Steve Lansdown Pre-match Forum

[NickJ]

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.

I'm not asking for commercially sensitive information to be released.

Nor am I requesting that the club is run completely democratically like some sort of co-operative.

The examples you give are most obviously a nonsense and it is not what I am suggesting.

Of course, people will not invest money in a non profit making situation and allow other people to decide how it will be spent, with no financial risk of their own. I would ask the question though, whose £10m of losses has been spent in the past 5/6 years - in fact, £14m of losses offset by net sales of £4m of our best players. (The answer, incidentally, is the 10,000 supporters that attend AG every week.)

The question I asked, again, was "if you had to say it was one or the other, is it run democratically or autocratically"? I believe many people would say the latter. Perhaps the wording of the question is not that good, but I think the point I am driving at is quite clear. Which is, to spell it out, that the views of 3,500 shareholders and a fan base of tens of thousands have not been and are not sought prior to key and fundamental decisions being taken at Bristol City FC.

I notice incidentally your terminology that I have seen elsewhere - "business" and "customers". Do you regard yourself as a "customer" of Bristol City in the same way that you might be a "customer" of Sainsbury's? Because I as sure as hell don't, and nor do most other City fans, I would suggest. But that is how Bristol City is being run. And that is, I know, true of many clubs - but that doesn't make it right.

[WTFiGO!?!]

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?

Sorry RedTop, in response to your question earlier I was a bit rude and failed to answer it as for one I just thought it was an example of the sort of question I should be asking myself and secondly I thought the answer blatantly obvious. Ofcourse I don't expect you to pay more for your entrance fee. In theory I'd probably be willing to pay more not less to stand and enjoy the interactive Saturday afternoon experiance I am striving for. Therefore, it would cost the Club nowt to grant my wishes.

As for the numbers that would in fact dribble back, i obviously can't provide factual figures on this but what I do know is that mates I have dragged down in the past have thoroughly enjoyed the EE experiance, (not deliberately trying to open that debate as last time I made that mistake I was soundly taken to the cleaners) but refuse to return if it involves 90 minutes of sitting in the Carling Quietyeo. One of them even said that they have had more vibrant and excillerating experiances visiting their Nan in a residential home.

I know for sure there are others on this forum equally passionate about the issue as I. I have also encountered people in pubs around the city who claim to be CITY TILL THEY DIE but can no longer be ****ed with what has become the modern game. A big publicity campaign one Summer and a real push for my idealisms and I'm convinced far more than you are that there would be a significant return. For StevieL and BCFC ofcourse this would mean plenty more ££££, and for me, 23 decent singsongs a season. Ofcourse I may be well of the mark with my predictions but a dissatisfied customer I am, and if not addressed my hardearnt shall be redirected in search of a more rewarding buzz.

StevieL, for all his business acquiments, does not seem to understand that there is a field for revenue he is not capitalising on at all. He is also going to lose out on my £250+ this summer. I know I wouldn't be the first to turn my back on the Football industry and dare say I will not be the last.

Your point about getting onto the Club about this has been mentally noted as my continued dribble on here is hardly a productive way of going about things although hopefully it may make people aware and start to think about what Football shall become/is becoming and weather they really want in or not. Am proud to say i am a fully signed up member of the ST so it's needless to say what my ambitions for the future of this Club are.

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

All I wanna do, is have some fun, I've got a feeling, I'm not the only one......

('All I Wanna Do' - Sheryle Crow)

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

[BB.]

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?

I'm pretty sure that it's not "just a few" people who want terracing. If it is just a few people who want to stand, I don't see this as a reason not to allow for this at Ashton Gate. It would be easier for the Club to sort it out too.

See this idea for a near enough free way, if not a completely free way, to find out if it is in the Clubs interest to allow for all types of fan in a 20 000 capacity stadium that is only half full with about 1% of the attendees who actually make any real noise. What is stopping the Club from doing this?

Would I pay the same entrance fee to stand you ask, well, I would rather have players who pick up high wages and don't perform off the wage bill so we don't have to pay little short of Premiership prices regardless of seating or standing. I would pay the same for standing as I do for sitting if there were a terraced area, as my match day experience would be vastly more enjoyable.

By the way, the petition that was posted the other day was to give more weight to the other things going on to try and get the 'powers that be' to work with football supporters on issues such as terracing, as oppose to just making decisions for us.

[RedTop]

Sorry RedTop, in response to your question earlier I was a bit rude and failed to answer it as for one I just thought it was an example of the sort of question I should be asking myself and secondly I thought the answer blatantly obvious. Ofcourse I don't expect you to pay more for your entrance fee. In theory I'd probably be willing to pay more not less to stand and enjoy the interactive Saturday afternoon experiance I am striving for. Therefore, it would cost the Club nowt to grant my wishes.

As for the numbers that would in fact dribble back, i obviously can't provide factual figures on this but what I do know is that mates I have dragged down in the past have thoroughly enjoyed the EE experiance, (not deliberately trying to open that debate as last time I made that mistake I was soundly taken to the cleaners) but refuse to return if it involves 90 minutes of sitting in the Carling Quietyeo. One of them even said that they have had more vibrant and excillerating experiances visiting their Nan in a residential home.

I know for sure there are others on this forum equally passionate about the issue as I. I have also encountered people in pubs around the city who claim to be CITY TILL THEY DIE but can no longer be ****ed with what has become the modern game. A big publicity campaign one Summer and a real push for my idealisms and I'm convinced far more than you are that there would be a significant return. For StevieL and BCFC ofcourse this would mean plenty more ££££, and for me, 23 decent singsongs a season. Ofcourse I may be well of the mark with my predictions but a dissatisfied customer I am, and if not addressed my hardearnt shall be redirected in search of a more rewarding buzz.

StevieL, for all his business acquiments, does not seem to understand that there is a field for revenue he is not capitalising on at all. He is also going to lose out on my £250+ this summer. I know I wouldn't be the first to turn my back on the Football industry and dare say I will not be the last.

Your point about getting onto the Club about this has been mentally noted as my continued dribble on here is hardly a productive way of going about things although hopefully it may make people aware and start to think about what Football shall become/is becoming and weather they really want in or not. Am proud to say i am a fully signed up member of the ST so it's needless to say what my ambitions for the future of this Club are.

