Steve Lansdown Pre-match Forum

[Milo]

Rovers have some ideas like having fans on their board City should be copying although i would have a roof there to keep people dry!

Oh i have realised alright but how meaningful is dialogue going to be with a bloke who wants us to see his bigger picture and we have to buy into this or get left behind.

Nice bloke who is doing what few chairman would dare and all that but impressed by his views i am not.

At the end of the session SL referred to an ST official getting to see the lease when an elected fans representative is on the board. He is clearly open to the idea of having an elected fans representative on the board.

If you're looking enviously at Geoff Dunford allowing fans representatives on their board you can't criticise SL for looking to do similar. But frankly, it's a two-way street. Fans have got to want fans representation too. And the best way to demonstrate this that I can see is to part with £1 a month and become a member of the Supporters Trust (see links below for an application).

Then the proof of the pudding is in the eating. My experience of life and of Steve Lansdown tells me that if the fans have an elected representative on the board there will be occasions when well constructed and compelling arguments will influence decisions.

[screech]

Milo,

What price, if any, has Steve Lansdown put, on a supporter representing the fans on the BCFC board.

Is this gesture of a supporters trust representative sitting in board meetings conditionary of the trust having a set percentage shareholding in one of the businesses he holds?

This must have been discussed with you or others for him to agree a seat with him and Dawe, I mean, surely this gesture comes at a price. And if he is so willing to let Joe Public help make decisions for next to nothing, why doesn't he offer the same to the thousands of business people in Bristol who could help him run this burden to him.

[screech]

Ok, anyone from the supporters trust can answer if they wish.

[RedTop]

How much the academy had to do with Leroy I don't know, we picked him from Chelsea at the premier league exit trials.

...where only clubs with academies are allowed to attend. So if we didn't have an academy, we would never have got the chance to snap Leroy up at the exit trials, never mind the training he got when he was there!

[RedTop]

it is important that this club and every football club is run by its fans for the fans.

No, it's not important that every football club is run by its fans. Far from it. It's important, in my view, that every club is run in a way that is sustainable and seeks to maximize its success within those boundaries. Take a look at clubs run by 'fans' - by which I'm taking it you don't mean people like SteveL who is not only wealthy but also a genuine fan - and take a look at those run as businesses. Take a look at the fare they provide for their fans and their league positions and ask yourself which is better satisfying its supporters.

They're supposed to be businessmen but are losing out and will go on losing out on thousands, possibly tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds each year due to them not providing the service required from a percentage of their customers.

I suggest they are actually losing out and will go on losing out on thousands each year because they are trying too hard to provide the main service required from the majority of their customers - i.e. decent footballers. Now I realise that at the moment the results of this have not been successful, but the bottom line is that the reason this club is losing money is not so much because it's failing to provide the best catering, or other bugbears that fans moan about with varying levels of justification, but because the directors have spent more money than the club can actually afford on players and the wage bill. As someone rather revealingly mentioned recently on here, when asked why he did not run the club at breakeven, SteveL replied: "Because the fans would never allow it." The pressure to spend more money to bring success is neverending. Personally, I think SteveL has given in to this pressure too often. But my point is that I suspect it is this that is the predominant reason why the club loses money. I'm not suggesting that they could make more money by doing some things better, just that this is very unlikely to outweigh the overspending on the playing side.

[Nogbad the Bad]

Regarding the Williams. The question was basically if the new scheme fails, will you scrap it. A "No" answer to that seems pretty bizarre to me.

Absolutely correct.

I thought Sl said the scheme was not going to fail (in his eyes) because there had been sufficient interest to suggest that every seat in the new scheme would be taken up.

Unless i dreamt it. Need to see the tape i guess.

By the way, i realise some people are furious about this scheme but i spoke afterwards to the bloke who had asked the question ( who i'd happened to recognise) and he and 9 friends have already picked out seats together for next year in Dolman C Block.

They're not altogether pleased about being shunted over but they're very pleasantly surprised by their 'new' view.

Suggest others should at least look at the alternatives - i know where i'd rather sit.

[Nogbad the Bad]

Jay, I know how he responded and elaborated, I was there.

