The Secret Evening.....

[NickJ]

I can only agree with you.

I am absolutely gobsmacked by the way in which SL and CS think we are all sheep who will throw money at the club.

I am not convinced of SL's motives at all - and NickJ has raised that in the past, with the result of SL becoming indignant but offering no real answers to relevant questions.

I support this football club - which now consists of (thanks to SL), the playing staff and their management, and I will shout my gonads off each game to push them to promotion.

It's a shame that the stadium lot aren't interested.

May as well reply to the post with my name mentioned in it as any other.

Just back from my local and 2 pints of Butcombe, so have to be careful what I say, but here goes.

I had an invite for tonight, decided not to go cos I would never attend a meeting without knowing what it was about.

My view is, on the one hand, I'm all in favour of the board doing what it can do to raise money to progress our club, and lets not forget, Steve is putting his own time in to attending these meetings, supporters Q&A sessions, etc etc. On the other, there are ways of doing so, and ways of not. In my view, this exercise ranks up there almost with the Premier Club fiasco.

Lansdown isn't a marketing guru, or a PR expert, that is clear. Witness the Premier Club, the EE, etc etc. But then, that isn't his bag. I think we all know who that is. Make your own minds up if PR over the past 3 years has been a success.

Motives? Let's just put it this way. Most of us are City fans from birth, or near as damn it. Within football, you have your Ken Bates, chairman of Chelsea and Leeds. Sam Hammam - Wimbledon and Cardiff. The tisser - cant think of his name - who was at Leeds, Barnsley and Cardiff. Well just exactly who do these people support, do they know the meaning of the word loyalty? Well of course not, football clubs are just playthings, at best, to them, or worse - didnt all of them make a profit from selling "their" clubs? Rupert Lowe, had business dealings with him, lets just say I didnt like him, and nor did most Southampton fans.

Most obviously, there are some football chairman who seem genuinely affectionate towards their clubs. Jack Walker, Hayward, Steve Gibson, Whelan. Not sure which camp Madjeski is in, have my doubts. Simon Jordan loves himself, not sure about Crystal Palace. Etc etc.

I've not yet been able to work out why Steve would spend the first 35 years of his life being a Rovers fan, and then convert to City. I want all of Bristol, all the West Country, all the effing country, to be a City fan, and stick it into ManU, ARSEnal, etc. But to be fair, I have respect for life long gas heads.

Hope you know what I'm saying, cos I don't, exactly. Well, I might do.

But I would say this. If the current shareholders had announced this evening that they had decided to gift their shares to the Supporters Trust, thereby returning this football club to its supporters, with people in charge who in a relatively short period of time have proved they are good managers, get things done, and have only the good of Bristol City, its supporters, and the local community at heart, I would not have complained.

There, think I managed to say that without threatening to kill anybody. Must check in the morning.

[andy g]

I was disappointed too. I wasnt disappointed that after all the build-up, we were ultimately let down - after all thats just typical Bristol City. Did anyone really expect a shock announcement ?

I was just disappointed that the club would drag us in for one reason - to try to talk us out of more money.

All we got was ten minutes of steve lansdown telling us about some pretty unexciting plans, then an hour of being stuck in the exhibition hall while sales girls moved from table to table trying to twist our arms into joining city 2000 (sorry city foundation)

This launch could easily have been done by email, letter or the official website - the only reason we were all brought to the club was so they could try the hard-sell on us.

Not impressed.

[Guest]

THE NEW P.A SYSTEM WILL "improve the atmosphere and add to the matchday experience" of course it will we know what will though and so does he.

[Guest]

Tonight was a right PR disaster - no doubt masterminded by Mr Sexstone. What a joke that man is.

It already sounds like tonight has cost the club money rather than making it. I like many others have no interest in joining an over priced lottery club. Do they not think that charging £21 to watch 3rd div footie is enough ?

If this is what it has come to under Mr Lansdown then its obvious he isn't going to be putting his hand into own bulging pocket and do something ambitious.

No new stand but some new red seats. Whooppeeee.

One Harry Dolman theres only one Harry Dolman his memory will live forever in City fans hearts and minds; now S.L

[BS10 RED]

So was it true there putting season tickets up by 5% next season?

[NickJ]

One other thing.

£98k to improve the PA system, "to enhance the matchday experience".

Does that mean the armadildo song is just going to get played louder when we score? And the contrived "Come on You reds" before the game?

[cheshire_red]

But I would say this. If the current shareholders had announced this evening that they had decided to gift their shares to the Supporters Trust, thereby returning this football club to its supporters, with people in charge who in a relatively short period of time have proved they are good managers, get things done, and have only the good of Bristol City, its supporters, and the local community at heart, I would not have complained.

How many pints of Butcombe did you have?

[pdgifford64]

Having attended last nights meeting i have read through the various threads with interest. I had no doubts that i would be asked to put my hands in my pocket, i just wanted to know why.

Thing that irks me most is the number of `fans` questioning SL`s commitment to this club as regards putting his hands in his own pockets.

Since becoming chairman this club has shown an annual operating loss, who makes up this shortfall?

City Foundation will, potentially, raise approx £150k annually towards the training facilities. Can anyone give a rough guess how much over 20 acres of land alone costs these days ? Whatever is raised by City supporters it will be a small percentage of the overall completion costs of this facility.

Nobody has mentioned the Q & A session.

And for those who feel that SL has no clue about what makes many City supporters tick, he`s more than aware that many are negative barstewards.

Whether we go up or stay down my ST will be renewed next season and the season after that until the day i die, irrespective of what division we are playing in. I think you`ll find that thats the opinion of the vast majority of ST holders.

Somebody mentioned that SL is no PR guru. He doesn`t need to be, i don`t want him to be. I want him to do what he does best. To run BCFC within its operating limits as best as possible so that we never have to go throught the hell of `82 again.

I believe we will get promoted this year, but if it doesn`t happen i`ll be back next season supporting the club from day one.

Needless to say he`s got my money.

PDG

[Bristolian76]

Where are these 11 acres are they leased or bought? Any plans for what is going to be built? I remember having a chat with SL it was his vision that the club had premiership standard training facilities.

Next to the David Lloyd Centre apparently........

[phantom]

So was it true there putting season tickets up by 5% next season?

No the 5% thing was if you signed up for this scheme, you got 5% off next seasons season ticket. If you paid up for 6 / 12 months now you had this seasons price frozen.

It was remarked IF we got promoted that the increase would be greater than this !

[Chivs]

So when did they unveil Michael Owen?

[Guest]

They are neither leased or bought according to SL on the club site - still being negotiated....

Wonder if its the old Imperial site?

Wasn't Laycock trying to purchase (he might have already done so) that plot of land?

[phantom]

They are neither leased or bought according to SL on the club site - still being negotiated....

Wonder if its the old Imperial site?

Wasn't Laycock trying to purchase (he might have already done so) that plot of land?

I thought that he said we had purchased 11 acres and were close to finalising another 14 acres on the same site - but would not make any announcement until the deal was done

[Barrs Court Red]

I thought Laycock bought it last year, with plans for a sports institution of some sort.

Maybe he realised it was a non starter, so could be Tom.

[Avonmouth Docker]

I thought that he said we had purchased 11 acres and were close to finalising another 14 acres on the same site - but would not make any announcement until the deal was done

because I got a brand new combine harvester

An' I'll give you the key

Come on now let's get together

In perfect harmony

I got twenty acres

An' you got forty-three

Now I got a brand new combine harvester

An' I'll give you the key

That there boy Lansdown, he makes i laugh!!

[Nibor]

It's not Imperial, unless it's trebled in size.

Besides the whole place is completely on a slant.

[Portishead Red]

Could well be, but at this moment in time there is no land.

If negotiations fail I presume it's back to square one ?

Going on past record eg. new stand, buy a brick, premier seating, I'll believe it when I see it.

Whats happening with the new stand and buy a brick "scheme"?

[RedM]

I thought Laycock bought it last year, with plans for a sports institution of some sort.

Maybe he realised it was a non starter, so could be Tom.

Think Imperial is the site for the Laycock/Tinnion soccer schools, what's left of it after they have built 100's of houses. I drive past it everyday and there is building work going on and fences being put up, I'll look properly later!

[Dave L]

Think Imperial is the site for the Laycock/Tinnion soccer schools,

I think that's right.

[zookeeper]

Think Imperial is the site for the Laycock/Tinnion soccer schools, what's left of it after they have built 100's of houses. I drive past it everyday and there is building work going on and fences being put up, I'll look properly later!

The soccer schools lease a time slot for those facilities but they have no involvement in the running of them.

They are currently building astroturf pitches up there and the company that runs it is linked either directly or indirectly to the company that runs the facilities at beggar bush. I believe it is still owned by the coucil and would be very surprised if they would be allowed to sell it.

The land could well be the land they are using at present. There is definate room for expansion up there with meadows and fields to the back and side of it and it would allow for them to build their own facilities.

[Guest Bristolface]

The soccer schools lease a time slot for those facilities but they have no involvement in the running of them.

They are currently building astroturf pitches up there and the company that runs it is linked either directly or indirectly to the company that runs the facilities at beggar bush. I believe it is still owned by the coucil and would be very surprised if they would be allowed to sell it.

The land could well be the land they are using at present. There is definate room for expansion up there with meadows and fields to the back and side of it and it would allow for them to build their own facilities.

Was a great night last eve, SL said he had brought 11acres at failand for the new tranning ground, as something GJ said was a must need if city are to go places. Well done to SL and GJ for last night. Oh and to the W####R who asked toe stewart question was so funny the responce you got from all the fan's there ha ha ha, Just one question though to all the moaners WHERE WERE YOU ? Give it all the big on here then don't hear a peep when you get the chance to ask SL was walking amongest us last night and yet again I thought what a good bloke. Told him to ignore all the moaning gits on here.

[bh red]

Was a great night last eve, SL said he had brought 11acres at failand for the new tranning ground, as something GJ said was a must need if city are to go places. Well done to SL and GJ for last night. Oh and to the W####R who asked toe stewart question was so funny the responce you got from all the fan's there ha ha ha, Just one question though to all the moaners WHERE WERE YOU ? Give it all the big on here then don't hear a peep when you get the chance to ask SL was walking amongest us last night and yet again I thought what a good bloke. Told him to ignore all the moaning gits on here.

well considering it was a "by invitation only event" perhaps they weren't invited!

alot of people actually had no idea the event even took place last night

[Guest Bristolface]

well considering it was a "by invitation only event" perhaps they weren't invited!

alot of people actually had no idea the event even took place last night

Well they went out to every season ticket holder I understand, And plenty of people around me in the Ateyo knew it was on. And surely they cant work out from a data base who the complainers really are, more like these people have nothing going on in there sad little Victor Meldrew lives ,and just love a good moan from the saftey of their PC but don't have the guts to ask face to face SL or GJ more like it

[Guest DanC]

Ok so maybe the club didn't handle this the right way but by going by the past that's hardly surprising is it?