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

All I wanna do, is have some fun, I've got a feeling, I'm not the only one......

('All I Wanna Do' - Sheryle Crow)

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

Interesting points by both you and BB. I suspect there would be a number of people who would rather stand than sit in the Atyeo, and I accept that there are a number for whom it would add to their enjoyment of the day. I also agree with the argument that it does help to create atmosphere. I too loathe the Disney-fication of the game, and you are right that our ground is too quiet. Perhaps standing would counter that by giving a chance for singers to stand together.

But the task is not to demonstrate that a number of City fans would like it. We all know that plenty of people would sign a petition but, realistically, I doubt that the numbers who would go in there week after week, year after year (especially if they had to pay the same as to sit) would justify any extra cost in converting back to terracing.

Your task is to show the club that it would be in their best interests to do it and that it's financially neutral. I also suspect you will have to convince not just the club but the police and the council, both of whom could refuse to allow it. Now I personally think that's a tough one. As I've said, I don't believe the cost should be borne by other fans and if reducing the ticket price for people who stand meant reducing income to the club, as I suspect (on a hunch, no evidence!) then I suggest there are better uses for the money at a cash-strapped club like ours. There are other issues like whether it would prevent certain matches from being awared to the club or prevent revenue from other stadium uses that you would have to address.

However, if you can provide credible evidence that, as suggested, the club is missing outonn a crucial rebvenue stream, that it would bring in enough extra fans regularly to more than cover the cost of any changes and any potential loss in ticket revenue, that it is safe, that it is not a retrograde step and that it can be done in a way that adds to the club rather than taking away, then perhaps you could get wide enough support to convince the club to consider it. That's a tall order, but good luck.

At the moment, I remain to be convinced but I'm perfectly open to having my views changed if the evidence is there. Let's hope SteveL is the same!

[RedTop]

I'm not asking for commercially sensitive information to be released.

Nor am I requesting that the club is run completely democratically like some sort of co-operative.

The examples you give are most obviously a nonsense and it is not what I am suggesting.

Of course, people will not invest money in a non profit making situation and allow other people to decide how it will be spent, with no financial risk of their own. I would ask the question though, whose £10m of losses has been spent in the past 5/6 years - in fact, £14m of losses offset by net sales of £4m of our best players. (The answer, incidentally, is the 10,000 supporters that attend AG every week.)

I'm no financial expert, but in answer to "whose £10m of losses", surely the losses are borne by the directors, shareholders and creditors, not the fans? It's not our £10m. We are paying fans. We pay for a product, whether that is the entertainment of watching a game or a City shirt. Maybe I'm just being thick, but help me to understand how exactly it is 'our' £10m losses.

The question I asked, again, was "if you had to say it was one or the other, is it run democratically or autocratically"? I believe many people would say the latter. Perhaps the wording of the question is not that good, but I think the point I am driving at is quite clear. Which is, to spell it out, that the views of 3,500 shareholders and a fan base of tens of thousands have not been and are not sought prior to key and fundamental decisions being taken at Bristol City FC.

I notice incidentally your terminology that I have seen elsewhere - "business" and "customers". Do you regard yourself as a "customer" of Bristol City in the same way that you might be a "customer" of Sainsbury's? Because I as sure as hell don't, and nor do most other City fans, I would suggest. But that is how Bristol City is being run. And that is, I know, true of many clubs - but that doesn't make it right.

Two points:

1. The answer I would give is, presumably, the same as you. Given a choice of those two words, 'autocratically' best fits the way the club is being run. My point is what do you expect? That's how most organisatins, and certainly football clubs, are run. Someone has to make the decisions which will, by definition, upset some people.

Now I will criticize the club for failing to take enough account of its fanbase. But that's nothing to do with democracy, that's to do with good business practice - provide what the customer wants and they are more likely to buy it, whether that's good football on the pitch, a badge that the fans want or shirts that don't snag when they get within 100m of a slightly uneven surface. The club has to provide what the fans wants in order to prosper and for all to be happy, from those of us in the stands to those in the boardroom. On too many occasions that has not happened. But democracy is not the answer. It's a red herring. Greater understanding and responsiveness to what City fans want is what is required, and hopefully that is what the newly-forming relationship with the Supporters' Trust will provide because I sense from some of SteveL's answers that he realises there has been a breakdown in this relationship.

2. It is my belief that this club has to get back into being run more like a business because this will focus on the single most important thing for the club's future, in my opinion: the fact that we cannot go on losing so much money year after year. Yes, football is a special kind of business. Yes, we see ourselves as fans not customers. But like it or not, paying customers is what we are, whether that is coughing up to be entertained or whether it is buying a mug with the City crest on it. Do cinemas operate by referring to the people who use them as 'movie fans'? No. They are customers who come because they enjoy the experience. The business has to understand that many are movie fans, and thereby understand what they want when they go to the cinema. But others, like me, may not be movie fans but just enjoy the experience of taking the kids to watch a film, seeing the enjoyment on their faces and stuffing myself with popcorn. Those who go to Ashton Gate are customers, whether they are die-hard lifetime fans with season tickets for the past two decades, dads taking their kids to a game because the lad wants to see a live game of football, families celebrating a birthday who want to buy a day out with a ground tour and meal beforehand, or companies looking for somewhere to entertain clients. In order to compete, the club has to look at maximizing revenue from all these sources. So simply regarding the people who come through the turnstyles as 'fans' is not the way to do it. Yes, fans must be catered for and satisfied (and this has not been happening enough recently), but not just fans. Companies looking for corporate packages, bosses looking for certain privileges in return for sponsorship etc all have to be understood and looked after for the club to prosper. And while they may not all be fans, they are all customers.

It's in all our interests for the club to bring in as much money as possible from all sources, and if that means regarding people who use Ashton Gate as 'customers' rather than using the term 'fans', then that's fine by me. And perhaps if the club had been run more like a business, our debt would not be as bad as it is now.