For example the question regarding the lease. Steve mentioned having Ernst & Young as auditors and Burges Salmon as lawyers, and explained that they are big and expensive firms of professionals, as though that were some sort of vindication. Quite apart from the fact that some of the biggest firms of accountants have been involved in some of the biggest financial balls-ups, any advice provided by accountants and lawyers are irrelevant to what was behind the question.

We've got a 106 year lease on the ground. The ground, or bits of it, will NOT be sold.

SL gave a very detailed answer before you turned up regarding the benefits of splitting the ground finances from the football club finances and then gave a personal shortened one to you.

There certainly didn't seem to be anything sinister involved, simply preventing one being a financial drain on the other.

He gave the examples of Luton, Plymouth and Hull, i think, of clubs who had thrived from near administration after finances had been better apportioned.

Of course, some or all of these Clubs did it with local council help. City were never going to get this from our Council, so this is a way of moving the club forward without it.

Perhaps someone else who was there can give their opinion to see if i understood this corectly.

[WTFiGO!?!]

trying too hard to provide the main service required from the majority of their customers - i.e. decent footballers. Now I realise that at the moment the results of this have not been successful, but the bottom line is that the reason this club is losing money is not so much because it's failing to provide the best catering, or other bugbears that fans moan about with varying levels of justification, but because the directors have spent more money than the club can actually afford on players and the wage bill.

Yes but Redtop, I don't see how returning a small area of the groung to terracing and enticing back a number of the stay-awayers can do their income any harm at all. This will only effect finance for the playing side positively surely.

I don't buy into this argument that terracing increases the chances of trouble as Clubs who have it or have only recently got shot of it donnot have a higher record of trouble than those that don't.

I firmly believe that the improved match day atmosphere resulting because of it can only be good for the Club.

This is the only bugbear that I 'moan' about and I obviously don't see it as moaning but more of a justified sense of outrage. In terms of the ticket pricing, food, quality of Football etc on offer at AG I accept it and have never made serious negative comment about it.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Where on earth are you from? we're from ENGLAND, where you come from - do you put the kettle on?

('Vindaloo')

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

PS/I ****ed up the quoting a bit, but I hope you get my point.

[Milo]

Milo,

What price, if any, has Steve Lansdown put, on a supporter representing the fans on the BCFC board.

Is this gesture of a supporters trust representative sitting in board meetings conditionary of the trust having a set percentage shareholding in one of the businesses he holds?

This must have been discussed with you or others for him to agree a seat with him and Dawe, I mean, surely this gesture comes at a price. And if he is so willing to let Joe Public help make decisions for next to nothing, why doesn't he offer the same to the thousands of business people in Bristol who could help him run this burden to him.

In my first meeting with SL a figure was discussed and when I brought that figure up in my second meeting SL felt that a minimum figure was not the most important factor. Yes, he wants the ST to raise a significant amount of money and with the support of fans who join up this is as practical for us to achieve as it is for the Rovers (Rovers's fans raise £170K a year from around 3,500 members, City fans raise around £25K a year between the Supporters Club and City2000).

What's as important to SL is that we continue to act in a professional and constructive manner and that we can demonstrate that the ST is representative of a good proportion of fans.

I'm confused as to why thousands of people running businesses are better suited to represent fans views than representatives who are accountable to the fans and elected by them. The working party consists of a wide variety of people including business owners, accountants, bankers, financial planners, a chief executive and all the skills and experiences of people in the business community can be approached by the Trust. I believe that the ST already has ample business people shaping it and as it grows it will bring on more and more skilled people. The Supporters Trust can bring all the skills of the business community, raise the sort of funds that the business community can when sufficient fans have parted with their £1 a month and yet all that input is for the fans' benefit.

[RedTop]

I don't buy into this argument that terracing increases the chances of trouble as Clubs who have it or have only recently got shot of it donnot have a higher record of trouble than those that don't.

I'm not accusing you of whinging, and as I suggested, some of the criticisms aimed at the club and those running it recently have been entirely legitimate, even though many have not.

What I suggest is that if you really think it is feasible for the club to have standing, and that it would be to the club's benefit to do so, rather than just in the interests of the few who would choose it over sitting down, then you go about convincing the club. You can't expect the club to change direction without very good reasons.