But at the end of the day this is sort of a big announcement as it means we will get a spanking new training facility. I would hope that better training facilities would help improve performances on the pitch.

[RedTop]

I am mystified that something as positive and visionary as buying a huge plot to develop a state-of-the-art training facility for our squad - a massive asset for the club and one that demonstrates a genuine wish to develop as a 'big club' - is being talked about so negatively by some on here. It is something that has massive long-term positive repercussions for the club we all love, surely. Those who were asked along to the evening knew it would be a business-type announcement, and it was also no secret that it related to City 2000 in some way. So why complain when that's exactly what was on offer? The chairman and the manager were also there for a Q & A, and from what I understand SteveL spoke with some passion about it all. I didn't got because it was an awfully long way midweek from London for something I guessed I might be able to get involved with at a later date, but if I had gone I would not have been disappointed at seeing something presented which is a vision for our future and knowing the chairman was committed to improving our club this way. No-one was forced to sign up at gunpoint, and those that went had the chance to quiz the manager and chairman about anything to do with the club and its future. I can't see what else they expected that made them disappointed.

Surely buying and building our own training ground is a massive step forward for this club. Not only will it improve the quality of training the players are able to get, and also hopefully have an impact on the fitness of the squad, the number of injuries etc and the readiness of players for matches, and not only does it improve our club's assets, it is also precisely the sort of thing that will make us a more attractive proposition for players we are hoping to sign. If we want to sign top notch players, they want to see the sort of training facilities they expect to make the most of the talent. It is the sort of thing that signals how professional a club is, and what level they consider themselves at - and also what they expect of their players. If the club takes the quality of training seriously and lays on top level professional facilities for that, it sends a message to players that the club expects players to treat training the same way. If we expect our players to be finely honed athletes and act that way, on and away from the training ground, we have to give them the facilities that demonstrate that.

Quite honestly I don't understand this expression of disappointment or, worse, this reaction of "if that's how they're going to treat us then they're not getting my money". So forget your gripes about 'wasting' a few hours, and think instead about the prospect of improving our club for decades to come. Incidentally, have you considered that there may have been other reasons for keeping it quiet - like perhaps they did not want to alert people that the site was available while they were negotiating at an early stage? I've no idea if that was the case, but it's clear that the club considers this a massively important step, and has treated it as such. That should send out a signal of intent. Yes, I agree that the secrecy inevitably led to all sorts of speculation, but given that it was obvious in advance that people were going to be invited to spend money in some way or another, I think this is one of the best things for the club's future that could have been announced. Not as sexy as a two-tier stand or a major signing, perhaps, but crucial to the development of our club in the right direction. It is part of having a top flight set up here, the sort of thing that helps us look upwards and separates us from teams like the Gas who are simply trying to survive and get by. SteveL obviously thinks this is a fantastic opportunity to get the club a wonderful asset that helps take it to the next level. He has demonstrated, as has GJ, a determination to take the club in the right direction, and that is now happening on the pitch, despite Tuesday's disappointing result. Ambition on the pitch has to be matched off it, and having a quality training facility is one of those things that divides a serious club from one that makes do. People complain that SteveL only ever puts money into the club and therefore increases his power over it. Well here's a way that ordinary supporters can show a willingness to pull together and work towards something that is for the long-term good and stability of the club.

I'll be joining up. I think it's a great step forward for the club if we can secure this. If we miss out, doubtless there will be moaners. There always are, no matter what the club tries to do. But as far as I'm concerned, it shows that this club is going for it and has a vision that looks up, not down. That's the sort of thing I want to see happening at the club.

[bucksred]

Red Top. I was waiting to see what you posted on this subject.

As a balance to the happy clapper see no evil, and the doom gloom and shloom brigade, on their respective ends. seen what the likes of CH, BB etc etc say....don't always agree, but I read with interest.

See my problem is that my trust in this club has been dented. I get the feeling that people like me and Mrs Bucks, loyal fans for twenty odd years, well we don't count, we're not wanted in the brave new Brizzle City world Sextone in particular is promoting. Ive been a member of City 2000 since it started, and I don't get anything for it now. I feel used, not valued.

Its not even worth me and Mrs Bucks getting a Season Ticket each as we couldn't justify the cost, as we don't get to every home game either. We always come down and even pay on the day if its a last minute decision.

Now that hurts cos Ive followed this club in every division but the old 1st Div, I didn't go to games then, as I lived abroad. Now all these prawns, (and I make no apology for the word) who crawl out every time we do well, and slither back when we fork it up, -they appear to be regarded in a higher respect than us.

Now me I think thats wrong, but then I would say that wouldn't I? But am I wrong to say that? I think not.

I somehow doubt I'm the only one, and I reckon that accounts for a fair bit of the negativity on here. The clubs PR is chuffin' appalling, and I see no great change in that outlook.

Can you understand that? You obviously think its a great idea. But do you understand why there might be hostility.

Just as an aside, do you agree with your employers bring the prices for ordinary supporters down campaign. I think its a great idea. I used to support Borussia Dortmund when I lived in Germany. City were then In League Div 4, and were charging more than Dortmund, who were then a decent side playing in the UEFA (Or whatever it was called then) Cup.

[RedTop]

Bucks Red, I do agree that there have been PR disasters in the past. I know that people at the club insist there haven't been, but my personal opinion is that the badge, in particular, was a bad call and showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship fans feel they have with such things, the importance they attach to it and the way they feel they own it, morally if not in terms of copyright!

I may be wrong about this, but I think that what makes 'old timers' feel less valued is the way the atmosphere has changed inside grounds. It seems as if it's been changed to 'suit' those who are newer to the cause but have more money to throw about. I'm not sure if that's the case, though. I think the bottom line is that much of the atmosphere went as a result of changes that were externally applied and which, to a great extent, were inevitable in the wake of the violence and tragedy of the 1980s. It gave those hostile to football (and there are plenty, as any team applying for permission to build a new ground finds out!) the excuse they were looking for to impose themselves and their 'nannying' ways on football clubs. I hate the power that the police and the council hold over the club, how they can force reduced capacity if people stand up or threaten us with removing our entertainment licence etc, how the police can determine the time and day of our kick-offs. It sucks and it shouldn't happen, but it's not the club's fault.

Put simply, if we have ambitions of succeeding in the league - and that, after all, has to be the aim of an ambitious club like us - then in order to compete with our rivals, particularly at the higher level we aspire to, the club has to maximize revenue. It's unavoidable, especially as the fans demand signings etc. That's not SteveL's fault, and such schemes as Premier Club have been brought in widely across the league. Like it or not, if we want to attract the bucks, we have to give these people something in return. That means more hospitality, a less 'edgy' atmosphere (which was already inevitable as I've suggested) and many more ways to part fans from their money. Success has to be funded. And that also means the club doing all it can to divert as many of our 'leisure pounds' into their pockets instead of, say, a fashion store, a sports shop or a travel agency.

Now I agree not all have been a success. The stand hasn't got off the ground yet, literally, and my brick is still sat on a building site somewhere waiting for my name to be lovingly inscribed. And no, not all the Premier seating is full, though my guess is it makes more money for the club than would have been made from the same space if it was not there. It will also fill appreciably, I suspect, if we get into a higher division which is more attractive to companies looking to entertain clients etc. I agree that these ventures may dent your confidence that things are going to work. But they have not all failed. The Red and White Bar is a superb facility for us 'ordinary' fans. I've not come across such a great facility in any of the away grounds I've travelled to. Theclub deserve credit for that, because although I happen to think it should be free, even at the price charged it improves the quality of facility for us. Likewise, the Atyeo Stand when it was built not that many years ago. What I do not want is for our club to stop aiming high. I don't want them to be put off of trying something new or trying to improve the club's finances and facilities by a fear of failure just because not everything has worked in the past. I don't want them to worry about what the moaners might way. I want optimists with ambition in charge of my club because I've never seen pessimists get anywhere. We have a chairman who is a successful businessman. He's got where he is by succeeding, and by making things happen. When you compare him to some of the shysters and fly-by-nights that other clubs have foisted on them, or the skint Supporters Trusts who mean well but manage to actually do **** all except put off prospective investors, we have someone who is a supporter, in it for the long haul, skilled in the business world and not short of a bob or two. If you want to see what might happen without it, take a look not that many miles down the road. Don't forget - not that many years ago they were a similar size to us, above us in the league and drawing similar crowds. But we're looking up now, not backwards at them.

I'm a half-full type, as you've probably gathered. You might think a paper like The Sun, where I work, is filled with cynical old hacks, who've seen it all and have a wry, mocking outlook on life. I expected that when I got there. But it's not. People like that don't survive in successful businesses because they don't breed success. No Editor there that I've ever worked under has tolerated it. They want optimists, people who can see the good and who are energised and willing to give it a go and make it happen. Because unless you can visualise something succeeding and believe in it, your chances of achieving it are pretty slim. You might fail anyway. But I've never seen anyone succeed if they've not bothered to start in the first place. In my own small way, that's why I went for it when it came to getting Jamie Cooper to the Gas game.

I think what is important is for our club to aim high. I think those who do so, with the best of intentions, deserve support and encouragement. I'm not talking about blind trust. I'm talking about setting out with an intention to believe in the good rather than the bad. So yes, I can see why your trust is dented by some of what has gone on in the past (though I don't understand what you say about not getting anything out of City 200 any more, as surely that's not changed over the years in terms of your chance of winning etc?) . But I hope you continue to support those who strive for success for the club, because doing that is more likely to make it happen. That doesn't mean parting with money every time the club offers to part you with it. But it does mean giving those who want the best for our club - and few surely can doubt that SteveL falls into that category - encouragement and reasons to continue working hard to make the club better rather than someone shooting him down just because they felt underwhelmed by the announcement. Like I say, it may not be sexy but I think it's an exciting vision and signals our intentions to move up in terms of how we see ourselves - and how others, including prospective players - see us as a club.

Surely that's got to be something worth being positive about?

