Our Model - It doesn’t work

[Harry]

For the last few years, Bristol City FC has been attempting to create its own ‘model’. Their idea of the optimum way to run a football club to provide it with the best chance of success. 
 

The ‘Model’ is supposed to be one where everything at the club is ‘aligned’.
It says that all of our teams from the under 8’s through to the first team will play the same way. 
I’m not sure that’s quite such a good idea but hey ho. 
But the most crucial element for me is that the model says that the first team will play a certain way and that we have a ‘Technical Director’ to oversee this and ensure it’s on track and everything is aligned. 
 

Personally, at this level of football, I don’t think that works. 
The scene is such that, any manager coming into the club should be of a certain ‘type’ and conform to a certain set of principles. 
The club have created a philosophy (call it an identity if you like) as to how they want to play football and any manager should align (there’s that word again) with that. 
 

The Technical Director runs the recruitment side of the business. 
He determines what players we sign and what manager and coaches we sign. He will try to conform to the club principles and appoint managers and coaches who will ‘fit’ and sign players who will ‘fit’. 
 

We see this sort of model at the top end of the game. Many of the biggest clubs run on a Director of Football type of model, where the manager has only limited say in the player recruitment and is basically just tasked with getting on with it, with the rather expensive tools he is provided. 
 

This doesn’t work at our level. We see this in all it’s gory (yes, not glory) with the Tinnion/Manning appointment. 
 

We have a club philosophy that desires to play in a certain way and players have been signed to attempt to slot into that style. 
We now have a manager who has been appointed who clearly likes to adopt a very different philosophy. 
I don’t blame Manning for this. We approached him. He didn’t apply for this job. He had a clear and evident CV, a body of work behind him, that was obvious to anyone who bothered to look that was at odds with our own club model. 
 

Furthermore, this new manager, whilst not having players who can play his way, doesn’t have very much say in how to fix this. 
His first transfer window and we make 4 permanent signings - 3 of which we wanted before the new manager got here. So the new manager arrives, doesn’t have players he wants and then the ‘club model’ signs 3 players that ‘the club model’ wanted. 
 

This is a huge issue for me. We are attempting to recreate models that have had success at places like Brighton, Brentford and even bloody Luton. But whilst those clubs had certain recruitment models, they didn’t dictate a ‘playing philosophy’ throughout the club. They just had very thorough and clever scouting and recruitment modelling. It didn’t dictate the playing style. Whenever there was a manager change the new boss still has his own free reign in terms of how he played and the recruitment model would then have to ‘align’ with the managers philosophy - not the other way round. 
 

When Dean Smith took over from Mark Warburton, he did things differently and they recruited accordingly. Likewise when Frank then took over from Smith, he had different philosophies on pressing, defensive positioning, midfield solidity etc. and the club then recruited accordingly. 
Luton played a certain way under Jones, but when Edwards arrived he harnessed what was already good but brought his own style to it and the club then recruited accordingly. 
 

What we have at Bristol City is a dictatorial model, whereby the Technical Director and Recruitment Team have defined a model and anyone that arrives at the club must buy-in to that model. There is no wavering. Yes, a new manager might have a bit of a say in some signings but generally they are targeted based on our defined modelling. 

Surely it’s obvious to anyone that this just doesn’t work. The talk of ‘everything at this club is aligned, from the under 8’s to the first team’ is just a false platitude. It’s a strapline that they think is clever “hey look at us, we’ve got an identify and model, we’re unique”.

That might work well at Barcelona or Man City but it’s pointless in the championship. It’s not what will actually bring success on the pitch. 
 

To achieve success on the pitch at this level you need a manager who is allowed to run the first team in his own way. Who won’t be dictated to by inferiors who spout about an identity and an alignment throughout the club. 

It’s time for Manning to depart, in my opinion, but it’s also time for the club to drop the nonsense and stop acting like a billy big bollox. The club think that they have a clever way of doing things and that it’s the only way of separating themselves from the challenging division we are in. 
It’s not clever. It’s nonsense. Drop the bullcrap. 
 

The way to achieve success was evident to us a few years ago when a man called Steve Cotterill was appointed. I wasn’t his biggest fan when he got here, and I also think the time was right for him to go, but the period he was here, there is no denying that he’s been the only manager in recent years that’s done things his own way and said “balls” to the ownership and ‘model’. 
Cotterill worked with an experienced Chief Scout and identified the best available players and signed them to fit a way of playing that HE wanted. 
None of this “we’re all aligned from the u8’s to the tea lady”. 
Just an experienced manager with an experienced chief scout, putting together a squad that would play to the managers identity, not the clubs identity. 
 

It’s time to ditch the bullshit. 
Get out there and employ a manager with cahuna’s, one with a CV that demands respect from his players, let him bring in the players that HE wants, not players that the ‘club’ have targeted for the last few windows. Let him put his own team together to play the way that HE wants. 
 

The current model stinks. There are people in positions of authority that have real negative impact on this club who are not fit for purpose. 
We need a board of directors who can appoint a respected manager, who in turn will be empowered to bring in his own trusted recruitment team or chief scout, sign his own players and have zero meddling from unqualified  nobodies. 
 

Our model is shit. And we will get nowhere with it. 

[gamon]

my mate.

[Northern Red]

Absolutely nailed it.

[Kid in the Riot]

Condensed Version:

We need new ownership 

[Sir Geoff]

5 minutes ago, Harry said:

For the last few years, Bristol City FC has been attempting to create its own ‘model’. Their idea of the optimum way to run a football club to provide it with the best chance of success. 
 

The ‘Model’ is supposed to be one where everything at the club is ‘aligned’.
It says that all of our teams from the under 8’s through to the first team will play the same way. 
I’m not sure that’s quite such a good idea but hey ho. 
But the most crucial element for me is that the model says that the first team will play a certain way and that we have a ‘Technical Director’ to oversee this and ensure it’s on track and everything is aligned. 
 

Personally, at this level of football, I don’t think that works. 
The scene is such that, any manager coming into the club should be of a certain ‘type’ and conform to a certain set of principles. 
The club have created a philosophy (call it an identity if you like) as to how they want to play football and any manager should align (there’s that word again) with that. 
 

The Technical Director runs the recruitment side of the business. 
He determines what players we sign and what manager and coaches we sign. He will try to conform to the club principles and appoint managers and coaches who will ‘fit’ and sign players who will ‘fit’. 
 

We see this sort of model at the top end of the game. Many of the biggest clubs run on a Director of Football type of model, where the manager has only limited say in the player recruitment and is basically just tasked with getting on with it, with the rather expensive tools he is provided. 
 

This doesn’t work at our level. We see this in all it’s gory (yes, not glory) with the Tinnion/Manning appointment. 
 

We have a club philosophy that desires to play in a certain way and players have been signed to attempt to slot into that style. 
We now have a manager who has been appointed who clearly likes to adopt a very different philosophy. 
I don’t blame Manning for this. We approached him. He didn’t apply for this job. He had a clear and evident CV, a body of work behind him, that was obvious to anyone who bothered to look that was at odds with our own club model. 
 

Furthermore, this new manager, whilst not having players who can play his way, doesn’t have very much say in how to fix this. 
His first transfer window and we make 4 permanent signings - 3 of which we wanted before the new manager got here. So the new manager arrives, doesn’t have players he wants and then the ‘club model’ signs 3 players that ‘the club model’ wanted. 
 

This is a huge issue for me. We are attempting to recreate models that have had success at places like Brighton, Brentford and even bloody Luton. But whilst those clubs had certain recruitment models, they didn’t dictate a ‘playing philosophy’ throughout the club. They just had very thorough and clever scouting and recruitment modelling. It didn’t dictate the playing style. Whenever there was a manager change the new boss still has his own free reign in terms of how he played and the recruitment model would then have to ‘align’ with the managers philosophy - not the other way round. 
 

When Dean Smith took over from Mark Warburton, he did things differently and they recruited accordingly. Likewise when Frank then took over from Smith, he had different philosophies on pressing, defensive positioning, midfield solidity etc. and the club then recruited accordingly. 
Luton played a certain way under Jones, but when Edwards arrived he harnessed what was already good but brought his own style to it and the club then recruited accordingly. 
 

What we have at Bristol City is a dictatorial model, whereby the Technical Director and Recruitment Team have defined a model and anyone that arrives at the club must buy-in to that model. There is no wavering. Yes, a new manager might have a bit of a say in some signings but generally they are targeted based on our defined modelling. 

Surely it’s obvious to anyone that this just doesn’t work. The talk of ‘everything at this club is aligned, from the under 8’s to the first team’ is just a false platitude. It’s a strapline that they think is clever “hey look at us, we’ve got an identify and model, we’re unique”.

That might work well at Barcelona or Man City but it’s pointless in the championship. It’s not what will actually bring success on the pitch. 
 