In my view, that means not just getting together a petition but demonstrating using evidence from other clubs that attendances and revenues have gone up at other clubs as a direct result.

Can you, for instance, answer me this: Would you be prepared to pay the same entrance fee for standing that you do for your seat?

[NickJ]

No, it's not important that every football club is run by its fans. Far from it. It's important, in my view, that every club is run in a way that is sustainable and seeks to maximize its success within those boundaries. Take a look at clubs run by 'fans' - by which I'm taking it you don't mean people like SteveL who is not only wealthy but also a genuine fan - and take a look at those run as businesses. Take a look at the fare they provide for their fans and their league positions and ask yourself which is better satisfying its supporters.

RedTop, you have picked up only on the first half of my quote that a football club should be "run by its fans for its fans".

The most important, second part of that quote is something you haven't commented upon - "for its fans".

I would suggest that a good proportion of Bristol City fans do not feel that the club is being run in that way, and in my opinion some of the replies on Saturday demonstrated that.

[NickJ]

We've got a 106 year lease on the ground. The ground, or bits of it, will NOT be sold.

SL gave a very detailed answer before you turned up regarding the benefits of splitting the ground finances from the football club finances and then gave a personal shortened one to you.

There certainly didn't seem to be anything sinister involved, simply preventing one being a financial drain on the other.

He gave the examples of Luton, Plymouth and Hull, i think, of clubs who had thrived from near administration after finances had been better apportioned.

Of course, some or all of these Clubs did it with local council help. City were never going to get this from our Council, so this is a way of moving the club forward without it.

Perhaps someone else who was there can give their opinion to see if i understood this corectly.

SteveL told me on the evening of the AGM that the stadium being in a separate company would enable part of it to be sold.

We have a 106 year lease - so what, before the transfer we owned the freehold. The transfer safeguards the football club? I don't think so. The usual reason for hiving off an aset is to protect the asset.

SteveL's explanation regarding the "benefits" of splitting the ground, I have heard before, long and short. I do not agree with him, that is why I once again asked the question.

There may not be anything sinister, but this notion that it has been done to stop the stadium being a drain on the football club or vice versa is a nonsense.

You are correct, the examples of Luton, Plymouth and Hull were in fact of clubs that no longer own their ground. There is a fundamental difference at those clubs, which is that they are one club towns/cities. Their local councils have invested in them. There is no way Bristol City Council would invest solely in City without the Gas, so it aint going to happen. Entirely different circumstances, and so not relevant to the debate.

Transferring the freehold of Ashton Gate to a separate company does not in itself facilitate "moving this club forward" - if you disagree of course perhaps you could explain.

[screech]

In my first meeting with SL a figure was discussed and when I brought that figure up in my second meeting SL felt that a minimum figure was not the most important factor. Yes, he wants the ST to raise a significant amount of money and with the support of fans who join up this is as practical for us to achieve as it is for the Rovers (Rovers's fans raise £170K a year from around 3,500 members, City fans raise around £25K a year between the Supporters Club and City2000).

What's as important to SL is that we continue to act in a professional and constructive manner and that we can demonstrate that the ST is representative of a good proportion of fans.

I'm confused as to why thousands of people running businesses are better suited to represent fans views than representatives who are accountable to the fans and elected by them. The working party consists of a wide variety of people including business owners, accountants, bankers, financial planners, a chief executive and all the skills and experiences of people in the business community can be approached by the Trust. I believe that the ST already has ample business people shaping it and as it grows it will bring on more and more skilled people. The Supporters Trust can bring all the skills of the business community, raise the sort of funds that the business community can when sufficient fans have parted with their £1 a month and yet all that input is for the fans' benefit.

[bucksred]

[screech]

What was that figure quoted for a seat on the board, because I'm sure their would be other people in the business community that would want to know what one group had paid to be on an equal standing as Dawe and Lansdown, especially when they have said they are looking for new investors.

To be honest I would rather see a bigger group of business people in charge than a group of supporters, for a start, I honestly don't believe for one minute that any elected fan will have any influence over the big money boys on any major decision, yes you may make a difference choosing who the pies come from, but honestly can you say the combined wealth of 60 million approx of Dawe and Lansdown is going to let Ron (no offence Ron) sit in on a board meeting and dictate to them that it's not the best idea to sell off Ashton Gate.

