dissapointment.

I don't know how the club can expect to move forward if they are not securing there best assets the fans.

[robins72]

Well things cant get much lower at the moment can they? The team arent performing some fans are turning on their own and we have to get in loan signings before Friday to strengthen the squad. If we were in the top half of the table do you think people would be slating Steve L then?

[LSN]

If we were in the top half of the table do you think people would be slating Steve L then?

it hasn't just happened over night ya know, of course fans would. I would.

[Guest The Codfather 0312]

Well things cant get much lower at the moment can they? The team arent performing some fans are turning on their own and we have to get in loan signings before Friday to strengthen the squad. If we were in the top half of the table do you think people would be slating Steve L then?

Yes I believe the fans would still slate Steve L even if we were running away with the league. My feelings have nothing to do with the current league position, It's to do with the way the board are treating the fans.

[Guest North Street]

Well things cant get much lower at the moment can they? The team arent performing some fans are turning on their own and we have to get in loan signings before Friday to strengthen the squad. If we were in the top half of the table do you think people would be slating Steve L then?

Yes BCFC no longer really respects it's supporters. My concerns have nothing to do with the football!

[Guest The Codfather 0312]

Yes BCFC no longer really respects it's supporters. My concerns have nothing to do with the football!

Thats the exact as what I think. I can't believe the way that they are treating us. Yes they have done some good things in the past which Steve pointed out earlier but they have done far more worse things.

[RedTop]

I'm sorry, but if I were chairman (and at my last calculation you'll be relieved to learn I was several million short) I would be losing my patience at some of the complaints.

This club has had to take some hard decisions. Of course it's right that the chairman stands up and takes responsibility for that, but those decisions have still had to be taken and on some of them SteveL is in a no-win position.

The decision I find most unpalatable is the one to shift fans out of their 'traditional' seats in the Williams. As someone who has held the same seats for the best part of 20 years and is sentimentally attached to them (my father used to sit next to me, and since he died my wife and now my daughter occupy the same seat) I appreciate the trauma that this has caused to some. However, I too have to face the fact that times move on and that someday the club will rebuild the Dolman and my seat will go. I will find a new one, get used to new familiar faces and start a new tradition. It will be a sad day, but it will happen because I accept this is in the club's wider best interests. In the meantime, like it or not this club needs to maximise the revenue if we are to survive and thrive. That means the club having to charge a premium on the premium seats. Remember, we are competing against teams who are doing all sorts of things to maximuse revenue. To compete as well as we can, we need to maximise all income streams. Sadly that means that sometimes fans have to make sacrifices such as their usual seats, which after all there is no guarantee of year after year. When we buy a season ticket, it guarantees us that seat for that year only. For those concerned about the view rather than your traditional 'spot', I can tell you that the view from the Dolman is much better, unimpeded, and there's the Red and White Bar too. Bottom line is that the directors have a financial responsibility to bring as much money into the club as possible, and given the amount of money that they have to pump in it is not unreasonable for them to be looking to find as much as possible from other sources. And it seems to me the club has bent over backwards to offer those in the crucial seats various options. They seem to be doing their best to reconcile the club's needs with the fans' concerns.

The East End decision is far simpler. The cost outweighs the benefit. Simple as that. The idea that if we opened it up the fans would start singing and the team would start winning is bunkum. What will happen is that the club will incur much higher stewarding and policing costs (due in part to the fact some misbehaved last time it was opened), and when we are drawing far smaller crowds that cannot be justified. It's a myth that the team always win when it's opened. They don't. To hear some of the whingers on here complaining that their voices haven't been heard over this is pitiful. The club took notice last year, opened it up and then ended up having to pay loads more and suffer misbehaviour. The fans' voices were heard. But that doesn't mean they are always right. Sometimes, the best interests of the fans and the club as a whole do not coincide, and this is one of those occasions.

There are some unfortunate things. The quality of shirts this season is poor. Ultimately, ColinS must take responsibility for that, and I'm sure next year TFG will suffer the consequences of providing shoddy goods. That's not an adequate answer for those who shelled out, but I do agree with him that up until this season the quality has been fine. Someone told me that the material we were shown in the sample didn't match what the shirts were actually made of when they delivered, because the manufacture was farmed out to another factory. If that's the case I think the club should sue the manufacturer or refuse to pay the bill in full. Perhaps, if that's the case, a small refund could then be passed on to anyone who can produce a 2005/6 home shirt as a gesture of goodwill.

It's also unfortunate that the stand didn't go ahead. But those who gave their money for bricks were not duped. There are all sorts of options, including money back, so no-one has been short-changed. If the board were scared of failure, they'd never try to take the club forward with such ambitious plans in the first place. But we shouldn't be put off trying by the fear that it might not work out. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. And what have we lost? Nothing. Planning permission is there and we can go ahead if/when the funding is in place. What would have been irresponsible and jeopardised our future would have been to have proceeded without the funding being secured, just to save face.

And this idea that the club doesn't listen to us is just laughable and juvenile. I don't rate the Fans Consultative Forum, personally. It just seems a PR gimmick to me, given its record. But even putting that aside, the club is more accessible now than it has ever been, much of it down to technology but plenty down to sheer effort by SteveL. I've been a City fan 25-plus years, and I've never been able to communicate personally and directly with the senior officials and chairman as I can do now via the web. I've never seen the club make more effort to interact with the fans, whether it be the chairman managing the fans' team, providing players to run tghe lines and allowing them to play at Ashton Gate, getting involved with the Supporters' Trust, answering questions directly and publicly via the website, holding open forums before the start of games in the Red & White Bar (and making sure the manager and senior officials are on hard to be answerable), going onto Radio Bristol phone-ins, drinking in the Supporters Club or even seeing him out and about around the ground, where he seems happy to talk to any fans who approach him. The club has responded to us as supporters in various ways, whether it's offering the money back against the Swansea debacle, opening the East End in the past in response to fans' pleas or changing the badge back (quite rightly as the new one was a mess).

As for what's going on on the pitch, here I can see little to justify criticising the board. No-one can accuse them of lacking ambition in terms of the money put into the team. As far as I'm aware, whenever the manager - whether it be Tinman or GJ - has asked for funds to finance a new player or loan signing, it has been given even when the ougoing has been considerable. Yes, there can be justified criticism over the appointment of Tinnion. I thought it was a fair appointment, but with hindsight it's hard to argue that it was the correct one because the results as a whole do not back it up. However, without the benefit of hindsight I don't think it was an inept appointment albeit not the only alternative. The appointment of GJ was, by common consent, the one the fans wanted and were pretty much all delighted with. It was the best appointment possible, most of us recgnise, and was done even though it meant paying out a fee. Anyone levelling a 'cheap option' accusation over BT could not do the same this time round. The board have forked out for players like Stewart and Bridges, both of whom we were excited about and neither of whom have performed to the level expected.

Indeed the board have consistently funded the provision of players - either by the Academy or old-fashioned signings - that SHOULD have been good enough to get us out of this division at the right end. That, after all, is the single most important part of their job at this club. The fact that the players have fallen so far short can be laid at their door, at the door of the manager and his staff, but in my opinion we could ask no more of our directors (other than that they give GJ the necessary loot to bring in the players he needs to turn things around in January).

Watching the last few matches has made one thing painfully clear. The players we have simply aren't good enough. Yes, they've forgotten how to win. Yes, confidence is low. But we are still, at the very least, one bloody good centre-back, one tough-tackling midfielder and one speedy attacker away from having a play-off team. But my point is this. Apart from the appointment of Tinman (and it's fair to point out that the players we are now lacking are of exactly the type we lost in DC and TD, though I'm afraid I don;t pine for players who constantly took the p*** out of us all with their off-the-field antics) what else could the board have done? Over the summer, most of us were confident we had a great squad capable of automatic promotion. When it was clear that was not the case, they acted decisively to get rid of the manager, then bought in the best replacement. Their hands are tied by this ridiculous transfer window, but they have done what can be expected in the meantime as regards loan signings.

Yet SteveL is still suffering some pretty swingeing attacks. Sure, he can expect it as the chairman of a club that's massively underachieving. If he couldn't take it he wouldn't have taken on the job, I'm sure. And he can expect plenty more, justfied or otherwise, if things don't improve soon. But I ask you this, and I would be interested to read constructive replies provided they don't contain moaning about the East End or about fans in G Block being asked to behave:

What the hell else can SteveL reasonably be expected to do?

I'd love to know because I am at a loss.

[Guest JonSingleton]

Many good points raised but in answer to your question I'd ask Steve to take a long hard look at the footballing side of the club and ask himself do we have sufficient quality in the coaching personnel?

Other than Johnson we literally don't have anyone who has achieved anything at any level as a professional coach. Is it any wonder regardless of constant changes in the playing personel things are as bad as they are?

Lets hope Johnson has pointed this out and we can stop talking solely about new players coming and pay some attention to those people charged with coaching them.

[Thornbury Red]

But I feel it is time steve moved on, Yes he has got money which is helpfull but there are others out there with money, people that will respect the fans.

Apart from that I thank you for your hard work and continued support.

Dan

I'm sorry but these two statements contradict each other. How can you expect to be taken seriously on here?

[Guest The Codfather 0312]

Thats a good post and I understand what you mean, But all us fans want is to be listened to. We want are traditional home end back and the club wont let us, What sort of ship is Steve L sailing? Can you imagine the outcry all over the world there would be if Liverpool took the Kop of the home fans and gave it to away fans and refused to give it back to the home fans?

[Guest Hovis]

Fellow supporters

I have read the comments to, and the answers from Steve Lansdown and wonder if we (including me) are being fair to him?

Steve Lansdown has been doing his best to push the club forward, I don't think that he is really intouch with the grass route supporters, but lets face it he employs Colin Sexton for this, now perhaps Colin who advises the club on Commmercial matters is the problem.

The Director is in charge, but Colin Sexton was employed as the Commercial manager, yes by the board, but he does run the commercial department and therefore it is him who does not care about the Supporters.

As far as I can see Colin Sexton only thinks of the Commercial aspect, I note with interesrt that this is not that good, as the Platinum seating is usually only half full. Colin has big ideas to bring in corporate sponsors, great if we were flying high, no problem, we could redevelope the ground, no one would be moaning as much, and we may even win a cup game. However how many businesses are there, who would punish their clients, and make them watch the performances that this team are currently giving.

Perhaps the Board should look closer at their advisers, take stock and then start putting the base business first, Football, fan base and hopefully moving the team forward. When they start achieving this then they can redevelope.

in the past four years we have gone from Play-offs, Playoff final, (should have taken a team to Cardiff that year), one off the playoffs and now a relegation spot nearly half way through the season. Still Colin may empty the stadium then we could use it for more profitable things, (that football must hinder your promotions company Colin.

I have a lot of time for Steve Lansdown, he is as far as I can see as disgruntled as the rest of us, but I believe he has the club at heart and should not be criticiesd for trying his best.

[Thornbury Red]

Look i know what youre saying but the East End was lost years ago when they put seats in. Its not going to reopen - get over it.

If you want to slate Steve L then do it - thats what forums are for - different opinions and all that - but don't slate him on one thread and praise him on another!

People see that and think "he doesnt know what hes talking about!" and it doesnt do your reputation as a poster any good so consequently when you have a valid point to make people don't listen - they just think "hes that guy that doesnt know what hes talking about".