P.S. As an aside, I think such ventures help take the pressure off ticket prices. The more income comes from more ancillary ventures like hospitality, TV, City 200 schemes etc, the less City have to rely on ticket prices. In New York, it was possible to watch the Yankess (baseball's equivalent of Chelsea) for about £12. Given that fans do feel underappreciated - nationwide, not just at City, which is another reason why I suggest it is a football-wide phenomenon rather than the fault of our chairman - reducing the prices would be a way not only of combatting that but of improving the atmosphere. I think there is a growing realisation within the game that the 'core' fans have been taken for granted, and I think that is slowly changing because the atmosphere is part of what clubs have to 'sell' to corporate clients, TV etc. Judging by the presentation last night, it doesn't sound like the club are about to bring down prices at Ashton Gate next season, but at least they've explained why.

[Blagdon red]

Bucks Red, I do agree that there have been PR disasters in the past.... Quite honestly I don't understand this expression of disappointment or, worse, this reaction of "if that's how they're going to treat us then they're not getting my money". ...

Hi RedTop,

I have a lot of respect for most of your views and hats off to you for your efforts on the Jamie Cooper front - an excellent achievement, and great to see the city united in simply helping out a football fan who happened - through no fault of his own - to support the 'wrong' club!

However, I have to take issue with you on the way that the club went about launching the City Foundation. It was a cheap stunt and below a man of SL's dignity.

I have no problem with the club operating as a very commercial animal - indeed, I fully support it in its efforts in that direction ... and have done so for nearly 40 years. I do, however, take exception to being subjected to 'time-share' style sales techniques. The news of the training complex and the launch of the City Foundation could have been announced in a much more professional way instead of duping fans into attending an event that was supposedly "of a business nature". In my book at least, joining a lottery scheme is not something "of a business nature". I would have been happy to receive information about the Foundation by e-mail, post, via the Internet or in the programme - or via all of these channels - and then to have considered at my leisure whether or not to join. Instead fans were lured to the Dolman Exhibition Hall, given a brief spiel by a distinctly uneasy looking SL and then subjected to sales staff roaming the tables.

By contrast, I have great memories of one rainy Tuesday night in Tranmere several years ago, when I was hugely impressed - having just entered the ground via the turnstiles - to be handed a special match voucher by a gent in a raincoat who, after a second look, I recognised to be Steve Lansdown. Top marks to him, I thought - not many chairman would do that.

Then on Thursday night he lowered himself to the level of a cheap spiv, using highly dodgy sales tactics. What a shame, I thought - not many chairman would do that!

I'll be at Crewe in the morning, and the club will continue to have my full support in many ways ... but they sacrificed a good deal of goodwill in my books with their underhand sales pitch this week. This was, indeed, another of their PR disasters.

[WTFiGO!?!]

I've seen comment's on t'internet (to paraphrase) : ''Steve Lansdown - good bloke - affable bloke'', ''Steve Lansdown - approachable chairman'', ''Steve Lansdown - prudent, sensible chairman'', etc etc. I can't help but agree from the several occassions I've conversed with him.

I also saw ''Nervouse Nelly'' and that stroke a very true chord for me. I mean the last time I saw him 1-2-1 he was more enchanted by me than I was by him, which i found weird. I was stone cold sober at the time too.

''Ill advised bloke'' is comment I've heard extremely regularly in conversation around the Ground and in the Pubs etc.

''Hmm'' is all I'll say.

[RedTop]

hi Blagdon Red,

Obviously I wasn't there so the tone of the evening isn't something I can comment on. But reading what was announced, it sounds like an attempt to say, 'okay, we're asking for your money, but in return here's what it will be spent on and why it is necessary.' Nobody enjoys asking for money, but it looked a pretty comprehensive review by SteveL, and given the amount he's putting into the club it's natural that he's also going to look for supporters etc to signal their commitment financially where possible as well.

Like I say, one way or another this is something SteveL obviously believes in and is going to push out the boat to get for the club, and that is something that I think the club will be grateful for long after he's gone.

[Spud55]

Supporters should..... listen to & support whatever is proposed by the club (if acceptable)

....but push for a QUID PRO QUO deal - something for something - supporters backing the clubs ideas/club backing the supporters wishes -

The Club want supporters to actively support them....

- The Supporters want the Club to actively support & encourage maximum possible home usage of the EAST END - get something in return for your continued support - fairs fair - Quid Pro Quo..

Its not too much to ask is it??

This is starting to piss me off now, NO THEY BLOODY don't. a fair number (myself included) would like to see the EE open on a regular basis, but considering a petition was handed in which IN TOTAL numbered less than half of the total number of season ticket holders we have at Ashton Gate, and about a Quarter of fans who go regularly to Ashton Gate, how in the hell is not bowing to a vocal minority not listening to the fans ? Pray tell me ? Just because it's a strongly held view by some does not mean it's the will of the fans, the people on here are a tiny minority of the City faithful, and for every one that signed the petition there were 3 that did not. As so as it would appear that it is a non issue or somethin that the MAJORITY of fans oppose they are not listening to the fans by opening it in the first place, get off your bloody high horse and leave it be. It's not the will of the fans as a whole or even in a large number to open the EE, it's the will of a minority.

I think it probably should be opened but then i unlike so many others are able to accept that i'm in a minority for even giving a toss about the issue, when most don't so don't trupet the OMG it's the will of the fans as frankly it's complete rubbish as the petition and attendences show, apart from sell out games you will be lucky to get more than 1,500 in there as it was last time.

[Guest North Street]

This is starting to piss me off now, NO THEY BLOODY don't. a fair number (myself included) would like to see the EE open on a regular basis, but considering a petition was handed in which IN TOTAL numbered less than half of the total number of season ticket holders we have at Ashton Gate, and about a Quarter of fans who go regularly to Ashton Gate, how in the hell is not bowing to a vocal minority not listening to the fans ? Pray tell me ? Just because it's a strongly held view by some does not mean it's the will of the fans, the people on here are a tiny minority of the City faithful, and for every one that signed the petition there were 3 that did not. As so as it would appear that it is a non issue or somethin that the MAJORITY of fans oppose they are not listening to the fans by opening it in the first place, get off your bloody high horse and leave it be. It's not the will of the fans as a whole or even in a large number to open the EE, it's the will of a minority.

I think it probably should be opened but then i unlike so many others are able to accept that i'm in a minority for even giving a toss about the issue, when most don't so don't trupet the OMG it's the will of the fans as frankly it's complete rubbish as the petition and attendences show, apart from sell out games you will be lucky to get more than 1,500 in there as it was last time.

Thats a contentious point as the supporters trusts survey shows a majority want the East End open and only 4-5% do not.

The petition may have been much larger if access to the supporterts club had not been denied by the Chairman of the SC but i would ask exactly how many signatures is enough.

[Spud55]

Thats a contentious point as the supporters trusts survey shows a majority want the East End open and only 4-5% do not.

The petition may have been much larger if access to the supporterts club had not been denied by the Chairman of the SC but i would ask exactly how many signatures is enough.

not a majority of city fans though, City fans on the interenet and active or even particularly active in the SC and ST are a small number compared to the total number of city fans, as i've said i would like to see the EE open, but there isn't the interest in the EE from the fans as a whole to warrant it being a mjor issue. The last time a proper trial was held apart from the games that sold out the whole ground, there were not that many in the EE, mostly less than 1,000 down to a few hundred at times. This was with all the opportunity in the world to swap tickets and every city fan i came across knew about it, so i'm sorry but there isn't and hasn't been the demand to really make it a big issue. Get a petition numbering in the high thousands, at least half of our average 11,000 attendence and then mabye you can start talking about the will of the fans, but even then if only about 1,000 of those actually give a toss enough to bother going in there then is it really that big a deal.

Now if the last time and this time the EE was full to the rafters every time with people who want to go in there then there would be pressure on the club to keep it open, but the fact remains that in the cold light of day that there simply isn't the level of interest to make it te issue that some fans seem determined to pretend it is. Most people don't care, it's the way it is, so we have to make do with what we get, which aint going to be much.

[Guest North Street]

not a majority of city fans though, City fans on the interenet and active or even particularly active in the SC and ST are a small number compared to the total number of city fans, as i've said i would like to see the EE open, but there isn't the interest in the EE from the fans as a whole to warrant it being a mjor issue. The last time a proper trial was held apart from the games that sold out the whole ground, there were not that many in the EE, mostly less than 1,000 down to a few hundred at times. This was with all the opportunity in the world to swap tickets and every city fan i came across knew about it, so i'm sorry but there isn't and hasn't been the demand to really make it a big issue. Get a petition numbering in the high thousands, at least half of our average 11,000 attendence and then mabye you can start talking about the will of the fans, but even then if only about 1,000 of those actually give a toss enough to bother going in there then is it really that big a deal.

Now if the last time and this time the EE was full to the rafters every time with people who want to go in there then there would be pressure on the club to keep it open, but the fact remains that in the cold light of day that there simply isn't the level of interest to make it te issue that some fans seem determined to pretend it is. Most people don't care, it's the way it is, so we have to make do with what we get, which aint going to be much.

The petition was not internet based and independant of the trust and the err "Supporters" club.

The trusts survey result is pretty representative.

There has not been a proper trial which did not have restrictions placed on the East End.

I would say yes a thousand fans is a very big deal and in the same manner that those who lost their seats in the Willliams were.

Bristol City should be for all of us and can be a much better club than it is at the moment.

[bucksred]

Bucks Red, I do agree that there have been PR disasters in the past. I know that people at the club insist there haven't been, but my personal opinion is that the badge, in particular, was a bad call and showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship fans feel they have with such things, the importance they attach to it and the way they feel they own it, morally if not in terms of copyright!

I may be wrong about this, but I think that what makes 'old timers' feel less valued is the way the atmosphere has changed inside grounds. It seems as if it's been changed to 'suit' those who are newer to the cause but have more money to throw about. I'm not sure if that's the case, though. I think the bottom line is that much of the atmosphere went as a result of changes that were externally applied and which, to a great extent, were inevitable in the wake of the violence and tragedy of the 1980s. It gave those hostile to football (and there are plenty, as any team applying for permission to build a new ground finds out!) the excuse they were looking for to impose themselves and their 'nannying' ways on football clubs. I hate the power that the police and the council hold over the club, how they can force reduced capacity if people stand up or threaten us with removing our entertainment licence etc, how the police can determine the time and day of our kick-offs. It sucks and it shouldn't happen, but it's not the club's fault.

