Stupefying, Sobering Statistics

[greenun]

[Redhyde]

That's the worst arguement for it being a rubbish division as could be.

A better comment would be "look at this rubbish, it's rubbish."

Those stats just mean that it's a closer, more competetive division. It doesn't mean it's worse. Maybe we've stagnated and everyone else has improved. We're worse and it probably is but that's a useless way of making the point.

[Guest Dan C]

That's the worst arguement for it being a rubbish division as could be.

A better comment would be "look at this rubbish, it's rubbish."

Those stats just mean that it's a closer, more competetive division. It doesn't mean it's worse. Maybe we've stagnated and everyone else has improved. We're worse and it probably is but that's a useless way of making the point.

No I would agree with Green Un that this division is poor. Just look at it, Southend and Swansea both promoted from league two last season and there up near the top, Then Chesterfield who battled relegation every season is up there and even colchester who were a mid table team every season are up there. It's a very strange division this season and it's becoming alot harder every season to get out of it.

[Redhyde]

Yes i agree too, i just think it's a v poorly put arguement.

[SimplyRed]

Bristol City is a damning indictment of where poor leadership, years of mismanagement, shoddy investment and a lack of real vision with a procession of 'wannabe' self-made business men who felt they could lead the club to success, but in reality were found lacking in terms of investment and well as knowhow in moving a club forward.

On the flip side - In 1986, we beat Bolton Wanderers 3-0 at Wembley in what many see as one of our best successes in terms of silverware. Yet look at the progress they've made since that defeat. They're now a well-established Premiership side and we are still in the same league we were in then.

I'm not suggesting that we have the support or the wherewithal to emulate that achievement, the point I'm trying to illustrate is that we have remained static in all that time (apart from a couple of 'forays' into a higher league).

This club is crying out for a 'sugar daddy' to take it by the scruff of the neck and lead it to the success it needs. The attendances at top games like the cup finals and play-off finals is living proof that, given success, the club would need a new stadium to cope with the fans because they would certainly fill Ashton Gate.

Like his predecessor, Scott Davidson, Lansdown has shown that he lacks the experience or, perhaps, the desire to lead the club to success and the debt the club finds itself in is down to him. Years of mismanagement and poor vision have wasted the funds that he and his board have invested and that's why clubs with lesser financial clout have overtaken us in the success stakes.

At this moment in time, I can't see the club improving much under Lansdown's tenure - he simply doesn't know how to run a successful football club.

[greenun]

That's the worst arguement for it being a rubbish division as could be.

A better comment would be "look at this rubbish, it's rubbish."

Those stats just mean that it's a closer, more competetive division. It doesn't mean it's worse. Maybe we've stagnated and everyone else has improved. We're worse and it probably is but that's a useless way of making the point.

RH, that's a very well constructed, thoughtful answer, which is probably right.

You see RH, with the benefit of youth, your experience of watching City over the years in terms of enduring rubbish is, say, a dustbin full, compared with my Unitary Authority Refuse Tip.

However, I'm probably just talking complete rubbish.

[Redhyde]

However, I'm probably just talking complete rubbish.

ah but you can't prove that...

[Guest mike11]

No I would agree with Green Un that this division is poor. Just look at it, Southend and Swansea both promoted from league two last season and there up near the top, Then Chesterfield who battled relegation every season is up there and even colchester who were a mid table team every season are up there. It's a very strange division this season and it's becoming alot harder every season to get out of it.

The fact that you agree with Greenun wouldn't have anything to do with him being a moderator for the ST would it?Perish the thought.

[SE23Red]

Bristol City is a damning indictment of where poor leadership, years of mismanagement, shoddy investment and a lack of real vision with a procession of 'wannabe' self-made business men who felt they could lead the club to success, but in reality were found lacking in terms of investment and well as knowhow in moving a club forward.

On the flip side - In 1986, we beat Bolton Wanderers 3-0 at Wembley in what many see as one of our best successes in terms of silverware. Yet look at the progress they've made since that defeat. They're now a well-established Premiership side and we are still in the same league we were in then.

I'm not suggesting that we have the support or the wherewithal to emulate that achievement, the point I'm trying to illustrate is that we have remained static in all that time (apart from a couple of 'forays' into a higher league).