[Guest The Codfather 0312]

I'm sorry but these two statements contradict each other. How can you expect to be taken seriously on here?

Yes I want him to move on and in the mean time I thank him for his hard work he is doing in the meantime.

C'mon you know how horrible it is in Thornbury today so bare with me.

[Thornbury Red]

Yes I want him to move on and in the mean time I thank him for his hard work he is doing in the meantime.

C'mon you know how horrible it is in Thornbury today so bare with me.

Problem is - I work in Trowbridge!

[Sir Colby-Tit]

What the hell else can SteveL reasonably be expected to do?

I'd love to know because I am at a loss.

Well for a start he could refund the premium I paid this season for my seat in C Block of the Dullmoan, or at least give me reason why not, rather than fobbing me off

[Guest The Codfather 0312]

Problem is - I work in Trowbridge!

Stay there, It has got to better than this place.

Well for a start he could refund the premium I paid this season for my seat in C Block of the Dullmoan, or at least give me reason why not, rather than fobbing me off

After reading all his posts to day I come to the conclusion that he got out of the wrong side of bed this morning, Or his car wouldn't start due to the cold weather.

[gazareth]

I thought Mr Lansdown's comments were well written and answered the original poster's concerns excellently.

I have no problems with the board's financial decisions, and I fully support anything they do that has the best interest of this football club at heart.

The jury is still out on their decisions regarding footballing matters however...

[Guest WillsbridgeRed]

For me, the handling of Murray, Lita and Rosenior are prime example of the confused and wasteful handling of this club.

We won't pay Murray what he wants, while he's at the top of his game, only to re-sign him on a contract surely near his original terms.

Carey, we wont offer a contract which he feels he is due, refuse to let him train and then resign him 6 months later.

Rosenior - Was there any comeback over an event that cost this club hundreds of thousands? No I doubt it.

Lita - We sale him, messing up Tinnions pre-season plans, and then say the money will be spent on debt and we have to sell him.

A few months later, and the money that was supposed to cover debt is blown in bringing in Johnson.

Contradictions all over the place, it is just not good enough. Either run a tight ship, or take a gamble, not try and do both.

We've been on the brink of the championship, to this present mess, and I believe those are the main factors.

Closing the East End and the present Williams situation are both issues where I feel the club are in the right.

However the buzz has left Bristol City, and the running of the football club is the reason.

[RedTop]

Many good points raised but in answer to your question I'd ask Steve to take a long hard look at the footballing side of the club and ask himself do we have sufficient quality in the coaching personnel?

Other than Johnson we literally don't have anyone who has achieved anything at any level as a professional coach. Lets hope Johnson has pointed this out and we can stop talking solely about new players coming and pay some attention to those people charged with coaching them.

Yes, that's an excellent point and I agree. I think the coaching staff are the only ones who have escaped scrutiny in all this. However, as 'laymen' the board must act on the advice of those professionally employed for their expertise. If GJ says the coaching staff aren't up to the job and wants new faces brought in then that is what must happen. But if he says he rates Millen (they obviously know each other well from way back at Watford) then what should the board do? They can't/shouldn't over-rule the manager on that and risk alienating him. They have to show their confidence in his ability by backing his opinion on this.

All us fans want is to be listened to. We want are traditional home end back and the club wont let us, What sort of ship is Steve L sailing? Can you imagine the outcry all over the world there would be if Liverpool took the Kop of the home fans and gave it to away fans and refused to give it back to the home fans?

I'm sorry, this is pathetic, juvenile 'I want my dolly back' whinging of the finest order backed by nothing in the way of supporting evidence that such a move would be beneficial. You don't want to be listened to. You want to have your own way even if it is unreasonable and counter-productive for the club. Let's face it. This is not Liverpool trying to 'take' the Kop from the home fans and 'refusing to give it back'. This is a much smaller, loss-making club being asked to lose even more money that it can't afford in order to open an end for a few fans in the face of all reason and in the face of police concerns.

And it is complete b***ocks to suggest the fans are not listened to. I've spelled out many of the ways above that the club listens to fans. The fact that they are not giving in to your childish moaning on the East End does not mean they are not listening. It just means they don't agree with you on this one. Neither do I.

[Guest ashtonyate]

For me, the handling of Murray, Lita and Rosenior are prime example of the confused and wasteful handling of this club.

We won't pay Murray what he wants, while he's at the top of his game, only to re-sign him on a contract surely near his original terms.

Carey, we wont offer a contract which he feels he is due, refuse to let him train and then resign him 6 months later.

Rosenior - Was there any comeback over an event that cost this club hundreds of thousands? No I doubt it.

Lita - We sale him, messing up Tinnions pre-season plans, and then say the money will be spent on debt and we have to sell him.

A few months later, and the money that was supposed to cover debt is blown in bringing in Johnson.

Contradictions all over the place, it is just not good enough. Either run a tight ship, or take a gamble, not try and do both.

We've been on the brink of the championship, to this present mess, and I believe those are the main factors.

Closing the East End and the present Williams situation are both issues where I feel the club are in the right.

However the buzz has left Bristol City, and the running of the football club is the reason.

Adding to that letting Butler go with out a replacement last season cost us promotion

The season before not having any money to sign a foward which we needed to gain promotion then buying back Murray who could not hack it in the division we were trying to get promotion too.

I have got a lot of time for people who sit on the board but they must take most of the blame for where we are now.

[Brianred]

Yes, that's an excellent point and I agree. I think the coaching staff are the only ones who have escaped scrutiny in all this. However, as 'laymen' the board must act on the advice of those professionally employed for their expertise. If GJ says the coaching staff aren't up to the job and wants new faces brought in then that is what must happen. But if he says he rates Millen (they obviously know each other well from way back at Watford) then what should the board do? They can't/shouldn't over-rule the manager on that and risk alienating him. They have to show their confidence in his ability by backing his opinion on this.

I'm sorry, this is pathetic, juvenile 'I want my dolly back' whinging of the finest order backed by nothing in the way of supporting evidence that such a move would be beneficial. You don't want to be listened to. You want to have your own way even if it is unreasonable and counter-productive for the club. Let's face it. This is not Liverpool trying to 'take' the Kop from the home fans and 'refusing to give it back'. This is a much smaller, loss-making club being asked to lose even more money that it can't afford in order to open an end for a few fans in the face of all reason and in the face of police concerns.

And it is complete b***ocks to suggest the fans are not listened to. I've spelled out many of the ways above that the club listens to fans. The fact that they are not giving in to your childish moaning on the East End does not mean they are not listening. It just means they don't agree with you on this one. Neither do I.

How can you say no supporting evidence? when the fans who are asking to improve the atmosphere are not given a fu##i## chance! It's ######s like you that shout your mouth off behind a screen, saying" i don't want that end open" when it's got nothing to do with you in the first place!

[gazareth]

How can you say no supporting evidence? when the fans who are asking to improve the atmosphere are not given a fu##i## chance! It's ######s like you that shout your mouth off behind a screen, saying" i don't want that end open" when it's got nothing to do with you in the first place!

There is no supporting evidence. Was the East End not open when we got relegated 3 seasons in a row in the 70s and 80s?

I also recall that the East End was open for 2 rather important home games in the 03/04 season. We drew 0-0 with Brighton and lost 2-0 to Oldham, 2 results that eventually proved vital in the automatic promotion race.

No matter what you say, better atmosphere does not necessarily equal better results.

[Brianred]

There is no supporting evidence. Was the East End not open when we got relegated 3 seasons in a row in the 70s and 80s?

I also recall that the East End was open for 2 rather important home games in the 03/04 season. We drew 0-0 with Brighton and lost 2-0 to Oldham, 2 results that eventually proved vital in the automatic promotion race.

No matter what you say, better atmosphere does not necessarily equal better results.

Ageed, but when you got some egghead slagging off supporters who want to find some way of helping the team, they,get shouted down by some bloke sat in the Dolman, Whats it got to with him in first place?

[Guest The Codfather 0312]

There is no supporting evidence. Was the East End not open when we got relegated 3 seasons in a row in the 70s and 80s?

I also recall that the East End was open for 2 rather important home games in the 03/04 season. We drew 0-0 with Brighton and lost 2-0 to Oldham, 2 results that eventually proved vital in the automatic promotion race.

No matter what you say, better atmosphere does not necessarily equal better results.

No it may not spur the players on, but it will give us singing fans the chance to have a place where we can all sing together without people telling us to be quiet and looked upon like a piece of dirt which happens so often when one person stands up and tries to get a song going.

The people that don't want the East end open is theones that want to sit in silence, Fine if you want silence go to a libary you will find plenty of it there. It's a football stadium, Not a bloody park, If you don't like it don't go to the games.

Also I remember being in the east End for those two games and the atmosphere for the Brighton game in there was electric, We may have drawed but we still walked out of the East End after the game singing like we did nearly everytime we were in there. Don't remember that happening i the other stands for a long while.

[Gilli74]

After reading all the answers to the questions that he answered today(Thanks to Steve for doing so) (I'm going to get stick for this) But I feel it is time steve moved on, Yes he has got money which is helpfull but there are others out there with money, people that will respect the fans.

I read his answers and it just gave me a weird feeling, A feeling like we are not respected by the club, A feeling of dissapointment.

I don't know how the club can expect to move forward if they are not securing there best assets the fans.

its not quite as easy as saying its time steve moved on..... its like he always said you find the financial backing to replace him and he will untill then i don't believe we have an option... with out steve lansdown financially backing city... there is no city... unless you can financially take over the debt? i cant see people queing to take it over....

However... as i see it, i do believe this season, that the money being spent on the re-developments around the ground could be better spent strengthening the team.... i for one would rather sit on the wooden seats in the dolman stand for another season if the cost of the plastic seats would buy a solid central midfielder....

after all it is a football club.... and without the football, there is no stadium or club..... and the way things are going we are going to have a bloody fantastic stadium for div2.... but right now i'd rather have just a good stadium in div1.....

so i think the clubs NO1 priority should be getting the basics right.... the football... after all isnt that what its all about....

[gazareth]

No one is arguing against having a good atmosphere. The point is that that atmosphere comes at a cost.

That cost outweighs the benefits.

You have to look at it like this:

If we open the East End to home fans, we get a better atmosphere. What benefit does this have?

-the players play better? Not necessarily.

-the fans enjoy themselves more. OK, fine, but why can't they create that atmosphere somewhere else in the ground? Block G of the Dolman does a good job and they're not in the East End.

If we open the East End, the police insist on having a presence there, and this costs us money.

We don't have a lot of money.

We are losing over a million pounds every year, and need to cut costs in every way possible.

The only sensible financial decision is to keep the East End closed for home fans.

[Guest The Codfather 0312]

No one is arguing against having a good atmosphere. The point is that that atmosphere comes at a cost.

That cost outweighs the benefits.

You have to look at it like this:

If we open the East End to home fans, we get a better atmosphere. What benefit does this have?

-the players play better? Not necessarily.

-the fans enjoy themselves more. OK, fine, but why can't they create that atmosphere somewhere else in the ground? Block G of the Dolman does a good job and they're not in the East End.

If we open the East End, the police insist on having a presence there, and this costs us money.

We don't have a lot of money.

We are losing over a million pounds every year, and need to cut costs in every way possible.