[NickJ]

I'm no financial expert, but in answer to "whose £10m of losses", surely the losses are borne by the directors, shareholders and creditors, not the fans? It's not our £10m. We are paying fans. We pay for a product, whether that is the entertainment of watching a game or a City shirt. Maybe I'm just being thick, but help me to understand how exactly it is 'our' £10m losses.

In the past 5/6 seasons the income generated from the fans of this club has been approx £25million. Thats £25million of new money. I have made the point before that in my opinion there has been excessive waste - too many players on silly contracts, players sold at undervalue, spurious positions (what does a stadium manager do exactly, did we have one of those 10 years ago, I would guess not), etc.

How much new money has been put in by directors during the past 5 years? Think about that one, have a look at the accounts first, otherwise I fully expect to catch you out on that one.

In all the circumstances, I think it is reasonable to suggest that the supporters have borne the brunt of the losses.

[NickJ]

Two points:

1. The answer I would give is, presumably, the same as you. Given a choice of those two words, 'autocratically' best fits the way the club is being run. My point is what do you expect? That's how most organisatins, and certainly football clubs, are run. Someone has to make the decisions which will, by definition, upset some people. As I said, autocratic/democratic wasn't the best choice of terminology, but the point nevertheless is clear.

Now I will criticize the club for failing to take enough account of its fanbase. But that's nothing to do with democracy, that's to do with good business practice - provide what the customer wants and they are more likely to buy it, whether that's good football on the pitch, a badge that the fans want or shirts that don't snag when they get within 100m of a slightly uneven surface. The club has to provide what the fans wants in order to prosper and for all to be happy, from those of us in the stands to those in the boardroom. On too many occasions that has not happened. But democracy is not the answer. It's a red herring. Greater understanding and responsiveness to what City fans want is what is required, and hopefully that is what the newly-forming relationship with the Supporters' Trust will provide because I sense from some of SteveL's answers that he realises there has been a breakdown in this relationship. You have chosen better terminology than I did in my post - yes, greater understanding and responsiveness is needed, but I would go farther than that, actually listening to what the fans want is what is required. I do not understand why you consider yourself to be a customer - would you go on the CineWorld (to use your example below) website and debate their products with the same amount of passion? Course you wouldnt. We are not customers, we are Bristol City, and deserve to be treated as such.

2. It is my belief that this club has to get back into being run more like a business because this will focus on the single most important thing for the club's future, in my opinion: the fact that we cannot go on losing so much money year after year. Yes, football is a special kind of business. Yes, we see ourselves as fans not customers. But like it or not, paying customers is what we are, whether that is coughing up to be entertained or whether it is buying a mug with the City crest on it. Do cinemas operate by referring to the people who use them as 'movie fans'? No. They are customers who come because they enjoy the experience. The business has to understand that many are movie fans, and thereby understand what they want when they go to the cinema. But others, like me, may not be movie fans but just enjoy the experience of taking the kids to watch a film, seeing the enjoyment on their faces and stuffing myself with popcorn. Those who go to Ashton Gate are customers, whether they are die-hard lifetime fans with season tickets for the past two decades, dads taking their kids to a game because the lad wants to see a live game of football, families celebrating a birthday who want to buy a day out with a ground tour and meal beforehand, or companies looking for somewhere to entertain clients. In order to compete, the club has to look at maximizing revenue from all these sources. So simply regarding the people who come through the turnstyles as 'fans' is not the way to do it. Yes, fans must be catered for and satisfied (and this has not been happening enough recently), but not just fans. Companies looking for corporate packages, bosses looking for certain privileges in return for sponsorship etc all have to be understood and looked after for the club to prosper. And while they may not all be fans, they are all customers.

It's in all our interests for the club to bring in as much money as possible from all sources, and if that means regarding people who use Ashton Gate as 'customers' rather than using the term 'fans', then that's fine by me. And perhaps if the club had been run more like a business, our debt would not be as bad as it is now.

I can see some merit in some of your arguments in point 2. The trouble is RedTop, the policies being adopted to achieve that have disenfranchised and disenchanted the fans who supported this club long before corporate entertaining. So loyalty to your existing fan base goes out of the window. I know supporters of Bristol City who were regulars 20 years ago and now rarely attend, purely due to cost. The cost of attending at AG has gone up approx double relative average to wage earnings in the past 20 years.

Furthermore, how many "customers" come into the category of anything but "fans"? Very few I would suggest. You only have to compare the number of season ticket holders, relative to our average attendance and strip out away fans. That probably accounts for 80%. Of the rest, I would guess that most are fans who can only attend sporadically for cost or practical reasons. So this notion that there are worthwhile groups of other "customers" is just not correct, relative to what they contribure as against "fans".

The last point is relevant to the seating/standing debate you have had elsewhere. You have asked if would-be "standers" would pay the same or even more than they would to sit. It always cost much less to stand, why should that not be the case if re-introduced?

[RedTop]

You have chosen better terminology than I did in my post - yes, greater understanding and responsiveness is needed, but I would go farther than that, actually listening to what the fans want is what is required.

Agreed. I don't think the club has been good at listening recently, and as I say, I hope that the Supporters' Trust will provide a conduit for greater understanding by the club. But there's no point in listening if you don't understand. For instance, you might hear from fans that they dislike the new badge, but unless you understand the sense of identity and of ownership that fans feel for a badge, or a kit design - that it belongs to them - then you don't understand the consequences of foisting one they don't like upon them, such as the disenfranchisement that has occurred with some fans.

I do not understand why you consider yourself to be a customer - would you go on the CineWorld (to use your example below) website and debate their products with the same amount of passion? Course you wouldnt. We are not customers, we are Bristol City, and deserve to be treated as such.

No, but that's because I'm not a movie fan. There are plenty out there who do debate the products of the film world with passion on websites. Moviemakers and cinemas only survive and prosper if they understand what those who fund their products with their hard cash want. Again, that means not just the movie fan, but companies prepared to invest in turning a script into a blockbuster. They might have to change the product slightly to satisfy those with the big bucks, but they do so knowing that bringing in this extra revenue might be the only way to get the project off the ground and thus bring enjoyment to all, including the movie fan who is the end customer. Likewise, a club might have to change things slightly in order to accommodate people who can bring extra money that will ultimately help fund a better product, such as sponsors, corporate packages etc. That might mean some accommodation by the 'die-hard fans', but if we want their money to help bring success on the pitch to the Gate then we have to accept a degree of compromise. Some of these things have been done well - the way guests are entertained with dinner etc before the game is very well done, and the food is superb, but other elements such as the way the Premier seating was handled, have not been done so well.