This club is crying out for a 'sugar daddy' to take it by the scruff of the neck and lead it to the success it needs. The attendances at top games like the cup finals and play-off finals is living proof that, given success, the club would need a new stadium to cope with the fans because they would certainly fill Ashton Gate.

Like his predecessor, Scott Davidson, Lansdown has shown that he lacks the experience or, perhaps, the desire to lead the club to success and the debt the club finds itself in is down to him. Years of mismanagement and poor vision have wasted the funds that he and his board have invested and that's why clubs with lesser financial clout have overtaken us in the success stakes.

At this moment in time, I can't see the club improving much under Lansdown's tenure - he simply doesn't know how to run a successful football club.

As you say we have had two promotions since that victory in '86, only to come back down to this level a short time later. We were a third flight team back then, and are again today, so we have moved neither forwards or backwards.

Although I tend to agree that too many bad decisions have meant we haven't been able to make the promotions stick, or get out of this league in recent years I do find the singling out of success stories (e.g. Wigan, Bolton) as a yardstick to be unfair.

Yes some clubs have moved forward in quick time, many through large amounts of money being pumped in and others through long periods of good management or a degree of good luck. But that is not normal and for every winner there is a loser. To give an example from 1986 the League Cup Final was won by Oxford beating QPR 3-0 (both top flight teams). What happened to them? Or Forest who finished 8th.

And finishing mid table in our league were Newport County...

[Chappers]

What a load of Tosh - Signing three unproven youngsters (Two defenders - Hardly top priority!) in our position is hardly 'A breath of fresh air', it borders on suicidal! It is more like New Labour spin than the writing of a serious football journalist! Also, these stats could prove that the quality has improved as there are no easy games any more.

[greenun]

What a load of Tosh - Signing three unproven youngsters (Two defenders - Hardly top priority!) in our position is hardly 'A breath of fresh air', it borders on suicidal!

Well, it's funny you should mention that, because if Carey fails to have yesterday's red card recinded, we'll only have Keogh, or Fontaine to contest the central defensive berth. Similarly, if City wish to offer more going forward at left-back, they'll seriously consider Adam Green.

It is more like New Labour spin than the writing of a serious football journalist! Also, these stats could prove that the quality has improved as there are no easy games any more.

Actually, I'm just a boring, common or garden member of the public, who writes this column in his spare time for nothing. However, I do respect constructive criticism, as its extremely helpful to gauge City supporters responses on this forum, in order to structure ideas for future articles.

[SimplyRed]

...I do find the singling out of success stories (e.g. Wigan, Bolton) as a yardstick to be unfair.

Yes some clubs have moved forward in quick time, many through large amounts of money being pumped in and others through long periods of good management or a degree of good luck. But that is not normal and for every winner there is a loser. To give an example from 1986 the League Cup Final was won by Oxford beating QPR 3-0 (both top flight teams). What happened to them? Or Forest who finished 8th.

And finishing mid table in our league were Newport County...

I accept your point. But the teams you mention that have gone in the opposite direction (namely, Oxford, QPR, Forest and Newport) have hardly been known for being reasonably stable from a financial viewpoint in recent times.

My point is that we have, in the past, been labelled as one of the most solvent clubs in the lower leagues over the past decade and yet we can't make it count. Why?

[Drew Peacock]

However, I do respect constructive criticism, as its extremely helpful to gauge City supporters responses on this forum, in order to structure ideas for future articles.

Constructive criticism on this forum?

You're mad!

[SE23Red]

I accept your point. But the teams you mention that have gone in the opposite direction (namely, Oxford, QPR, Forest and Newport) have hardly been known for being reasonably stable from a financial viewpoint in recent times.

My point is that we have, in the past, been labelled as one of the most solvent clubs in the lower leagues over the past decade and yet we can't make it count. Why?

But did the financial instability come before or after the fall from grace? For example Forest in '86 were still under Brian Clough who, as far as remember, balanced the books. Even after '86 they went to 4 cup finals before the fall started. The financial problems really kicked in (like so many clubs in recent years) on being relegated from the top flight and then Platt's attempts at buying them back up again.

Q.P.R had similar problems when they fell to our level, they couldn't (or didn't want to) cut the budget as fast as they fell. Ipswich, Southampton etc etc, stable clubs become unstable as they fall.