To achieve success on the pitch at this level you need a manager who is allowed to run the first team in his own way. Who won’t be dictated to by inferiors who spout about an identity and an alignment throughout the club. 

It’s time for Manning to depart, in my opinion, but it’s also time for the club to drop the nonsense and stop acting like a billy big bollox. The club think that they have a clever way of doing things and that it’s the only way of separating themselves from the challenging division we are in. 
It’s not clever. It’s nonsense. Drop the bullcrap. 
 

The way to achieve success was evident to us a few years ago when a man called Steve Cotterill was appointed. I wasn’t his biggest fan when he got here, and I also think the time was right for him to go, but the period he was here, there is no denying that he’s been the only manager in recent years that’s done things his own way and said “balls” to the ownership and ‘model’. 
Cotterill worked with an experienced Chief Scout and identified the best available players and signed them to fit a way of playing that HE wanted. 
None of this “we’re all aligned from the u8’s to the tea lady”. 
Just an experienced manager with an experienced chief scout, putting together a squad that would play to the managers identity, not the clubs identity. 
 

It’s time to ditch the bullshit. 
Get out there and employ a manager with cahuna’s, one with a CV that demands respect from his players, let him bring in the players that HE wants, not players that the ‘club’ have targeted for the last few windows. Let him put his own team together to play the way that HE wants. 
 

The current model stinks. There are people in positions of authority that have real negative impact on this club who are not fit for purpose. 
We need a board of directors who can appoint a respected manager, who in turn will be empowered to bring in his own trusted recruitment team or chief scout, sign his own players and have zero meddling from unqualified  nobodies. 
 

Our model is shit. And we will get nowhere with it. 

We had just that manager and coaching team 6 months ago.

[IAmNick]

Really interesting post.

What are your thoughts though on the last few managers - Lee, Pearson, and now Manning. To my (untrained) eye they play a very different game, so when did this playing philosophy actually start?

Was it pre Pearson, but they put up with him to get us out the shit? Or was it mid Pearson, he didn't buy in, and they replaced with Manning who'd be a better fit?

But if that's the case, how do we explain the signings which clearly don't fit what Manning wants... Which in theory should be what the club wants as they only just appointed him?

Confused is the word.

[Monkeh]

5 minutes ago, Harry said:

For the last few years, Bristol City FC has been attempting to create its own ‘model’. Their idea of the optimum way to run a football club to provide it with the best chance of success. 
 

The ‘Model’ is supposed to be one where everything at the club is ‘aligned’.
It says that all of our teams from the under 8’s through to the first team will play the same way. 
I’m not sure that’s quite such a good idea but hey ho. 
But the most crucial element for me is that the model says that the first team will play a certain way and that we have a ‘Technical Director’ to oversee this and ensure it’s on track and everything is aligned. 
 

Personally, at this level of football, I don’t think that works. 
The scene is such that, any manager coming into the club should be of a certain ‘type’ and conform to a certain set of principles. 
The club have created a philosophy (call it an identity if you like) as to how they want to play football and any manager should align (there’s that word again) with that. 
 

The Technical Director runs the recruitment side of the business. 
He determines what players we sign and what manager and coaches we sign. He will try to conform to the club principles and appoint managers and coaches who will ‘fit’ and sign players who will ‘fit’. 
 

We see this sort of model at the top end of the game. Many of the biggest clubs run on a Director of Football type of model, where the manager has only limited say in the player recruitment and is basically just tasked with getting on with it, with the rather expensive tools he is provided. 
 

This doesn’t work at our level. We see this in all it’s gory (yes, not glory) with the Tinnion/Manning appointment. 
 

We have a club philosophy that desires to play in a certain way and players have been signed to attempt to slot into that style. 
We now have a manager who has been appointed who clearly likes to adopt a very different philosophy. 
I don’t blame Manning for this. We approached him. He didn’t apply for this job. He had a clear and evident CV, a body of work behind him, that was obvious to anyone who bothered to look that was at odds with our own club model. 
 

Furthermore, this new manager, whilst not having players who can play his way, doesn’t have very much say in how to fix this. 
His first transfer window and we make 4 permanent signings - 3 of which we wanted before the new manager got here. So the new manager arrives, doesn’t have players he wants and then the ‘club model’ signs 3 players that ‘the club model’ wanted. 
 

This is a huge issue for me. We are attempting to recreate models that have had success at places like Brighton, Brentford and even bloody Luton. But whilst those clubs had certain recruitment models, they didn’t dictate a ‘playing philosophy’ throughout the club. They just had very thorough and clever scouting and recruitment modelling. It didn’t dictate the playing style. Whenever there was a manager change the new boss still has his own free reign in terms of how he played and the recruitment model would then have to ‘align’ with the managers philosophy - not the other way round. 
 

When Dean Smith took over from Mark Warburton, he did things differently and they recruited accordingly. Likewise when Frank then took over from Smith, he had different philosophies on pressing, defensive positioning, midfield solidity etc. and the club then recruited accordingly. 
Luton played a certain way under Jones, but when Edwards arrived he harnessed what was already good but brought his own style to it and the club then recruited accordingly. 
 

What we have at Bristol City is a dictatorial model, whereby the Technical Director and Recruitment Team have defined a model and anyone that arrives at the club must buy-in to that model. There is no wavering. Yes, a new manager might have a bit of a say in some signings but generally they are targeted based on our defined modelling. 

Surely it’s obvious to anyone that this just doesn’t work. The talk of ‘everything at this club is aligned, from the under 8’s to the first team’ is just a false platitude. It’s a strapline that they think is clever “hey look at us, we’ve got an identify and model, we’re unique”.

That might work well at Barcelona or Man City but it’s pointless in the championship. It’s not what will actually bring success on the pitch. 
 

To achieve success on the pitch at this level you need a manager who is allowed to run the first team in his own way. Who won’t be dictated to by inferiors who spout about an identity and an alignment throughout the club. 

It’s time for Manning to depart, in my opinion, but it’s also time for the club to drop the nonsense and stop acting like a billy big bollox. The club think that they have a clever way of doing things and that it’s the only way of separating themselves from the challenging division we are in. 
It’s not clever. It’s nonsense. Drop the bullcrap. 
 

The way to achieve success was evident to us a few years ago when a man called Steve Cotterill was appointed. I wasn’t his biggest fan when he got here, and I also think the time was right for him to go, but the period he was here, there is no denying that he’s been the only manager in recent years that’s done things his own way and said “balls” to the ownership and ‘model’. 
Cotterill worked with an experienced Chief Scout and identified the best available players and signed them to fit a way of playing that HE wanted. 
None of this “we’re all aligned from the u8’s to the tea lady”. 
Just an experienced manager with an experienced chief scout, putting together a squad that would play to the managers identity, not the clubs identity. 
 

It’s time to ditch the bullshit. 
Get out there and employ a manager with cahuna’s, one with a CV that demands respect from his players, let him bring in the players that HE wants, not players that the ‘club’ have targeted for the last few windows. Let him put his own team together to play the way that HE wants. 
 

The current model stinks. There are people in positions of authority that have real negative impact on this club who are not fit for purpose. 
We need a board of directors who can appoint a respected manager, who in turn will be empowered to bring in his own trusted recruitment team or chief scout, sign his own players and have zero meddling from unqualified  nobodies. 
 

Our model is shit. And we will get nowhere with it. 

I disagree Harry we aren't trying to create our own model, we are copying Brentford, then when that didn't work we copy Luton, when that doesn't work we'll copy someone else,

There is no strategic thinking,

What's going on reeks of tinnion, the same thing happened under his reign,

He needs to go ans an actual technical director with no history at this club needs to come in

[Richard Head]

Excellent analysis, Harry. Spot on. 
it will never happen whilst Nepo Baby is chairman. He is clueless but Daddy will never take his toys away. And there is no board of directors to speak of who will challenge his decisions.

[Barrs Court Red]

6 minutes ago, Harry said:

For the last few years, Bristol City FC has been attempting to create its own ‘model’. Their idea of the optimum way to run a football club to provide it with the best chance of success. 
 

The ‘Model’ is supposed to be one where everything at the club is ‘aligned’.
It says that all of our teams from the under 8’s through to the first team will play the same way. 
I’m not sure that’s quite such a good idea but hey ho. 
But the most crucial element for me is that the model says that the first team will play a certain way and that we have a ‘Technical Director’ to oversee this and ensure it’s on track and everything is aligned. 
 

Personally, at this level of football, I don’t think that works. 
The scene is such that, any manager coming into the club should be of a certain ‘type’ and conform to a certain set of principles. 
The club have created a philosophy (call it an identity if you like) as to how they want to play football and any manager should align (there’s that word again) with that. 
 

The Technical Director runs the recruitment side of the business. 
He determines what players we sign and what manager and coaches we sign. He will try to conform to the club principles and appoint managers and coaches who will ‘fit’ and sign players who will ‘fit’. 
 