I'm not belittling the effort you guys have gone to, to get this off the ground but, to me it really is pie in the sky thinking that the deaf ears of Lansdown and Dawe will suddenly hear a group of supporters with a couple of thousand pounds behind them, especially as we keep getting told football is a business run by business men.

And one more thing, any info of a delicate kind would not get filtered down through to the supporters, look what happened with the FCF info on the badge, an organisation setup to inform the fans of things in the pipeline, and yet not one of them did pass on the information because it was regarded a secret.

So what would be different here, this trust would need to be completely transparent and so would the board of directors, no chance of that happening imo because they haven't got the balls now to give a real explanation of why they sold off our biggest asset - the ground, and wont let the terms of the lease be made for public viewing.

Anyway, best of luck to all that join this scheme, I am as you can guess, not a supporter of this trust, I did attend the first couple of meetings at the beginning to see where it was heading, but for me I'd rather stick my money in the City2000, the benefit of the academy is for all to see.

[Nogbad the Bad]

SteveL told me on the evening of the AGM that the stadium being in a separate company would enable part of it to be sold.

We have a 106 year lease - so what, before the transfer we owned the freehold. The transfer safeguards the football club? I don't think so. The usual reason for hiving off an aset is to protect the asset.

SteveL's explanation regarding the "benefits" of splitting the ground, I have heard before, long and short. I do not agree with him, that is why I once again asked the question.

There may not be anything sinister, but this notion that it has been done to stop the stadium being a drain on the football club or vice versa is a nonsense.

You are correct, the examples of Luton, Plymouth and Hull were in fact of clubs that no longer own their ground. There is a fundamental difference at those clubs, which is that they are one club towns/cities. Their local councils have invested in them. There is no way Bristol City Council would invest solely in City without the Gas, so it aint going to happen. Entirely different circumstances, and so not relevant to the debate.

Transferring the freehold of Ashton Gate to a separate company does not in itself facilitate "moving this club forward" - if you disagree of course perhaps you could explain.

Nick, I am not in a position to have an in depth debate with you, and it wasn't my intention to provoke an argument.

I accept this is not my area of expertise, as it appears to be yours, so it would be a lost cause anyway.

I'm merely reporting on what i thought was said and my interpretation.

As a layman, one important point seemed to be that ground maintenance and improvements are eating up money that could otherwise be put into squad strengthening, although i do note you see this as nonsense.

I did mention about the Council involvement at Luton, Hull and Plymouth and how not having our outgoings to upkeep their grounds had no doubt made more funds available to the playing side. We agree that our Council will never help City, so having separate companies would seem to be one way City could nullify these other clubs' recent advantages.

Having said that, If the future of my beloved AG as Bristol City's home was ever to be put at risk, i would be as devastated as you, but my understanding was that this is not a possibility.

Of course, if after hearing SL's reply in full, you still have good reason to feel it might be then i would sympathise with your efforts to get even fuller answers that would overtly satisfy an expert in the field.

My gut feeling ( about as much as i can go on) however remains that what was said was straightforward and honest and on that basis i see no reason for alarm.

[NickJ]

Nick, I am not in a position to have an in depth debate with you, and it wasn't my intention to provoke an argument. Nor mine, and sorry if my reply gave that impression - informed debate i would rather call it.

I accept this is not my area of expertise, as it appears to be yours, so it would be a lost cause anyway.

I'm merely reporting on what i thought was said and my interpretation.

As a layman, one important point seemed to be that ground maintenance and improvements are eating up money that could otherwise be put into squad strengthening, although i do note you see this as nonsense. Well, of course that is a nonsense, those costs will be incurred whichever company Ashton Gate sits in. Now that Ashton Gate sits in a different company, the football club will pay for the ground costs through the rental charge.

I did mention about the Council involvement at Luton, Hull and Plymouth and how not having our outgoings to upkeep their grounds had no doubt made more funds available to the playing side. We agree that our Council will never help City, so having separate companies would seem to be one way City could nullify these other clubs' recent advantages.

I cannot see any possible way that simply transferring the stadium into a separate company will help in that respect.

