General Rambling, Major Talkingpoint?

[awbb]

[Wurzel City]

[Redhyde]

I think it's harsh to lump Hill, Coles and Amankwaah in with Doherty.

Hill's playing for a Playoff team in the championship and while Coles wasn't playing amazingly he got a horrific injury which curtailed his progress for Hull. Amankwaah got injured for around two years so who knows what he may have gone on to by now. Doherty screwed up his own career after he came back so i don't think it's the clubs fault.

If someone builds a 30000 seater stadium with their own money i think they're entitled to call it what they like. I don't think the Reading fans have any complaints as Madejski's put a div 2 side in the Premiership. He hasn't spent too much on transfers but Sidwell, Convey, Kitson, Little etc aren't on a pittance in wages.

Why should Lansdown listen to the fans? If you saw the mindless ramblings on the ask Steve L forum you'd have come to the opinion that most city fans are thick and pig ignorant anyway. Why should he listen to us when all we seemed to do was abuse and criticise him. Or ask him stupid questions on topics he can't comment about or he's already covered. If I had to make important business decisions i certainly wouldn't consult this forum!!!

Edit- Just who is Steve Johnson? Steve Lansdown, Steve Coppell, John Madejski, Gary Johnson who on earth is this other bloke?

[RedTop]

[Mikenoski]

Well, that's my theory anyway.

Yours and the original post on this thread, are 2 of the best posts that I have read since I joined this forum.

[RedZepperin]

[Guest North Street]

[Redhyde]

[stortfordred]

A football club as a democracy. Now there's an interesting concept. You can consult all you like but just like any business, at the end of the consultation, someone has to make the decisions. If they're brave enough to actually stand up and be counted ('Judge me on Tinnion') then I can only applaud their passion and willingness to go for the moment.

It's easy enough for us to post our opinion in the sound knowledge that, two months later, everyone will have forgotten it. It's also very easy to be wise after the event and pretend that I told you so. Football is fickle, more fickle than most, and although a chairman like Steve Lansdown knows that, he's prepared to roll with the punches in the hope that, one day, success will come.

He believes that he makes the correct decisions, yet is prepared to learn from past experiences. The kit consultation 2006 is a huge improvement on 2005; similar improvement in other areas will mean that the fans who have sound ideas are being listened to. If the opinions are crap, then hopefully SL's bullsh1t detector will work because if he acted on everything he heard, we'd be in a right fix.

[Guest North Street]

What we and he want is for city to be sucessful. I feel that the person with all the facts and experience is generally best suited to making the decisions rather than you or me. As stated we have a chairman who does actually listen when appropriate and makes decisions occasionally based on what we say which is far better than many other clubs.

If it was simply about sucess we could have all given up in 1976.

A football club as a democracy. Now there's an interesting concept. You can consult all you like but just like any business, at the end of the consultation, someone has to make the decisions.

Can you tell me when Bristol City have consulted their fanbase over a fundamental issue in the last few years?

Democracy? No just some real involvment in our club from more than a few of the ten thousand who turn up reguarly could help to avoid these embarrassing faux pas BCFC sometimes create.

[Redhyde]

Can you tell me when Bristol City have consulted their fanbase over a fundamental issue in the last few years?

Which issues are you talking about?

[bh red]

[redrocks]

can't blame him for ignoring people's view after a while, that forum just got embrassing and insulting and it wasn't worth Steve's time,

Think the final straw was an occasion where he the subject of ground ownership was discussed and out of his own time he actually, invited someone in and explained and discussed it in a cival manner, only then for the same person to stil rant on the forum about the same subject totally disregarding what Steve had to say, at that point it was pretty clear that it was a waste of his time, hopefully once the ST is up and running it can be restarted and they will be able to filter out the UTTER rubbish that was posted on the SL forum, i.e 95% of it!

That's your view. The other angle you could take is that Steve decided to try and deal with something behind close doors to shut NickJ up in open forum as it was a touchy subject.

[Guest North Street]

Which issues are you talking about?

Transferal of ownership of the ground

Closure of the East End

Smoking

Safe standing

Premier seating/Williams

[bh red]

think it was too do with Ground Ownership, someone was asking lots of question and just didn't believe what Steve had to say, so Steve invited him in face to face and they spoke.

Steve believed it to be a constructive meeting the other guy came back and just hammered Steve even more on the forum, and people wonder why the SL forum was closed.

[Redhyde]

Transferal of ownership of the ground

Closure of the East End

Smoking

Safe standing

Premier seating/Williams

The transfer of the ground is the only major issue there. And while i actually agreed with the NickJ stuff i completely disagree with the way he handled it and can understand Lansdown's point of view.

I pretty sure we're not allowed to build safe standing at this level in England.

Smoking the fans are clearly split on so how would that help?

Why is closing the East end a major issue? It's just a place to sit. (cue flak)

Premier seating is a major issue? come on it boils down to can you afford it and do you want it? It doesn't really affect too many people other than moving them about twenty metres away.

You're struggling for major issues there i'm afraid.