The only sensible financial decision is to keep the East End closed for home fans.

The reason why we can't create a atmosphere in another part of the ground is because all the singers are spread out all over the ground, there for we find it hard to get a atmosphere going due to the dodgy looks and calls to shut up from people.

[RedTop]

I think the above post hits the main points squarely on the head.

The East End and Williams stand issues are distractions from the real problems, and I agree that the points raised above largely contributes to the current problems.

Tinnion had probably gone as far as he could after the 1-7 drubbing, and changes needed to be made.

But I would have liked to have seen someone brought in alongside Tinnion - he was offered the post (and he'd have been a prat to refuse) and he needed support and he didn't get it.

By now, we should have had a management team in place to take the club forward - including Tinnion. The board should have toughed it out and sent out a message to the players that Tinnion was here to stay.

But is was done on the cheap - RichieB and others were vociferous in that opinion and they were right and I was wrong.

But having made that decision, for christs sake stick with it, amend it, and see it through.

But all that is history.

And now we see history repeating itself with knobs on.

Johnson is on his own and he can't cope. He aint the messiah the board hoped he would be and he is getting no support.

Sorry, but this club is in freefall - and I have to reluctantly agree that it is the fault of those at the top.

We desparately need a figurehead.

Someone who can see through all the smoke and mirrors and provide some guidance from a "clean" perspective.

I'm not saying SL should stand down - far from it, he has done everything he can and we should all be grateful for that. But he is trying to do too much and he should now be looking at bringing in someone to delegate some of his work and take on some of GJ's.

Who is there ? No idea. But there must be a few out there who would relish the challenge.

I am not arguing the board has not made mistakes. As I stated, with hindsight the appointment of Tinman (which I supported) cannot be argued to be anything other than a failure because managers must be judged by results, and his were not up to scratch given the support he had been given by the board in getting rid of key players for their attitude, and paying top whack salaries to bring in Stewart and Bridges.

I disagree that the board should have toughed it out. The clamour for heads to roll among the fans would have been intolerable and created a distraction that could only have made things worse. Tinman had to go.

I also disagree that GJ is on his own. Unlike BT, he is an experienced manager who should be able to shoulder a greater burden and command the respect of the players without that whole thing of going from teammate to boss. If GJ wants a new number two or his own support staff, I'm sure the board would be amenable to it. So far I'm not aware he's raised the issue, and if he doesn't then the board have to let him get on with operating the way he wants. After all, he'll be judged by the results like all his predecessors.

But the point which is most interesting and constructive is your suggestion that maybe SteveL should be bringing in someone to delegate more of his work to and to take on some of the (presumably admin) burden of GJ. I assume that this falls into the role of Colin Sexstone, given that we do not have an executive chairman. If SteveL feels he's not getting enough support in that sense, or that the decisions being made on his behalf are poor, he has the power to do something about it and find a new chief exec.

But the bottom line is that you cannot delegate the sort of decision-making that determines the destiny of the club. That has to be down to the board and the board alone. They have made some wrong decisions in the past, no question. The Rosenior debacle was a disgrace and I only hope someone somewhere paid heavily for it. We can argue about other decisions like Carey and Murray, but at the time most were happy to see Murray back in particular. But what matters now is the decisions being made for our future, not the ones that are history. You can argue that bringing in GJ was a U-turn because it used up money the directors had previously said would go on reducing debt, but I see it as investing in the best person for the job. Now it's up to GJ to repay that faith. So far, he's not done it, but it is very early days and he's yet to have the chance to make changes in personnel. Personally I don't rate the people he's brought in on loan, Quinn apart, but he has proven himself to be a success and I think the board have to back him to the hilt.

As said above, what matters over everything else is success on the pitch. Everything else is a distraction. My question was whether anyone had any suggestions for what the directors should be doing now to improve things, not what people felt they had done wrong in the past. You come up with at least one interesting suggestion.

[Guest The Codfather 0312]

I am not arguing the board has not made mistakes. As I stated, with hindsight the appointment of Tinman (which I supported) cannot be argued to be anything other than a failure because managers must be judged by results, and his were not up to scratch given the support he had been given by the board in getting rid of key players for their attitude, and paying top whack salaries to bring in Stewart and Bridges.

I disagree that the board should have toughed it out. The clamour for heads to roll among the fans would have been intolerable and created a distraction that could only have made things worse. Tinman had to go.

I also disagree that GJ is on his own. Unlike BT, he is an experienced manager who should be able to shoulder a greater burden and command the respect of the players without that whole thing of going from teammate to boss. If GJ wants a new number two or his own support staff, I'm sure the board would be amenable to it. So far I'm not aware he's raised the issue, and if he doesn't then the board have to let him get on with operating the way he wants. After all, he'll be judged by the results like all his predecessors.

But the point which is most interesting and constructive is your suggestion that maybe SteveL should be bringing in someone to delegate more of his work to and to take on some of the (presumably admin) burden of GJ. I assume that this falls into the role of Colin Sexstone, given that we do not have an executive chairman. If SteveL feels he's not getting enough support in that sense, or that the decisions being made on his behalf are poor, he has the power to do something about it and find a new chief exec.

But the bottom line is that you cannot delegate the sort of decision-making that determines the destiny of the club. That has to be down to the board and the board alone. They have made some wrong decisions in the past, no question. The Rosenior debacle was a disgrace and I only hope someone somewhere paid heavily for it. We can argue about other decisions like Carey and Murray, but at the time most were happy to see Murray back in particular. But what matters now is the decisions being made for our future, not the ones that are history. You can argue that bringing in GJ was a U-turn because it used up money the directors had previously said would go on reducing debt, but I see it as investing in the best person for the job. Now it's up to GJ to repay that faith. So far, he's not done it, but it is very early days and he's yet to have the chance to make changes in personnel. Personally I don't rate the people he's brought in on loan, Quinn apart, but he has proven himself to be a success and I think the board have to back him to the hilt.

As said above, what matters over everything else is success on the pitch. Everything else is a distraction. My question was whether anyone had any suggestions for what the directors should be doing now to improve things, not what people felt they had done wrong in the past. You come up with at least one interesting suggestion.

Respecting the fans would be a great start.

[RedTop]

How can you say no supporting evidence? when the fans who are asking to improve the atmosphere are not given a fu##i## chance! It's ######s like you that shout your mouth off behind a screen, saying" i don't want that end open" when it's got nothing to do with you in the first place!

I can suggest there's no supporting evidence because I've not seen any and you have yet to provide any. Fans who want to improve the atmosphere can do so by getting behind the team, as we saw on Saturday when a wonderful rendition of City Til I Die echoed around the ground. What made it significant, in my eyes, was that it rang out from every stand, not just one small section. As far as I'm aware, the club are not denying you the chance to improve the atmosphere, merely asking for your behaviour to improve and for you to obey the stadium rules and respect fellow fans around you. There's no law against singing your hearts out and I don't recall the club banning you from it.

You argue it's got nothing to do with me, but you are wrong. We all put money into the club, and we all have an interest in its future. If you are demanding that the club blows more money opening an end just to pander to your whim even when you now concede that "it may not spur the players on", then it's only right that the issue should be debated by all, not just those of you who want to go in your own end. After all, this is a forum remember, so if you didn't want your views exposed to scrutiny you shouldn't have posted them.

And I'm not hiding behind a screen, incidentally. I'm quite happy to say it all to your face if you want to come over to Block E, Row M, Seat 6. Or you could come up to me in the away end at Doncaster on Saturday. I take it you'll be going, given your determination to get behind the team at all costs?

[tompo]

No it may not spur the players on, but it will give us singing fans the chance to have a place where we can all sing together without people telling us to be quiet and looked upon like a piece of dirt which happens so often when one person stands up and tries to get a song going.

I think you've just hit your own nail firmly on the head. It is because people will continue to stand that it not cost effective to open the East End.

I would rather the club spent money trying to improve things on the pitch.

[Guest The Codfather 0312]

I think you've just hit your own nail firmly on the head. It is because people will continue to stand that it not cost effective to open the East End.

I would rather the club spent money trying to improve things on the pitch.

Well thats what someone does when the try to get a song going on there own, Not my fault can't change it.

And standing has nothing to do with the refusel to open the east end.

[redmeanie]

I'm sorry, but if I were chairman (and at my last calculation you'll be relieved to learn I was several million short) I would be losing my patience at some of the complaints......

....don't contain moaning about the East End or about fans in G Block being asked to behave:

What the hell else can SteveL reasonably be expected to do?

I'd love to know because I am at a loss.

Spot on. Please be sure to copy and paste your post onto a letter addressed to the man before he decides he doesn't need this

[tompo]

Well thats what someone does when the try to get a song going on there own, Not my fault can't change it.

And standing has nothing to do with the refusel to open the east end.

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what the real reason is?

[Brianred]

I can suggest there's no supporting evidence because I've not seen any and you have yet to provide any. Fans who want to improve the atmosphere can do so by getting behind the team, as we saw on Saturday when a wonderful rendition of City Til I Die echoed around the ground. What made it significant, in my eyes, was that it rang out from every stand, not just one small section. As far as I'm aware, the club are not denying you the chance to improve the atmosphere, merely asking for your behaviour to improve and for you to obey the stadium rules and respect fellow fans around you. There's no law against singing your hearts out and I don't recall the club banning you from it.

You argue it's got nothing to do with me, but you are wrong. We all put money into the club, and we all have an interest in its future. If you are demanding that the club blows more money opening an end just to pander to your whim even when you now concede that "it may not spur the players on", then it's only right that the issue should be debated by all, not just those of you who want to go in your own end. After all, this is a forum remember, so if you didn't want your views exposed to scrutiny you shouldn't have posted them.

And I'm not hiding behind a screen, incidentally. I'm quite happy to say it all to your face if you want to come over to Block E, Row M, Seat 6. Or you could come up to me in the away end at Doncaster on Saturday. I take it you'll be going, given your determination to get behind the team at all costs?

By all means, i would be interested in to listening to why you rubbished fellow city supporters and your reasons your tarring me with the same brush about my behaviour and to obey the stadium rules. Perhaps seeing you don't know me yet, you can tell me more about myself. As for that good rendition of City Til I Die, fans even stated that the players played better? The game lasts for 90 minutes.

[Guest WillsbridgeRed]

The indirect reason the East End is shut is because of fan behaviour

The direct reason the East End is shut is because of the police costs, caused by the fan behaviour.

Enough chances were given, and for a time the fans "policed" the end and stopped the persistant standing problems, this didn't last.

As it is City fans only have themselves to blame of the whole thing, although one has to question the wisdom of opening the End on a friday night where drunken young chavs were freely admitted, who clearly had no real interest in watching the game.

[Sir Colby-Tit]

RedTop - I see you chose not to address the issue I made about the premium ST holders paid for their seats in blocks C, D & E of the Dolman. This was on the basis of a reduced capacity due the development of the East End, which is not now happening.

I asked Steve to either refund the premium or at the very least give me the reason if no refund is to be made.

The answer I got "no refund will be given"

The board have to take a more open & honest approach with the fans.

I've been mugged. Simple as that.

[RedTop]

RedTop - I see you chose not to address the issue I made about the premium ST holders paid for their seats in blocks C, D & E of the Dolman. This was on the basis of a reduced capacity due the development of the East End, which is not now happening.