We see this sort of model at the top end of the game. Many of the biggest clubs run on a Director of Football type of model, where the manager has only limited say in the player recruitment and is basically just tasked with getting on with it, with the rather expensive tools he is provided. 
 

This doesn’t work at our level. We see this in all it’s gory (yes, not glory) with the Tinnion/Manning appointment. 
 

We have a club philosophy that desires to play in a certain way and players have been signed to attempt to slot into that style. 
We now have a manager who has been appointed who clearly likes to adopt a very different philosophy. 
I don’t blame Manning for this. We approached him. He didn’t apply for this job. He had a clear and evident CV, a body of work behind him, that was obvious to anyone who bothered to look that was at odds with our own club model. 
 

Furthermore, this new manager, whilst not having players who can play his way, doesn’t have very much say in how to fix this. 
His first transfer window and we make 4 permanent signings - 3 of which we wanted before the new manager got here. So the new manager arrives, doesn’t have players he wants and then the ‘club model’ signs 3 players that ‘the club model’ wanted. 
 

This is a huge issue for me. We are attempting to recreate models that have had success at places like Brighton, Brentford and even bloody Luton. But whilst those clubs had certain recruitment models, they didn’t dictate a ‘playing philosophy’ throughout the club. They just had very thorough and clever scouting and recruitment modelling. It didn’t dictate the playing style. Whenever there was a manager change the new boss still has his own free reign in terms of how he played and the recruitment model would then have to ‘align’ with the managers philosophy - not the other way round. 
 

When Dean Smith took over from Mark Warburton, he did things differently and they recruited accordingly. Likewise when Frank then took over from Smith, he had different philosophies on pressing, defensive positioning, midfield solidity etc. and the club then recruited accordingly. 
Luton played a certain way under Jones, but when Edwards arrived he harnessed what was already good but brought his own style to it and the club then recruited accordingly. 
 

What we have at Bristol City is a dictatorial model, whereby the Technical Director and Recruitment Team have defined a model and anyone that arrives at the club must buy-in to that model. There is no wavering. Yes, a new manager might have a bit of a say in some signings but generally they are targeted based on our defined modelling. 

Surely it’s obvious to anyone that this just doesn’t work. The talk of ‘everything at this club is aligned, from the under 8’s to the first team’ is just a false platitude. It’s a strapline that they think is clever “hey look at us, we’ve got an identify and model, we’re unique”.

That might work well at Barcelona or Man City but it’s pointless in the championship. It’s not what will actually bring success on the pitch. 
 

To achieve success on the pitch at this level you need a manager who is allowed to run the first team in his own way. Who won’t be dictated to by inferiors who spout about an identity and an alignment throughout the club. 

It’s time for Manning to depart, in my opinion, but it’s also time for the club to drop the nonsense and stop acting like a billy big bollox. The club think that they have a clever way of doing things and that it’s the only way of separating themselves from the challenging division we are in. 
It’s not clever. It’s nonsense. Drop the bullcrap. 
 

The way to achieve success was evident to us a few years ago when a man called Steve Cotterill was appointed. I wasn’t his biggest fan when he got here, and I also think the time was right for him to go, but the period he was here, there is no denying that he’s been the only manager in recent years that’s done things his own way and said “balls” to the ownership and ‘model’. 
Cotterill worked with an experienced Chief Scout and identified the best available players and signed them to fit a way of playing that HE wanted. 
None of this “we’re all aligned from the u8’s to the tea lady”. 
Just an experienced manager with an experienced chief scout, putting together a squad that would play to the managers identity, not the clubs identity. 
 

It’s time to ditch the bullshit. 
Get out there and employ a manager with cahuna’s, one with a CV that demands respect from his players, let him bring in the players that HE wants, not players that the ‘club’ have targeted for the last few windows. Let him put his own team together to play the way that HE wants. 
 

The current model stinks. There are people in positions of authority that have real negative impact on this club who are not fit for purpose. 
We need a board of directors who can appoint a respected manager, who in turn will be empowered to bring in his own trusted recruitment team or chief scout, sign his own players and have zero meddling from unqualified  nobodies. 
 

Our model is shit. And we will get nowhere with it. 

Run out of likes  

 

[ohhhshauntaylor]

And all our recent success has come when we’ve had either GJ or SC as MANAGERS. 
 

MANAGERS who did what they wanted (until SC was stopped) 

[Alessandro]

Not only that but decisions made and a model driven by one of the worse appointments (for the second time in his case) the Lansdowns have made in a long list of bad appointments - overseen by the owners son who is seemingly running it like it’s Football Manager on his PC. 
 

[Sturgess]

3 minutes ago, Barrs Court Red said:

Run out of likes  

 

This! ^ 

[Harry]

3 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

We had just that manager and coaching team 6 months ago.

 Not really. The club were still getting Pearson to adhere to the club’s philosophy.  Pearson didn’t have free rein. Name 1 thing or indeed 1 person that changed in the recruitment area during Nigel’s 2.5 years. 
None. We were still committed to doing the same things. Nige brought his own experience and respect to the playing staff that were presented to him, but the model above him was still majorly flawed. 

[Bristol Oil Services]

4 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

I disagree Harry we aren't trying to create our own model, we are copying Brentford, then when that didn't work we copy Luton, when that doesn't work we'll copy someone else,

There is no strategic thinking,

What's going on reeks of tinnion, the same thing happened under his reign,

He needs to go ans an actual technical director with no history at this club needs to come in

We always appear to be trying to do what someone else did successfully elsewhere, without any success. A pale imitation of something that worked elsewhere. I don't think Jon, or Steve, or Brian have an original or unique football idea between them

[Harry]

7 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Condensed Version:

We need new ownership 

Not necessarily. 
Steve doesn’t need to sell. He just needs to get ******* real and drop the idea that he can achieve success HIS way. You can’t. Get a manager who can, allow him to do it, and call off your dogs 

[robin_unreliant]

I humbly submit that I can see the flaw in your eminently sensible essay Harry.

No experienced and competent manager with a top level scouting set up, is gonna be satisfied with shopping in the bargain basement. We were extremely lucky that Pearson went along with it for so long.

That's where Tinnion has come into his own. Convincing SL he has the skill to buy em cheap and sell em on at a big profit.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I agree with a lot but I query given..Brentford is one model, how much autonomy the manager got is open to question there IMO.

When we could spend money although we spent in the wrong places as well, I would say that a decent number of Brentford signings were of a similar profile and starting point to a decent number of ours.

For the most part they were a 4-3-3ish under both Smith and Frank, possession and pressing albeit Frank improved them tactically.

They executed their system brilliantly. Tinnion and Jon Lansdown are very much incorrect for their positions.

[Monkeh]

Just now, Bristol Oil Services said:

We always appear to be trying to do what someone else did successfully elsewhere, without any success. A pale imitation of something that worked elsewhere. I don't think Jon, or Steve, or Brian have an original or unique football idea between them

Tinnion needs to go,

Lansdown needs to sell some of his stake in the club so he's no longer majority shareholders have 2 with 33% share and 1 with 34% share, make the board bigger

Rip up the current recruitment team and actually invest in a good one

 

[GrahamC]

10 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Condensed Version:

We need new ownership 

Who don’t employ sycophants & incompetents but people with a track record elsewhere.

Said in another reply to @Harry Pat Mountain is the only person at the club now who has ever fulfilled his current role at another Championship club.

Manning’s predecessor employed Rennie, Fleming & Euell, so not only Pearson but all of them had CVs you could look at & say they know what they’re doing.

We are corner shop.

Edited March 2 by GrahamC

[Alessandro]

6 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Condensed Version:

We need new ownership 

Agreed - we can thank the Lansdowns for much of what they’ve done - but I think to put it politely, Steve Lansdown has passed his “sell by date” with the club.

Out of energy, out of ideas and seemingly out of cash.

Fun fact - in his 20 years of ownership there have been 18 new premier league teams. 

That’s 18 teams, without parachute payments, that have gone up to the premier league during Lansdown’s ownership. Almost 1 a year….makes you think….

 

[NcnsBcfc]

Just now, GrahamC said:

Who don’t employ sycophants & incompetents but people with a track record elsewhere.

Said in another reply to @Harry Pat Mountain is the only person at the club now who has ever fulfilled his current role at another Championship club.

Manning’s predecessor employed Rennie, Fleming & Euell, so not only Pearson but all of them had CVs you could look at & say they know what they’re doing.

We are corner shop.

Why we have the goalkeeping coach as our set piece coach is beyond me?

Do we expect PM to train defenders in the art of defending and attacking corners and free kicks.

Compared to other Championship clubs we don't really seem to have much of a coaching set up at first team level at the present.

[Bristol Oil Services]

1 minute ago, GrahamC said:

 

We are corner shop.

Brimful of amateurs 

[Glasgow Red]

Steve Cotterill was sacked because he was about to get us relegated from this division. The amazing League One season seems to alter peoples memory.