Loyalty to your existing fan base goes out of the window. I know supporters of Bristol City who were regulars 20 years ago and now rarely attend, purely due to cost. The cost of attending at AG has gone up approx double relative average to wage earnings in the past 20 years.

Furthermore, how many "customers" come into the category of anything but "fans"? Very few I would suggest. You only have to compare the number of season ticket holders, relative to our average attendance and strip out away fans. That probably accounts for 80%. Of the rest, I would guess that most are fans who can only attend sporadically for cost or practical reasons. So this notion that there are worthwhile groups of other "customers" is just not correct, relative to what they contribure as against "fans".

Done well, loyalty to the existing fan base does not have to go out of the window but, as I've said, not everything has been done well and I sensed there was a realisation of this during the part of the forum which I managed to watch. There is no doubt relations have been stretched in some cases.

You make the point about knowing many who do not attend. I suspect for many this is not just the seating issue, or the cost, but the fact that the atmosphere at a match has undoubtedly changed. I miss the edge and tension of a match from the 70s and 80s too, but we have to accept that football had to change to rid itself of hooliganism in the wake of some appalling events. Interestingly, however, despite all our fond memories, the effect of better facilities at a higher cost has been to increase the number of fans coming through the turnstyles. I did as you did, and went back 20 years, when (handily, in terms of comparisons) we were also in the same division. It is interesting to see that with the exception of the Rovers derby, which attracted 12,171 (far less than it would today), and Plymouth (likewise at 8,219) our home crowds for 85/86 were as low as 5,500 and never got above 7,814 in a season where we finished ninth. By contrast, despite our lower league position and appalling performances, our lowest league crowd at the Gate so far has been over 9,100 and most have gone into five figures. Clearly the club has done something right, and the number who have been attracted by the changes and who think the price of a ticket is worth paying easily outnumber the regulars from 20 years ago who now rarely attend. So perhaps our minds play tricks on us here, and things were never quite as rosy as we liked to think. If you accept the club belongs to all of us who choose to support it, the fact that we have gained far more match-going fans than we have lost must be welcomed, surely.

You also ask how many customers come into a category other than 'fans'. I don't know, though the club would, but I can tell you that it's a fair bet the amount of money per head that they contribute (and the profit margin) will be far higher. I've been lucky enough to be a guest of a mate (RedInTheUSA) in the hospitality area for a birthday this year. The operation is very slick, quite sizeable and must generate plenty of much-needed revenue, particularly when you see the number of companies with tables there who are obviously paying well for the privilege. I'd look on it rather like business class on a plane - the amount they pay is disproportionately high but we all benefit because they subsidise something we all benefit from. Without them we'd either have to pay much more for our tickets, or we'd have to enjoy a lower standard of service (or in our case, lower standard of football due to less money to spend).

[NickJ]

Agreed. I don't think the club has been good at listening recently, and as I say, I hope that the Supporters' Trust will provide a conduit for greater understanding by the club. But there's no point in listening if you don't understand. For instance, you might hear from fans that they dislike the new badge, but unless you understand the sense of identity and of ownership that fans feel for a badge, or a kit design - that it belongs to them - then you don't understand the consequences of foisting one they don't like upon them, such as the disenfranchisement that has occurred with some fans.

No, but that's because I'm not a movie fan. There are plenty out there who do debate the products of the film world with passion on websites. Moviemakers and cinemas only survive and prosper if they understand what those who fund their products with their hard cash want. Again, that means not just the movie fan, but companies prepared to invest in turning a script into a blockbuster. They might have to change the product slightly to satisfy those with the big bucks, but they do so knowing that bringing in this extra revenue might be the only way to get the project off the ground and thus bring enjoyment to all, including the movie fan who is the end customer. Likewise, a club might have to change things slightly in order to accommodate people who can bring extra money that will ultimately help fund a better product, such as sponsors, corporate packages etc. That might mean some accommodation by the 'die-hard fans', but if we want their money to help bring success on the pitch to the Gate then we have to accept a degree of compromise. Some of these things have been done well - the way guests are entertained with dinner etc before the game is very well done, and the food is superb, but other elements such as the way the Premier seating was handled, have not been done so well.

Done well, loyalty to the existing fan base does not have to go out of the window but, as I've said, not everything has been done well and I sensed there was a realisation of this during the part of the forum which I managed to watch. There is no doubt relations have been stretched in some cases.

You make the point about knowing many who do not attend. I suspect for many this is not just the seating issue, or the cost, but the fact that the atmosphere at a match has undoubtedly changed. I miss the edge and tension of a match from the 70s and 80s too, but we have to accept that football had to change to rid itself of hooliganism in the wake of some appalling events. Interestingly, however, despite all our fond memories, the effect of better facilities at a higher cost has been to increase the number of fans coming through the turnstyles. I did as you did, and went back 20 years, when (handily, in terms of comparisons) we were also in the same division. It is interesting to see that with the exception of the Rovers derby, which attracted 12,171 (far less than it would today), and Plymouth (likewise at 8,219) our home crowds for 85/86 were as low as 5,500 and never got above 7,814 in a season where we finished ninth. By contrast, despite our lower league position and appalling performances, our lowest league crowd at the Gate so far has been over 9,100 and most have gone into five figures. Clearly the club has done something right, and the number who have been attracted by the changes and who think the price of a ticket is worth paying easily outnumber the regulars from 20 years ago who now rarely attend. So perhaps our minds play tricks on us here, and things were never quite as rosy as we liked to think. If you accept the club belongs to all of us who choose to support it, the fact that we have gained far more match-going fans than we have lost must be welcomed, surely.