In answer to the 'Why?' question my take on City's problems, such as they are, is budgeting on success as if it could be guaranteed, each time we have taken a gamble on going up or staying up and it has not paid off, e.g. when we last went up we were the biggest spenders in the league with the 3 strikers we signed. If there is one thing that is certain about football is that it is notoriously difficult to make having money count.

Maybe we need to try running the club 'properly', matching other clubs at this level for work rate, commitment and stability rather than running 'Bristol City the soap opera', with all the big signings, controversial sales, and ex-Premiership trophy players. I certainly don't want to see another 18 month period where we have a turnover of 20+ players.

Much of the tension amongst the fans at the moment is that Johnson doesn't want to do it the old way, preferring players on the way up rather than those on the way down. Maybe we just have to go along with it, getting behind him and letting him do it his way. It's as likely to get us up as boom and bust.

[Chappers]

Greenun - Sorry if I sounded rude! A few points on Andrew - If he does well, we run the risk of Luton recalling him, and as Newell seems to be heading to Leicester, that may be another problem. If not, the experience will only benefit us in the future, assuming that we sign him. At present, we only have 2 regular scoring threats in Brooker and Murray, nullify those (As Scunny did), and we look toothless. Looking to the future is fine, if the present is secured. To my mind, the signings are high-risk, and Brookers absence yesterday just confirms my fears. I was not looking for big money players, just a more experienced head up front, as he clearly is not going to play Marcus!

With the points differential, it proves that there are no outstanding sides, nor any whipping boys, but nothing about the overall standard. Personally, I think it has been a bit tougher this year than in previous ones, but that might also be because of our lack of quality.

Perhaps I am just a cynic and a pessimist!

[SimplyRed]

In answer to the 'Why?' question my take on City's problems, such as they are, is budgeting on success as if it could be guaranteed, each time we have taken a gamble on going up or staying up and it has not paid off, e.g. when we last went up we were the biggest spenders in the league with the 3 strikers we signed. If there is one thing that is certain about football is that it is notoriously difficult to make having money count.

Maybe we need to try running the club 'properly', matching other clubs at this level for work rate, commitment and stability rather than running 'Bristol City the soap opera', with all the big signings, controversial sales, and ex-Premiership trophy players. I certainly don't want to see another 18 month period where we have a turnover of 20+ players.

Much of the tension amongst the fans at the moment is that Johnson doesn't want to do it the old way, preferring players on the way up rather than those on the way down. Maybe we just have to go along with it, getting behind him and letting him do it his way. It's as likely to get us up as boom and bust.

But doesn't this bring us back to the orignal arguments I made with reference to the recent chairmen at the club who, let's face it, have made a total cock-up of running the club?

I'm in favour of running the club 'properly' but it seems patently obvious to me that we won't do it with Lansdown at the helm.

As for Johnson's modus operandi, I wasn't convinced he was the right man for the job when he came here and he's done nothing so far to convince me otherwise. The way things are going right now, we're more likely to be relegated this season than maintain the status quo, so I'm finding it really difficult to get behind him because I believe doing it 'his way' is entirely unconvincing.

[SE23Red]

But doesn't this bring us back to the orignal arguments I made with reference to the recent chairmen at the club who, let's face it, have made a total cock-up of running the club?

No because, all things being equal, we are not a failure as a club. The statements

Bristol City is a damning indictment of where poor leadership, years of mismanagement, shoddy investment and a lack of real vision

and

...recent chairmen at the club who, let's face it, have made a total cock-up of running the club

should, IMO, be reserved for the likes of Oxford and Forest.

In the Wilson years (Danny not Harold) we spent too much time asking what we did wrong in finishing behind two teams and forgeting what we did well in finishing above the other 21. Speak to fans of other clubs at this level and they still cannot believe we got rid of him after finishing third. Oh and I'm not saying for a minute that I wanted him to stay, I wanted him out every bit as the next person after the selection at Cardiff and 'defeat is not a failure.'

I guess my point is we can all point to mistakes that have been made but ask a fan of any club and they'll talk about the 'if only's. I point to one failure that could reasonably have been avoided (Tinnion) but the others as I've said above were small gambles that didn't pay off. You can't say that any one of us wouldn't have made such decisions as fans of the club.