Put simply, if we have ambitions of succeeding in the league - and that, after all, has to be the aim of an ambitious club like us - then in order to compete with our rivals, particularly at the higher level we aspire to, the club has to maximize revenue. It's unavoidable, especially as the fans demand signings etc. That's not SteveL's fault, and such schemes as Premier Club have been brought in widely across the league. Like it or not, if we want to attract the bucks, we have to give these people something in return. That means more hospitality, a less 'edgy' atmosphere (which was already inevitable as I've suggested) and many more ways to part fans from their money. Success has to be funded. And that also means the club doing all it can to divert as many of our 'leisure pounds' into their pockets instead of, say, a fashion store, a sports shop or a travel agency.

Now I agree not all have been a success. The stand hasn't got off the ground yet, literally, and my brick is still sat on a building site somewhere waiting for my name to be lovingly inscribed. And no, not all the Premier seating is full, though my guess is it makes more money for the club than would have been made from the same space if it was not there. It will also fill appreciably, I suspect, if we get into a higher division which is more attractive to companies looking to entertain clients etc. I agree that these ventures may dent your confidence that things are going to work. But they have not all failed. The Red and White Bar is a superb facility for us 'ordinary' fans. I've not come across such a great facility in any of the away grounds I've travelled to. Theclub deserve credit for that, because although I happen to think it should be free, even at the price charged it improves the quality of facility for us. Likewise, the Atyeo Stand when it was built not that many years ago. What I do not want is for our club to stop aiming high. I don't want them to be put off of trying something new or trying to improve the club's finances and facilities by a fear of failure just because not everything has worked in the past. I don't want them to worry about what the moaners might way. I want optimists with ambition in charge of my club because I've never seen pessimists get anywhere. We have a chairman who is a successful businessman. He's got where he is by succeeding, and by making things happen. When you compare him to some of the shysters and fly-by-nights that other clubs have foisted on them, or the skint Supporters Trusts who mean well but manage to actually do **** all except put off prospective investors, we have someone who is a supporter, in it for the long haul, skilled in the business world and not short of a bob or two. If you want to see what might happen without it, take a look not that many miles down the road. Don't forget - not that many years ago they were a similar size to us, above us in the league and drawing similar crowds. But we're looking up now, not backwards at them.

I'm a half-full type, as you've probably gathered. You might think a paper like The Sun, where I work, is filled with cynical old hacks, who've seen it all and have a wry, mocking outlook on life. I expected that when I got there. But it's not. People like that don't survive in successful businesses because they don't breed success. No Editor there that I've ever worked under has tolerated it. They want optimists, people who can see the good and who are energised and willing to give it a go and make it happen. Because unless you can visualise something succeeding and believe in it, your chances of achieving it are pretty slim. You might fail anyway. But I've never seen anyone succeed if they've not bothered to start in the first place. In my own small way, that's why I went for it when it came to getting Jamie Cooper to the Gas game.

I think what is important is for our club to aim high. I think those who do so, with the best of intentions, deserve support and encouragement. I'm not talking about blind trust. I'm talking about setting out with an intention to believe in the good rather than the bad. So yes, I can see why your trust is dented by some of what has gone on in the past (though I don't understand what you say about not getting anything out of City 200 any more, as surely that's not changed over the years in terms of your chance of winning etc?) . But I hope you continue to support those who strive for success for the club, because doing that is more likely to make it happen. That doesn't mean parting with money every time the club offers to part you with it. But it does mean giving those who want the best for our club - and few surely can doubt that SteveL falls into that category - encouragement and reasons to continue working hard to make the club better rather than someone shooting him down just because they felt underwhelmed by the announcement. Like I say, it may not be sexy but I think it's an exciting vision and signals our intentions to move up in terms of how we see ourselves - and how others, including prospective players - see us as a club.

Surely that's got to be something worth being positive about?

P.S. As an aside, I think such ventures help take the pressure off ticket prices. The more income comes from more ancillary ventures like hospitality, TV, City 200 schemes etc, the less City have to rely on ticket prices. In New York, it was possible to watch the Yankess (baseball's equivalent of Chelsea) for about £12. Given that fans do feel underappreciated - nationwide, not just at City, which is another reason why I suggest it is a football-wide phenomenon rather than the fault of our chairman - reducing the prices would be a way not only of combatting that but of improving the atmosphere. I think there is a growing realisation within the game that the 'core' fans have been taken for granted, and I think that is slowly changing because the atmosphere is part of what clubs have to 'sell' to corporate clients, TV etc. Judging by the presentation last night, it doesn't sound like the club are about to bring down prices at Ashton Gate next season, but at least they've explained why.

Cheers for the detailed reply. As it goes I know a lot of what you say makes sense, and in others will happen, as you say, because this club is, and indeed has no choice but to be ambitious. I would think a very high percentage of fans cynics or not, wont fundamentally disagree either.

As long as we can keep an eye on the clubs goings on, can be confident that someone will watch for any abuses, and that we the fans have a valid voice to reflect concerns we feel, then I think we'll be mostly happy.

As to the City 2000, we used to get magazines when it started, we got discount in the shop and priority for big game tickets. We don't get a thing now, or even till the invites for this came out any correspondence from the club.

I also know ticket prices will go up, especially if we go up!! This team will need strengthening, if we don't want a repeat of last time!!

Just do us one quiet favour, keep your nose to the ground, if you ever hear summat bad about the club, and do what you can to keep people informed without breaking any laws etc. People like yourself can do us all a big favour by that small thing.

I'll always be here (IF I can get a ticket with the prawn brigade making the gates higher when we go up a league), till the day I die. All I give a toss about is Bristol City Football Club, and all its fans. We'll be here for life. Players, managers, Chairmen, directors, well they ll come n go. We are the soul, the heart of the club.

More power to the Suns elbow in bringing the game back to the fans too.

Cheers for that.

[NickJ]

How many pints of Butcombe did you have?

OK it may have been more than 2.

[NickJ]

I am mystified that something as positive and visionary as buying a huge plot to develop a state-of-the-art training facility for our squad - a massive asset for the club and one that demonstrates a genuine wish to develop as a 'big club' - is being talked about so negatively by some on here. It is something that has massive long-term positive repercussions for the club we all love, surely. Those who were asked along to the evening knew it would be a business-type announcement, and it was also no secret that it related to City 2000 in some way. So why complain when that's exactly what was on offer? The chairman and the manager were also there for a Q & A, and from what I understand SteveL spoke with some passion about it all. I didn't got because it was an awfully long way midweek from London for something I guessed I might be able to get involved with at a later date, but if I had gone I would not have been disappointed at seeing something presented which is a vision for our future and knowing the chairman was committed to improving our club this way. No-one was forced to sign up at gunpoint, and those that went had the chance to quiz the manager and chairman about anything to do with the club and its future. I can't see what else they expected that made them disappointed.

Surely buying and building our own training ground is a massive step forward for this club. Not only will it improve the quality of training the players are able to get, and also hopefully have an impact on the fitness of the squad, the number of injuries etc and the readiness of players for matches, and not only does it improve our club's assets, it is also precisely the sort of thing that will make us a more attractive proposition for players we are hoping to sign. If we want to sign top notch players, they want to see the sort of training facilities they expect to make the most of the talent. It is the sort of thing that signals how professional a club is, and what level they consider themselves at - and also what they expect of their players. If the club takes the quality of training seriously and lays on top level professional facilities for that, it sends a message to players that the club expects players to treat training the same way. If we expect our players to be finely honed athletes and act that way, on and away from the training ground, we have to give them the facilities that demonstrate that.

Quite honestly I don't understand this expression of disappointment or, worse, this reaction of "if that's how they're going to treat us then they're not getting my money". So forget your gripes about 'wasting' a few hours, and think instead about the prospect of improving our club for decades to come. Incidentally, have you considered that there may have been other reasons for keeping it quiet - like perhaps they did not want to alert people that the site was available while they were negotiating at an early stage? I've no idea if that was the case, but it's clear that the club considers this a massively important step, and has treated it as such. That should send out a signal of intent. Yes, I agree that the secrecy inevitably led to all sorts of speculation, but given that it was obvious in advance that people were going to be invited to spend money in some way or another, I think this is one of the best things for the club's future that could have been announced. Not as sexy as a two-tier stand or a major signing, perhaps, but crucial to the development of our club in the right direction. It is part of having a top flight set up here, the sort of thing that helps us look upwards and separates us from teams like the Gas who are simply trying to survive and get by. SteveL obviously thinks this is a fantastic opportunity to get the club a wonderful asset that helps take it to the next level. He has demonstrated, as has GJ, a determination to take the club in the right direction, and that is now happening on the pitch, despite Tuesday's disappointing result. Ambition on the pitch has to be matched off it, and having a quality training facility is one of those things that divides a serious club from one that makes do. People complain that SteveL only ever puts money into the club and therefore increases his power over it. Well here's a way that ordinary supporters can show a willingness to pull together and work towards something that is for the long-term good and stability of the club.

I'll be joining up. I think it's a great step forward for the club if we can secure this. If we miss out, doubtless there will be moaners. There always are, no matter what the club tries to do. But as far as I'm concerned, it shows that this club is going for it and has a vision that looks up, not down. That's the sort of thing I want to see happening at the club.

Brian, see your points and agree with most of them.

However, I maintain that the "initiative" could have been communicated to supporters in the very letter that was sent inviting them to the event. The fact it wasn't, and the fact that from what I hear most of the evening felt like attending a pyramid selling scheme presentation, makes the whole thing a bit tacky and does not reflect well on Steve, IMO. I gather he looked decidedly uneasy about it himself.

I would also make this point.

This additional asset will increase the value of the shares, of which around 70%, I think it is, are of course owned by Steve and Keith Dawes.

But the supporters are being asked to help fund the project. So the supporters are being asked to help fund an asset which will in effect be largely owned by the shareholders. Now if my point is unfair or incorrect I apologise in advance, and of course I do recognize that all of us as supporters will enjoy the benefits.

But, ignoring what the directors are eventually going to do as regards their investment in Bristol City, as none of us know that, I think my point is a reasonable one.

[Spud55]

The petition was not internet based and independant of the trust and the err "Supporters" club.

The trusts survey result is pretty representative.

There has not been a proper trial which did not have restrictions placed on the East End.

I would say yes a thousand fans is a very big deal and in the same manner that those who lost their seats in the Willliams were.

Bristol City should be for all of us and can be a much better club than it is at the moment.

Yes i know the petition was not internet based, and you still only got a response of roughly a quarter of the fan base, that isn't huge and not that many people who signed it care enough to get in there when it's available. The last trial was fairly unrestricted, there was plenty of time to swap season tckets ( i did it for every game) most people knew about it and except for the games against Plymouth and QPR the take up was not brilliant. There were a bunch of about 6-7 hundred in there every week with sometimes a few hundred extra and sometimes sod all extra.

