Championship play-offs: Sheff Utd go 4-0 up on aggregate against Bristol City
Bristol City strategy to 'carry on' - Lansdown
HT: Sheff Utd 1-0 Bristol City (4-0 agg)
To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
This video can not be played
Media caption,
Steve Lansdown talks to 'Sound of the City' ahead of Bristol City's play off semi final.
Bristol City owner Steve Lansdown has been speaking to BBC Radio Bristol just before kick-off this evening and has said the club will "carry on" with their current transfer strategy this summer, despite reaching the play-offs for the first time in 17 years.
Lansdown confirmed the club did need to strengthen this summer, particularly in the forwards, but would not "go wild".
"I think we carry on doing exactly what we're doing. We look to keep developing the youngsters through the academy, giving them the opportunity, the pathway." he said.
"We'll look to keep our recruitment looking for value for money there in the market place.
"There are one or two positions we want to fill - it's fair to say we need somebody up front so we will be in the market looking for players - but we're not going to go wild on that basis. We'll going to keep doing what we're doing because we're doing it very well indeed."
You can listen above to Lansdown's interview or read more here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
10 minutes ago
- Daily Record
BBC licence fee cost may now be determined by value of house in new proposal
BBC Chairman Samir Shah has suggested that the current fee of £174.50 should be revised for some households. TV license fees may start increasing based on the value of your home, as proposed by a BBC boss. Charmain Samir Shah has urged that the £174.50 fee be scrapped to make way for a progressive payment structure that is based on assets. Speaking in an interview earlier this year, Mr Shah explained the fee would be tied to property bands and collected at the same time as council tax, which would come as his first major shake-up since taking over from Richard Sharp. He also shut down speculation that the TV licence would be scrapped for a Netflix subscription-style service, stating that it would "not meet the BBC's key role to offer something for everyone in the country.' Viewers living in higher council tax bands would pay more for BBC service while those in lower bands may end up paying less than the current rate. Those who opt out of paying a TV licence would no longer be able to do so. The chairman believes this policy would reduce the need to prosecute people for not paying. He told The Sunday Times: "It gets rid of the enforcement issue, which is a problem. The idea that not paying the licence fee is a criminal offence seems too harsh." In Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, where there is no Council Tax, an alternative would have to be implemented. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy may also be open to it, having described the current model as "harder for poorer households to pay". In the interview, he answered questions about changing the model of the BBC and rejected the proposal of a hybrid structure, which would see the broadcaster offering its basic services such as news for free and charging for content like drama or comedy series. He continued to say that the advertising on the BBC would "kill off ITV", and dismissed the idea that the broadcaster should be funded solely by general taxation because it would "leave the BBC open to influence from the government of the day". Samir Shah, 73, took over as BBC chairman in February 2024 after he replaced Richard Sharp, who resigned in April 2023. At the moment, although there are concessions or free licences for certain groups, such as those over 75 who receive Pension Credit, the licence fee does not take personal assets into consideration. The standard fee is charged at £174.50 per annum with a reduced rate of £58.50 for black and white subscriptions. For viewers who are blind or severely sight-impaired, a 50% discount is available, bringing the cost down to £87.25.
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Palace co-owner John Textor would sell shares for Europa League chance
Crystal Palace co-owner John Textor is willing to sell his shares in the club in order to ensure the Eagles can enter next season's Europa League, according to reports. The American, whose Eagle Football Group owns 43 per cent of Palace, has imperilled the club's chance of a first-ever European campaign owing to his involvement with Ligue 1 side Lyon, but is ready to offload his stake to his fellow co-owners in order to bring the saga to an end. UEFA does not allow clubs with the same ownership to compete in the same European competitions in a season. As well as his stake in Palace, the 59-year-old has a controlling stake in the French club, also via Eagle Football. However it is also reported that the European governing body does not consider Textor's influence at Selhurst Park to be decisive and is leaning towards allowing the club into the Europa League regardless. The PA news agency understands no formal decision is likely on Palace's fate until the end of June. Textor has previously spoken of his frustration at how little influence his stake entitles him to, over football matters. Victory for Oliver Glasner's side over Manchester City in last month's FA Cup final gave them their first major trophy and with it a first crack at Europe. However, Nottingham Forest have since written to UEFA to challenge Palace's Europa League spot and in the hope of taking their place. Forest's owner Evangelos Marinakis, who also owns Greek side Olympiacos, placed his shares in the club in a blind trust before the governing body's March 1 deadline, anticipating Nuno Espirito Santo's side's European qualification. At present Forest, who finished seventh in last season's Premier League, are set to enter the Conference League but would take Palace's Europa League place, should they be deemed ineligible.
