Steve L

[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.

[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.