How many people were surveyed for the trust survey ?

There are a hardcore of about 9,000 ish city fans who go every week, with 2-3 thousand floaters who come to some games and not others now if only a thrid of these more hardcore elements are bothered about the EE i don't see it as an issue that should be banded about as the will of the fans. I agree that it is an issue but my main point is it's not the issue that some seem to make it out to be as if the board and SL are ignoring the will of the majority of the fan base, which they are not. I agree that it is an issue but i just have a problem with the people banding it around as if it's the be all and end all, and a major concern on every city fans mind, which it clearly isnt as well if it was the petition would have got considerably more than 3,000 odd signatures.

Money is also an issue, (not directly for isolated games, as 5k aint a lot, which is why i think it should be open for the remainder of the season) but lets say for example we open it for a whole season, now if we take out 4 home games that would already require the extra policing anyway, thats still 100k spent, now i'd say 100k of player is more important that 600-1000 fans in the EE. Now the board say it's not an issue when considering to open the EE, which well it isn't but it is money that could be spent elsewhere and as a city fan i'd rather that it was spent elsewhere.

What i personally think is the best way forward, is until the EE is demolished, we have it open fr the last 5 home games of every season, now if we aren't doing much of interest you will get the few people who enjoy that atmosphere and having a bit of a laugh, going in there bcause it's not available often. If we are doing something either pushing for promotion or trying to stave off relegation then you can pack it for 5 games as frankly you can give up a better view for a couple of games to really get the ground rocking and making some serious noise.

I'm not having a pop at people who want the EE open as well i'm one of them, but the way some people portray it is as if the board are ignoring us all, which they aren't they are aware that there is a vocal minority who want to go in there, and have to an extent accomodated them, yes they could do more but should the board really be wasting time and effort on something not even half of the fans actually want ? Have the petitions and keep asking the club to open it, but don't make it out to be some kind of major issue where the club are ignoring the fans as a whole.

[RedM]

The soccer schools lease a time slot for those facilities but they have no involvement in the running of them.

They are currently building astroturf pitches up there and the company that runs it is linked either directly or indirectly to the company that runs the facilities at beggar bush. I believe it is still owned by the coucil and would be very surprised if they would be allowed to sell it.

The land could well be the land they are using at present. There is definate room for expansion up there with meadows and fields to the back and side of it and it would allow for them to build their own facilities.

I had a look and there is the name of the builder/developer which I can't remember and something about being in conjunction with Clifton College.

And yes NickJ I also wondered who would own the new land if/when it it bought and developed. I believe there is now 2 companies, the stadium and the football club. Which would the land be part of?

Also I can see the need for new facillities but don't want to see the club going 'over the top', we have to speculate to accumulate which is fair comment, but we have to remember we are a 2nd division/ hopefully championship side. 11 acres, plus options for more, must leave most premier sides gasping?

I don't know what other clubs similar to us have for training facilities, but judging by soccer am's crossbar challenge, which looks to be filmed at training grounds, I haven't noticed anything but muddy fields and goalposts???

[zookeeper]

I had a look and there is the name of the builder/developer which I can't remember and something about being in conjunction with Clifton College.

And yes NickJ I also wondered who would own the new land if/when it it bought and developed. I believe there is now 2 companies, the stadium and the football club. Which would the land be part of?

Also I can see the need for new facillities but don't want to see the club going 'over the top', we have to speculate to accumulate which is fair comment, but we have to remember we are a 2nd division/ hopefully championship side. 11 acres, plus options for more, must leave most premier sides gasping?

I don't know what other clubs similar to us have for training facilities, but judging by soccer am's crossbar challenge, which looks to be filmed at training grounds, I haven't noticed anything but muddy fields and goalposts???

I believe the company is a subsidary of CCSL which is Clifton College's money generating arm.

I thought Nick's comments were fair enough and I would have thought that there is a return on their investment. It seems that they are trying to repricate the National savings schemes by adding a cash price incentive to investors.

I'm not sure that it would be something that I would necessarily invest in as the returns don't seem that great which maybe the club need to address and I would be interested to see how they will do. So far the emphasis of their documentation has been on what the money will be spent on.

Also can any confirm whether anybody actually signed up on the night?

I don't think that we should really worry about what other clubs are doing as long as we stick within our means. Not so long ago people were querying why clubs were investing in new stadiums without a huge increase in capacity. A lot of the clubs have benefited from the increased non matchday income and left us in their wake.

I would like to know whether or not the club would see this as an opportunity to go into the astro pitch market in bristol. It would reduce the idle time on the land and is a profitable area when run correctly.

[RedTop]

Steve, IMO. I gather he looked decidedly uneasy about it himself.

I would also make this point.

This additional asset will increase the value of the shares, of which around 70%, I think it is, are of course owned by Steve and Keith Dawes.

But the supporters are being asked to help fund the project. So the supporters are being asked to help fund an asset which will in effect be largely owned by the shareholders. Now if my point is unfair or incorrect I apologise in advance, and of course I do recognize that all of us as supporters will enjoy the benefits.

But, ignoring what the directors are eventually going to do as regards their investment in Bristol City, as none of us know that, I think my point is a reasonable one.

1. SteveL is the Chairman. I can't see him agreeing to do anything he wasn't comfortable with. If you feel the evening was ill-advised, fair enough. But I doubt SteveL would have been railroaded into doing something he didn't think was right. He obviously believes in the cause, and it's obvious from some of the responses on the thread that some enjoyed the evening. It sounds like more went on than just asking for money. I don't believe many people would have gone there without expecting to be asked to part with their lucre somehow, so when I hear people complaining about it, I just shrug and think: "Well what did you expect?" Given that, I think the cause is about as good as it gets really. Like I say, not as sexy as a new stadium or big signing, but evidence that SteveL is looking at the wider vision of this club's future, and that's got to be a good thing. It's a sign that he wants to build this club's stature. A training complex is fantastic for the future in so many ways. If it takes a hard sell to persuade people to help fund it, then as far as I'm concerned that's worthwhile. We're all adults and was far as I'm aware no-one was held hostage, placed in stress positions that contravene international human rights law or threatened with a Gas season ticket until they signed on the dotted line.

2. The point you make about shares is probably right, I'm not an expert so I wouldn't know for sure. But I don't see the point of making it. Surely anything that brings success to the club is likely to increase the value of shares? Should SteveL refuse to sanction investment in any more decent players in case promotion in case it puts up the value of shares and he could be accused of doing it to feather his own nest? Let's face it. SteveL is not short of a few quid. He'll be even less short of a few quid before much longer, if the reports are right. I honestly cannot see how anyone could suggest that he sees City as a money-making project. It just doesn't make sense when you look at it in the round. But if his shares do increase in value as a result of improving the state of the club - on and off the pitch - then that's fine by me. All I want is success at Bristol City, and I think that what is being proposed will help bring that. No-one is forcing people to join the City Foundation. If they can't afford it or don't reckon it's worthwhile, they don't have to. But if they do, the evening gives us confidence that the money is going to be bloody well used.

[NickJ]

1. SteveL is the Chairman. I can't see him agreeing to do anything he wasn't comfortable with. If you feel the evening was ill-advised, fair enough. But I doubt SteveL would have been railroaded into doing something he didn't think was right. He obviously believes in the cause, and it's obvious from some of the responses on the thread that some enjoyed the evening. It sounds like more went on than just asking for money. I don't believe many people would have gone there without expecting to be asked to part with their lucre somehow, so when I hear people complaining about it, I just shrug and think: "Well what did you expect?" Given that, I think the cause is about as good as it gets really. Like I say, not as sexy as a new stadium or big signing, but evidence that SteveL is looking at the wider vision of this club's future, and that's got to be a good thing. It's a sign that he wants to build this club's stature. A training complex is fantastic for the future in so many ways. If it takes a hard sell to persuade people to help fund it, then as far as I'm concerned that's worthwhile. We're all adults and was far as I'm aware no-one was held hostage, placed in stress positions that contravene international human rights law or threatened with a Gas season ticket until they signed on the dotted line.

2. The point you make about shares is probably right, I'm not an expert so I wouldn't know for sure. But I don't see the point of making it. Surely anything that brings success to the club is likely to increase the value of shares? Should SteveL refuse to sanction investment in any more decent players in case promotion in case it puts up the value of shares and he could be accused of doing it to feather his own nest? Let's face it. SteveL is not short of a few quid. He'll be even less short of a few quid before much longer, if the reports are right. I honestly cannot see how anyone could suggest that he sees City as a money-making project. It just doesn't make sense when you look at it in the round. But if his shares do increase in value as a result of improving the state of the club - on and off the pitch - then that's fine by me. All I want is success at Bristol City, and I think that what is being proposed will help bring that. No-one is forcing people to join the City Foundation. If they can't afford it or don't reckon it's worthwhile, they don't have to. But if they do, the evening gives us confidence that the money is going to be bloody well used.

Brian nowhere have I ever said or even suggested that Steve sees Bristol City as a money-making project. On the other hand, he clearly doesn't want to lose money, and I don't blame him for that. We shouldn't forget also that there is another substantial director/shareholder at the club.

But I do not see why you do not see the point of making the point which I have - in my view it is a perfectly reasonable one to make.

All the money which Steve has put into the club, so far as I am aware - nobody including Steve has suggested otherwise - has been in the form of loans (which originally generated an interest return of 2/3% above base rate) or shares which will one day be sold.

The club is now effectively asking supporters for donations in order to provide facilities and progress the club. Fine.

But it seems reasonable to me to suggest that this cash could be raised in exchange for shares, or loans capable of being converted to shares, just as the directors cash is and has been, and I do not see how anybody could possibly argue against the logic of that.

A few years ago there was a share offering by the club, and I know Steve expressed disappointment with the take up. However IMO he should look at it from the point of view of the supporter. Most supporters would have seen that particular share issue as just a donation to the club, with no control over its use and despite it being for shares, no possibility of having any influence in the decision making process.

The club have been clever I think in this latest fund raising exercise in that they have stipulated exactly how the money will be used - I think people wil relate to that and will be more likely to put their cash in.

But I do repeat that, while I am happy that the funds raised will benefit the club, a by-product of this exercise is that the assets purchased will increase the value of the shares, potentially for the benefit of the shareholders - because that is a fact.