I asked Steve to either refund the premium or at the very least give me the reason if no refund is to be made.

The answer I got "no refund will be given"

The board have to take a more open & honest approach with the fans.

I've been mugged. Simple as that.

My apologies for not addressing it! You are right that the club justified the premium on the basis that there would be a reduced capacity. However, my understanding was that the added rise compared to other blocks was to better reflect the conditions in each of the blocks. The club felt (not illogically) that the better seats should attract a premium as, apparently, they do at other clubs and as they do in the Williams Stand. I sit in E Block, so I also pay the higher rate.

It is logical. After all, prices around the ground differ on the basis of the view, amenities etc. This merely extends that policy.

The club was wrong to justify it the way that it did, however, because now that the stand is not being built some fans such as yourself feel cheated. The club should have justified it simply by saying "The seats command a better view than those blocks on the end of the stand and should therefore attract a higher price". That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Could you enlighten me on something, because I can't remember...Did the club suggest anywhere that the price would go down again once the stand was built, thus demonstrating that part of the hike was indeed due to the stand, rather than just a back-up argument to the main principle of? If so, then I think a portion of the rise (though not all of it) should be refunded to those of you who feel duped.

Personally, I don't think there was any intent, but if the club said it was temporarily putting up prices during the construction work, then yes, I think that it is fair that those who want a refund should get something.

[Guest The Codfather 0312]

The indirect reason the East End is shut is because of fan behaviour

The direct reason the East End is shut is because of the police costs, caused by the fan behaviour.

Enough chances were given, and for a time the fans "policed" the end and stopped the persistant standing problems, this didn't last.

As it is City fans only have themselves to blame of the whole thing, although one has to question the wisdom of opening the End on a friday night where drunken young chavs were freely admitted, who clearly had no real interest in watching the game.

Thats what it's all down to, Some young mided sods which there parents have no control over and they ruin it for the 90% of well behaved fans in the East End.

[Gazred]

I wonder if Mr Johnsons remit of assessing the state of the club included a look at the board as well?

On a serious note, when is this report due and will the fans be able to see what is outlined in it?

[Guest WillsbridgeRed]

It's not just youngsters, but they are the main offenders

[Guest The Codfather 0312]

It's not just youngsters, but they are the main offenders

Yes agreed it isn't just theyoung un's, But altogether the offenders are in the under 21/22 bracket.

[RedTop]

Thats what it's all down to, Some young mided sods which there parents have no control over and they ruin it for the 90% of well behaved fans in the East End.

Yep, spot on. This percentage make stewarding and policing costs for opening the end untenable. So if you have a problem with it, blame them not the board.

[Sir Colby-Tit]

My apologies for not addressing it! You are right that the club justified the premium on the basis that there would be a reduced capacity. However, my understanding was that the added rise compared to other blocks was to better reflect the conditions in each of the blocks. The club felt (not illogically) that the better seats should attract a premium as, apparently, they do at other clubs and as they do in the Williams Stand. I sit in E Block, so I also pay the higher rate.

It is logical. After all, prices around the ground differ on the basis of the view, amenities etc. This merely extends that policy.

The club was wrong to justify it the way that it did, however, because now that the stand is not being built some fans such as yourself feel cheated. The club should have justified it simply by saying "The seats command a better view than those blocks on the end of the stand and should therefore attract a higher price". That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Could you enlighten me on something, because I can't remember...Did the club suggest anywhere that the price would go down again once the stand was built, thus demonstrating that part of the hike was indeed due to the stand, rather than just a back-up argument to the main principle of? If so, then I think a portion of the rise (though not all of it) should be refunded to those of you who feel duped.

Personally, I don't think there was any intent, but if the club said it was temporarily putting up prices during the construction work, then yes, I think that it is fair that those who want a refund should get something.

RT..I wasn't having a go, I just felt that if you are going to defend the board you need to counter all the arguments made, not just certain points.

In answer to your question, No I can't remember the club suggesting that the price would go down after the stand was built. The only reason given for the increase was the reduced capacity during redevelopment, and these sections offering a premium view. I think you're right, a partial refund would show good will from the club. Regrettably this isn't going to happen. Thank God I didn't buy a non-existant brick as well!

[RedTop]

By all means, i would be interested in to listening to why you rubbished fellow city supporters and your reasons your tarring me with the same brush about my behaviour and to obey the stadium rules. Perhaps seeing you don't know me yet, you can tell me more about myself. As for that good rendition of City Til I Die, fans even stated that the players played better? The game lasts for 90 minutes.

An interesting complaint about slagging off fellow City fans from someone who brands me an 'egghead' (?!) and then rants : "It's ######s like you that shout your mouth off behind a screen, saying" i don't want that end open" when it's got nothing to do with you in the first place!" One can only imagine what complimentary, non-slagging word the hash marks are covering...

Nevertheless, I am criticising the views of a handful of fellow City supporters because I think they are being unreasonable and over-theatrical in their East End protests, unfairly criticising the board for making an entirely rational decision.

I take it your no-doubt genuine affront at being tarred with the same brush comes from my assertion that "the club are not denying you the chance to improve the atmosphere, merely asking for your behaviour to improve and for you to obey the stadium rules and respect fellow fans around you. There's no law against singing your hearts out and I don't recall the club banning you from it." If you took offence, my apologies. I meant 'your' in a collective sense - as in, the behaviour of some of those among you in that particular block rather than you as an individual. Clearly you are a fine, upstanding member of the community and I'd hate to tarnish your reputation. I'm happy to make that clear!

As for your final sentence, well it doesn't actually make total sense but I'm guessing that what you mean is that the general consensus was that the team played better as a result of the good rendition of City Til I Die. In which case, it merely shows that the crowd can create genuine atmosphere and inspire the team without the additional cost of opening another stand, and therefore contradicts your argument that the East End should be reopened.

[RedTop]

I don't think that fan pressure is a reason to take knee jerk decisions. Sure, we would all have had an opinion - but do you really think that the supporters would have grumbled if someone the stature of Graham Taylor had been brought in ? I know he wasn't interested, but the point is made.

In general, I agree. However, this has to be tempered with realism. When such a clamour for someone's head reaches the heights it would have inevitably done if SteveL had not acted, it becomes a massive distraction and only serves to make things worse. Besides which, after the performances at the start of the season, including the 7-1 drubbing, Tinman deserved to lose his job. Sorry, sounds harsh and great respect for the guy etc, but true. There was no indication that he could turn things round.

GJ is undoubtedly on his own. He has been asked to carry out an audit of the club from top to bottom and also run the football aspects of the club. Far to much on his plate. He needs help - as did Tinnion.

But the point is that in his audit on the running of the club he will be able to make such points and call for a Director of Football or some such, should he agree with you that he has far too much on his plate. I don't know whether he has or not, but if he feels he has then presumably that will be a central part of his audit of the club structure. SteveL has, after all, given him carte blanche to look at the running of the club from top to bottom in order to identify exactly this sort of thing. Provided the board implement his recommendations, then GJ will have exactly the set-up he wants and all the support he believes he needs. That, after all, is one of the reasons for conducting it.

I mentioned Graham Taylor and it is someone of his ilk that this club needs. It doesn't have to be someone of that stature, but it needs to be someone with great experience. As I said, I don't know who, and it will cost - but so will relegation.

Don't disagree with you on that one, other than to make the point that people of that ilk of genuine quality (not to mention affordability) are few and far between, and that it must be GJ's decision of whether he can work with them otherwise we end up in a repeat of the John Ward situation and it's downhill all the way.

I am not convinced that GJ is as competent as his CV implies. I have seen absolutely nothing which makes me think he is any better, or even at the same standard, as Tinnion or Pulis. But, as I said, I think he is being asked to do too much with little support.

I think his CV is more convincing than BT's. I don't think he's being asked to do too much, particularly given the review he has been asked to carry out which should alleviate this. Most people welcomed GJ's appointment and felt he was the right man for the job. results have not been good so far, but let's not rewrite history. He was one of the most popular appointments as manager I can remember.

Scott Davidson fulfilled the role [of executive chairman] a few years ago - not that I'm saying that was a success. But if we had a similar personality but with the remit more focussed, it may be useful.

It wasn't a success in that there was a definite feeling that he was interfering too much. Much of that, I suspect was down to his personality and his inability, as a fan, to keep from meddling, just as we'd all be tempted to do if we got the chance. However, I'm guessing that given SteveL's business commitments it's unlikely he'd have time to be an executive chairman. He does spend a lot of time down the club in the week anyway, but frankly I do wonder if there's enough to do on a day-to-day basis to justify an exec chairman five days a week. If you're saying you'd rather have another chairman who did have time to do it on a day-to-day basis then we face the same old problem - finding someone with a love of the club at heart, enough time and commitment to work full-time at the Gate instead, and the sort of finances and business acumen to buy out the directors and still have money to invest.

[Guest The Codfather 0312]

I don't think that fan pressure is a reason to take knee jerk decisions. Sure, we would all have had an opinion - but do you really think that the supporters would have grumbled if someone the stature of Graham Taylor had been brought in ? I know he wasn't interested, but the point is made.

In general, I agree. However, this has to be tempered with realism. When such a clamour for someone's head reaches the heights it would have inevitably done if SteveL had not acted, it becomes a massive distraction and only serves to make things worse. Besides which, after the performances at the start of the season, including the 7-1 drubbing, Tinman deserved to lose his job. Sorry, sounds harsh and great respect for the guy etc, but true. There was no indication that he could turn things round.

GJ is undoubtedly on his own. He has been asked to carry out an audit of the club from top to bottom and also run the football aspects of the club. Far to much on his plate. He needs help - as did Tinnion.

But the point is that in his audit on the running of the club he will be able to make such points and call for a Director of Football or some such, should he agree with you that he has far too much on his plate. I don't know whether he has or not, but if he feels he has then presumably that will be a central part of his audit of the club structure. SteveL has, after all, given him carte blanche to look at the running of the club from top to bottom in order to identify exactly this sort of thing. Provided the board implement his recommendations, then GJ will have exactly the set-up he wants and all the support he believes he needs. That, after all, is one of the reasons for conducting it.

I mentioned Graham Taylor and it is someone of his ilk that this club needs. It doesn't have to be someone of that stature, but it needs to be someone with great experience. As I said, I don't know who, and it will cost - but so will relegation.

Don't disagree with you on that one, other than to make the point that people of that ilk of genuine quality (not to mention affordability) are few and far between, and that it must be GJ's decision of whether he can work with them otherwise we end up in a repeat of the John Ward situation and it's downhill all the way.

I am not convinced that GJ is as competent as his CV implies. I have seen absolutely nothing which makes me think he is any better, or even at the same standard, as Tinnion or Pulis. But, as I said, I think he is being asked to do too much with little support.

I think his CV is more convincing than BT's. I don't think he's being asked to do too much, particularly given the review he has been asked to carry out which should alleviate this. Most people welcomed GJ's appointment and felt he was the right man for the job. results have not been good so far, but let's not rewrite history. He was one of the most popular appointments as manager I can remember.

Scott Davidson fulfilled the role [of executive chairman] a few years ago - not that I'm saying that was a success. But if we had a similar personality but with the remit more focussed, it may be useful.