[NickJ]

can't blame him for ignoring people's view after a while, that forum just got embrassing and insulting and it wasn't worth Steve's time,

Think the final straw was an occasion where he the subject of ground ownership was discussed and out of his own time he actually, invited someone in and explained and discussed it in a cival manner, only then for the same person to stil rant on the forum about the same subject totally disregarding what Steve had to say, at that point it was pretty clear that it was a waste of his time, hopefully once the ST is up and running it can be restarted and they will be able to filter out the UTTER rubbish that was posted on the SL forum, i.e 95% of it!

Sorry mate but you are the one talking rubbish. That person was me, and I will win hands down if you want to debate this issue. Here is a brief summary of what happened.

- Ashton Gate was transferred to a separate company without any prior consultation with the shareholders, and at the AGM Steve (a) gave 2 reasons for the transfer which did not stack up and (b) stated that the transfer of the stadium to a separate company would enable part of it to be sold.

- I posted a question to Steve which I think most people would agree was reasonable, polite and asked very pertinent questions.

- Steve invited me to meet him, and I gave up my time to do so. At our meeting, Steve discussed a lot of things, but a logical explanation for the transfer of the stadium was not one of them. I think Steve was trying to demonstrate what a nice chap and genuine Bristol City supporter he is, neither of which is in dispute so far as I am concerned.

- Steve had stated in his partial reply to my original question on the forum that he would reply in full after he had seen a separate letter that I had sent him.

- All of the above took place late November and early December.

- Towards the end of January, Steve had not made the further reply on the forum as promised. He may have simply forgotten, but the fact is it hadn't happened.

- I was aware from my limited dealings with the Supporters Trust at that point that the SteveL forum was going to be closed, and I knew what day that was scheduled to happen.

- I waited until the final day when Steve was answering questions, and put a further post as a reminder. That post was polite and was not in any way a rant, as you put it.

- Steve's reply, on that same day, was expressed in what I would describe as a rude manner. Steve may have felt that he had dealt with the situation in our meeting and was frustrated; he may have been trying to deflect attention from the issue. Whatever, the fact is he had not publicly answered the points raised, and it was not my position to do so. That would have been difficult anyway because in our meeting Steve had not provided any further information on the specific issue of the stadium.

So you are wrong on several counts.

1. I most certainly did not and have not ranted, it is not my style. Reasoned, logical, and considered debate is my style.

2. I have not disregarded what Steve had to say. There was nothing to disregard.

3. My question to Steve on the forum on the final day of its existence were not the final straw in the decision to close the forum, because that decision had already been taken - that is precisely why I posted again on the subject that day.

I always find that when having a debate, it helps to get one's facts right.

I will make this very clear, since a minority seem incapable of reading my posts regarding the stadium for what they are, a desire to reverse a decision which in my opinion has no benefit to Bristol City Football Club, and is in fact potentially damaging, all my opinion of course - but certainly NOT a personal attack on Steve. But the fact is Steve has made the decision and therefore most obviously my efforts will be directed towards him. I do think that Steve IS a nice chap and I DO think that Steve is a genuine supporter and I DO think that Steve puts a lot of his time into this great club of ours.

But that will not stop me from publicly disagreeing with any decision that I believe is fundamentally bad for Bristol City Football Club.

And yes, I do think that on this issue, and who knows maybe on others, Steve has not been as open as he would like everyone to believe he is. If I am correct, Steve may have reasons which he genuinely feels are in the interests of Bristol City for that. Whether you agree with him is your opinion, in mine it is not. I would happily have a beer and a chat with Steve again, and I would like to think - but would not blame if he would not - that he would likewise. But that does not mean I have to agree with everything he says, and in putting forward my objections I most certainly have not and would not do so in the manner you have described.

Hope that clears that up, but I am more than happy to debate the issue further.

[Guest North Street]

The transfer of the ground is the only major issue there. And while i actually agreed with the NickJ stuff i completely disagree with the way he handled it and can understand Lansdown's point of view.

I pretty sure we're not allowed to build safe standing at this level in England.

Smoking the fans are clearly split on so how would that help?

Why is closing the East end a major issue? It's just a place to sit. (cue flak)

Premier seating is a major issue? come on it boils down to can you afford it and do you want it? It doesn't really affect too many people other than moving them about twenty metres away.

You're struggling for major issues there i'm afraid.

Not being able to sit in the stand i wan't to let alone stand with my friends who smoke all for hundreds of pounds a season is quite an issue for me. I believe there are a significant amount of Bristol City supporters who feel like me that their day at Ashton Gate has been devalued to such an extent they do wonder why they go at times.That is a major issue!

Moving 500 supporters without consultation is a major issue.

Shutting 25% of our ground to City fans is a major issue.

Banning smoking is a major issue.

You can build safe standing areas at this level full stop which once again is a major issue.

[NickJ]

think it was too do with Ground Ownership, someone was asking lots of question and just didn't believe what Steve had to say, so Steve invited him in face to face and they spoke.

Steve believed it to be a constructive meeting the other guy came back and just hammered Steve even more on the forum, and people wonder why the SL forum was closed.

You are correct that it was a constructive meeting but you are incorrect that I "just hammered Steve". See my earlier post for a full explanation. That post was not the reason the SL forum was closed, that decision had already been taken.

The transfer of the ground is the only major issue there. And while i actually agreed with the NickJ stuff i completely disagree with the way he handled it and can understand Lansdown's point of view.

May I ask why you disagree with the way I handled this and what you would have done differently?

Cheers.

[Wurzel City]

[Wurzel City]