[RedTop]

But I do repeat that, while I am happy that the funds raised will benefit the club, a by-product of this exercise is that the assets purchased will increase the value of the shares, potentially for the benefit of the shareholders - because that is a fact.

And I'm not disputing it. I'm suggesting that if it's true - and logically it sounds right, though I'm not a financial expert - then that is good!

[NickJ]

And I'm not disputing it. I'm suggesting that if it's true - and logically it sounds right, though I'm not a financial expert - then that is good!

Good for who though.

The supporters donate money to the club. The club uses the donation to purchase an asset. Which financially benefits... the shareholders.

I'm not for one second suggesting that this is a deliberate exercise by Steve to get the supporters to increase the value of his shares, clearly his shareholding in Hargreaves Lansdown makes his investment in City somewhat trivial, he probably hasn't even thought about it in this way, however I don't think you can argue with the logic of what I am saying.

[RedTop]

Good for who though.

The supporters donate money to the club. The club uses the donation to purchase an asset. Which financially benefits... the shareholders.

I'm not for one second suggesting that this is a deliberate exercise by Steve to get the supporters to increase the value of his shares, clearly his shareholding in Hargreaves Lansdown makes his investment in City somewhat trivial, he probably hasn't even thought about it in this way, however I don't think you can argue with the logic of what I am saying.

I am not arguing with the logic of what you are saying about the value of shares.

I am saying that it's not just good for the directors - it's good for the fans. Because the shares only go up if the club is in better shape. It's a by-product of success. However, my understanding is that all this is basically academic, since it's a private company and shares aren't traded on the open market as such. Isn't there a waiting list or something for people who want to buy shares?

I'm not arguing with you that the shareholders would benefit from the purchase of an asset. But surely, as fans of BCFC, we all would, as it can only make our club more competitiive on the pitch and more secure off it. How can that be a bad thing?

Incidentally, the fans don't 'donate' the money. They gamble it in a draw, just like we do with the half time draw and have done up until now with the City 2000 set-up. They also get discounts etc. So it's not a 'donation'. It's taking part in a draw that also raises money from profits for the club that they happen to support. The idea being that the results should help bring success to that club - success which they too can enjoy as supporters. And it's voluntary. So if people don't like it, they don't have to take part. So how anyone could complain at it is beyond me, really.

[NickJ]

I am not arguing with the logic of what you are saying about the value of shares.

I am saying that it's not just good for the directors - it's good for the fans. Because the shares only go up if the club is in better shape. It's a by-product of success. However, my understanding is that all this is basically academic, since it's a private company and shares aren't traded on the open market as such. Isn't there a waiting list or something for people who want to buy shares?

I'm not arguing with you that the shareholders would benefit from the purchase of an asset. But surely, as fans of BCFC, we all would, as it can only make our club more competitiive on the pitch and more secure off it. How can that be a bad thing?

Incidentally, the fans don't 'donate' the money. They gamble it in a draw, just like we do with the half time draw and have done up until now with the City 2000 set-up. They also get discounts etc. So it's not a 'donation'. It's taking part in a draw that also raises money from profits for the club that they happen to support. The idea being that the results should help bring success to that club - success which they too can enjoy as supporters. And it's voluntary. So if people don't like it, they don't have to take part. So how anyone could complain at it is beyond me, really.

You aren't listening to, or understanding me. Maybe that's why its beyond you.

I agree with you that potentially there is a positive aspect for the fans, if it helps bring success on the pitch.

However you are incorrect that the shares will "only go up" if there is success on the pitch.

I am talking about the purchase of the land, in isolation. The supporters pay for the land. But the land is effectively owned by the directors, through their shareholdings. So the day after the land is purchased, the directors shares increase in value, but they haven't put the funds in for that to happen, the fans have.

What I am saying is that, if the directors gets shares in return for putting their money into Bristol City, why shouldnt the fans.

This isn't an academic point because, although shares in Bristol City are not traded on any market, any shareholder will eventually sell his shares by means of a private sale - how do you think the current directors acquired theirs in the first place.

If its such an academic point, why do you think that any money the directors put into the club, they do so as loans and/or share capital as opposed to putting money in to be written off as income, in the same way that this scheme asks the fans to.

You can call the money which the fans will provide "gambling in a draw if you like", because technically that is what is being proposed, however the reality is that quite a high percentage will be retained by the club, and therefore OVERALL the fans are effectively donating money to the club.

I'm not complaining about the concept, I'm complaining, if you like, that the fans money will be written off and shown as income to the club, whereas the directors money into the club is treated as shares to be sold on one day by the directors.

Let me try to put it yet another way. Yes, the club will benefit from the facility. The fans and the directors alike will benefit in the sense of potentially better results. But the directors will also have the double whammy that they aren't paying for this - the fans are. Effectively the fans are giving the directors money.

I'm beginning to repeat myself, but I can't think of any other way to get this point across.

As an aside, this is an example in my opinion of why football club assets should not be owned by individuals, and why the concept of a Supporters Trust is such a fantastic idea. Football clubs owned by individuals sees situations such as clubs like Leeds being overstretched and nearly going out of business, or obnoxious individuals such as Ken Bates making millions from what should be a community asset. The fact we are where are in this respect is not anyone's fault in particular, just an observation. But I would add that I do not agree with you that it would be a bad idea for football clubs to be run by a Supporters Trust, who I think you referred to in an earlier post as something like "well meaning amateurs" and "unlikely to bring success to a club". Or something similar.

Yes, anyone that participates in this scheme will do so voluntarily. However, the club is most obviously relying on the loyalty and dedication of its fan base to sell the scheme. Steve has said in the past that he regards Bristol City as a "business". I do not agree that should be so in its purest sense, but you can't have it both ways - if Bristol City really is a "business" it should not be luring people to a meeting as "fans" (as the invitation letter did) to support a scheme which relies upon their goodwill and loyalty to provide the club with money, because it would not happen in any other "business".

And finally, one more time. The fans are being asked to pay for an asset which will be owned by the directors. That is the issue I have a bit of a problem with.

[RedTop]

However you are incorrect that the shares will "only go up" if there is success on the pitch.

I am talking about the purchase of the land, in isolation. The supporters pay for the land. But the land is effectively owned by the directors, through their shareholdings. So the day after the land is purchased, the directors shares increase in value, but they haven't put the funds in for that to happen, the fans have.

What I am saying is that, if the directors gets shares in return for putting their money into Bristol City, why shouldnt the fans.

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding or misrepresenting the scheme. It's a bit like arguing that fans who go through the turnstiles are effectively helping to fund assets which the directors, through their shareholdings, own - thus effectively bankrolling the directors. Fans who sign up aren't 'donating', because they are getting something for their money. Fans who choose to participate in this scheme are effectively buying tickets in a raffle to win a prize of up to £20k or whatever, along with other privileges. The evening was explaining where the money made from this venture is going.

If fans want to buy shares, they can either contact the stockbroker and (I think this is right) go on a list to buy shares when they become available, or they can put money into the ST, where the ST gets a say in how money spent on shares goes. But this is something that is entirely different. In fact, it would be hard to argue a case for anything that improved the club but didn't benefit the shareholders, since their fortunes are surely inextricably linked.

To present it as merely 'donating' money is fundamentally wrong. It's a raffle where the money goes to a 'good cause' - one that benefits the club, the fans who benefit from the success that it hopefully contributes to and, yes, the directors. But the club has to raise money somehow. The directors get accused of strengthening their hold on the club when they lend money to underwrite projects, yet get slammed if they try to raise funds another way. They are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. I keep going back to the fact that this is a voluntary scheme for people who like this sort of thing. The club has to find as many imaginitive ways as possible to raise money in a competitive environment, especially for projects with vision like this.

I really don't see why you have a problem with it, Nick. If you don't like it, you can look at other ways of spending your money, or seeking to invest directly in the club. It's pretty transparent. We know where the money is coming from, we know where it's going, and we can choose to take part or not. Sounds perfectly fair to me.

[WTFiGO!?!]

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding or misrepresenting the scheme. It's a bit like arguing that fans who go through the turnstiles are effectively helping to fund assets which the directors, through their shareholdings, own - thus effectively bankrolling the directors. Fans who sign up aren't 'donating', because they are getting something for their money. Fans who choose to participate in this scheme are effectively buying tickets in a raffle to win a prize of up to £20k or whatever, along with other privileges. The evening was explaining where the money made from this venture is going.

If fans want to buy shares, they can either contact the stockbroker and (I think this is right) go on a list to buy shares when they become available, or they can put money into the ST, where the ST gets a say in how money spent on shares goes. But this is something that is entirely different. In fact, it would be hard to argue a case for anything that improved the club but didn't benefit the shareholders, since their fortunes are surely inextricably linked.

To present it as merely 'donating' money is fundamentally wrong. It's a raffle where the money goes to a 'good cause' - one that benefits the club, the fans who benefit from the success that it hopefully contributes to and, yes, the directors. But the club has to raise money somehow. The directors get accused of strengthening their hold on the club when they lend money to underwrite projects, yet get slammed if they try to raise funds another way. They are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. I keep going back to the fact that this is a voluntary scheme for people who like this sort of thing. The club has to find as many imaginitive ways as possible to raise money in a competitive environment, especially for projects with vision like this.

I really don't see why you have a problem with it, Nick. If you don't like it, you can look at other ways of spending your money, or seeking to invest directly in the club. It's pretty transparent. We know where the money is coming from, we know where it's going, and we can choose to take part or not. Sounds perfectly fair to me.

Fair play Red Top, can you please though explain why the secrecy tactic was employed?

Struck me as conceited and wrong, certainly not honest or endearing.

Do you think that those with a gripe with some of the Club's policies really have no reason to be doubtful and ask these type of questions?

Not confronting you, just honest enquiries.

Shoot me down mate.

[RedTop]

Fair play Red Top, can you please though explain why the secrecy tactic was employed?

Struck me as conceited and wrong, certainly not honest or endearing.

Do you think that those with a gripe with some of the Club's policies really have no reason to be doubtful and ask these type of questions?

Not confronting you, just honest enquiries.

Shoot me down mate.

Well there was no secrecy that what people were going to was a business-related event, or that it was connected to City 2000. Everyone knew that in advance, and the demise of City 2000 - together with its link with an announcement coinciding with the 'secret' meeting - was announced on the Tannoy, so was hardly unknown. It was pretty obvious to all concerned that people were going to be asked to part with money. So they weren't 'tricked' into going and I don't understand why they felt short-changed when the evening turned out to be a money-related announcement involving a replacement for City 2000 which involved inviting them to join a new scheme to fund something for the club's long-term benefit.