It wasn't a success in that there was a definite feeling that he was interfering too much. Much of that, I suspect was down to his personality and his inability, as a fan, to keep from meddling, just as we'd all be tempted to do if we got the chance. However, I'm guessing that given SteveL's business commitments it's unlikely he'd have time to be an executive chairman. He does spend a lot of time down the club in the week anyway, but frankly I do wonder if there's enough to do on a day-to-day basis to justify an exec chairman five days a week. If you're saying you'd rather have another chairman who did have time to do it on a day-to-day basis then we face the same old problem - finding someone with a love of the club at heart, enough time and commitment to work full-time at the Gate instead, and the sort of finances and business acumen to buy out the directors and still have money to invest.

I would prefere a chairman who can spend the best part of the week at the gate but then thats what Colin S is for. I remember the days when Davidson was chairman and on many away games you would find him in the away end(sometimes open terrace in rain and wind) instead of being in the directors box. Would Lansdown ever do that?

[RedTop]

I would prefere a chairman who can spend the best part of the week at the gate but then thats what Colin S is for. I remember the days when Davidson was chairman and on many away games you would find him in the away end(sometimes open terrace in rain and wind) instead of being in the directors box. Would Lansdown ever do that?

I also remember the days when SD was chairman. It's a myth that he was often in the away end, but he did do it sometimes and, yes, it might be good PR to see SteveL do it occasionally. But I've seen him pop into pubs before games for a casual drink among fellow City fans, and his family often sit in the away end, just with no fanfare. But what matters is how the club is run, not where the chairman sits. As chairman, SteveL is expected to be in the boardroom at home games hosting and welcoming the away representatives, and at away games he is usually our representative in the boardroom. Such schmoozing can do nothing but good when it comes to building up the sort of contacts within clubs that help smooth through signings etc - remember the problems that animosity with teams like Gillingham caused? In actual fact, that's why SD was on the terraces that day when we lost to a Robert Taylor hattrick. He said he couldn't bear to share the directors' box with Scally. Now while I happen to think he was right on that one, it does us no good to maintain poor relations with most other teams, so having SteveL as the public face of the club when meeting other teams is a plus in the long run which we would not get if he was in the habit of spending his time in the away end instead of with his opposite officials.

Anyway, you have to pity the board. Let's face it, most of us in the Dolman have a better view than they do from the directors' box.

[elko]

'The Codfather', You have been talking absolute rubbish all the way through this post. You find an argument, someone destroys it and then you agree but make a completely irrelevant point to try and defend yourself. It's ridiculous.

RedTop's first post seems to sum it up for me. Anyone who says the club doesn't care about the fans is wrong. They may only care about us because we pay money, but when has it ever been different?

[LSN]

'The Codfather', You have been talking absolute rubbish all the way through this post. You find an argument, someone destroys it and then you agree but make a completely irrelevant point to try and defend yourself. It's ridiculous.

RedTop's first post seems to sum it up for me. Anyone who says the club doesn't care about the fans is wrong. They may only care about us because we pay money, but when has it ever been different?

that's the thing, your accepting it. We shouldn't have to accept it.

[Guest The Codfather 0312]

I also remember the days when SD was chairman. It's a myth that he was often in the away end, but he did do it sometimes and, yes, it might be good PR to see SteveL do it occasionally. But I've seen him pop into pubs before games for a casual drink among fellow City fans, and his family often sit in the away end, just with no fanfare. But what matters is how the club is run, not where the chairman sits. As chairman, SteveL is expected to be in the boardroom at home games hosting and welcoming the away representatives, and at away games he is usually our representative in the boardroom. Such schmoozing can do nothing but good when it comes to building up the sort of contacts within clubs that help smooth through signings etc - remember the problems that animosity with teams like Gillingham caused? In actual fact, that's why SD was on the terraces that day when we lost to a Robert Taylor hattrick. He said he couldn't bear to share the directors' box with Scally. Now while I happen to think he was right on that one, it does us no good to maintain poor relations with most other teams, so having SteveL as the public face of the club when meeting other teams is a plus in the long run which we would not get if he was in the habit of spending his time in the away end instead of with his opposite officials.

Anyway, you have to pity the board. Let's face it, most of us in the Dolman have a better view than they do from the directors' box.

But then also we have Colin S and Keith Dawes to do that.

'The Codfather', You have been talking absolute rubbish all the way through this post. You find an argument, someone destroys it and then you agree but make a completely irrelevant point to try and defend yourself. It's ridiculous.

RedTop's first post seems to sum it up for me. Anyone who says the club doesn't care about the fans is wrong. They may only care about us because we pay money, but when has it ever been different?

I'm just saying what I think so don't go slagging me off for having a opinion. I wouldn't do it to you so I don't expect you to do it to me. This is a forum and it's a place wherepeople have different views and opinions. Thats the thing that makes forums work.

[bucksred]

I don't pretend yto know the answer, but i know this:

since that bloody Mad Stad debacle, the club I love, has been drifting further and further apart.

They players are extracting the urine (and thats being polite)

We took a manager who errr couldnt, after one who blew it with the "Failure is not Defeat", or was it other way round, I don't care which!

We had an arrogant decision about the badge, the shirt, albeit amended following ythe predictable uproar.

We had an arrogant decision about the EE....Still ongoing!!!

We had an arrogant decision about Block E williams...now seen as a wastew of time, but there ya go!!

We had arrogant treatment of the guys in t'Dolman....letter anyone.......theres a picture forming here.

We had the arrogant decision about the williams 500....see above

We have had mystifing decisions re players, selling Leeeeeeeeroy for example, not to mention Carey/Murray!!

The fans, the team and the board are all drifting apart...quite an acheivement two years after what SHOULD have been a promotion season....and right now, I REALLY cant see it pulling together as it stands

And it aint all down to the very long suiffering fans, by any vague stretch of the imagination.

This club is stagnating BIG TIME, and we all need to get it together, bloody quickly, and I for one am bloody p1ssed off with it all.

Discuss.....

[Guest DrFaustus]

Some pomposity, sneering, abuse and all round bitchiness of the highest magnitude by RedTop on this thread. He/she/it managed to surpass his/her/itself and congratulations must surely be due.

[Guest WillsbridgeRed]

Some pomposity, sneering, abuse and all round bitchiness of the highest magnitude by RedTop on this thread. He/she/it managed to surpass his/her/itself and congratulations must surely be due.

Grant, you actually read all that? All we need now is Edson to come crawling out of his rock and all the club cheerleaders will be back in action.

[Guest DrFaustus]

Grant, you actually read all that? All we need now is Edson to come crawling out of his rock and all the club cheerleaders will be back in action.

I read it when I got home from work - marvellous entertainment.

Which one is RedTop?

[RedTop]

I read it when I got home from work - marvellous entertainment.

Which one is RedTop?

Now that's the biggest insult of all. Being judged 'marvellous entertainment' by someone who thinks watching the Gas is fun... :@

Take it back, I tell you, before I send an alert to the moderators. How dare you come on here slinging insults like that around?

[Guest DrFaustus]

Watching the Gas hasn't been fun for 6 years.

[Guest North Street]

I'm sorry, but if I were chairman (and at my last calculation you'll be relieved to learn I was several million short) I would be losing my patience at some of the complaints.

This club has had to take some hard decisions. Of course it's right that the chairman stands up and takes responsibility for that, but those decisions have still had to be taken and on some of them SteveL is in a no-win position.

The decision I find most unpalatable is the one to shift fans out of their 'traditional' seats in the Williams. As someone who has held the same seats for the best part of 20 years and is sentimentally attached to them (my father used to sit next to me, and since he died my wife and now my daughter occupy the same seat) I appreciate the trauma that this has caused to some. However, I too have to face the fact that times move on and that someday the club will rebuild the Dolman and my seat will go. I will find a new one, get used to new familiar faces and start a new tradition. It will be a sad day, but it will happen because I accept this is in the club's wider best interests. In the meantime, like it or not this club needs to maximise the revenue if we are to survive and thrive. That means the club having to charge a premium on the premium seats. Remember, we are competing against teams who are doing all sorts of things to maximuse revenue. To compete as well as we can, we need to maximise all income streams. Sadly that means that sometimes fans have to make sacrifices such as their usual seats, which after all there is no guarantee of year after year. When we buy a season ticket, it guarantees us that seat for that year only. For those concerned about the view rather than your traditional 'spot', I can tell you that the view from the Dolman is much better, unimpeded, and there's the Red and White Bar too. Bottom line is that the directors have a financial responsibility to bring as much money into the club as possible, and given the amount of money that they have to pump in it is not unreasonable for them to be looking to find as much as possible from other sources. And it seems to me the club has bent over backwards to offer those in the crucial seats various options. They seem to be doing their best to reconcile the club's needs with the fans' concerns.

The East End decision is far simpler. The cost outweighs the benefit. Simple as that. The idea that if we opened it up the fans would start singing and the team would start winning is bunkum. What will happen is that the club will incur much higher stewarding and policing costs (due in part to the fact some misbehaved last time it was opened), and when we are drawing far smaller crowds that cannot be justified. It's a myth that the team always win when it's opened. They don't. To hear some of the whingers on here complaining that their voices haven't been heard over this is pitiful. The club took notice last year, opened it up and then ended up having to pay loads more and suffer misbehaviour. The fans' voices were heard. But that doesn't mean they are always right. Sometimes, the best interests of the fans and the club as a whole do not coincide, and this is one of those occasions.

There are some unfortunate things. The quality of shirts this season is poor. Ultimately, ColinS must take responsibility for that, and I'm sure next year TFG will suffer the consequences of providing shoddy goods. That's not an adequate answer for those who shelled out, but I do agree with him that up until this season the quality has been fine. Someone told me that the material we were shown in the sample didn't match what the shirts were actually made of when they delivered, because the manufacture was farmed out to another factory. If that's the case I think the club should sue the manufacturer or refuse to pay the bill in full. Perhaps, if that's the case, a small refund could then be passed on to anyone who can produce a 2005/6 home shirt as a gesture of goodwill.

It's also unfortunate that the stand didn't go ahead. But those who gave their money for bricks were not duped. There are all sorts of options, including money back, so no-one has been short-changed. If the board were scared of failure, they'd never try to take the club forward with such ambitious plans in the first place. But we shouldn't be put off trying by the fear that it might not work out. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. And what have we lost? Nothing. Planning permission is there and we can go ahead if/when the funding is in place. What would have been irresponsible and jeopardised our future would have been to have proceeded without the funding being secured, just to save face.

And this idea that the club doesn't listen to us is just laughable and juvenile. I don't rate the Fans Consultative Forum, personally. It just seems a PR gimmick to me, given its record. But even putting that aside, the club is more accessible now than it has ever been, much of it down to technology but plenty down to sheer effort by SteveL. I've been a City fan 25-plus years, and I've never been able to communicate personally and directly with the senior officials and chairman as I can do now via the web. I've never seen the club make more effort to interact with the fans, whether it be the chairman managing the fans' team, providing players to run tghe lines and allowing them to play at Ashton Gate, getting involved with the Supporters' Trust, answering questions directly and publicly via the website, holding open forums before the start of games in the Red & White Bar (and making sure the manager and senior officials are on hard to be answerable), going onto Radio Bristol phone-ins, drinking in the Supporters Club or even seeing him out and about around the ground, where he seems happy to talk to any fans who approach him. The club has responded to us as supporters in various ways, whether it's offering the money back against the Swansea debacle, opening the East End in the past in response to fans' pleas or changing the badge back (quite rightly as the new one was a mess).

