Lansdown

[Dorset_Cider]

Well?

[The Fat Controller]

[BB.]

I was thinking the exact same thing Dorse Cider! (Great minds and all that )

Maybe we could use this thread to weigh up the pros and cons of Lansdowns reign?

Someone else will have to do the buisiness side of things, but heres my list so far...

Con - appointed Pulis

Pro - Appointed Wilson

Con - Didn't advertise the managerial position

Con - Appointed Tinnion

Pro - Pushed the boat out to get the manager who most fans though/think would/will do a good job for BCFC

Pro - Spent a lot of money on players

Con - Wasted a lot on bad players and/or players who came for an easy time of it.

Con - Keeps moving supporters out of their seats

Con - offered one set of fans money to move and another set just got told to move! Double standards?

Con - Shutting the East End to City fans

Pro - Saved money

Con - didn't try the ideas that could have worked

Con - Changed the badge

Pro - Changed it back

Con - Ticket prices

Pro - special offers

Pro - aiming to build a new stand

Con - failing (so far) to get it built

Con - Not giving supporters a refund on the increase in season ticket due to reduced capacity once there was no longer going to be a reduced capacity.

Con - giving letters to Dolman G block dwellers but no letter to the Atyeo spitters or the racist incident. Double standards?

Pro - He is a City fan

Con - he doesn't mix with the fans enough

I think the last con is the one SteveL should try and work on. I think he should either get a lot more involved with us or distance himself from us completely. It feels like he speaks to us as a token gesture rather than because he actually cares about what we think and comes across very half hearted. Maybe he is going to distance himself from us, hense the removeal of Ask SteveL?

SteveL's aim for the Club is quite different to my aim. Steve seems to put families and debenature box buying supporters above the other types of supporters. Ashton Gate is big enough to accomadate all type of supporters.

I have more cons than pros so far....

[Robbored]

I don't think it was Lansdown who signed Pulis on.

All fans should ask themselves this question when they critise the board - Do you really think that all SL is interested in is irritating the fans?. I ask because whenever you see critism aimed at the board is mostly consists of complains about the East End, the development of the Williams stand or ST prices including any special deals.

The bottom line is that the board just like the fans want to see success at AG. They are trying to achieve that but at the same time keeping the club reasonably solvent.Thankfully City aren't £45m in debt like Derby County.

Everyone makes mistakes and I'm sure that SL would hold his hand up and admit that appointing Tinnion turned out to be a failure but now things have moved on and hopefully Johnson can deliver next season.

[Guest]

I don't think it was Lansdown who signed Pulis on.

I'm pretty sure he voted towards appointing him in a split 4-3 board vote didn't he?

[RedM]

I'd say that he may have made a lot of wrong desisions (who doesn't) but he has made a lot of right ones too. It's understandable people want to take their frustrations out and as he's the Chairman he gets to take the flack with the praise.

I can't say he's ever come across as less than a passionate fan who must be as frustrated as the rest of us. I'd like to see him sign up under a different user name on this non-official forum and have a good rant too!

On Pulis, not a good decision as we all know now (should have been the God that I have in my sig! ). But in SL's defence he (Pullis) was a sought after manager at the time and has since gone on to be employed time and time again by different Chairman, each with more knowledge of his track record than the last.

[Antman]

I don't think it was Lansdown who signed Pulis on.

All fans should ask themselves this question when they critise the board - Do you really think that all SL is interested in is irritating the fans?. I ask because whenever you see critism aimed at the board is mostly consists of complains about the East End, the development of the Williams stand or ST prices including any special deals.

The bottom line is that the board just like the fans want to see success at AG. They are trying to achieve that but at the same time keeping the club reasonably solvent.Thankfully City aren't £45m in debt like Derby County.

Everyone makes mistakes and I'm sure that SL would hold his hand up and admit that appointing Tinnion turned out to be a failure but now things have moved on and hopefully Johnson can deliver next season.

Steve Lansdown has been at board level at the club for a long time.

Lets not forget he was financial director too for ages. Surely he has had more than enough time to put into place financial structures and guidelines that would have meant we were not losing money year on year.

We are still reacting to circumstance, not initiating and pre-empting schemes and situations.

Lansdown was part of the pro Pulis vote (so was Laycock)

SL may not be 'interested' in irritating the fans, but the fact is he's doing a pretty good job of it with a section of them. Now there may be an argument that it's only a minority, but thats a bit of a cop out.

It's not an insignificant minority and thats important.

No we're not in debt like Derby, but we're moving that way! There is clearly an underlying problem with lower league football clubs being able to operate competitively, but at a profit or very least break even.

We need to know what that is and ernestly start fixing it. My opinion of the current state of affairs is that whilst the board obviously recognise this issue, the steps they have taken over the last few years have not helped to assuage the debt in any significant manner. We have had the PR about cutting wages, but then take on Marcus Stewart on considerable money (you could argue that it is offset by his free transfer, but a: he hasn't performed, & b: it upsets any wage structue in place so other players see it as a signal that actually we WILL pay silly money.)

We need consistency, both on and off the field. If that means we turn into Crewe Alexandria then fine, but lets know where we stand. We as fans will react more consistently (!) if we felt that the clubs actions were moving in a forward direction.

Now this forum represents a small slice of the fan base. Perhaps polluted by idiot babble and teenage reactions (I remember those raging hormones - only faintly though') but it IS a useful guage of reaction.

(This last week excepted - the silly way SL or whoever 'handed over' the forum was a classic example of the apparent 'eff you' approach. You could have done it in a million more fan friendly ways!)

As for mistakes? He's made 'em alright, but he's made 'em over and over. There seems too little accountability for them though.Whats more there seems little activity on expanding the board so again, it appears like it's Steve's little fiefdom, and damn the lot of you.

Questioning the board is as valid as questioning the manager/players if the team is playing badly. I argue our board is complacent and inept. That isn't questioning them as fans, or the fact Steve Lansdown has put cash (low or no interest but secured against assets) into the club.

Shake 'em up, get some new blood in. I'm not talking an Abramovitch buyout, because we all know thats unlikely, but there are business men out there who could put in a half Million for a seat on the board. At least we'd bring fresh perspective to managing the club.

[BB.]

I don't think it was Lansdown who signed Pulis on.

All fans should ask themselves this question when they critise the board - Do you really think that all SL is interested in is irritating the fans?. I ask because whenever you see critism aimed at the board is mostly consists of complains about the East End, the development of the Williams stand or ST prices including any special deals.

The bottom line is that the board just like the fans want to see success at AG. They are trying to achieve that but at the same time keeping the club reasonably solvent.Thankfully City aren't £45m in debt like Derby County.

Everyone makes mistakes and I'm sure that SL would hold his hand up and admit that appointing Tinnion turned out to be a failure but now things have moved on and hopefully Johnson can deliver next season.

What are the pro's of his reign then?

Has he learnt from his mistakes?

Just asking, trying to weigh up the pro's and cons you see.

I don't think all Steve is interested in is irritating the fans, obviously it not, but he needs to work on the board-fans relationship, that is clear to see. He could get a peoples person to represent him maybe?

[Guest Dan C]

I'm pretty sure he voted towards appointing him in a split 4-3 board vote didn't he?

Thats how I remember it.

[Chappers]

One small point, at what other Club has Pulis been a failure? Yes he was a disaster here, but he had a good track record at his previous Club, who played decent football. In fact much like GJ.

That is the detached factual part, personally I did not want Pulis, thought he wasted a lot of money on rubbish signings, disliked the 'football' we played, and never liked him. Thought I had better confirm that in case anyone thought I actually rated Pulis!!!