Thetownend.com

PS is a more than competent football manager who builds his teams on trust with his players and gets them playing well for him; you've only got to look at the improvement in the team this season- apart from Sunday that is. That's why he didn't start with his best team on sunday so as to keep faith will the present players. I'm  sure that he knew he wasn't starting with his best possible team. This will however probably turn out to be a selection too far for him and not at all how JL looks at things.

JL is a youngish slightly brash American for whom success is everything. There is nothing wrong with this of course but it's probably why he's kept PS out of the picture as he's only a hired hand and JL's the guy with the money who calls the shots and decides on the management structure; shortsighted and demeaning to PS, but very American and that's partly why they're so successful.

I think that JL's approach and method is more likely to get success for STFC long term than Sturrocks. I was appalled when the team was announced on Sunday; It was time to start winning games. I expected at least JPM and Simon Cox to start and thought Sturrocks attitude was quixotic at least and foolhardy at best. If those two had a full game I doubt that we would have lost.

Whilst on the subject why is PS always so late with his subs? PS can assemble a good team, is  good as a manager and a gentleman but is he not best for the lower leagues and not wholly proven in the higher leagues? Surely that's where we would prefer to be? JL's got us Viera who has a fantastic record and is a proven winner. What about a few gifted continentals joining in January? The only blot on the horizon is that JL I think has said that he will keep the new Stadium with Best Holdings rather than STFC but again it's his money. Already JL has started talking about the premiership and it's clear he means business. When did we last have a Chairman who talked about Div 1 when we were in Div 3?

So what do you prefer for your football Club Old World or New World?

Still debating it.

He probably didn't change the line-up as the team were unbeaten thus far. If you remember last year bringing in a whole load of players at the end of the season provided new impetus to those already playing and it was those players that got us promoted, not Grimes, James et al.

I don't see Little as brash although admittedly that is a traditional description to throw at any American. Sucess is obviously important but it's how success is measured that the fans will care about. If success means making a decent return on investment first and foremost then footballing achievement will not be the priority although some will argue that these go hand in hand. As Sturrock says everyone needs to be singing from the same hymn sheet.

I don't know how you can make conjecture about how sucessful Little's approach and methodology will be in the long-term. It is largely an unknown quantity at this stage. While I'm prepared to give everyone a fair chance, if your asking me who I would plump for today, I would have to say that I prefer Sturrock's tried and tested management, his integrity, honesty and transparency rather than a new regime that I'm not too sure about.

Shame Luggy's not got a few spare miillion quid in his bank.

I like Sturrock as a manager but that's all he is.

The new owners have put their money in and have therefore got the right to decide on the direction the club goes.

If that means saying goodbye to Sturrock it will be a pity.

But it won't be the end of the world.............

All fair points.

I just hope our football club isn't turned into a vehicle we no longer recognise, only time will tell.

hmmmmmm, new world.

I'll compramise and settle for New Order. Shame that won't happen as Hooky and Barnie fell out again and they've split for a second time. Still at least I got to see them live once at Reading..I was jumping up and down then.

What was the question again?

Incidently I was having a conversation about Reading and the Premiership with pissed MrFlemming on Sunday. Would we be happier if we 'did a Reading'. Undecided really. Watching the best teams compete is great and all that, but it comes at a cost. Prices go up, seats are harder to get and the only thing a team outside the big 6 can hope for is survival and perhaps a euro spot if lucky.

Even a chelsea season ticket holding mate gave it up this season, cost and 'been there done that' factors mainly, he wasn't enjoying it as much as the old days.

China Kitchen for me....

I happy to admit I dont understand this thread :?

If Sturrock is happy to work with these people then great i would love him to stay.

If sacrificing sturrock though for financial stability and new stadium etc then i think i would prefer that rather than a manager who is not happy and not really putting in a 100%(im not saying thats what i think is happening) .

A mate of mine who does not support town but knows alot about football said to me earlier that this veiga has been hugely succesful wherever he has been and he thinks exiting times lie ahead for us, He also said that there is no doubt that he is a dodgy character but i suppose 99% of football club owners all are these days

The concern will be if the new stadium stays with Best Holdings rather than owned by the FC, so in 5 years time they sell up but still own the ground so the FC get's no profit from the ground as it all goes to Best Holdings how can the FC proposer ?

Then things haven't got any worse have they?

The ground's owned by Swindon council anyway

He brought on Mc Govern and Cox with 35 mins to play and Paynter with 20 mins to play on Sunday so I would disagree he brings on subs late.