You also ask how many customers come into a category other than 'fans'. I don't know, though the club would, but I can tell you that it's a fair bet the amount of money per head that they contribute (and the profit margin) will be far higher. I've been lucky enough to be a guest of a mate (RedInTheUSA) in the hospitality area for a birthday this year. The operation is very slick, quite sizeable and must generate plenty of much-needed revenue, particularly when you see the number of companies with tables there who are obviously paying well for the privilege. I'd look on it rather like business class on a plane - the amount they pay is disproportionately high but we all benefit because they subsidise something we all benefit from. Without them we'd either have to pay much more for our tickets, or we'd have to enjoy a lower standard of service (or in our case, lower standard of football due to less money to spend). Or without them we could try not wasting money.

Correct me if I have this wrong but my summary of what you are saying is:

1. Bleed the prawn sandwich brigade dry for the benefit of the rest - couldnt agree more, in a way. I have been part of that mob on many ocassions other than at AG. But how do you measure the benefits against the costs - it isn't just financial.

2. Crowds are higher now than they were 20 years ago, so the club has done well - couldnt disagree more, crowds in general are higher now all over the country, for all sorts of reasons such as more TV coverage, play-offs generating more interest, etc. It would be interesting to see if City's have risen pro rata higher than the rest. It would also be interesting to see whether our crowds are higher now than they were 4/5 years ago.

To get back to the point, perhaps I can draw an anology. I believe that child psychiatrists will tell you that if a child says he is bullied, the question is not "is the child correct in saying he is bullied?", it is "the child's perception is that he is being bullied, therefore he is being bullied".

In the context of this debate, it is the perception of a large number of the fans of this club that their views are not taken account of - therefore their views are not being taken account of. Since by both my definition and yours, well over 80% and probably close to 100% of attendees at AG are "fans" rather than other types of "customer", it follows that there is something wrong with the way in which fundamental decisions are being made on "behalf" of those "fans".

Philosophy, anyone?

NickJ

[SE23Red]

Correct me if I have this wrong but my summary of what you are saying is:

1. Bleed the prawn sandwich brigade dry for the benefit of the rest - couldnt agree more, in a way. I have been part of that mob on many ocassions other than at AG. But how do you measure the benefits against the costs - it isn't just financial.

2. Crowds are higher now than they were 20 years ago, so the club has done well - couldnt disagree more, crowds in general are higher now all over the country, for all sorts of reasons such as more TV coverage, play-offs generating more interest, etc. It would be interesting to see if City's have risen pro rata higher than the rest. It would also be interesting to see whether our crowds are higher now than they were 4/5 years ago.

To get back to the point, perhaps I can draw an anology. I believe that child psychiatrists will tell you that if a child says he is bullied, the question is not "is the child correct in saying he is bullied?", it is "the child's perception is that he is being bullied, therefore he is being bullied".

In the context of this debate, it is the perception of a large number of the fans of this club that their views are not taken account of - therefore their views are not being taken account of. Since by both my definition and yours, well over 80% and probably close to 100% of attendees at AG are "fans" rather than other types of "customer", it follows that there is something wrong with the way in which fundamental decisions are being made on "behalf" of those "fans".

Philosophy, anyone?

NickJ

Supporting a club at this level takes a special kind of passion (or is it madness?), and thus fans can see themselves as being a hard-core, special, loyal, committed, call it what you like. The club therefore need to pay much closer attention to the fans and their views and massage that feeling the fans have of being genuinely close to the club. This requires much more than just the good business practice of knowing what the customer wants.

However we aspire to be a bigger club at a higher level. I think the majority of fans would accept that in the modern football world to be a top-half Championship or Premiership side we would need to be much slicker off the pitch, more business like. As the club grows bigger the club's relationship with the fans has to become more business like.

What the various different versions of a board of directors have done in the last ten years is try to give us that big club infrastructure in anticipation of a promotion that hasn't happened. Full time Chief Executive, academy, premier seating, stadium redevelopment are all quite normal and appropriate at a higher level but strike us as being wholly inappropriate for the level we are at.

So what is the answer? I'm sure the board see their actions as ambition and not acting as a lack of ambition. Would it be better to run the club from top to bottom as a small third-tier community club? Trying as best as possible to balance the books each year? One thing is for sure - this forum would be full of 'lack of ambition' threads if they did....

[Guest North Street]

Interestingly, however, despite all our fond memories, the effect of better facilities at a higher cost has been to increase the number of fans coming through the turnstyles. I did as you did, and went back 20 years, when (handily, in terms of comparisons) we were also in the same division. It is interesting to see that with the exception of the Rovers derby, which attracted 12,171 (far less than it would today), and Plymouth (likewise at 8,219) our home crowds for 85/86 were as low as 5,500 and never got above 7,814 in a season where we finished ninth. By contrast, despite our lower league position and appalling performances, our lowest league crowd at the Gate so far has been over 9,100 and most have gone into five figures. Clearly the club has done something right, and the number who have been attracted by the changes and who think the price of a ticket is worth paying easily outnumber the regulars from 20 years ago who now rarely attend. So perhaps our minds play tricks on us here, and things were never quite as rosy as we liked to think. If you accept the club belongs to all of us who choose to support it, the fact that we have gained far more match-going fans than we have lost must be welcomed, surely.

Redtop your point concerning attendances rising due to facilities to me is only correct partially. The increase in attendances nationally occurred almost solely due to the success of the England team during Italia 90, football suddenly became trendy due to a Geordies boys tears. People who never went anywhere near a ground became fans in 1990 and some of them stuck prior to this where were they? Indeed 90-91 had been the only rise nation wide in attendances for over twenty years since 1966-67 and look what happened then?

[jimtastic]

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.

NickJ - could you explain to me how moving the ground to another sub-company of the PLC moves the club backwards or is in any way to the detrament of the club?

Although I've seen you attack the decision to move it, I've never seen any clear explanation from you about exactly why it's such a bad thing.

Given that SL and KD are majority shareholders anyway, I can't see how moving the stadium to another holding company makes it any more or less likely that they'll sell AG. If they really wanted to sell it, they could do tomorrow without going to all of that trouble.

I maintain that there must be some sort of tax loophole or similar which SL doesn't want to publicly broadcast.

[NickJ]

NickJ - could you explain to me how moving the ground to another sub-company of the PLC moves the club backwards or is in any way to the detrament of the club?