The club presumably wanted to reward people who turned up by letting them be the first to hear of the plans for the training ground etc, so decided not to release that beforehand. I don't know whether they also wanted to keep details secret at the start of negotiations because of the commercial sensitivity - preventing other prospective buyers from getting wind of it etc. But I guess the first thought was to tell first those who had made the effort to turn up in person.

There's no doubt that some enjoyed the evening, as they have posted on here. But there's also no doubt that others felt short-changed, as their responses on here also demonstrate. But given what was known about the event beforehand, and the strategic importance to the club's long-term future of proper City-owned training facilities, it's hard to think of an announcement that fitted the bill and could have been more important.

I'm just interested in what else those who felt short-changed thought they were going to get that evening?

[Blagdon red]

Well there was no secrecy that what people were going to was a business-related event, or that it was connected to City 2000. Everyone knew that in advance, and the demise of City 2000 - together with its link with an announcement coinciding with the 'secret' meeting - was announced on the Tannoy, so was hardly unknown. It was pretty obvious to all concerned that people were going to be asked to part with money. So they weren't 'tricked' into going and I don't understand why they felt short-changed when the evening turned out to be a money-related announcement involving a replacement for City 2000 which involved inviting them to join a new scheme to fund something for the club's long-term benefit.

The club presumably wanted to reward people who turned up by letting them be the first to hear of the plans for the training ground etc, so decided not to release that beforehand. I don't know whether they also wanted to keep details secret at the start of negotiations because of the commercial sensitivity - preventing other prospective buyers from getting wind of it etc. But I guess the first thought was to tell first those who had made the effort to turn up in person.

There's no doubt that some enjoyed the evening, as they have posted on here. But there's also no doubt that others felt short-changed, as their responses on here also demonstrate. But given what was known about the event beforehand, and the strategic importance to the club's long-term future of proper City-owned training facilities, it's hard to think of an announcement that fitted the bill and could have been more important.

I'm just interested in what else those who felt short-changed thought they were going to get that evening?

My problem with how this was handled is that the club did indeed try very hard to hide the true purpose of the event. It was only due a slip of the tongue by the PA announcer that some of the guesswork on this forum was to a degree substantiated before the evening itself. But this was despite the best efforts of the club at concealing the true nature of the event and not because of the club being transparent in what it was doing.

What else did I expect? Well, as it was advertised as being of a 'business nature', an announcement of a new share issue would have fitted the bill.

I have no beef with the club launching a new lottery and am naturally pleased about the new traning facilities. I just object to the tacky way in which fans were lured to a time-share style sales presentation. The lottery and the training facility news could IMHO have been advertised in a much more fan-friendly way. There was no need for all the cloak and dagger!

[RedTop]

That's fair enough, BR.

The only thing I will say is that a share option was never likely, as there was a poor response to the last one.

Like all these things, I guess the club needs to take on board how the fans reacted. Personally, whereas I can see previous things like the badge and the poor quality shirts were bad PR, on this occasion people knew the sort of event they were going to and I can't see why so many objected - other than that perhaps the secrecy allowed people to build up hopes about an announcement that were never going to be fulfilled. But, like I say, whether justified or not, the club will no doubt have learned from the response.

Most agree the idea itself is a decent vision for the future. It's a shame that the outcome is that the focus has been on the event itself rather than the hugely exciting development which I assume the board have been working very hard on for a while behind the scenes and that will underpin this club for many, many years to come and which advances this club's image, reputation within the game and, hopefully, improves our success on the pitch.

[NickJ]

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding or misrepresenting the scheme. It's a bit like arguing that fans who go through the turnstiles are effectively helping to fund assets which the directors, through their shareholdings, own - thus effectively bankrolling the directors. Fans who sign up aren't 'donating', because they are getting something for their money. Fans who choose to participate in this scheme are effectively buying tickets in a raffle to win a prize of up to £20k or whatever, along with other privileges. The evening was explaining where the money made from this venture is going.

If fans want to buy shares, they can either contact the stockbroker and (I think this is right) go on a list to buy shares when they become available, or they can put money into the ST, where the ST gets a say in how money spent on shares goes. But this is something that is entirely different. In fact, it would be hard to argue a case for anything that improved the club but didn't benefit the shareholders, since their fortunes are surely inextricably linked.

To present it as merely 'donating' money is fundamentally wrong. It's a raffle where the money goes to a 'good cause' - one that benefits the club, the fans who benefit from the success that it hopefully contributes to and, yes, the directors. But the club has to raise money somehow. The directors get accused of strengthening their hold on the club when they lend money to underwrite projects, yet get slammed if they try to raise funds another way. They are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. I keep going back to the fact that this is a voluntary scheme for people who like this sort of thing. The club has to find as many imaginitive ways as possible to raise money in a competitive environment, especially for projects with vision like this.

I really don't see why you have a problem with it, Nick. If you don't like it, you can look at other ways of spending your money, or seeking to invest directly in the club. It's pretty transparent. We know where the money is coming from, we know where it's going, and we can choose to take part or not. Sounds perfectly fair to me.

I am not misunderstanding or representing the scheme.

I am questioning one part of it.

Your analogy with money received at the turnstiles is inappropriate, in my view, because that cash is used to fund the ongoing operation of the club. Money in at the turnstiles = INCOME, which pays for players wages etc = EXPENDITURE. Both the income and the expenditure is used during the year.

However, the land which is being purchased = ASSET. The owners of the asset are ultimately the shareholders.

I am not "slamming" the directors, as you suggest, because in an earlier post I acknowledged that the amounts involved while large to most fans are actually quite trivial to the directors, and I also stated that the directors have probably not even thought about it in this way. So you are representing me as having a pop at the directors when I am not.

I am simply pointing out that where a football club is owned by a small number of individuals, and that football club is run as a "business", it is my view that it is inequitable if that "business" appeals to the generosity and loyalty of its "fans" to raise funds which, yes, benefit the fans, but ultimately financially benefits the shareholders. It's a bit like Sainsburys asking its customers to pay for a shiny new supermarket in order that they might enjoy their shopping experience a little bit more. It just wouldnt happen.

It's a point of principle, the money involved is clearly peanuts to the directors, so I am not in way suggesting there is some sort of deliberate scam for the fans to line the pockets of the directors, but that does not make my point any less valid.

You are correct that the scheme is entirely voluntary, however I do not think I am being unreasonable in pointing out one by-product of it which may not have been realised or thought about, by the club or many of the fans. In that regard, I just see this as raising what is in my opinion a valid point, what other people make of that is up to them. If the fans decide to participate, in full knowledge of the facts and the implications, like you I wouldn't see the problem.

I suppose you could say that the club are victims of their own openness. After all, they could purchase the land from general funds without ever relating it to this fund raising scheme. I also agree with you that the success of the club is likely to be inextricably linked to ventures such as this latest development, and yes, because I accept that, it does mean that the board could be criticised whatever they do.

Unfortunately that is an unavoidable result of the conflict that exists where a football club is owned by a small number of individuals on the one hand, a board of directors whose legal obligation it is to act in the best interests of their shareholders, and on the other hand the social pressure to act entirely in the interests of the community which supports the

football club. It is impossible in this specific situation, ie purchasing the land and the question of its ownership, to act 100% in the interests of all of these parties.

Now, if the football club were owned by the Supporters Trust, that conflict would not exist, but unfortunately the bright spark that came up with that concept was about 100 years too late.

[RedTop]

Now, if the football club were owned by the Supporters Trust, that conflict would not exist, but unfortunately the bright spark that came up with that concept was about 100 years too late.

Well let's leave the point of debate where it stands then. I don't see it as relevant, personally, but I can understand that you do.

But you raise another interesting point towards the end here. There's no doubt that any ownership of a club raises potential problems. But I'd challenge you to ask any fan of a team like Brentford whether they think it's terrific that their club is owned by the Supporters' Trust. I can tell you that those Bees fans I've spoken to up here in London think it's a shambles, it discourages crucial investors who might be tempted to inject much-needed funds, and it feels like they're being run by amateurs. I can't think of a team being run by a Supporters' Trust that is a long-term success. If there is one, I'd be interested to hear.

The only time being run by a Supporters' Trust is a good thing, in my book, is if the alternative is going bust or being run by an evil and cynical asset-stripper - neither of them being a situation which we find ourselves in. Don't get me wrong, I think our ST are doing terrific work, and one day we may be grateful for a safety net if things go tits up, but there's no indication of that happening. And in the absence of that, I would strongly resist any attempt by the Suppporters' Trust to actually take BCFC over, because I don't believe it's in our best interests as it stifles success. Which is why I pay my £1 a month to the ST but do not, as a matter of principle, contribute at a higher level where the money goes towards buying shares in the club. I admire the individuals who are active within it, I like what they are doing to help the club and it's supporters and want to encourage their work, but would hate the ST to actually be in control of the club.

[Blagdon red]

But I'd challenge you to ask any fan of a team like Brentford whether they think it's terrific that their club is owned by the Supporters' Trust.

You might get a different answer if you asked the fans of FC Barcelona (second richest club in the world according to Deloitte, and just a bit successful on the pitch too) about the concept of fan ownership!

[RedTop]

You might get a different answer if you asked the fans of FC Barcelona (second richest club in the world according to Deloitte, and just a bit successful on the pitch too) about the concept of fan ownership!

Pah! What have they achieved over the years?

Seriously, the Supporters' Trust model at Brentford etc, which is what we have at the Gate, has plenty of drawbacks that people need to recognise. It's not a panacea. The closest you can get to ideal, rather like politics, is a benevolent dictator. But of course, opening yourself up to ownership by a benevolent dictator has plenty of its own drawbacks - as many states around the world will acknowledge.

[cheshire_red]

Pah! What have they achieved over the years?

Seriously, the Supporters' Trust model at Brentford etc, which is what we have at the Gate, has plenty of drawbacks that people need to recognise. It's not a panacea. The closest you can get to ideal, rather like politics, is a benevolent dictator. But of course, opening yourself up to ownership by a benevolent dictator has plenty of its own drawbacks - as many states around the world will acknowledge.

and Cardiff City.

[NickJ]

Well let's leave the point of debate where it stands then. I don't see it as relevant, personally, but I can understand that you do.

But you raise another interesting point towards the end here. There's no doubt that any ownership of a club raises potential problems. But I'd challenge you to ask any fan of a team like Brentford whether they think it's terrific that their club is owned by the Supporters' Trust. I can tell you that those Bees fans I've spoken to up here in London think it's a shambles, it discourages crucial investors who might be tempted to inject much-needed funds, and it feels like they're being run by amateurs. I can't think of a team being run by a Supporters' Trust that is a long-term success. If there is one, I'd be interested to hear.