Not necessarily true, ask Oxford. We will have blown the oppertunity of a ground redevelopment to benefit the FC. Once done, it's done. We can never go back.

In my book FC get stadium, investors make £££ from assoiciated other redevelopment (shops, housing, whatever) = good

New stadium get build, investors make £££ from assoiciated other redevelopment (shops, housing whatever) AND hold all rights to stadium real estate and revenue streams = bad (if they leave).

All ifs and buts though.

I think thats about the earliest he ever brought subs on, stfc

I agree Power to people if STFC doesn't get to own the new Stadium it is a real drawback.

I'm fairly sure Little said in his radio interview that Best Holdings would own it and the Club"would get the profits". Not the same thing at all though.
Little has this habit of sometimes talking very fast in interviews; maybe to blur unpalatable facts!

Surely the question of who owns the ground is a moot point anyway?

It only becomes relevent if Best Holdings sold the club, but retained the stadium.

But I think we should worry about now, to save time.

Which is exactly what Oxford fans did when Kassam promised them a shiny new stadium - only to realise too late they'd been kippered.

I understand what you're saying Paul, but surely as Best Holdings would own the club and the stadium, until they sell the club, we wouldn't know what they're going to do. If they are planning to retain the stadium after they relinquish control of the club they're hardly likely to tell anyone and if they aren't there's nothing to worry about.

See where you're coming from, but it's stuff like this that will be key to how we should judge whether the deal on the stadium at least is going to be a good one for the club's long-term future - even if Best Holdings do retain ownership but, say, the club have a long-term lease at a capped rent set against inflation and written in share in revenue streams, then that would go a long way to providing stability for the club's future. Whereas if, a la Kassam, the club ends up with nothing and the owners can sell or keep the ground, associated development and the rights to all revenue streams, leaving the club only with the right to pay huge rents which can be inflated at a whim or buy "their" ground at a vast profit, then it don't look so good. No-one objects to the owners/investors making a decent wedge out of any such deal - that's how you attract investment - but it has to provide the club with long-term security and protection as well.

But certainly until we know what the proposal is, we can't start putting out the bunting/handing out the pitchforks. Suspect we'll start to see more coming out over the next few weeks once the takeover is actually done.

If the new people owned both the club and the ground as separate assets, would there be anything to stop them using that relationship to syphon money out as rent costs? Or is there legal issues about being your own landlord?

no problems in law, Bristole City operate that way.

Though so Rob, I suppose that's always going to be one of the risks of any ground development. Once your in that situation you can get screwed big time. Unfortunately if we want a new shiney ground then we're probably going to have to leave the relative safety of having the council as landlords at some point.

No, as I see it the Club and Best Holdings are separate legal entities and the one could charge the other a full rent; unless as pauld has just said there are special arrangements legally restricting the rent charged. It all depends on the nature of the agreement/lease.
Obviously,there is the potential for STFC to get stuffed if Best offload the Club later. Would we ever be prior told what the arrangement was?

The question does need to be asked before a development then.

I still don't see how we are worse off. Instead of an aging County Ground, which we don't own, we'll have a brand new (soulless bowl) of a stadium, which we don't own.

Sounds like an improvement to me...

cant see it working out myself. we had a debate at the big H last nite and conclude veiga fancies the job as manager with brevett as his front man.the management set up is continental cant see sturrock being able to work within this set up.

The difference being

1) there would be no constraints on any future owners asset-stripping/raising the rent to unpayable levels to force a ground sale etc whereas at least the council as a public body are partially accountable
2) you only get one chance to do a ground redev in a generation, so you have to do it right
3) the position would be materially worse because the major point of a new stadium is not so much shiny new seats, as securing additional revenue streams which provide a stable base for the rest of the business. At the moment we are a (very badly) failing business but at least with the possibility of securing such a base; remove that and we do not have a long-term future

So if you look at the bigger picture in business terms rather than just the physical aspects, then we could be a lot worse off. However, all of the above can be dealt with quite simply, it just needs building into any new stadium deal is all.

It's all a moot point anyway isn't it ?

The new owners will come out with the plans for a new stadium. They wont mention who will retain ownership if they leave the club - why should they ?

In the nicest possible way it is up to them - no-one else.

80% of the paying public will be happy with a new ground - and the other 20% of us will grumble about who owns it and what potential problems "may" materialise at some distant point in the future....

I know we will continue to pick at every little thing the club does until we "believe" they have done some good but we should already know from the last 2-3 months that the straight answers will not be forthcoming....

Great post Sheepshagger.

Very similar to one I made further up the page.

But in fairness, you did use more words :?