Having said that, If the future of my beloved AG as Bristol City's home was ever to be put at risk, i would be as devastated as you, but my understanding was that this is not a possibility. Putting AG into a separate company certainly does not reduce that risk, therefore my question all along has been - why do it?

Of course, if after hearing SL's reply in full, you still have good reason to feel it might be then i would sympathise with your efforts to get even fuller answers that would overtly satisfy an expert in the field. Good, because I am still not satisfied with the replies given - which incidentally have changed now on 2 or 3 ocassions since the AGM.

My gut feeling ( about as much as i can go on) however remains that what was said was straightforward and honest and on that basis i see no reason for alarm.

I ask myself the question - is there a good reason for this action that will benefit Bristol City? Despite Steve's attempted justifications, the answer to that is No.

The question then becomes - why do it?

[Wurzel City]

At the end of the session SL referred to an ST official getting to see the lease when an elected fans representative is on the board. He is clearly open to the idea of having an elected fans representative on the board.

If you're looking enviously at Geoff Dunford allowing fans representatives on their board you can't criticise SL for looking to do similar. But frankly, it's a two-way street. Fans have got to want fans representation too. And the best way to demonstrate this that I can see is to part with £1 a month and become a member of the Supporters Trust (see links below for an application).

Then the proof of the pudding is in the eating. My experience of life and of Steve Lansdown tells me that if the fans have an elected representative on the board there will be occasions when well constructed and compelling arguments will influence decisions.

I have joined the trust Milo and i think that the only chance of reining in our club is the supporters trust.But saturday Mr Lansdown stated very clearly that even if well constructed and compelling arguments exist he would not be moved.Not much of a two way street to me.Hats of the trust for organising this event but my fears about the Chairman have worsened since the spin on the mike.

[RedTop]

RedTop, you have picked up only on the first half of my quote that a football club should be "run by its fans for its fans".

The most important, second part of that quote is something you haven't commented upon - "for its fans".

I would suggest that a good proportion of Bristol City fans do not feel that the club is being run in that way, and in my opinion some of the replies on Saturday demonstrated that.

I picked up on the first part because it is the premise I disagree with. I'm not disagreeing that it should be run for its fans. What I am disagreeing with is your statement that this can best be done by a group of 'ordinary' fans themselves running it.

As I've already said, in one sense it is. SteveL is a City fan, just one who happens to have a few more quid than you or I. He was going to the Gate to watch games with his family before he had any board involvement because, like the rest of us, he enjoyed watching City and City were 'his' team. So where do you draw the line - by fans who have had season tickets for 20 years? By fans who earn less than a certain amount of money? By fans elected by vote?

Why, precisely, do you believe that tbe best way to run a club for its fans is for those fans themselves to run it? And which fans do you actually mean? I'd like to know because I think it's an interesting area for debate.

[Guest redtillimdead]

That was great laugh some fans wasted there chance in my opinion

very interesting finding out the figures from the scotty transfer and the knowing bridges was a fond favourite

and what was the anti brooker man chatting about ?

[NickJ]

I picked up on the first part because it is the premise I disagree with. I'm not disagreeing that it should be run for its fans. What I am disagreeing with is your statement that this can best be done by a group of 'ordinary' fans themselves running it.

As I've already said, in one sense it is. SteveL is a City fan, just one who happens to have a few more quid than you or I. He was going to the Gate to watch games with his family before he had any board involvement because, like the rest of us, he enjoyed watching City and City were 'his' team. So where do you draw the line - by fans who have had season tickets for 20 years? By fans who earn less than a certain amount of money? By fans elected by vote?

Why, precisely, do you believe that tbe best way to run a club for its fans is for those fans themselves to run it? And which fans do you actually mean? I'd like to know because I think it's an interesting area for debate.

I think you have misinterpreted what I have said, I am beginning to think deliberately so in order to cloud the real issue - show me where I have said that the club should be run by "ordinary" fans.

I do not dispute that Steve is a fan - again, show me where I have said otherwise.

In a way, I don't care if Alan Sugar runs our club, so long as I am satisfied that he is running it as the majority of fans want. And yes, I know that contradicts the first half of my original quote. That just emphaises the point. It is the "for the fans" bit that I am most interested in.

You need to take the entirety of my original quote.