[Monkeh]

Just now, Glasgow Red said:

Steve Cotterill was sacked because he was about to get us relegated from this division. The amazing League One season seems to alter peoples memory.

He had plenty of time and a transfer window to turn it around

[Harry]

1 minute ago, Glasgow Red said:

Steve Cotterill was sacked because he was about to get us relegated from this division. The amazing League One season seems to alter peoples memory.

If you read carefully you’ll see that I said he left at the right time. 
 

[Glasgow Red]

1 minute ago, Monkeh said:

He had plenty of time and a transfer window to turn it around

I dont remember too many people at the time being upset with his sacking. We had been awful for months before. Just as bad if not worse than Mannings last 6 games. People need to learn to have perspective.

2 minutes ago, Harry said:

If you read carefully you’ll see that I said he left at the right time. 
 

Fair, you did!

[NickJ]

8 minutes ago, Harry said:

Cotterill worked with an experienced Chief Scout and identified the best available players and signed them to fit a way of playing that HE wanted. 

Get out there and employ a manager with cahuna’s, one with a CV that demands respect from his players, 

We need a board of directors who can appoint a respected manager, who in turn will be empowered to bring in his own trusted recruitment team or chief scout, sign his own players and have zero meddling from unqualified  nobodies. 
 

Our model is shit. And we will get nowhere with it. 

 

Agree mate but too wordy, cut it down to what it boils down to.

 

"Cotterill worked with an experienced Chief Scout and identified the best available players and signed them to fit a way of playing that HE wanted". 

Cotts was the best manager we've had since Terry Cooper or maybe Gary Johnson, our idiot directors shafted him sacked him and appointed a clown.

 

"Get out there and employ a manager with cahuna’s, one with a CV that demands respect from his players, "

Did that with Cotts, did that with Nige, couldn't wait to get rid of both of them.

 

"We need a board of directors"

Repeat repeat repeat - We need a board of directors We need a board of directors We need a board of directors We need a board of directors - and that doesnt mean Crayon Boy who thinks appointing "young and upcoming managers" - Lee fricking Johnson and Liam for ***** sake" is clever. It isn't, it's idiotic.

 

Our model is shit. And we will get nowhere with it. 

Nige summed up our model perfecetly when he called out the idiocy of a football club whose stated raison d'etre is to sign players from lower clubs and sell them at a profit.

[Kid in the Riot]

My Swansea City supporting barman earlier reminding me they won the league Cup in 2013 and also played a Europa League QF at the Mestalla and WON .

All from a standing start of being in L2 when SL took Bristol City over in 2002, when we were in L1.

Underachievement 

[Monkeh]

Just now, Glasgow Red said:

I dont remember too many people at the time being upset with his sacking. We had been awful for months before. Just as bad if not worse than Mannings last 6 games. People need to learn to have perspective.

Fair, you did!

Alot were angry, because he didn't have backing, he had deals agreed with the likes of Harry Maguire only for the club to go back in because they thought why could get a better deal

[ExiledAjax]

7 minutes ago, Harry said:

Not necessarily. 
Steve doesn’t need to sell. He just needs to get ******* real and drop the idea that he can achieve success HIS way. You can’t. Get a manager who can, allow him to do it, and call off your dogs 

Employ the right people.

Get your governance sorted - ie get your son off the board. Give him the observer role he deserves and settle that.

And at the very least accept some investment (if anyone can be persuaded) from someone who can bring some fresh ideas.

[GrahamC]

1 minute ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Why we have the goalkeeping coach as our set piece coach is beyond me?

Do we expect PM to train defenders in the art of defending and attacking corners and free kicks.

Compared to other Championship clubs we don't really seem to have much of a coaching set up at first team level at the present.

To be fair I think he did this under both LJ & Pearson too.

We have Hogg, who seems completely invisible plus the mystery that is Kalifa Cisse, one minute he’s involved in the recruitment side, next he seemingly disappears then when NP gets the push he’s suddenly involved with the first team.

I have absolutely no idea what he adds, never seen any footage of him running a session whereas it was fairly obvious Fleming & Euell both did.

[exAtyeoMax]

24 minutes ago, Harry said:

The ‘Model’ is supposed to be one where everything at the club is ‘aligned’.
It says that all of our teams from the under 8’s through to the first team will play the same way. 
I’m not sure that’s quite such a good idea but hey ho. 
But the most crucial element for me is that the model says that the first team will play a certain way and that we have a ‘Technical Director’ to oversee this and ensure it’s on track and everything is aligned.

I've been saying about this for ages and how does it work with regard to LM and how he can coach/manage the team.

[petehinton]

The ‘we don’t need a ceo under the new structure’ still rattles me every time I think about it. Talk about leadership vacuum. Don’t need a ceo/day to day leader & figurehead. Who in their right mind, no matter the size of the business, thinks that. ******* class. 

[NickJ]

4 minutes ago, Glasgow Red said:

Steve Cotterill was sacked because he was about to get us relegated from this division. The amazing League One season seems to alter peoples memory.

 

2 minutes ago, Harry said:

If you read carefully you’ll see that I said he left at the right time. 
 

You are both wrong, Cotts was shafted, big time, because he was too popular for the Lansdowns liking, and because Crayon Boy wanted his mate in charge. Backed properly as he deserved to be we wouldn't have been in that position.

[The Original OTIB]

20 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Condensed Version:

We need new ownership 

I'm holding out for a hero ....

[Glasgow Red]

2 minutes ago, NickJ said:

 

You are both wrong, Cotts was shafted, big time, because he was too popular for the Lansdowns liking, and because Crayon Boy wanted his mate in charge. Backed properly as he deserved to be we wouldn't have been in that position.

Do you have any proof of this? Otherwise I'm not really sure how you can say I'm wrong. 

[Cardy]

Harry has nailed it & the fact that so many roads now lead back to Sid is hugely concerning.

[ExiledAjax]

I've asked our last two CEOs, and our current COO, whether there are any plans to review the make up of the board(s).

No. There are not.

[Kid in the Riot]

3 minutes ago, NickJ said:

You are both wrong, Cotts was shafted, big time, because he was too popular for the Lansdowns liking, and because Crayon Boy wanted his mate in charge. Backed properly as he deserved to be we wouldn't have been in that position.

Have you heard the Cotts/Mark Ashton in David Lloyd story tho??

[NickJ]

Just now, Glasgow Red said:

Do you have any proof of this? Otherwise I'm not really sure how you can say I'm wrong. 

Cotts had deals lined up to sign Harry Maguire and Andre Gray, the fees agreed were very high by our standards at the time but bargains, both subsequently scuppered by the directors.

Some will say we couldnt afford the fees - but we subsequently paid more for Massengo, for Kalas, for Baker, and so on.

You want proof? 

[Henry]

2 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Have you heard the Cotts/Mark Ashton in David Lloyd story tho??

Do tell…

[Barrs Court Red]

Just now, Henry said:

Do tell…

Yeah @Kid in the Riot share 

[NickJ]

2 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Have you heard the Cotts/Mark Ashton in David Lloyd story tho??

Sort of Will if we both heard the same thing but doesn't change the Maguire/Gray situation.

[italian dave]

19 minutes ago, Harry said:

 Not really. The club were still getting Pearson to adhere to the club’s philosophy.  Pearson didn’t have free rein. Name 1 thing or indeed 1 person that changed in the recruitment area during Nigel’s 2.5 years. 
None. We were still committed to doing the same things. Nige brought his own experience and respect to the playing staff that were presented to him, but the model above him was still majorly flawed. 

And, there was an unanticipated, urgent, short term imperative that took priority during NP’s time. For 2.5 years that was more important than the philosophy. ? 

[ZiderMeUp]

21 minutes ago, Harry said:

 Not really. The club were still getting Pearson to adhere to the club’s philosophy.  Pearson didn’t have free rein. Name 1 thing or indeed 1 person that changed in the recruitment area during Nigel’s 2.5 years. 
None. We were still committed to doing the same things. Nige brought his own experience and respect to the playing staff that were presented to him, but the model above him was still majorly flawed. 

Agree with the vast majority of what you’re saying but Danny Simpson, Andy king and James wouldn’t have been targeted but for Pearson, so not strictly true.  
 

 

[italian dave]

4 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Cotts had deals lined up to sign Harry Maguire and Andre Gray, the fees agreed were very high by our standards at the time but bargains, both subsequently scuppered by the directors.

Some will say we couldnt afford the fees - but we subsequently paid more for Massengo, for Kalas, for Baker, and so on.

You want proof? 

Yes please.

Not because I’m doubting you.

Just because I’ve heard so many versions of this, all from people convinced theirs is the genuine one, that it would be good to have some evidence of at least one! 

[Harry]

5 minutes ago, ZiderMeUp said:

Agree with the vast majority of what you’re saying but Danny Simpson, Andy king and James wouldn’t have been targeted but for Pearson, so not strictly true.  
 