The only time being run by a Supporters' Trust is a good thing, in my book, is if the alternative is going bust or being run by an evil and cynical asset-stripper - neither of them being a situation which we find ourselves in. Don't get me wrong, I think our ST are doing terrific work, and one day we may be grateful for a safety net if things go tits up, but there's no indication of that happening. And in the absence of that, I would strongly resist any attempt by the Suppporters' Trust to actually take BCFC over, because I don't believe it's in our best interests as it stifles success. Which is why I pay my £1 a month to the ST but do not, as a matter of principle, contribute at a higher level where the money goes towards buying shares in the club. I admire the individuals who are active within it, I like what they are doing to help the club and it's supporters and want to encourage their work, but would hate the ST to actually be in control of the club.

I think your view of Supporters Trusts is somewhat tarnished by the fact they are a relatively new phenomenon in this country and thus do not yet have the level of expertise that you perceive to be necessary to run a football club.

It is clearly only obvious that the likes of Brentford are not going to compete with ManU or Chelsea - when did they ever. I don't see any of the Supporters Trust managed teams being in a much different position than they have been for the past 100 years. If Brentford fans feel that they're being run by amateurs, mayble they just haven't got the right ones yet, because I don't associate that word with the members of our Trust or their achievements.

On the other hand, what happened to Wimbledon? They were owned by a succession of individuals and conglomerates, and look what happened to them - ask their supporters what they think of Supporters Trusts, I suspect you would be given a different answer to the Brentford fans. Ditto Leeds. Then again, they deserve their chairmen and owners of the past few years...

It may be true to say that a Supporters Trust owned team will not be able to compete financially or attract the same level of investment as a club owned by one of the multitude of Yanks which now own our British teams. So how about this. A football league rule which stipulates that all football teams are owned by Supporters Trusts - that puts them all on the same playing field. The product would be the same, the most well supported teams in the biggest cities will inevitably remain at the top, but at least the game would be returned to the fans. Look at Man United - the most succesful team in the country over the past 20 years, yet 2 or 3,000 of their fans have turned their back on them since the Glazer takeover and now support an independent Man United team instead.

The much-needed investment you refer to, well, if all clubs were owned by Supporters Trusts, in conjunction with a football league system that developed the grass roots of the game rather than channelling all the money into the hands of the 500 or so millionaires in the Premiership, well, how relevant would outside investment be?

You see Supporters Trusts in their present form and think they are unworkable, but what about if they were developed along the Spanish model, which sees for example Barcelona owned by its 120,000 members. I think it is true that for an individual to sit on their board he must put up a deposit of something like a million Euros or something similar, but there are something like 20 of them I believe so no one individual dictates how the club is run.

I'm not saying that all of my points are correct or the way forward, I'm just making them up as I go along in answer to your post, but I think plenty of ideas could be thrown into the air which would be a lot more satisfactory than the current system, by which I mean football in general not just Bristol City.

[RedTop]

But Nick, we are dealing with the real world here. Dreaming up new world orders for football is all very well, but in real life one of the things that a board needs to run a club successfully - particularly one like City which frankly has supporters whose ambitions outweigh the club's actual position - is money to invest. Especially as banks are more likely to loan to small African countries these days than to football clubs. One outcome of having an ST run a football league club is that the club is starved of money, because despite the best intentions, none of the people involved have the sort of cash that is needed to bankroll the club and take it forward. And how many people who do have that sort of money are willing to give money unless they had a say in how it is used? Certainly not our ST, which has a deal that means it can agree what money from the shares it buys is spent on.

So what makes people think an investor would be happy to throw money at the club, then let someone else decide how it's spent? Why should he? In the real world, he's going to go somewhere where he not only knows the money will be well used, but can control where it goes. People don't get to be well off by giving their money to other people to play around with. They want to be in control, and I don't blame them. It's natural.

Like I say, this isn't a diatribe about our ST because I am genuinely full of admiration for those behind it, and I admire anyone who gets off their backside and tries to do something positive rather than sitting behind a keyboard whinging about 'their club'. It's just an explanation of why I would not like a Supporters' Trust to actually take over our club. Should the ST do what it can to put the case of the fans? Yes. Sit in on the board and even have a vote? Fine. But take control and run the club? No thank you. Give me someone who not only has an affection for the club but can also add business acumen and money to invest every time.

[NickJ]

But Nick, we are dealing with the real world here. Dreaming up new world orders for football is all very well, but in real life one of the things that a board needs to run a club successfully - particularly one like City which frankly has supporters whose ambitions outweigh the club's actual position - is money to invest. Especially as banks are more likely to loan to small African countries these days than to football clubs. One outcome of having an ST run a football league club is that the club is starved of money, because despite the best intentions, none of the people involved have the sort of cash that is needed to bankroll the club and take it forward. And how many people who do have that sort of money are willing to give money unless they had a say in how it is used? Certainly not our ST, which has a deal that means it can agree what money from the shares it buys is spent on.

So what makes people think an investor would be happy to throw money at the club, then let someone else decide how it's spent? Why should he? In the real world, he's going to go somewhere where he not only knows the money will be well used, but can control where it goes. People don't get to be well off by giving their money to other people to play around with. They want to be in control, and I don't blame them. It's natural.

Like I say, this isn't a diatribe about our ST because I am genuinely full of admiration for those behind it, and I admire anyone who gets off their backside and tries to do something positive rather than sitting behind a keyboard whinging about 'their club'. It's just an explanation of why I would not like a Supporters' Trust to actually take over our club. Should the ST do what it can to put the case of the fans? Yes. Sit in on the board and even have a vote? Fine. But take control and run the club? No thank you. Give me someone who not only has an affection for the club but can also add business acumen and money to invest every time.

Brian I'm just throwing some thoughts into the air. I said before that Supporters Trusts are 100 years too late. But in answer to your second sentence I thought I had succesfully demonstrated how and why football clubs could and should be self financing without the need for investment by well off individuals - indeed that is the model which Steve aspires to for Bristol City.

So most of the remainder of your first para, and all of the second, is superfluous.

The only exception I would make to that is if an individual donates money to his club, as opposed to making loans or putting in more and more share capital with the expectation of achieving a return at least equivalent to that investment.

Having been to a few of the ST meetings, I don't think they have any real ambitions to take over the club, even IF that were remotely realistic. But it seems to me that all football clubs get into trouble now and again - I bet there are very few over the past 40 years that have not had serious financial problems - and that has often been because of over investment by individuals who then decide to pull the plug. Therefore the very outside investment that you think is so necessary is very often the cause of the problem rather than the solution.

As you say, we do not have that situation at Bristol City, and I don't think we are likely to for a very long time, but the observation as I said before is relevant to football in general not Bristol City.

[RedTop]

Brian I'm just throwing some thoughts into the air. I said before that Supporters Trusts are 100 years too late. But in answer to your second sentence I thought I had succesfully demonstrated how and why football clubs could and should be self financing without the need for investment by well off individuals - indeed that is the model which Steve aspires to for Bristol City.

So most of the remainder of your first para, and all of the second, is superfluous.

The only exception I would make to that is if an individual donates money to his club, as opposed to making loans or putting in more and more share capital with the expectation of achieving a return at least equivalent to that investment.

Having been to a few of the ST meetings, I don't think they have any real ambitions to take over the club, even IF that were remotely realistic. But it seems to me that all football clubs get into trouble now and again - I bet there are very few over the past 40 years that have not had serious financial problems - and that has often been because of over investment by individuals who then decide to pull the plug. Therefore the very outside investment that you think is so necessary is very often the cause of the problem rather than the solution.

As you say, we do not have that situation at Bristol City, and I don't think we are likely to for a very long time, but the observation as I said before is relevant to football in general not Bristol City.

What you say is fair enough. Bear in mind, though, that our directors have donated money to the club in the past as well as 'invested' it. If you 'invest' millions, though, you still want to oversee it and make sure it is being properly used. It's common sense.

I've always said that my biggest criticism of SteveL is that I think he is not tight enough with the purse strings. I agree with you that the club needs to be run in a business-like manner in terms of the bottom line. If I had my way, the kitty for transfer fees would be zero, as I've said again and again, because I don't believe the club can afford it, and I place the club's ability to survive if the board were to walk away tomorrow - which I am sure they would not do - above any short-term success. It's for this reason that I would vehemently oppose the selling of Ashton Gate, which remains our major asset, and why I believe that investing in a City-onmed training facility which would bring another tangible asset to the table, is such a great idea for our long-term prospects

The problem, regardless of who is in charge, is the fans' expectations. The chairman will always have to weigh business sense against pressure to 'speculate to accumulate' from fans who want to see big signings etc, and will face accusations that they lack ambition if they do not accede. That would not go away if an ST ran the club - all that would happen is that the flexibility of having someone with money to pick up the pieces would leave the club in a more fragile state if there were unforeseen or unforeseeable difficulties.

I agree with you, though that we are unlikely to have problems in regards to who owns us for a long time yet.

[NickJ]

What you say is fair enough. Bear in mind, though, that our directors have donated money to the club in the past as well as 'invested' it. If you 'invest' millions, though, you still want to oversee it and make sure it is being properly used. It's common sense.

I've always said that my biggest criticism of SteveL is that I think he is not tight enough with the purse strings. I agree with you that the club needs to be run in a business-like manner in terms of the bottom line. If I had my way, the kitty for transfer fees would be zero, as I've said again and again, because I don't believe the club can afford it, and I place the club's ability to survive if the board were to walk away tomorrow - which I am sure they would not do - above any short-term success. It's for this reason that I would vehemently oppose the selling of Ashton Gate, which remains our major asset, and why I believe that investing in a City-onmed training facility which would bring another tangible asset to the table, is such a great idea for our long-term prospects

The problem, regardless of who is in charge, is the fans' expectations. The chairman will always have to weigh business sense against pressure to 'speculate to accumulate' from fans who want to see big signings etc, and will face accusations that they lack ambition if they do not accede. That would not go away if an ST ran the club - all that would happen is that the flexibility of having someone with money to pick up the pieces would leave the club in a more fragile state if there were unforeseen or unforeseeable difficulties.

I agree with you, though that we are unlikely to have problems in regards to who owns us for a long time yet.

This really is quite frustrating.

I've just spent 2 days debating with you only to find that I agree with everything you just said.

Especially, as many people will know, the bit about selling Ashton Gate.