As for what's going on on the pitch, here I can see little to justify criticising the board. No-one can accuse them of lacking ambition in terms of the money put into the team. As far as I'm aware, whenever the manager - whether it be Tinman or GJ - has asked for funds to finance a new player or loan signing, it has been given even when the ougoing has been considerable. Yes, there can be justified criticism over the appointment of Tinnion. I thought it was a fair appointment, but with hindsight it's hard to argue that it was the correct one because the results as a whole do not back it up. However, without the benefit of hindsight I don't think it was an inept appointment albeit not the only alternative. The appointment of GJ was, by common consent, the one the fans wanted and were pretty much all delighted with. It was the best appointment possible, most of us recgnise, and was done even though it meant paying out a fee. Anyone levelling a 'cheap option' accusation over BT could not do the same this time round. The board have forked out for players like Stewart and Bridges, both of whom we were excited about and neither of whom have performed to the level expected.

Indeed the board have consistently funded the provision of players - either by the Academy or old-fashioned signings - that SHOULD have been good enough to get us out of this division at the right end. That, after all, is the single most important part of their job at this club. The fact that the players have fallen so far short can be laid at their door, at the door of the manager and his staff, but in my opinion we could ask no more of our directors (other than that they give GJ the necessary loot to bring in the players he needs to turn things around in January).

Watching the last few matches has made one thing painfully clear. The players we have simply aren't good enough. Yes, they've forgotten how to win. Yes, confidence is low. But we are still, at the very least, one bloody good centre-back, one tough-tackling midfielder and one speedy attacker away from having a play-off team. But my point is this. Apart from the appointment of Tinman (and it's fair to point out that the players we are now lacking are of exactly the type we lost in DC and TD, though I'm afraid I don;t pine for players who constantly took the p*** out of us all with their off-the-field antics) what else could the board have done? Over the summer, most of us were confident we had a great squad capable of automatic promotion. When it was clear that was not the case, they acted decisively to get rid of the manager, then bought in the best replacement. Their hands are tied by this ridiculous transfer window, but they have done what can be expected in the meantime as regards loan signings.

Yet SteveL is still suffering some pretty swingeing attacks. Sure, he can expect it as the chairman of a club that's massively underachieving. If he couldn't take it he wouldn't have taken on the job, I'm sure. And he can expect plenty more, justfied or otherwise, if things don't improve soon. But I ask you this, and I would be interested to read constructive replies provided they don't contain moaning about the East End or about fans in G Block being asked to behave:

What the hell else can SteveL reasonably be expected to do?

I'd love to know because I am at a loss.

RedTop all my concerns centre around the direction our club is moving off the pitch. I have become increasingly concerned about a lack of respect which is shown towards supporters. So i will offer a few ideas whch no doubt othes will drive tanks through but i hope are reasonable -

Much of the resentment seems to be stemming from the actions of Colin S maybe the Chairman could examine Colins role and offer a few pointers about PR. At present the merest sight of the bloke makes me fear for the safety of my wallet.

The East End ! This topic is not going to go away. The club need to involve themselves in some meaningful dialogue with supporters not just an "eleven word" statement to over two hundred and seventy posts.There are hundreds of the clubs supporters who wish to return to their end, this is not insignificant. There must be some sort of compromise. The lack of atmosphere keeps some fans away,embarrasses some [me] , gives our team nothing and takes away from the entire experience.

The Williams! I think BCFC need to get into meaningful dialogue mode again. Season ticket holders are the bedrock of the club said Colin [him again]. well some in the Williams are feeling jarred off so why not get them together and explain why it was necessary.

Reduced capacity! I bought my season ticket because of the club telling me there was going to be a reduced capacity not only that they put the price up because of that pesky reduced capacity which still ain't .....!

There are people who think that they should recieve a refund & there are some[me] who feel like they have been had over but are quite happy for the club to keep the money, but would like them to justify their position.

Appoint a true representative of the supporters onto the board because no matter what anybody says multi millionaires arenot Joe Public. Other clubs do this, it is not that hard and could be linked to the supporters club or supporters trust. Maybe this will keep Colin S in check!

Hopefully one of those points "is" constructive!

[RedTop]

RedTop all my concerns centre around the direction our club is moving off the pitch. I have become increasingly concerned about a lack of respect which is shown towards supporters. So i will offer a few ideas whch no doubt othes will drive tanks through but i hope are reasonable -

Much of the resentment seems to be stemming from the actions of Colin S maybe the Chairman could examine Colins role and offer a few pointers about PR. At present the merest sight of the bloke makes me fear for the safety of my wallet.

The East End ! This topic is not going to go away. The club need to involve themselves in some meaningful dialogue with supporters not just an "eleven word" statement to over two hundred and seventy posts.There are hundreds of the clubs supporters who wish to return to their end, this is not insignificant. There must be some sort of compromise. The lack of atmosphere keeps some fans away,embarrasses some [me] , gives our team nothing and takes away from the entire experience.

The Williams! I think BCFC need to get into meaningful dialogue mode again. Season ticket holders are the bedrock of the club said Colin [him again]. well some in the Williams are feeling jarred off so why not get them together and explain why it was necessary.

Reduced capacity! I bought my season ticket because of the club telling me there was going to be a reduced capacity not only that they put the price up because of that pesky reduced capacity which still ain't .....!

There are people who think that they should recieve a refund & there are some[me] who feel like they have been had over but are quite happy for the club to keep the money, but would like them to justify their position.

Appoint a true representative of the supporters onto the board because no matter what anybody says multi millionaires arenot Joe Public. Other clubs do this, it is not that hard and could be linked to the supporters club or supporters trust. Maybe this will keep Colin S in check!

Hopefully one of those points "is" constructive!

More than one! Thank God someone has posted something worthwhile on this thread again and we're back to people taking a reasoned look at things...

I agree with you that the club needs to look at its PR. I've said before that the club should have a PR executive on board who advises and controls such things, and oversees liaison with the fans. Such a person, if he was doing his job, would have been best placed to nip debacles like the badge farce and the shirt row in the bud. But either there is someone within the club who has the job but not the necessary level of authority to do it properly, or there's no-one doing it. Either way, it should be sorted. Colin S does have the sort of ideas that a chief exec needs to be having, but they are poorly presented. For example, the club has said it wants to talk one to one with any of those being displaced from the Williams Stand to try to work around it in a mutually-beneficial way, but this is not coming across as anything other than an afterthought. The price rises being presented in the context of the so-called reduced capacity is another example of ill-thought-out presentation. As I said, in reality it should have been presented purely as a case of rebalancing pricing to reflect the quality of the view - it is right that those in less well-positioned seats with a worse view at the ends of the Dolman should pay less than those in the middle. But that's not how it came over. The solution, as you possibly imply, may be a PR director with top level authority to work with SteveL and ColinS and possibly be co-opted onto the board. Not cheap, though, and can the club afford it?

The East End is something I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree with many of you over. I think the club has given a perfectly rational and reasonable explanation of why it won't happen at the moment. Again, perhaps this is one area where a good public relations director would have handled it far better.

I've dealt with the Williams issue above.

The issue of a supporter on the board is another interesting constructive suggestion you make. There are problems with this. If I were one of the directors putting in millions of my own money (much of it as loans, of course, which means taking a risk on being repaid etc) then I would be uneasy in a member of the supporters - perhaps without much business acumen and certainly without much capital at risk - having the same voting rights as me. Perhaps there is an argument for a non-voting representative. However, you then have a second problem: who to choose. Do you invite the chairman of the Supporters Club, which is currently little more than a drinking clique though I appreciate those in charge are trying to change this, or the more act but unproven Supporters' Trust? Or do you ask fans to elect directly, in which case who gets a vote? Only season ticket holders? City 2000 members? It's difficult but not, I feel, insurmountable.

However, there is one problem with this. It's happened in the past elsewhere. As soon as a common fan gets on the board he/she tends to act in their own capacity rather than as a representative of all fans. For that reason, I believe it should be a position invited to join the board rather than an individual, if the directors felt it was necessary. Thus, the chairman of the Supporters Trust might be invited. Thereby, if he/she was voted out of office because he/she was not sufficiently representing the views of fans or not doing a good job, he/she would give up the seat in the boardroom for the replacement.

However, in my view if the club had a proper PR director like most companies of that size then a fan seat on the board would probably not be necessary.

[Guest swindlered]

However, there is one problem with this. It's happened in the past elsewhere. As soon as a common fan gets on the board he/she tends to act in their own capacity rather than as a representative of all fans. For that reason, I believe it should be a position invited to join the board rather than an individual, if the directors felt it was necessary. Thus, the chairman of the Supporters Trust might be invited. Thereby, if he/she was voted out of office because he/she was not sufficiently representing the views of fans or not doing a good job, he/she would give up the seat in the boardroom for the replacement.

However, in my view if the club had a proper PR director like most companies of that size then a fan seat on the board would probably not be necessary.

How often have fan representatives taken on their own agendas once elected to the board. What is the example you allude too. Also what about the clubs that are now run by their fans such as Stockport and Rushden. Do they take on their own agendas once in charge?

Until fans - who are the largest stakeholders in the football club - have adequate representation they will never be treated in the way their loyalty deserves.

[Chivs]

Now that's the biggest insult of all. Being judged 'marvellous entertainment' by someone who thinks watching the Gas is fun... :@

Take it back, I tell you, before I send an alert to the moderators. How dare you come on here slinging insults like that around?

RedTop,

Leave it. He's not worth it.

Nice knee pads, btw.

[Guest North Street]

More than one! Thank God someone has posted something worthwhile on this thread again and we're back to people taking a reasoned look at things...

I agree with you that the club needs to look at its PR. I've said before that the club should have a PR executive on board who advises and controls such things, and oversees liaison with the fans. Such a person, if he was doing his job, would have been best placed to nip debacles like the badge farce and the shirt row in the bud. But either there is someone within the club who has the job but not the necessary level of authority to do it properly, or there's no-one doing it. Either way, it should be sorted. Colin S does have the sort of ideas that a chief exec needs to be having, but they are poorly presented. For example, the club has said it wants to talk one to one with any of those being displaced from the Williams Stand to try to work around it in a mutually-beneficial way, but this is not coming across as anything other than an afterthought. The price rises being presented in the context of the so-called reduced capacity is another example of ill-thought-out presentation. As I said, in reality it should have been presented purely as a case of rebalancing pricing to reflect the quality of the view - it is right that those in less well-positioned seats with a worse view at the ends of the Dolman should pay less than those in the middle. But that's not how it came over. The solution, as you possibly imply, may be a PR director with top level authority to work with SteveL and ColinS and possibly be co-opted onto the board. Not cheap, though, and can the club afford it?

The East End is something I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree with many of you over. I think the club has given a perfectly rational and reasonable explanation of why it won't happen at the moment. Again, perhaps this is one area where a good public relations director would have handled it far better.

I've dealt with the Williams issue above.