 

If you read carefully you’ll see that I said “limited involvement”. 
Yes, upon arrival Pearson was allowed to bring in a couple of ‘his own’. But thereafter he was restricted by the ‘model’. 
 

And I can also assure you, Nige wanted to renew James’ contract but ‘the club’ didn’t. 
And that’s where the disagreements started 

Edited March 2 by Harry

[Mr Popodopolous]

What were the fees and wages again? Maguire and Gray.

I'm gonna have a look at the amortised fee and wages added but minus certain other costs..because our Accounts show position before Transfer Activity so maybe it would've been more doable than I think, penny pound pound foolish as we sacked a manager, hired another, signed a host of loanees.

Albeit depth wise how far could we have gone had we made these deals on the proposed terms? I'm taking the squad before additions and trying to work backwards.

Edited March 2 by Mr Popodopolous

[Harry]

6 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Yes please.

Not because I’m doubting you.

Just because I’ve heard so many versions of this, all from people convinced theirs is the genuine one, that it would be good to have some evidence of at least one! 

I understand what Nick says does have truth to it. There was meddling. There always is at this club. 
However, the SC sacking was done to death years ago and this thread wasn’t started as a discussion point for the Cotts sacking. 
Its about what doesn’t work and what should work going forward. 

Edited March 2 by Harry

[1960maaan]

20 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Alot were angry, because he didn't have backing, he had deals agreed with the likes of Harry Maguire only for the club to go back in because they thought why could get a better deal

And little or nothing has changed , we seem to have lost a CEO when Steve L elbows him out of the way to take over the Scott deal . 

We accidentally had a good set up for 5 minutes. Gould was a great buffer between Nige and Steve , I think things could have been different if it wasn't for Gould getting his dream job .... selfish ****t

[slartibartfast]

45 minutes ago, Harry said:

For the last few years, Bristol City FC has been attempting to create its own ‘model’. Their idea of the optimum way to run a football club to provide it with the best chance of success. 
 

The ‘Model’ is supposed to be one where everything at the club is ‘aligned’.
It says that all of our teams from the under 8’s through to the first team will play the same way. 



 

 

Oh, come on H, fairs fair .......... our first team ARE playing like our under eights !

[Simon bristol]

The system might work, we just have people incapable of working it. And i don’t think theres a lot wrong with the academy either, at least when nige was giving people chances.

[JP Hampton]

“Get out there and employ a manager with cahuna’s, one with a CV that demands respect from his players“

Trouble is managers with cahunas don’t fare well at Bristol City, but I agree it’s exactly what we need right now. 
 

We weren’t ready for this new model and we’re now paying for it. 

Edited March 2 by JP Hampton

[Davefevs]

@Harry sorry, but I kinda disagree with bits of your OP.  Not hugely, but enough to reply.  Happy that you maybe covered in posts elsewhere in this thread, but OTIB is posting too much for me to read everything!  Or maybe this is kinda what you meant???

I think we had a football structure of RG and NP (and DR on fitness) that had a vision of what was needed to reach the PL.  That vision turned into a strategy / plan to get there.

Re Academy - I think it was less about playing one-way all the way up the age ranges, but recognising what was needed to develop young players of the capability to play in the first team and / or at the next level.  We saw the u21s adopt different systems / formations, but they pressed like Nige’s first team, they played a bit more pragmatically (direct?) than a lot of other academy teams.

I think that readied them for first team exposure (training initially), as there was less of a bridge to gap.

Re Recruitment - more profile based, but aligned to principles of being able to run, compete, power and pace. Then add technical ability.

I don’t think it was about a playing system per se, and subsequent managers would follow.

BT was involved in this, but not understanding it enough, so that when he has to take it on, he can’t articulate it.

And I think that is where JL, GM, and BT misunderstood the plan, why it was created the way it was.  They’ve fallen for buzzwords, without understanding them.  Which is criminal from Tins point of view, if he thinks LM matched the brief.  The other two I can sort of forgive.  They aren’t the alleged football expert.

So when I hear JL say “we’re now gonna play the same way through the academy now, 1) it shows ignorance of what has been happening and means 2) he has no idea what it really meant going forward.  So he’s pissing in the wind.

And when I hear BT say “we’re gonna play the same way through the academy”, but then adds “like we have been doing”, again I think, he didn’t really get what Nige meant.

And therefore at every pull of the lever, the club gets further and further from the vision and the plan put in place.  And they don’t know what they’re aiming for, so don’t know how to rectify.

FFS

[The Bard]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

@Harry sorry, but I kinda disagree with bits of your OP.  Not hugely, but enough to reply.  Happy that you maybe covered in posts elsewhere in this thread, but OTIB is posting too much for me to read everything!  Or maybe this is kinda what you meant???

I think we had a football structure of RG and NP (and DR on fitness) that had a vision of what was needed to reach the PL.  That vision turned into a strategy / plan to get there.

Re Academy - I think it was less about playing one-way all the way up the age ranges, but recognising what was needed to develop young players of the capability to play in the first team and / or at the next level.  We saw the u21s adopt different systems / formations, but they pressed like Nige’s first team, they played a bit more pragmatically (direct?) than a lot of other academy teams.

I think that readied them for first team exposure (training initially), as there was less of a bridge to gap.

Re Recruitment - more profile based, but aligned to principles of being able to run, compete, power and pace. Then add technical ability.

I don’t think it was about a playing system per se, and subsequent managers would follow.

BT was involved in this, but not understanding it enough, so that when he has to take it on, he can’t articulate it.

And I think that is where JL, GM, and BT misunderstood the plan, why it was created the way it was.  They’ve fallen for buzzwords, without understanding them.  Which is criminal from Tins point of view, if he thinks LM matched the brief.  The other two I can sort of forgive.  They aren’t the alleged football expert.

So when I hear JL say “we’re now gonna play the same way through the academy now, 1) it shows ignorance of what has been happening and means 2) he has no idea what it really meant going forward.  So he’s pissing in the wind.

And when I hear BT say “we’re gonna play the same way through the academy”, but then adds “like we have been doing”, again I think, he didn’t really get what Nige meant.

And therefore at every pull of the lever, the club gets further and further from the vision and the plan put in place.  And they don’t know what they’re aiming for, so don’t know how to rectify.

FFS

Jeese that's depressing.  You've articulated exactly why we're going to struggle ongoing.

 

[The Bard]

28 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

The system might work, we just have people incapable of working it. And i don’t think theres a lot wrong with the academy either, at least when nige was giving people chances.

Which is the key to making the academy work.

For every Alex Scott there's a Sam Pearson.

[Shauntaylor85]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

For the last few years, Bristol City FC has been attempting to create its own ‘model’. Their idea of the optimum way to run a football club to provide it with the best chance of success. 
 

The ‘Model’ is supposed to be one where everything at the club is ‘aligned’.
It says that all of our teams from the under 8’s through to the first team will play the same way. 
I’m not sure that’s quite such a good idea but hey ho. 
But the most crucial element for me is that the model says that the first team will play a certain way and that we have a ‘Technical Director’ to oversee this and ensure it’s on track and everything is aligned. 
 

Personally, at this level of football, I don’t think that works. 
The scene is such that, any manager coming into the club should be of a certain ‘type’ and conform to a certain set of principles. 
The club have created a philosophy (call it an identity if you like) as to how they want to play football and any manager should align (there’s that word again) with that. 
 

The Technical Director runs the recruitment side of the business. 
He determines what players we sign and what manager and coaches we sign. He will try to conform to the club principles and appoint managers and coaches who will ‘fit’ and sign players who will ‘fit’. 
 

We see this sort of model at the top end of the game. Many of the biggest clubs run on a Director of Football type of model, where the manager has only limited say in the player recruitment and is basically just tasked with getting on with it, with the rather expensive tools he is provided. 
 

This doesn’t work at our level. We see this in all it’s gory (yes, not glory) with the Tinnion/Manning appointment. 
 

We have a club philosophy that desires to play in a certain way and players have been signed to attempt to slot into that style. 
We now have a manager who has been appointed who clearly likes to adopt a very different philosophy. 
I don’t blame Manning for this. We approached him. He didn’t apply for this job. He had a clear and evident CV, a body of work behind him, that was obvious to anyone who bothered to look that was at odds with our own club model. 
 

Furthermore, this new manager, whilst not having players who can play his way, doesn’t have very much say in how to fix this. 
His first transfer window and we make 4 permanent signings - 3 of which we wanted before the new manager got here. So the new manager arrives, doesn’t have players he wants and then the ‘club model’ signs 3 players that ‘the club model’ wanted. 
 