Although I've seen you attack the decision to move it, I've never seen any clear explanation from you about exactly why it's such a bad thing.

Given that SL and KD are majority shareholders anyway, I can't see how moving the stadium to another holding company makes it any more or less likely that they'll sell AG. If they really wanted to sell it, they could do tomorrow without going to all of that trouble.

I maintain that there must be some sort of tax loophole or similar which SL doesn't want to publicly broadcast.

Give me strength.

Oh well.

Tax loophole - ha ha ha. But, if you are so confident. Here's the deal, on offer for you to accept by midday today. Then: Phone Hargreaves Lansdown, tell them its urgent you speak to SteveL. Ask him to come on here and confirm unequivocally that transferring the stadium has been done for tax reasons. He doesnt have to say what they are, just that its for tax reasons. If you can sort that out by the end of today I will donate £1,000 to my favourite charity, the Babe Appeal (see below). If not, you donate £100.

http://www.babesbigappeal.org.uk/index.cfm?type=BBA

As for the rest - can you explain to me how moving the stadium moves the club forwards? Have you not thought to yourself, if no good reason has been given, then it might not be bad right now, but nevertheless why do it?

In other words, if a transaction takes place, it is down to the instigator of that transaction to explain why it is good. If no good explanation is forthcoming, that is bound to put doubts into your mind. I am not the only one, by far, to (a) not accept the explanation(s) given and therefore (b) question why it has happened.

For example. If AG was sold tomorrow, there would be uproar. But by putting the stadium into a company, it is politically easier because part can be sold now, justified for fundraising reasons, and its the start of a slippery slope etc etc, all things I have explained before. Since SteveL confirmed at the AGM that selling part off was one of the options considered, I do not think my concerns are unfounded.

This link below provides the initial debate which took place, because I assume you haven't seen it. I cannot provide the link to the question itself, because it has been removed from this forum.

http://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=48656&hl=

[RedTop]

Correct me if I have this wrong but my summary of what you are saying is:

Bleed the prawn sandwich brigade dry for the benefit of the rest - couldnt agree more, in a way. I have been part of that mob on many ocassions other than at AG. But how do you measure the benefits against the costs - it isn't just financial.

In plain-speaking language I guess I am saying that, yes. Provided that the prawn sandwich brigade perceive they are getting value for money, then we have to offer them as many ways to spend their cash with us as possible. But the same has to apply to all revenue streams if the club is to maximize its potential, and that means 'ordinary' fans too. The club's aim has to be to bring in as much money as possible to help create a successful team on the pitch. But obviously it has to keep all its customers happy while doing it. The club, and those running it, are learning as they go along and making mistakes along the way.

In the context of this debate, it is the perception of a large number of the fans of this club that their views are not taken account of - therefore their views are not being taken account of.

NickJ

I agree, and as I've said repeatedly, I sense from SteveL's answers on radio, at the open forum etc that there is a growing realisation of this and a wish to do something about it. As as I've also said, I believe the Supporters' Trust offers an ideal conduit for the fans to be diligently represented and to express their views. SteveL seems willing to listen to them and has actively engaged with them in a positive way from the start. This is an opportunity that we should grab by giving the Supporters' Trust our backing, letting them know what we think and helping them to seize the opportunity. Yes, we could wait for the club to make all the running in terms of trying to find out what we want, but the better organised we are, and the easier we make it for the club to listen to us, the greater the chances of success and of getting things done at the club in the way we want. That means being broadly supportive of the ST instead of takign a cynical view about the motives or competence of those involved and trying to slag it off and do it down wherever possible, as some have done. Let's give it a chance - it's the best one we've had for years.

Redtop your point concerning attendances rising due to facilities to me is only correct partially. The increase in attendances nationally occurred almost solely due to the success of the England team during Italia 90, football suddenly became trendy due to a Geordies boys tears. People who never went anywhere near a ground became fans in 1990 and some of them stuck prior to this where were they? Indeed 90-91 had been the only rise nation wide in attendances for over twenty years since 1966-67 and look what happened then?

It's not just about getting fans into the ground, it's about keeping them. As I've stated before, there are plenty of things I miss about the 'old days'. I miss the tension and the edge to matches, personally. I also miss the build-up, the growing chants as the ground filled up much earlier due to people having to 'bag' a spot which which turned the match into the climax of events rather than the entirety. I don't miss having to stand, personally, and I don't miss having to crane my neck to see over the six-foot drunkard wearing a hat that invariably stumbled through the turnstile and placed himself directly in front of me just as the game kicked off.

But ask yourself this: If football had not changed itself prior to 1990, how many of those who came through the gates would have come back week after week? The fact is that many were put off by the images of violence, of poor facilities, of a hostile atmosphere which picked on minorities, whether it was the monkey chants or the 'get yer t*ts out' which invariably accompanied the sighting of any female under the age of 50. They didn't want to stand up for 90 minuutes to bag a spot, then crane their necks for a view for 90 minutes and to be treated like an animal by hostile police. They expected the same level of service that they got in the cinema, the theatre or anywhere else in society. That's why they never went near a ground. Yes, Italia 90 had an effect but it was not all that happened to transform the game's image. Crucially, when people did go down to see their local team and see what all the fuss was about, they discovered the cliche image of football - where they risked their life going to a game, got squashed by a load of violent neanderthal racists and then had to be marched to the station by cops - was wrong. They could go to a game, have a drink and some food, take their seat five minutes before the start with their kids knowing they were going to get a good view, 'enjoy' the game and walk out without getting hit by a paving stone. And although the emotion is not as extreme as it was, they could still have a unique experience that far outweighs what you can get in other forms of entertainment.

I'm afraid I have no stats to back this up, but I think any of us looking around the ground would accept the make up of the crowd has changed. It is far more diverse. The club has been able to tap into a far wider market than it was doing in the 70s and 80s. There are more women, more families. The faces are still almost always white, something which is worthy of discussing in a topic of its own as I'd love to know why. But the bottom line is there are more bums on seats and they are shoosing to stay there, even when the product on the pitch is mediocre. Comparing those crowds (thanks to http://www.citystats.org.uk) was fascinating. BCFC should belong to the whole community, not just young alpha males. Yes, we've lost some of the edge, I accept and regret that, but I do remember feeling a sense in the early and mid 1980s in particular that football was dying. The grounds were crumbling with very few stands built in recent years, there was no money being invested into the game and I honestly could not see it getting any better.