The issue of a supporter on the board is another interesting constructive suggestion you make. There are problems with this. If I were one of the directors putting in millions of my own money (much of it as loans, of course, which means taking a risk on being repaid etc) then I would be uneasy in a member of the supporters - perhaps without much business acumen and certainly without much capital at risk - having the same voting rights as me. Perhaps there is an argument for a non-voting representative. However, you then have a second problem: who to choose. Do you invite the chairman of the Supporters Club, which is currently little more than a drinking clique though I appreciate those in charge are trying to change this, or the more act but unproven Supporters' Trust? Or do you ask fans to elect directly, in which case who gets a vote? Only season ticket holders? City 2000 members? It's difficult but not, I feel, insurmountable.

However, there is one problem with this. It's happened in the past elsewhere. As soon as a common fan gets on the board he/she tends to act in their own capacity rather than as a representative of all fans. For that reason, I believe it should be a position invited to join the board rather than an individual, if the directors felt it was necessary. Thus, the chairman of the Supporters Trust might be invited. Thereby, if he/she was voted out of office because he/she was not sufficiently representing the views of fans or not doing a good job, he/she would give up the seat in the boardroom for the replacement.

However, in my view if the club had a proper PR director like most companies of that size then a fan seat on the board would probably not be necessary.

I feel that every club should have supporter representation on it's board that is allowed to vote on the clubs issues thus avoiding in theory Wimbledon/Wrexham like scenarios.The represenatative would of course be elected and ideally would come fom a successful supporters trust which is independant of the club.

I agree totally that this would be a position to be held and if anybody think nah this does not work, well Beckhams lot do this

[RedTop]

How often have fan representatives taken on their own agendas once elected to the board. What is the example you allude too. Also what about the clubs that are now run by their fans such as Stockport and Rushden. Do they take on their own agendas once in charge?

Until fans - who are the largest stakeholders in the football club - have adequate representation they will never be treated in the way their loyalty deserves.

There was certainly an issue at Brentford recently regarding this problem. Anyway, it's a side issue because if the person on the board were acting as a representative of a group and therefore could be removed if he did not act in a way that represented the general views of those voting for him, I don't think that it would be an insurmoutable obstacle.

However, fans are not the largest stakeholders in a financial sense. Can you not see that there might be a not understandable degree of nervousness in entrusting the fate of one's own millions to someone with no proven business track record and nothing financially at stake to protect? For example, when weighing up the benefits of spending money on players vs the financial risk of doing so, not having any of one's own money on the line may well have an influence in the decision one came to.

Also, don't forget that SteveL is a financial backer as well as a fan, not instead of. He and his family went to Ashton Gate as 'ordinary fans' before he joined the board. Sometimes we talk as if he's not interested in what's best for the club. He may have made some disputable decisions, but as anyone who's met him will tell you, he does have the club's best interests at heart. There's no guarantee that a so-called ordinary fan would make decisions any better. As I've argued before on here recently, the interests of the fans and the interests of the club are not always the same thing, as the East End shows. The fans want it open, but (quite rightly, in my opinion) the officials believe that the cost of this would outweigh the benefit to the club.

[Guest MAGILLA]

I'm sorry, but if I were chairman (and at my last calculation you'll be relieved to learn I was several million short) I would be losing my patience at some of the complaints.

I'm sorry, but if the Chairman wishes to make himself 'accessible' to this extent then he has to accept the criticism and the praise with equal doses of good grace. And is it not ultimately more acceptable for the supporters to be losing patience rather than the Chairman?

This club has had to take some hard decisions. Of course it's right that the chairman stands up and takes responsibility for that, but those decisions have still had to be taken and on some of them SteveL is in a no-win position.

The decision I find most unpalatable is the one to shift fans out of their 'traditional' seats in the Williams... That means the club having to charge a premium on the premium seats. Remember, we are competing against teams who are doing all sorts of things to maximuse revenue. ..

Who exactly are we competing against? You mention other teams? Are you suggesting that some peole may defect to other local teams? There is no 'competing' going on whatsoever. Where is this competition that you mention? If we were in Lancashire I'd agree with you, but Bristol? Who will people defect to? Rovers? Swindon?? Yeovil??? One of the best ways to 'maximise revenues' and increase 'revenue streams' is to have a successful team playing attractive football and gradually moving up the league. I'd rather that that sorry state of affairs was being addressed than a Leo Sayer concert in the summer.

I can tell you that the view from the Dolman is much better, unimpeded, and there's the Red and White Bar too. Bottom line is that the directors have a financial responsibility to bring as much money into the club as possible, and given the amount of money that they have to pump in it is not unreasonable for them to be looking to find as much as possible from other sources.....

Yes they have the financial responsibility. Read the previous paragraph. Amount of money THEY pump in. What about the amount of money WE pump in? We give our money willingly to other people to spend and so far it hasn't been spent very wisely. Again, the best way to increase youR revenues is to sort it out on the pitch. Building a new stand won't rectify that situation. Didn't Matt Busby once say something along the lines of 'Fans will stand knee-deep in pig muck to watch a successfull football team'?

The East End decision is far simpler. The cost outweighs the benefit. Simple as that...

Cost outweighs the benefit? Let's say, for example, that 2500 seats were made available to home supporters at £15 a throw. That's £37,500 and some happy fans for a change. Does the EE really cost that much to open, to police and to steward?

It's also unfortunate that the stand didn't go ahead... What would have been irresponsible and jeopardised our future would have been to have proceeded without the funding being secured, just to save face.

Why were we even thinking of building a new stand in the first place? At what point last season did anyone think "I know the answer to our problems! Let's build a completely pointless new stand!" Not forgetting of course that the Bristol Arena (host to the largest conferencing facilities in the South West and right next to Temple Meads) is in the process of being built! Furthermore we barely fill 50% of the ground's capacity as it is! And this gleaming totem to all that is wrong about football administration is also sold to the public with one of the attractions being that it will offer one of the best views in the ground - and then the Prawn Sandwich section is enlarged in the Williams!!

And this idea that the club doesn't listen to us is just laughable and juvenile.

I've never been able to communicate personally and directly with the senior officials and chairman as I can do now via the web.

You don't find that 'Your comments are noted' could be a way of ignoring criticism whether it be constructive or otherwise? I attended the Q&A in the Dolman Bar last year and have heard plenty of SL interviews on the radio and any criticism that comes his way is brushed off. Questions are answered with questions and I cannot recall SL saying 'I made a mistake' or 'I'm sorry' about:-

the badge

the shirt

the 'new' stand

management appointments

management sackings

treatment of supporters - notably G block of the Dolman.

This 'open' and 'communicative' regime is very selective in how and when it answers its public.

As for what's going on on the pitch, here I can see little to justify criticising the board.

Yes, there can be justified criticism over the appointment of Tinnion. I thought it was a fair appointment, but with hindsight it's hard to argue that it was the correct one because the results as a whole do not back it up. However, without the benefit of hindsight I don't think it was an inept appointment albeit not the only alternative.

The buck stops with the board and they (all two of them!) have to take 100% responsibility for the way this club is going. They appoint the management. They sack management. They decide where and how funds are spent. They decide how supporters are treated. And as for the appointment of Tinnion, many had the benefit of 'foresight' that it was a bad decision.

The appointment of GJ was, by common consent, the one the fans wanted and were pretty much all delighted with. It was the best appointment possible, most of us recgnise, and was done even though it meant paying out a fee.

I really don't remember the fans clamouring for Johnson. Mainly it was 'anyone but Lawrence' but there were plenty of nominations and although Johnson was in there, I'm not sure that he was the clear cut favourite. BTW, who else did SL interview?

But I ask you this, 'What the hell else can SteveL reasonably be expected to do?'

Well, I think it's time for SL to put his hands up and admit that for all his efforts and good intentions he can't cut the mustard as a football chairman, put the For Sale sign up and bow out gracefully. I do not and never have questioned his commitment, passion and desire for this club but sadly those admirable qualities will only get you so far. I do not think that the club would disappear if SL left and we could all be pleasantly surprised by who might come-a-knocking.

[RedTop]

I'm sorry, but if the Chairman wishes to make himself 'accessible' to this extent then he has to accept the criticism and the praise with equal doses of good grace.

As far as I'm aware, he has!

Who exactly are we competing against? You mention other teams? Are you suggesting that some peole may defect to other local teams? There is no 'competing' going on whatsoever. Where is this competition that you mention? If we were in Lancashire I'd agree with you, but Bristol? Who will people defect to? Rovers? Swindon?? Yeovil??? One of the best ways to 'maximise revenues' and increase 'revenue streams' is to have a successful team playing attractive football and gradually moving up the league. I'd rather that that sorry state of affairs was being addressed than a Leo Sayer concert in the summer.

In case you'd not noticed, we're competing against 91 other teams, including 23 in the same division, all of whom are doing everything they can to maximise revenue and thus have as much money available as possible to plough into improving their team.

We give our money willingly to other people to spend and so far it hasn't been spent very wisely. Again, the best way to increase youR revenues is to sort it out on the pitch. Building a new stand won't rectify that situation. Didn't Matt Busby once say something along the lines of 'Fans will stand knee-deep in pig muck to watch a successfull football team'?

True, but I remember in the 'good old days' fans moaning that it was no surprise fans acted like animals when they were treated like them with appalling facilities like dodgy toilets, crumbling terraces, even worse catering than today (remember that, Magilla, I think you were old enough to remember all that?) And we give our money to buy entertainment. It's not a donation. We don't give our money 'willingly' that way - you only have to see the complaints about the prices charged for shirts, bricks etc to see that!

Cost outweighs the benefit? Let's say, for example, that 2500 seats were made available to home supporters at £15 a throw. That's £37,500 and some happy fans for a change. Does the EE really cost that much to open, to police and to steward?

If you are seriously suggesting 2,500 extra fans would come through the gates (that's more than a quarter of the last home gate) then you need to get a reality check. There were just a few hundred in there last time (I think I saw the figure 800 somewhere and even that seemed optimistic?) and most if not all of those would have come anyway. I challenge you to argue that the number of extra fans would more than pay for the extra stewards, turnstyle operators and police required to satisfy the busybody cops and council.

Why were we even thinking of building a new stand in the first place? At what point last season did anyone think "I know the answer to our problems! Let's build a completely pointless new stand!" Not forgetting of course that the Bristol Arena (host to the largest conferencing facilities in the South West and right next to Temple Meads) is in the process of being built! Furthermore we barely fill 50% of the ground's capacity as it is! And this gleaming totem to all that is wrong about football administration is also sold to the public with one of the attractions being that it will offer one of the best views in the ground - and then the Prawn Sandwich section is enlarged in the Williams!!

Fair point, though personally I still think making the stadium and its facilities as attractive as possible for its customers (i.e. us amongst others!) is a desirable ambition. Who can seriously go to Swansea, Wigan etc and not be jealous of the surroundings?

You don't find that 'Your comments are noted' could be a way of ignoring criticism whether it be constructive or otherwise? I attended the Q&A in the Dolman Bar last year and have heard plenty of SL interviews on the radio and any criticism that comes his way is brushed off.

I was at the Q& A too, and I don't recall SteveL brushing off comments. I recall him giving pretty straightforward answers, even though some of them on topics like the badge were ones I disagreed with.

The buck stops with the board and they (all two of them!) have to take 100% responsibility for the way this club is going. They appoint the management. They sack management. They decide where and how funds are spent. They decide how supporters are treated. And as for the appointment of Tinnion, many had the benefit of 'foresight' that it was a bad decision.