This is a huge issue for me. We are attempting to recreate models that have had success at places like Brighton, Brentford and even bloody Luton. But whilst those clubs had certain recruitment models, they didn’t dictate a ‘playing philosophy’ throughout the club. They just had very thorough and clever scouting and recruitment modelling. It didn’t dictate the playing style. Whenever there was a manager change the new boss still has his own free reign in terms of how he played and the recruitment model would then have to ‘align’ with the managers philosophy - not the other way round. 
 

When Dean Smith took over from Mark Warburton, he did things differently and they recruited accordingly. Likewise when Frank then took over from Smith, he had different philosophies on pressing, defensive positioning, midfield solidity etc. and the club then recruited accordingly. 
Luton played a certain way under Jones, but when Edwards arrived he harnessed what was already good but brought his own style to it and the club then recruited accordingly. 
 

What we have at Bristol City is a dictatorial model, whereby the Technical Director and Recruitment Team have defined a model and anyone that arrives at the club must buy-in to that model. There is no wavering. Yes, a new manager might have a bit of a say in some signings but generally they are targeted based on our defined modelling. 

Surely it’s obvious to anyone that this just doesn’t work. The talk of ‘everything at this club is aligned, from the under 8’s to the first team’ is just a false platitude. It’s a strapline that they think is clever “hey look at us, we’ve got an identify and model, we’re unique”.

That might work well at Barcelona or Man City but it’s pointless in the championship. It’s not what will actually bring success on the pitch. 
 

To achieve success on the pitch at this level you need a manager who is allowed to run the first team in his own way. Who won’t be dictated to by inferiors who spout about an identity and an alignment throughout the club. 

It’s time for Manning to depart, in my opinion, but it’s also time for the club to drop the nonsense and stop acting like a billy big bollox. The club think that they have a clever way of doing things and that it’s the only way of separating themselves from the challenging division we are in. 
It’s not clever. It’s nonsense. Drop the bullcrap. 
 

The way to achieve success was evident to us a few years ago when a man called Steve Cotterill was appointed. I wasn’t his biggest fan when he got here, and I also think the time was right for him to go, but the period he was here, there is no denying that he’s been the only manager in recent years that’s done things his own way and said “balls” to the ownership and ‘model’. 
Cotterill worked with an experienced Chief Scout and identified the best available players and signed them to fit a way of playing that HE wanted. 
None of this “we’re all aligned from the u8’s to the tea lady”. 
Just an experienced manager with an experienced chief scout, putting together a squad that would play to the managers identity, not the clubs identity. 
 

It’s time to ditch the bullshit. 
Get out there and employ a manager with cahuna’s, one with a CV that demands respect from his players, let him bring in the players that HE wants, not players that the ‘club’ have targeted for the last few windows. Let him put his own team together to play the way that HE wants. 
 

The current model stinks. There are people in positions of authority that have real negative impact on this club who are not fit for purpose. 
We need a board of directors who can appoint a respected manager, who in turn will be empowered to bring in his own trusted recruitment team or chief scout, sign his own players and have zero meddling from unqualified  nobodies. 
 

Our model is shit. And we will get nowhere with it. 

Totally bang on. The club is rotten from top to bottom.  It needs change, big change and that comes with new ideas and passion. I cannot believe we are a club aspiring to be in the PL and we have Tinnion and Manning. Seriously? Sack them both 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Why we have the goalkeeping coach as our set piece coach is beyond me?

Do we expect PM to train defenders in the art of defending and attacking corners and free kicks.

Compared to other Championship clubs we don't really seem to have much of a coaching set up at first team level at the present.

Maybe because he’s good at it?

The main reason, explained in the past, by Bents, is that it’s the keepers job to set the defence at set-pieces, where he wants them to be, distances, etc, hence why a GK coach is a good person to help.

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

Employ the right people.

Get your governance sorted - ie get your son off the board. Give him the observer role he deserves and settle that.

And at the very least accept some investment (if anyone can be persuaded) from someone who can bring some fresh ideas.

Why doesn’t he just concentrate on Fever Pitch?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just pulled up the 2015-16 Accounts.

Prior to Transfer Activity.

However it doesn't include the wage bill so if we literally assume no Transfer activity...

Perhaps it would've been more doable than I first thought. £6.3-6.4m in wages and £1.9m in Player Trading.

Then add £0.8m in remaining FFP Headroom in 2015-16 (the 1 year rule).

The challenge is to add Maguire and Gray, not leave the squad too thin and spend in wages and amortisation no more than £9m.

Edited March 2 by Mr Popodopolous

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

For the last few years, Bristol City FC has been attempting to create its own ‘model’. Their idea of the optimum way to run a football club to provide it with the best chance of success. 
 

The ‘Model’ is supposed to be one where everything at the club is ‘aligned’.
It says that all of our teams from the under 8’s through to the first team will play the same way. 
I’m not sure that’s quite such a good idea but hey ho. 
But the most crucial element for me is that the model says that the first team will play a certain way and that we have a ‘Technical Director’ to oversee this and ensure it’s on track and everything is aligned. 
 

Personally, at this level of football, I don’t think that works. 
The scene is such that, any manager coming into the club should be of a certain ‘type’ and conform to a certain set of principles. 
The club have created a philosophy (call it an identity if you like) as to how they want to play football and any manager should align (there’s that word again) with that. 
 

The Technical Director runs the recruitment side of the business. 
He determines what players we sign and what manager and coaches we sign. He will try to conform to the club principles and appoint managers and coaches who will ‘fit’ and sign players who will ‘fit’. 
 

We see this sort of model at the top end of the game. Many of the biggest clubs run on a Director of Football type of model, where the manager has only limited say in the player recruitment and is basically just tasked with getting on with it, with the rather expensive tools he is provided. 
 

This doesn’t work at our level. We see this in all it’s gory (yes, not glory) with the Tinnion/Manning appointment. 
 

We have a club philosophy that desires to play in a certain way and players have been signed to attempt to slot into that style. 
We now have a manager who has been appointed who clearly likes to adopt a very different philosophy. 
I don’t blame Manning for this. We approached him. He didn’t apply for this job. He had a clear and evident CV, a body of work behind him, that was obvious to anyone who bothered to look that was at odds with our own club model. 
 

Furthermore, this new manager, whilst not having players who can play his way, doesn’t have very much say in how to fix this. 
His first transfer window and we make 4 permanent signings - 3 of which we wanted before the new manager got here. So the new manager arrives, doesn’t have players he wants and then the ‘club model’ signs 3 players that ‘the club model’ wanted. 
 

This is a huge issue for me. We are attempting to recreate models that have had success at places like Brighton, Brentford and even bloody Luton. But whilst those clubs had certain recruitment models, they didn’t dictate a ‘playing philosophy’ throughout the club. They just had very thorough and clever scouting and recruitment modelling. It didn’t dictate the playing style. Whenever there was a manager change the new boss still has his own free reign in terms of how he played and the recruitment model would then have to ‘align’ with the managers philosophy - not the other way round. 
 

When Dean Smith took over from Mark Warburton, he did things differently and they recruited accordingly. Likewise when Frank then took over from Smith, he had different philosophies on pressing, defensive positioning, midfield solidity etc. and the club then recruited accordingly. 
Luton played a certain way under Jones, but when Edwards arrived he harnessed what was already good but brought his own style to it and the club then recruited accordingly. 
 

What we have at Bristol City is a dictatorial model, whereby the Technical Director and Recruitment Team have defined a model and anyone that arrives at the club must buy-in to that model. There is no wavering. Yes, a new manager might have a bit of a say in some signings but generally they are targeted based on our defined modelling. 

Surely it’s obvious to anyone that this just doesn’t work. The talk of ‘everything at this club is aligned, from the under 8’s to the first team’ is just a false platitude. It’s a strapline that they think is clever “hey look at us, we’ve got an identify and model, we’re unique”.

That might work well at Barcelona or Man City but it’s pointless in the championship. It’s not what will actually bring success on the pitch. 
 

To achieve success on the pitch at this level you need a manager who is allowed to run the first team in his own way. Who won’t be dictated to by inferiors who spout about an identity and an alignment throughout the club. 

It’s time for Manning to depart, in my opinion, but it’s also time for the club to drop the nonsense and stop acting like a billy big bollox. The club think that they have a clever way of doing things and that it’s the only way of separating themselves from the challenging division we are in. 
It’s not clever. It’s nonsense. Drop the bullcrap. 
 

The way to achieve success was evident to us a few years ago when a man called Steve Cotterill was appointed. I wasn’t his biggest fan when he got here, and I also think the time was right for him to go, but the period he was here, there is no denying that he’s been the only manager in recent years that’s done things his own way and said “balls” to the ownership and ‘model’. 
Cotterill worked with an experienced Chief Scout and identified the best available players and signed them to fit a way of playing that HE wanted. 
None of this “we’re all aligned from the u8’s to the tea lady”. 
Just an experienced manager with an experienced chief scout, putting together a squad that would play to the managers identity, not the clubs identity. 
 