The game, like society, has transformed. Some parts for better and some for worse. But you can't argue with the fact that more people choose to watch our beloved Bristol City than ever used to in the days before the game changed. And I'm glad of that. I'm also glad I can take my kids and know they are going to be able to have a Coke in the warm Red and White Bar, that they will get a seat and that they will be able to watch the game safely and with a good view. Given that, it's hard to put forward a sustainable argument for returning to how it was, and the stereotypical die-hard alpha male fan aged 18-35 has to accept he now forms a smaller percentage of the crowd than he used to, and that he must accommodate the wishes of other sections of society who want to watch the game. Bristol City now have a wider appeal, and surely that's a good thing.

[Guest North Street]

In plain-speaking language I guess I am saying that, yes. Provided that the prawn sandwich brigade perceive they are getting value for money, then we have to offer them as many ways to spend their cash with us as possible. But the same has to apply to all revenue streams if the club is to maximize its potential, and that means 'ordinary' fans too. The club's aim has to be to bring in as much money as possible to help create a successful team on the pitch. But obviously it has to keep all its customers happy while doing it. The club, and those running it, are learning as they go along and making mistakes along the way.

I agree, and as I've said repeatedly, I sense from SteveL's answers on radio, at the open forum etc that there is a growing realisation of this and a wish to do something about it. As as I've also said, I believe the Supporters' Trust offers an ideal conduit for the fans to be diligently represented and to express their views. SteveL seems willing to listen to them and has actively engaged with them in a positive way from the start. This is an opportunity that we should grab by giving the Supporters' Trust our backing, letting them know what we think and helping them to seize the opportunity. Yes, we could wait for the club to make all the running in terms of trying to find out what we want, but the better organised we are, and the easier we make it for the club to listen to us, the greater the chances of success and of getting things done at the club in the way we want. That means being broadly supportive of the ST instead of takign a cynical view about the motives or competence of those involved and trying to slag it off and do it down wherever possible, as some have done. Let's give it a chance - it's the best one we've had for years.

It's not just about getting fans into the ground, it's about keeping them. As I've stated before, there are plenty of things I miss about the 'old days'. I miss the tension and the edge to matches, personally. I also miss the build-up, the growing chants as the ground filled up much earlier due to people having to 'bag' a spot which which turned the match into the climax of events rather than the entirety. I don't miss having to stand, personally, and I don't miss having to crane my neck to see over the six-foot drunkard wearing a hat that invariably stumbled through the turnstile and placed himself directly in front of me just as the game kicked off.

But ask yourself this: If football had not changed itself prior to 1990, how many of those who came through the gates would have come back week after week? The fact is that many were put off by the images of violence, of poor facilities, of a hostile atmosphere which picked on minorities, whether it was the monkey chants or the 'get yer t*ts out' which invariably accompanied the sighting of any female under the age of 50. They didn't want to stand up for 90 minuutes to bag a spot, then crane their necks for a view for 90 minutes and to be treated like an animal by hostile police. They expected the same level of service that they got in the cinema, the theatre or anywhere else in society. That's why they never went near a ground. Yes, Italia 90 had an effect but it was not all that happened to transform the game's image. Crucially, when people did go down to see their local team and see what all the fuss was about, they discovered the cliche image of football - where they risked their life going to a game, got squashed by a load of violent neanderthal racists and then had to be marched to the station by cops - was wrong. They could go to a game, have a drink and some food, take their seat five minutes before the start with their kids knowing they were going to get a good view, 'enjoy' the game and walk out without getting hit by a paving stone. And although the emotion is not as extreme as it was, they could still have a unique experience that far outweighs what you can get in other forms of entertainment.

I'm afraid I have no stats to back this up, but I think any of us looking around the ground would accept the make up of the crowd has changed. It is far more diverse. The club has been able to tap into a far wider market than it was doing in the 70s and 80s. There are more women, more families. The faces are still almost always white, something which is worthy of discussing in a topic of its own as I'd love to know why. But the bottom line is there are more bums on seats and they are shoosing to stay there, even when the product on the pitch is mediocre. Comparing those crowds (thanks to http://www.citystats.org.uk) was fascinating. BCFC should belong to the whole community, not just young alpha males. Yes, we've lost some of the edge, I accept and regret that, but I do remember feeling a sense in the early and mid 1980s in particular that football was dying. The grounds were crumbling with very few stands built in recent years, there was no money being invested into the game and I honestly could not see it getting any better.

The game, like society, has transformed. Some parts for better and some for worse. But you can't argue with the fact that more people choose to watch our beloved Bristol City than ever used to in the days before the game changed. And I'm glad of that. I'm also glad I can take my kids and know they are going to be able to have a Coke in the warm Red and White Bar, that they will get a seat and that they will be able to watch the game safely and with a good view. Given that, it's hard to put forward a sustainable argument for returning to how it was, and the stereotypical die-hard alpha male fan aged 18-35 has to accept he now forms a smaller percentage of the crowd than he used to, and that he must accommodate the wishes of other sections of society who want to watch the game. Bristol City now have a wider appeal, and surely that's a good thing.

Whoa that is an answer and a half.

football gates did not start to increase from 1985 this coincided with Italia 1990 and there was no large scale improvement in facilities till post Taylor report 1989.Attendances actually fell in 85,86, 87 etc as they been for decades since the forties except 1966 and hooliganism was not exactly rife in the forties. It is actually very hard indeed to see real trends to support your theory as Citys highest gates in the last twenty years coincided with a higher level of football but without much of these alledged improvement in facilities at Ashton Gate.

Nobody is saying at all are they that familes etc should not be accommodated are they? Nobody is saying that revenues must not come from elsewhere are they?