So I will repeat what I originally said - the club should be run by its fans for its fans. It is the second half of that that I do not see at the moment - that is the real debate.

So tell me, if you had to say one or the other, would you say Bristol City is being run democratically or autocratically. Now that, I think, is an interesting area for debate, and I will be happy to do so with you.

NickJ

[Wurzel City]

I'm not accusing you of whinging, and as I suggested, some of the criticisms aimed at the club and those running it recently have been entirely legitimate, even though many have not.

What I suggest is that if you really think it is feasible for the club to have standing, and that it would be to the club's benefit to do so, rather than just in the interests of the few who would choose it over sitting down, then you go about convincing the club. You can't expect the club to change direction without very good reasons.

In my view, that means not just getting together a petition but demonstrating using evidence from other clubs that attendances and revenues have gone up at other clubs as a direct result.

Can you, for instance, answer me this: Would you be prepared to pay the same entrance fee for standing that you do for your seat?

Redtop the question put to Steve Lansdown was if the majority of Bristol City supporters did not share your views over the East End / safe standing would you reconsider your position and his answer was no. I think if it was proved that "if" fans show overwhelming support for any topic then that is a very good reason for the club to seriously look at their stance.

The message given out saturday was if i do not like it tough! Seems a strange to for our chairman to enter into meaningful dialogue.

[Guest ashtonyate]

...where only clubs with academies are allowed to attend. So if we didn't have an academy, we would never have got the chance to snap Leroy up at the exit trials, never mind the training he got when he was there!

That is untrue as I have proved in the past

[BCFC_Dan]

That is untrue as I have proved in the past

It's not untrue, it's true and you've never proved otherwise. In fact I'm not sure you've ever proved anything. You just drive arguments in circles until people give up talking to you.

Besides (for the umpteenth time) Leroy received the full 3 years training at Bristol City Academy. This makes him as much an Academy player as any other.

[RedTop]

I think you have misinterpreted what I have said, I am beginning to think deliberately so in order to cloud the real issue - show me where I have said that the club should be run by "ordinary" fans.

I do not dispute that Steve is a fan - again, show me where I have said otherwise.

In a way, I don't care if Alan Sugar runs our club, so long as I am satisfied that he is running it as the majority of fans want. And yes, I know that contradicts the first half of my original quote. That just emphaises the point. It is the "for the fans" bit that I am most interested in.

You need to take the entirety of my original quote.

So I will repeat what I originally said - the club should be run by its fans for its fans. It is the second half of that that I do not see at the moment - that is the real debate.

So tell me, if you had to say one or the other, would you say Bristol City is being run democratically or autocratically. Now that, I think, is an interesting area for debate, and I will be happy to do so with you.

NickJ

Why would I deliberately mininterpret what you are saying?

You stated "it is important that this club and every football club is run by its fans for the fans." I'm just disagreeing with that on the basis that the first half is at best irrelevant, and if narrowed down to mean something like the Supporters' Trust or a group of what one might call 'ordinary fans' for want of a better phrase, often counter-productive in many situations (including the one we currently find ourselves in).

It is not important at all in my view that the club is run 'by the fans'. What is important is that it is run to maximise the chances of bringing success to the club which we can all enjoy and wallow in unashamedly! In many cases, particularly because injections of cash are an important part of achieving success, having a club run 'by the fans' in the narrow sense of a Supporters' Trust etc would actually prove counter-productive to this aim. Thus it does not follow at all that it is important to have a club run by the fans for the fans.

I agree with you entirely that the second half of the phrase is important. I suggest merely that the first half is, at best, irrelevant and at worst counter-productive, and reading your reply regarding Alan Sugar, perhaps you concur with me on that.

So tell me, if you had to say one or the other, would you say Bristol City is being run democratically or autocratically. Now that, I think, is an interesting area for debate, and I will be happy to do so with you.

I certainly wouldn't say Bristol City is being run democratically. Why should it be? Since when has it been best to run a football club democratically? It's impossible without telling all the fans lots of commercially sensitive information so that they could make informed decisions. Do you seriously think we should all be involved in deciding whether or not to let Scott Golbourne go to another club, or how much to bid for a player? There is no way potential investors would be willing to allow their money into the club if they knew what happened to it would be determined not by themselves but by people who would not have to bear the financial consequences of their actions. People are far more likely to take risks if the money they are using is not their own.