It’s time to ditch the bullshit. 
Get out there and employ a manager with cahuna’s, one with a CV that demands respect from his players, let him bring in the players that HE wants, not players that the ‘club’ have targeted for the last few windows. Let him put his own team together to play the way that HE wants. 
 

The current model stinks. There are people in positions of authority that have real negative impact on this club who are not fit for purpose. 
We need a board of directors who can appoint a respected manager, who in turn will be empowered to bring in his own trusted recruitment team or chief scout, sign his own players and have zero meddling from unqualified  nobodies. 
 

Our model is shit. And we will get nowhere with it. 

Harry Bristol City don't have a philosophy that dictates teams from U8's through to the first team will play the same way.  

Brighton from 2019 with the appointment of Graham Potter to Zerbi in 2022 till now have very much had a dictated playing philosophy throughout their FC.

[DaveInSA]

I go about three games a season. Maybe I’m not best placed to say this. 

But today was rubbish. 

Cardiff had no threat. Were generally awful. And yet, we were worse.

There’s nothing positive about this club. We’ll have 4-5 new players for 2024-2025.

Season tickets will be bought.

Manning will be god.

and if we’re not in the bottom 3 this time next year I will be amazed.

nothing in that game was good offensively. Zero. We could play for 165 years and not score. It was piss poor. 

 

.

[Midlands Robin]

An elephant in the room here is the Brentmister General over there in Ipswich. When we discuss the philosophy of a club and buzz word bingo, he always comes to mind. Now I know a lot of people will suggest that even a broken clock is right twice a day but there's a bit more to what Ashton has done than that 

I wanted him gone as did most of us. Even SL hinted in his post Ashton interview that it wasn't working well. 

So what did Ashton do? He gets the Ipswich job and repeats almost to the letter everything he did here  He sacks an experienced manager with a strong track record  He appoints a coach with almost no experience. He floods the team with signings apparently regardless of if they're needed or not. He even goes as far as recruiting 90 percent of the staff he worked with here 

What does that get him? Promotion to the Championship and the very real possibility of back to back promotions returning Ipswich to the Premier League.

What's the difference? McKenna is clearly a better manager than LJ and they have a board focused solely on the success of Ipswich Town football club. That's it really.

Whatever our current operating model, we need to stop farting about, get people at the top who are ruthless bastards determined to succeed at all costs and get people below them who know exactly what they're doing within the game. 

Simple really.

[Harry]

41 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Harry Bristol City don't have a philosophy that dictates teams from U8's through to the first team will play the same way.  

Brighton from 2019 with the appointment of Graham Potter to Zerbi in 2022 till now have very much had a dictated playing philosophy throughout their FC.

On point 1, our technical director would disagree with you. 
He says so on this video at 4:38. 

Re point 2, De Zerbi has a very different playing style to Potter. 
De Zerbi plays deep possession football, possession through central areas and then crosses from high in opposition territory. He is also consistent in his approach against all levels of opposition. Potter tried higher territorial possession, more wing play and he frequently altered his block dependent on opposition. 
Brighton have a clear recruitment strategy, but their managers are able to cultivate their own playing philosophy. 

Edited March 2 by Harry

[SuperRed]

20 plus years of the clueless Lansdown family and charlatans and idiots employed by them in positions of authority. Summed up by the current self-serving Tecknical Director.   “High Performance” my ***.  No surprise any “success” under Lansdown has been with managers with the balls to do their own thing in spite of the mess around them. 

Edited March 2 by SuperRed

[Cowshed]

59 minutes ago, Harry said:

On point 1, our technical director would disagree with you. 
He says so on this video at 4:38. 

Re point 2, De Zerbi has a very different playing style to Potter. 
De Zerbi plays deep possession football, possession through central areas and then crosses from high in opposition territory. He is also consistent in his approach against all levels of opposition. Potter tried higher territorial possession, more wing play and he frequently altered his block dependent on opposition. 
Brighton have a clear recruitment strategy, but their managers are able to cultivate their own playing philosophy. 

In 2016 Lee Johnson stated similar and it was not present throughout the FC. What Brian Tinnion is referring to there is what may be the intent in the future, its not been the reality of the past eight years. 

Being pedantic the academy doesn't start at U8. Development teams play at that age. In City's foundation stages up to U11 teams are not playing one way. Bristol City have not had one style through U9 - 16, and U18 - U23 (now 21's) to the first team from Lee Johnsons time up to Nigel Pearson. 

From SGS to the HPC, and having a family member, and ex players in the academy since 2015 I have seen BCFC using varying approaches to the football. Football that has frequently differed significantly to the XI. 

If there was a playing model driving those years .. There wasn't.  

No, De Zerbis football differs. It is not totally different, or abandoning fundamentally what had occurred before. There is a clear continuance of principles over a long term.  

 

Edited March 2 by Cowshed

[exAtyeoMax]

2 hours ago, Glasgow Red said:

I dont remember too many people at the time being upset with his sacking. We had been awful for months before. Just as bad if not worse than Mannings last 6 games. People need to learn to have perspective.

Fair, you did!

I was extremely upset by his replacement though. When the situation around his sacking came to light I was really upset. 

[Ecko]

3 hours ago, Harry said:

For the last few years, Bristol City FC has been attempting to create its own ‘model’. Their idea of the optimum way to run a football club to provide it with the best chance of success. 
 

The ‘Model’ is supposed to be one where everything at the club is ‘aligned’.
It says that all of our teams from the under 8’s through to the first team will play the same way. 
I’m not sure that’s quite such a good idea but hey ho. 
But the most crucial element for me is that the model says that the first team will play a certain way and that we have a ‘Technical Director’ to oversee this and ensure it’s on track and everything is aligned. 
 

Personally, at this level of football, I don’t think that works. 
The scene is such that, any manager coming into the club should be of a certain ‘type’ and conform to a certain set of principles. 
The club have created a philosophy (call it an identity if you like) as to how they want to play football and any manager should align (there’s that word again) with that. 
 

The Technical Director runs the recruitment side of the business. 
He determines what players we sign and what manager and coaches we sign. He will try to conform to the club principles and appoint managers and coaches who will ‘fit’ and sign players who will ‘fit’. 
 

We see this sort of model at the top end of the game. Many of the biggest clubs run on a Director of Football type of model, where the manager has only limited say in the player recruitment and is basically just tasked with getting on with it, with the rather expensive tools he is provided. 
 

This doesn’t work at our level. We see this in all it’s gory (yes, not glory) with the Tinnion/Manning appointment. 
 

We have a club philosophy that desires to play in a certain way and players have been signed to attempt to slot into that style. 
We now have a manager who has been appointed who clearly likes to adopt a very different philosophy. 
I don’t blame Manning for this. We approached him. He didn’t apply for this job. He had a clear and evident CV, a body of work behind him, that was obvious to anyone who bothered to look that was at odds with our own club model. 
 

Furthermore, this new manager, whilst not having players who can play his way, doesn’t have very much say in how to fix this. 
His first transfer window and we make 4 permanent signings - 3 of which we wanted before the new manager got here. So the new manager arrives, doesn’t have players he wants and then the ‘club model’ signs 3 players that ‘the club model’ wanted. 
 

This is a huge issue for me. We are attempting to recreate models that have had success at places like Brighton, Brentford and even bloody Luton. But whilst those clubs had certain recruitment models, they didn’t dictate a ‘playing philosophy’ throughout the club. They just had very thorough and clever scouting and recruitment modelling. It didn’t dictate the playing style. Whenever there was a manager change the new boss still has his own free reign in terms of how he played and the recruitment model would then have to ‘align’ with the managers philosophy - not the other way round. 
 

When Dean Smith took over from Mark Warburton, he did things differently and they recruited accordingly. Likewise when Frank then took over from Smith, he had different philosophies on pressing, defensive positioning, midfield solidity etc. and the club then recruited accordingly. 
Luton played a certain way under Jones, but when Edwards arrived he harnessed what was already good but brought his own style to it and the club then recruited accordingly. 
 

What we have at Bristol City is a dictatorial model, whereby the Technical Director and Recruitment Team have defined a model and anyone that arrives at the club must buy-in to that model. There is no wavering. Yes, a new manager might have a bit of a say in some signings but generally they are targeted based on our defined modelling. 

Surely it’s obvious to anyone that this just doesn’t work. The talk of ‘everything at this club is aligned, from the under 8’s to the first team’ is just a false platitude. It’s a strapline that they think is clever “hey look at us, we’ve got an identify and model, we’re unique”.

That might work well at Barcelona or Man City but it’s pointless in the championship. It’s not what will actually bring success on the pitch. 
 

To achieve success on the pitch at this level you need a manager who is allowed to run the first team in his own way. Who won’t be dictated to by inferiors who spout about an identity and an alignment throughout the club. 