Yes, I agree with this. The board have to ultimately take responsibility for the way the club is going, and at the moment they are failing in that sense, because the club is failing. But the job of directors when things are going wrong is to act to put them right. By bringing in GJ and asking him to conduct a top-to-bottom review of the club's structure - i.e. coaching etc, which is where many of us fear things are going wrong - it seems to me they are doing all they can to turn things around.

I really don't remember the fans clamouring for Johnson. I'm not sure that he was the clear cut favourite.

Have a look back at the reaction of fans on this forum after he'd been appointed and in the days leading up to it then. You will find the decision almost unanimously welcomed as the best possible one.

I think it's time for SL to put his hands up and admit that for all his efforts and good intentions he can't cut the mustard as a football chairman, put the For Sale sign up and bow out gracefully. I do not and never have questioned his commitment, passion and desire for this club but sadly those admirable qualities will only get you so far. I do not think that the club would disappear if SL left and we could all be pleasantly surprised by who might come-a-knocking.

The trouble is, I think you'll be unpleasantly disturbed at how little clamour there is to throw money at a loss-making football club among people with the means to do it. They've hardly been beating down the door, have they, even though it's been made clear that SteveL and KeithD would not stand in the way if someone with the right money, trustworthy credentials and commitment to the club came along. Rumours of a SD comeback continue but it's all talk and no substance, as far as I can tell, never mind the problems he left over when he quit, despite his popularity on the terraces.

[bucksred]

I don't pretend yto know the answer, but i know this:

since that bloody Mad Stad debacle, the club I love, has been drifting further and further apart.

They players are extracting the urine (and thats being polite)

We took a manager who errr couldnt, after one who blew it with the "Failure is not Defeat", or was it other way round, I don't care which!

We had an arrogant decision about the badge, the shirt, albeit amended following ythe predictable uproar.

We had an arrogant decision about the EE....Still ongoing!!!

We had an arrogant decision about Block E williams...now seen as a wastew of time, but there ya go!!

We had arrogant treatment of the guys in t'Dolman....letter anyone.......theres a picture forming here.

We had the arrogant decision about the williams 500....see above

We have had mystifing decisions re players, selling Leeeeeeeeroy for example, not to mention Carey/Murray!!

The fans, the team and the board are all drifting apart...quite an acheivement two years after what SHOULD have been a promotion season....and right now, I REALLY cant see it pulling together as it stands

And it aint all down to the very long suiffering fans, by any vague stretch of the imagination.

This club is stagnating BIG TIME, and we all need to get it together, bloody quickly, and I for one am bloody p1ssed off with it all.

Discuss.....

Notice Redtop and all the other cheerleaders didnt comment on this, which I posted yesterday.

I've been supporting this team for a lot of years, and I've not seen this much disarray specially among fans EVER, on the pitch, yep, in the backroom yep, but never this bad.

c'mon lads justify the drift, because it is there, patently obviously, and its getting worse............

[Guest MAGILLA]

Your implication was that the Chairman is losing patience with all the complaints (which I presume he receives mostly by way of the Ask SteveL forum and the main one too). If he is losing patience then perhaps some of the good grace he ususally shows is on the wane?

In case you'd not noticed, we're competing against 91 other teams, including 23 in the same division, all of whom are doing everything they can to maximise revenue and thus have as much money available as possible to plough into improving their team.

I had noticed we were competing against 91 other teams. However maximising revenue usually entails enticing more supporters through the turnstiles. There may well be new supporters who have yet to nail their colours to a particular mast but BCFC seem to be seriously struggling to persuade very many long-term supporters to return. All clubs are doing their utmost to increase attendances but the long-term disenchanted supporter won't be wandering up to the Memorial Ground will he?

True, but I remember in the 'good old days' fans moaning that it was no surprise fans acted like animals when they were treated like them with appalling facilities like dodgy toilets, crumbling terraces, even worse catering than today (remember that, Magilla, I think you were old enough to remember all that?) And we give our money to buy entertainment. It's not a donation. We don't give our money 'willingly' that way - you only have to see the complaints about the prices charged for shirts, bricks etc to see that!

But it is a donation, and a willing one at that. Sure, we are paying to be entertained but we also pay our money in the hope that it is also being spent wisely on all the other important facets of BCFC. Again, I ask you to read Matt Busby's wise words. Get it sorted out on the pitch and then sort the stands, terracing, catering out - at the moment it's arse about face and it's been that way for far too long.

If you are seriously suggesting 2,500 extra fans would come through the gates (that's more than a quarter of the last home gate) then you need to get a reality check. There were just a few hundred in there last time (I think I saw the figure 800 somewhere and even that seemed optimistic?) and most if not all of those would have come anyway. I challenge you to argue that the number of extra fans would more than pay for the extra stewards, turnstyle operators and police required to satisfy the busybody cops and council.

So, if the board decided to give over the whole of the EE BACK to the fans and move away supporters up into the Williams (which is totally feasible and acceptable as it would have happened anyway if the new stand had gone ahead), you don't think that a not inconsiderable amount of supporters would venture in to the EE from the Dolman, the Atyeo, the Williams stands and perhaps entice several disenchanted fans back too?

I still think making the stadium and its facilities as attractive as possible for its customers (i.e. us amongst others!) is a desirable ambition. Who can seriously go to Swansea, Wigan etc and not be jealous of the surroundings?

But not to the detriment of the team and the management! You do all this AFTER you have created a successful team. I would only be happy to see the ground seriously redeveloped after promotion and at least 2 seasons' consolidation. To do it now whilst we languish second from bottom of the Third Division is almost beyond belief.

I was at the Q& A too, and I don't recall SteveL brushing off comments. I recall him giving pretty straightforward answers, even though some of them on topics like the badge were ones I disagreed with.

I was there too and it did seem very much like 'Your Comments Are Noted' - Live! It's all very well making personal appearances and responding to fans' questioning but if ultimately you don't take on board their concerns and basically use it as an exercise to tell them what is happening rather than use it as a platform for discussion then it's pretty pointless.

The board have to ultimately take responsibility for the way the club is going, and at the moment they are failing in that sense, because the club is failing. But the job of directors when things are going wrong is to act to put them right. By bringing in GJ and asking him to conduct a top-to-bottom review of the club's structure - i.e. coaching etc, which is where many of us fear things are going wrong - it seems to me they are doing all they can to turn things around.

You say they are doing all they can - I say again that I don't doubt their desire, commitment and passion for success at this club but there comes a point when you have to admit that you are not cutting the mustard and to exit gracefully. They have oveerseen one of the most barren spells at this club with football that gets worse and worse.

Have a look back at the reaction of fans on this forum after he'd (GJ) been appointed and in the days leading up to it then. You will find the decision almost unanimously welcomed as the best possible one.

After he'd been appointed a lot of fans seemed to be happy. But I still don't accept that he was the almost unanimous choice. Again, it seemed to be basically "Anyone but Lawrence".

The trouble is, I think you'll be unpleasantly disturbed at how little clamour there is to throw money at a loss-making football club among people with the means to do it. They've hardly been beating down the door, have they, even though it's been made clear that SteveL and KeithD would not stand in the way if someone with the right money, trustworthy credentials and commitment to the club came along. Rumours of a SD comeback continue but it's all talk and no substance, as far as I can tell, never mind the problems he left over when he quit, despite his popularity on the terraces.

Most football clubs are loss-making so I don't see that as a deterrent for any future investors. Furthermore, do you know on what terms SL and co. are willing to sell? Trustworthy credentials and commitment are fair enough but what are the terms? Do you know what they are? Perhaps potential buyers have wanted to buy the club at market value rather than also paying off all of the board's loans? I'm sure the board would want to get their loans back but I wouldn't pay their loans back even if I did have the money - would you? Would you buy a car and pay the owner's Bank Loan off for them as well?

And have you asked yourself why there are only TWO directors on the board? Even Laycock had had enough. It's almost a dictatorship or oligarchy if you like. Where's the democracy? How well thought through do you think the big decisions are? Also, do you think that if there are thousands of City fans unwilling to give £20 to the club then is it hardly surprising that big money investors don't want to join the current board either?

[Guest North Street]

More than one! Thank God someone has posted something worthwhile on this thread again and we're back to people taking a reasoned look at things...

I agree with you that the club needs to look at its PR. I've said before that the club should have a PR executive on board who advises and controls such things, and oversees liaison with the fans. Such a person, if he was doing his job, would have been best placed to nip debacles like the badge farce and the shirt row in the bud. But either there is someone within the club who has the job but not the necessary level of authority to do it properly, or there's no-one doing it. Either way, it should be sorted. Colin S does have the sort of ideas that a chief exec needs to be having, but they are poorly presented. For example, the club has said it wants to talk one to one with any of those being displaced from the Williams Stand to try to work around it in a mutually-beneficial way, but this is not coming across as anything other than an afterthought. The price rises being presented in the context of the so-called reduced capacity is another example of ill-thought-out presentation. As I said, in reality it should have been presented purely as a case of rebalancing pricing to reflect the quality of the view - it is right that those in less well-positioned seats with a worse view at the ends of the Dolman should pay less than those in the middle. But that's not how it came over. The solution, as you possibly imply, may be a PR director with top level authority to work with SteveL and ColinS and possibly be co-opted onto the board. Not cheap, though, and can the club afford it?

The East End is something I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree with many of you over. I think the club has given a perfectly rational and reasonable explanation of why it won't happen at the moment. Again, perhaps this is one area where a good public relations director would have handled it far better.

I've dealt with the Williams issue above.

The issue of a supporter on the board is another interesting constructive suggestion you make. There are problems with this. If I were one of the directors putting in millions of my own money (much of it as loans, of course, which means taking a risk on being repaid etc) then I would be uneasy in a member of the supporters - perhaps without much business acumen and certainly without much capital at risk - having the same voting rights as me. Perhaps there is an argument for a non-voting representative. However, you then have a second problem: who to choose. Do you invite the chairman of the Supporters Club, which is currently little more than a drinking clique though I appreciate those in charge are trying to change this, or the more act but unproven Supporters' Trust? Or do you ask fans to elect directly, in which case who gets a vote? Only season ticket holders? City 2000 members? It's difficult but not, I feel, insurmountable.

However, there is one problem with this. It's happened in the past elsewhere. As soon as a common fan gets on the board he/she tends to act in their own capacity rather than as a representative of all fans. For that reason, I believe it should be a position invited to join the board rather than an individual, if the directors felt it was necessary. Thus, the chairman of the Supporters Trust might be invited. Thereby, if he/she was voted out of office because he/she was not sufficiently representing the views of fans or not doing a good job, he/she would give up the seat in the boardroom for the replacement.

However, in my view if the club had a proper PR director like most companies of that size then a fan seat on the board would probably not be necessary.

After todays faux pas from Mr Sexstone and the reduced capacity saga i think even the likes of Alastair Campbell would struggle to put a spin on things

[Guest The Codfather 0312]

Bloody hell, Reading some of the posts that people have posted is like reading a novel. Also quality posts keep them coming, This is what a debate should be like, A well thought out argument from both sides. Brilliant.

[Guest DrFaustus]

Bloody hell, Reading some of the posts that people have posted is like reading a novel. Also quality posts keep them coming, This is what a debate should be like, A well thought out argument from both sides. Brilliant.

Been watching The Fast Show again?