Those who invest and take the most risk have a right to control the money they put in and look after their investment. If you want to call it 'he who pays the piper calls the tune' then fine. But I fundamentally disagree that a club should be run democratically.

Any business should look after its customers, and it follows any club should look after its fans. It's not too hard to make a case for situations where this has not happened recently. The shoddy shirts and appalling away design are both classic examples of things that should never have been allowed to happen. But that's a completely different argument from saying the club should be run democratically. I can't think of a worse way to run a club, personally.

[Milo]

What was that figure quoted for a seat on the board, because I'm sure their would be other people in the business community that would want to know what one group had paid to be on an equal standing as Dawe and Lansdown, especially when they have said they are looking for new investors.

To be honest I would rather see a bigger group of business people in charge than a group of supporters, for a start, I honestly don't believe for one minute that any elected fan will have any influence over the big money boys on any major decision, yes you may make a difference choosing who the pies come from, but honestly can you say the combined wealth of 60 million approx of Dawe and Lansdown is going to let Ron (no offence Ron) sit in on a board meeting and dictate to them that it's not the best idea to sell off Ashton Gate.

I'm not belittling the effort you guys have gone to, to get this off the ground but, to me it really is pie in the sky thinking that the deaf ears of Lansdown and Dawe will suddenly hear a group of supporters with a couple of thousand pounds behind them, especially as we keep getting told football is a business run by business men.

And one more thing, any info of a delicate kind would not get filtered down through to the supporters, look what happened with the FCF info on the badge, an organisation setup to inform the fans of things in the pipeline, and yet not one of them did pass on the information because it was regarded a secret.

So what would be different here, this trust would need to be completely transparent and so would the board of directors, no chance of that happening imo because they haven't got the balls now to give a real explanation of why they sold off our biggest asset - the ground, and wont let the terms of the lease be made for public viewing.

Anyway, best of luck to all that join this scheme, I am as you can guess, not a supporter of this trust, I did attend the first couple of meetings at the beginning to see where it was heading, but for me I'd rather stick my money in the City2000, the benefit of the academy is for all to see.

Ade,

thanks for taking the time to put your views over. I know that you were initially supportive of the idea of a Supporters Trust so I'm obviously disappointed that you now have this opinion. I hope that you can keep an open mind and that you can be convinced in time.

With regards to getting business people on the board, I know that SL and KD are very keen to take on new investors. I'm sure that there are plenty of issues that they consider when approached by potential new investors but in terms of a ball-park figure I understand it to be in the region of £500K.

But your argument against the Trust seems to be that the current board would simply overrule and outvote. On that basis, I'm not sure a business person joining the board with £500K would please you either. To be on the board with an equal standing they'd need to buy around £2M worth of new shares (that's the value of SL & KD's individual holding at £2 per share) and either lend around £2.5M to match their borrowing or lend around £1.7M to part repay their debt and be in as deep as they are.

Selling the ground is not the only issue that the board will make and neither is the pie manufacturer. Of the questions sent to me to ask at the Open Forum they broadly fell under the categories of listening to fans' views; culture; the academy; financial losses; size of the board; price of selling the club and the ground. I believe an elected fans representative could influence decisions made on all of those topics to varying extents except the price they'd sell the club for.

One of the tasks we're working on at the moment is fans representation and working out what the fans views are. This will include a survey, open forums for members, internet forums etc. I believe that we will get to the point where we have ascertained very clearly what fans want and we'll be able to back that up with evidence. By doing this, we'll be able to say yes or no to a new badge, kit design etc. Yes, there'll be a requirement for the elected fans' representative to keep certain issues confidential but providing he's well armed with up-to-date information we should have confidence that he's working on our behalf.

You mention Ron as an example. Discounting the fact that Ron is too young to put himself forward for the board, assuming he was old enough the democratic nature of the Trust means you could do something to prevent him being elected if you were a member. Meanwhile there is an excellent variety of committed, creative, and talented people involved in the working group and those who attended the launch night will have seen that we are a professional business. I believe that the Trust will continue to act in a professional business-like manner and would therefore fit with the adage of football being 'a business run by business men'.