It’s time for Manning to depart, in my opinion, but it’s also time for the club to drop the nonsense and stop acting like a billy big bollox. The club think that they have a clever way of doing things and that it’s the only way of separating themselves from the challenging division we are in. 
It’s not clever. It’s nonsense. Drop the bullcrap. 
 

The way to achieve success was evident to us a few years ago when a man called Steve Cotterill was appointed. I wasn’t his biggest fan when he got here, and I also think the time was right for him to go, but the period he was here, there is no denying that he’s been the only manager in recent years that’s done things his own way and said “balls” to the ownership and ‘model’. 
Cotterill worked with an experienced Chief Scout and identified the best available players and signed them to fit a way of playing that HE wanted. 
None of this “we’re all aligned from the u8’s to the tea lady”. 
Just an experienced manager with an experienced chief scout, putting together a squad that would play to the managers identity, not the clubs identity. 
 

It’s time to ditch the bullshit. 
Get out there and employ a manager with cahuna’s, one with a CV that demands respect from his players, let him bring in the players that HE wants, not players that the ‘club’ have targeted for the last few windows. Let him put his own team together to play the way that HE wants. 
 

The current model stinks. There are people in positions of authority that have real negative impact on this club who are not fit for purpose. 
We need a board of directors who can appoint a respected manager, who in turn will be empowered to bring in his own trusted recruitment team or chief scout, sign his own players and have zero meddling from unqualified  nobodies. 
 

Our model is shit. And we will get nowhere with it. 

Pin this. Spot on. Fair play Harry.

[Gert Mare]

3 hours ago, Harry said:

For the last few years, Bristol City FC has been attempting to create its own ‘model’. Their idea of the optimum way to run a football club to provide it with the best chance of success. 
 

The ‘Model’ is supposed to be one where everything at the club is ‘aligned’.
It says that all of our teams from the under 8’s through to the first team will play the same way. 
I’m not sure that’s quite such a good idea but hey ho. 
But the most crucial element for me is that the model says that the first team will play a certain way and that we have a ‘Technical Director’ to oversee this and ensure it’s on track and everything is aligned. 
 

Personally, at this level of football, I don’t think that works. 
The scene is such that, any manager coming into the club should be of a certain ‘type’ and conform to a certain set of principles. 
The club have created a philosophy (call it an identity if you like) as to how they want to play football and any manager should align (there’s that word again) with that. 
 

The Technical Director runs the recruitment side of the business. 
He determines what players we sign and what manager and coaches we sign. He will try to conform to the club principles and appoint managers and coaches who will ‘fit’ and sign players who will ‘fit’. 
 

We see this sort of model at the top end of the game. Many of the biggest clubs run on a Director of Football type of model, where the manager has only limited say in the player recruitment and is basically just tasked with getting on with it, with the rather expensive tools he is provided. 
 

This doesn’t work at our level. We see this in all it’s gory (yes, not glory) with the Tinnion/Manning appointment. 
 

We have a club philosophy that desires to play in a certain way and players have been signed to attempt to slot into that style. 
We now have a manager who has been appointed who clearly likes to adopt a very different philosophy. 
I don’t blame Manning for this. We approached him. He didn’t apply for this job. He had a clear and evident CV, a body of work behind him, that was obvious to anyone who bothered to look that was at odds with our own club model. 
 

Furthermore, this new manager, whilst not having players who can play his way, doesn’t have very much say in how to fix this. 
His first transfer window and we make 4 permanent signings - 3 of which we wanted before the new manager got here. So the new manager arrives, doesn’t have players he wants and then the ‘club model’ signs 3 players that ‘the club model’ wanted. 
 

This is a huge issue for me. We are attempting to recreate models that have had success at places like Brighton, Brentford and even bloody Luton. But whilst those clubs had certain recruitment models, they didn’t dictate a ‘playing philosophy’ throughout the club. They just had very thorough and clever scouting and recruitment modelling. It didn’t dictate the playing style. Whenever there was a manager change the new boss still has his own free reign in terms of how he played and the recruitment model would then have to ‘align’ with the managers philosophy - not the other way round. 
 

When Dean Smith took over from Mark Warburton, he did things differently and they recruited accordingly. Likewise when Frank then took over from Smith, he had different philosophies on pressing, defensive positioning, midfield solidity etc. and the club then recruited accordingly. 
Luton played a certain way under Jones, but when Edwards arrived he harnessed what was already good but brought his own style to it and the club then recruited accordingly. 
 

What we have at Bristol City is a dictatorial model, whereby the Technical Director and Recruitment Team have defined a model and anyone that arrives at the club must buy-in to that model. There is no wavering. Yes, a new manager might have a bit of a say in some signings but generally they are targeted based on our defined modelling. 

Surely it’s obvious to anyone that this just doesn’t work. The talk of ‘everything at this club is aligned, from the under 8’s to the first team’ is just a false platitude. It’s a strapline that they think is clever “hey look at us, we’ve got an identify and model, we’re unique”.

That might work well at Barcelona or Man City but it’s pointless in the championship. It’s not what will actually bring success on the pitch. 
 

To achieve success on the pitch at this level you need a manager who is allowed to run the first team in his own way. Who won’t be dictated to by inferiors who spout about an identity and an alignment throughout the club. 

It’s time for Manning to depart, in my opinion, but it’s also time for the club to drop the nonsense and stop acting like a billy big bollox. The club think that they have a clever way of doing things and that it’s the only way of separating themselves from the challenging division we are in. 
It’s not clever. It’s nonsense. Drop the bullcrap. 
 

The way to achieve success was evident to us a few years ago when a man called Steve Cotterill was appointed. I wasn’t his biggest fan when he got here, and I also think the time was right for him to go, but the period he was here, there is no denying that he’s been the only manager in recent years that’s done things his own way and said “balls” to the ownership and ‘model’. 
Cotterill worked with an experienced Chief Scout and identified the best available players and signed them to fit a way of playing that HE wanted. 
None of this “we’re all aligned from the u8’s to the tea lady”. 
Just an experienced manager with an experienced chief scout, putting together a squad that would play to the managers identity, not the clubs identity. 
 

It’s time to ditch the bullshit. 
Get out there and employ a manager with cahuna’s, one with a CV that demands respect from his players, let him bring in the players that HE wants, not players that the ‘club’ have targeted for the last few windows. Let him put his own team together to play the way that HE wants. 
 

The current model stinks. There are people in positions of authority that have real negative impact on this club who are not fit for purpose. 
We need a board of directors who can appoint a respected manager, who in turn will be empowered to bring in his own trusted recruitment team or chief scout, sign his own players and have zero meddling from unqualified  nobodies. 
 

Our model is shit. And we will get nowhere with it. 

Har, we had the right manager, but old dopey bollocks and numb nuts fired him.

No one with half a brain is going to take the job and be micromanaged by Jon and his sidekick “Call me Gaffer now please lads” Mr 7-1 defeat at Swansea.

Edited March 2 by Gert Mare

[DaveF]

3 hours ago, Harry said:

It’s time for Manning to depart, in my opinion. 
 

Good post, I think your overall point is right.

This part interested me though as a month or so ago you were extremely positive with regards to some of the changes Manning had made. I was wondering what has made you so keen to get rid of him after the initial positivity? Do you no longer see any potential there?

[RollsRoyce]

I think this is an excellent post, and I agree with many elements of it. I slightly disagree about having a football direction, in that we should be recruiting Bristol City players, and when coaches change, they adapt, evolve and improve those players. Brighton, Brentford and Luton have signed players to a formula for years. Coaches have come in and used those players differently, but there is a common theme when you watch those teams. We were still signing players 4 years ago who had nowhere near the physical attributes a Prem League club would accept. Rennie stated we had 3 players who met Prem League level fitness/physical levels when he joined. 

But the key point, and you made it in another post, is that we do not have people in the key positions that are the best, or close to the best at those individual roles. I fully appreciate Pearson was not for everyone, but when we had Pearson and Rennie in the building, we had a very high level of expertise in their area of competence. We needed to build on that, and then evolve and develop. What we have done is make a catastrophic clear out, and have lost the positive areas of their influence, and not built any foundation of success. We have regressed dramatically, and that means there are decisions to be made. Unfortunately, the people making the ultimate decisions are not competent to make them, made worse by a lack of recognition on their part of their own lack of ability (proven over 2 decades). 

Pearson was not perfect, but you could see, that it could be evolved, developed and directed toward something important. We were on the right road, it was still bumpy, but needed tweaking not destroying. I would loved to have seen Pearson with McKenzie or Walsh.

But here we are, Jon L will be in defensive mode, they made a call and it has been a disaster. They , rather incredibly, believed Tinnion, yes the same " Judge me on Tinnion" who extraordinarily has gone from the failed manager, to being the man the Lansdowns defer to for football matters. Over and above Scudamore, Pearson or Alexander. It is almost surreal. How can, a very able and successful person, possibly get their football decisions so wrong, consistently for 2 decades?

It is a very big mess, and sadly, it is all self inflicted.