But I cannot put forward a sustainable argument that it is a "good" idea not to consult fans properly and to ignore their wishes. I get so little for several hundred pounds a season apart from a mediocre experience played out in a stadium which is soulless apart from a few trying their best in g block . I fully understand why so many of my friends have stopped going after years of contiuned support because I find it hard to justify it myself other than this is what I have always done and hoping it may change. A clean toilet, an over priced coke, a poor game of football played out in front of a crowd that has ceased to take part. Is that all Bristol City have to offer a former stereotypical die-hard alpha male fan [i liked that one!]? Football belongs in the community but for many it has left them and it is not so hard in a stadium that is constantly half full to put something back for them as posters like BB, Nick J, Wurzel City & WTFIGO! are pointing out.

[RedTop]

Whoa that is an answer and a half.

football gates did not start to increase from 1985 this coincided with Italia 1990 and there was no large scale improvement in facilities till post Taylor report 1989.Attendances actually fell in 85,86, 87 etc as they been for decades since the forties except 1966 and hooliganism was not exactly rife in the forties. It is actually very hard indeed to see real trends to support your theory as Citys highest gates in the last twenty years coincided with a higher level of football but without much of these alledged improvement in facilities at Ashton Gate.

Nobody is saying at all are they that familes etc should not be accommodated are they? Nobody is saying that revenues must not come from elsewhere are they?

But I cannot put forward a sustainable argument that it is a "good" idea not to consult fans properly and to ignore their wishes. I get so little for several hundred pounds a season apart from a mediocre experience played out in a stadium which is soulless apart from a few trying their best in g block . I fully understand why so many of my friends have stopped going after years of contiuned support because I find it hard to justify it myself other than this is what I have always done and hoping it may change. A clean toilet, an over priced coke, a poor game of football played out in front of a crowd that has ceased to take part. Is that all Bristol City have to offer a former stereotypical die-hard alpha male fan [i liked that one!]? Football belongs in the community but for many it has left them and it is not so hard in a stadium that is constantly half full to put something back for them as posters like BB, Nick J, Wurzel City & WTFIGO! are pointing out.

I agree with the sentiments of much of what you are saying. We paid a high price for putting our house in order after the 70s and 80s. Of course no-one can argue it's not a good idea to consult fans. I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that! The club has failed in this respect in recent years, in my opinion, but I've already said what I think the solution is.

As for your argument on crowds, the crowd levels I quoted from 20 years ago and from today were both with City playing at the same level - slightly higher 20 years ago in terms of position within the division. It wasn't a freak season - if you look on Citystats you'll see the crowds now are much higher than they were throughout that period when we were in the same division. The point is crowds are up. We've lost some fans along the way, but we've gained more. Which is something I could not see happening without change as to me, at the time, it felt like football and the club were dying on their feet. We also lost some of the atmosphere. But it has to be remembered too that we also lost many of the shabby grounds with poor facilities (which I do remember people moaning about, along the lines of 'treat people like animals and they'll act like them') and much, though not all, of the violence.

The trick is to get back the atmosphere (and some of the 'alpha males' who have deserted!) without the hostility that might drive other fans away again. I know many will suggest safe standing. It seems a retrograde step to me personally, but as I've said elsewhere, if you can make a business case to the club that it would be in their best interests then you've got something to go on. For me, that business case is nowhere near being made yet.

Other solutions to bring back atmosphere? Personally, I'd say get rid of the music when we score - it's the most atmospheric moment of the match and at the moment the forced, false jolity ruins it in my opinion.

Any other suggestions welcomed!

[jimtastic]

Give me strength.

Oh well.

Tax loophole - ha ha ha. But, if you are so confident. Here's the deal, on offer for you to accept by midday today. Then: Phone Hargreaves Lansdown, tell them its urgent you speak to SteveL. Ask him to come on here and confirm unequivocally that transferring the stadium has been done for tax reasons. He doesnt have to say what they are, just that its for tax reasons. If you can sort that out by the end of today I will donate £1,000 to my favourite charity, the Babe Appeal (see below). If not, you donate £100.

http://www.babesbigappeal.org.uk/index.cfm?type=BBA

As for the rest - can you explain to me how moving the stadium moves the club forwards? Have you not thought to yourself, if no good reason has been given, then it might not be bad right now, but nevertheless why do it?

In other words, if a transaction takes place, it is down to the instigator of that transaction to explain why it is good. If no good explanation is forthcoming, that is bound to put doubts into your mind. I am not the only one, by far, to (a) not accept the explanation(s) given and therefore (b) question why it has happened.

For example. If AG was sold tomorrow, there would be uproar. But by putting the stadium into a company, it is politically easier because part can be sold now, justified for fundraising reasons, and its the start of a slippery slope etc etc, all things I have explained before. Since SteveL confirmed at the AGM that selling part off was one of the options considered, I do not think my concerns are unfounded.

This link below provides the initial debate which took place, because I assume you haven't seen it. I cannot provide the link to the question itself, because it has been removed from this forum.

http://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=48656&hl=

The sarcasm wasn't really necessary -it was a genuine question... While I don't necessarily agree with your methods, I admire your dedication to and passion for this debate.

Why is the notion of moving the stadium for financial reasons so ridiculous? I could give you numerous examples of such smaller-scale (and perfectly legal) "loopholes" and have seen many of them in action.

Yes, I did read the original debate, along with the subsequent follow-up and the (IMO) quite justified rant from SL. My point is still valid:

"Although I've seen you attack the decision to move it, I've never seen any clear explanation from you about exactly why it's such a bad thing."

And having ready your reply, I understand why. There isn't a clear explanation. No smoking gun, no big story for the Evil Post. Essentially, your argument is one of distrust and "what might happen" rather than one of actual substance or one where clear future paths are defined. Fair enough, and given the current air of distrust for the current board, I can understand that view. Because I have some (perhaps misplaced) faith in SL, it's not a view that I share.

As I stated before, moving the stadium to another company makes it no more or less likely that SL will sell AG, so it just boils down to faith. SL is a City fan and joint head of a £100m financial services company. For me, this puts him in a better position than most to make financial and corporate decisions of this nature in the interest of the club.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong and SL might be the footballing equivalent of Lord Voldemort, but I can only really judge that if/when he puts the stadium up for sale.