From your comments you would like someone to take a look at the lease. SL confirmed in the Open Forum that an elected fans representative would have access to this sort of information. Therefore by supporting the Trust you would be actively helping to get this reassurance.

Finally, although money raised is given to the Club in return for shares, the Club are happy for the Supporters Trust to propose how those funds are then used. Therefore it may well be that funds go to the Academy (that's an issue still to be agreed by members) and a higher percentage of your pound will go on this cause as we don't distribute half the money back to members like City2000 and we are an entirely volunteer based organisation.

Miles.

P.S. Apologies to Ron for getting stuck in the middle of that - you were being used as an example only!

[RedUn]

How much the academy had to do with Leroy I don't know, we picked him from Chelsea at the premier league exit trials.

No we didn't.

Can you, for instance, answer me this: Would you be prepared to pay the same entrance fee for standing that you do for your seat?

Why would that be necessary? - it isn't in Germany.

Original question

Did anyone ask why the pasties are now half the size they were at the start of the season but cost more?

[RedTop]

Can you, for instance, answer me this: Would you be prepared to pay the same entrance fee for standing that you do for your seat?

Why would that be necessary? - it isn't in Germany.

Well there are only a few possible scenarios:

1. Standing proves so popular that it pulls in loads more fans. I really don't believe this will happen. Why? I think very few fans will actually return regularly to games just because they prefer standing to sitting, particularly as it tends to be a certain type of die-hard fan who wants to stand on terracing and enjoy that experience. In reality all that will happen is that most of those who stand will have moved there from other parts of the ground. You might get a few more dribble back, but not many.

If, like me, you don't believe that standing will bring in loads of new fans but will simply increase the enjoyment of some fans who already go and choose to switch where they watch the game, then in order to bring in the same amount of gate revenue to the club as there is currently you must either:

1. Charge the same for standing as you do for seating, or

2. Increase the prices of seats in order to offset any loss of revenue caused by cutting the price for standing. Which means, effectively, that those who choose to carry on sitting will have to subsidise those who choose to stand.

The only alternative to these two scenarios is to reduce revenue and, thereby, the money available to run the club and strengthen the playing staff. Which doesn't sound like a good idea to me when the club is losing money and we need every penny we can to compete on the pitch.

So to summarize, either you charge the same to stand as it now costs to sit, those who sit pay extra to subsidize those who stand, or the club suffers a fall in income that it can ill afford.

As far as I'm concerned, I'll be buggered if I think I should pay extra just so a few fans can stand instead. Why the hell should I? If you want to stand that much, and if you insist it represents not worse facilities but different facilities, then you should pay the same as you would to sit. Presumably you would be willing to do that?

[Milo]

I have joined the trust Milo and i think that the only chance of reining in our club is the supporters trust.But saturday Mr Lansdown stated very clearly that even if well constructed and compelling arguments exist he would not be moved.Not much of a two way street to me.Hats of the trust for organising this event but my fears about the Chairman have worsened since the spin on the mike.

Fair play for signing up. Thank you and I apologise for having a pop!

I think SL will listen and I hope with more people like you joining up we'll have a good chance of finding out which of us is right.

[NickJ]

Why would I deliberately mininterpret what you are saying?

You stated "it is important that this club and every football club is run by its fans for the fans." I'm just disagreeing with that on the basis that the first half is at best irrelevant, and if narrowed down to mean something like the Supporters' Trust or a group of what one might call 'ordinary fans' for want of a better phrase, often counter-productive in many situations (including the one we currently find ourselves in).

It is not important at all in my view that the club is run 'by the fans'. What is important is that it is run to maximise the chances of bringing success to the club which we can all enjoy and wallow in unashamedly! In many cases, particularly because injections of cash are an important part of achieving success, having a club run 'by the fans' in the narrow sense of a Supporters' Trust etc would actually prove counter-productive to this aim. Thus it does not follow at all that it is important to have a club run by the fans for the fans.

I agree with you entirely that the second half of the phrase is important. I suggest merely that the first half is, at best, irrelevant and at worst counter-productive, and reading your reply regarding Alan Sugar, perhaps you concur with me on that.

Well, I confirm in my reply that the "by the fans" bit is not that important, and so you post all of the above - what's the point?