Times
16 minutes ago
- Times
Fact check: how accurate are Rachel Reeves's spending figures?
'The chancellor's speech was full of numbers, few of them useful,' said Paul Johnson, the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Reeves's speech was political to the core — and that extended to her use of statistics. The chancellor appears to have used whichever numbers best suited her position, predominantly to inflate the scale of the government's spending plans. She used bigger, cumulative figures to highlight the scale of investments, rather than annual numbers, and cash increases stripped of their context. She also used Tory spending plans from before the election, which never came to pass, as the baseline for the biggest numbers in her speech. When it did not suit her she ignored the Tory spending plans. While none of the figures are technically inaccurate, economists argue that they are a statistical sleight of hand and that Reeves would be better off being consistent in her use of numbers. Spending going up The claim: The first number in Reeves's speech — bar her obligatory reference to the £22 billion 'black hole' she claims to have been left by the Tories — was the boast that 'in this spending review, total departmental budgets will grow by 2.3 per cent per year in real terms'. The reality: This figure includes spending announced at the budget last year, where there were some of the biggest increases. Over the next three years, total spending — combining day-to-day and investment — will increase by 1.5 per cent. Day-to-day spending will rise by 1.2 per cent a year for the rest of the parliament, about half the rate it rose this year. • More for public services The claim: Reeves promised to add '£190 billion more to the day-to-day running of our public services' as well as an extra £113 billion to public investment. The reality: This is a comparison with previous Conservative plans — dismissed as 'essentially fictitious' by Johnson — drawn up before the election to set a trap for Labour and allow Rishi Sunak to promise tax cuts. The Tory plans envisioned day-to-day spending rising by only about 1 per cent a year, and big cuts in capital spending. Reeves reversed these by changing her fiscal rules to allow more borrowing and is increasing infrastructure spending. But on an annual basis, capital spending will be £151.9 billion in 2029-30, £20.6 billion more in cash terms than it is now. Day-to-day spending will rise by £50.7 billion by 2028-29. More for schools The claim: Reeves said she was providing a 'cash uplift' of more than £4.5 billion for schools by the end of the spending review period. The reality: Context is everything. The Treasury concedes in the small print that the core budget for schools will rise by 0.4 per cent over the next three years. It says that when the cost of expanding free school meals is stripped out of the figures 'you get a real-terms freeze in the budget'. • Rachel Reeves is testing voters' patience … she needs results Backing innovation The claim: Reeves declared that the government was 'backing [Britain's] innovators, researchers and entrepreneurs' with research and development funding rising to a 'record high of £22 billion per year by the end of the spending review'. In a press release the government said that spending on research and development was £86 billion. The reality: Despite the rhetoric, this spending pledge represents a significant scaling back of the government's investment ambitions in research and development. The previous government pledged to hit the £22 billion target by this year and then delayed it until 2027. This target has now been put back even further to 2029. Indeed, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology's budget will barely rise at all next year — far from the rhetoric of Reeves's statement. The £86 billion referred to in government press releases is a cumulative figure. More for social housing The claim: Reeves boasted of 'the biggest cash injection into social and affordable housing in 50 years', saying this would total £39 billion over ten years. The reality: The figure would represent almost a doubling of the £2.3 billion affordable homes programme. However, this spending ramps up slowly, reaching just £4 billion a year by the end of the parliament, leaving it to future chancellors to find ways of maintaining the spending. The overall capital budget for the housing ministry is actually flat over the spending review, with ministers relying on savings elsewhere — especially a reduction in the capital costs to councils of homes for asylum seekers. If these savings fail to materialise, painful decisions will be needed. NHS spending The claim: With health the big winner, Reeves boasted of 'an extra £29 billion per year for the day-to-day running of the health service' along with a 50 per cent boost in the NHS technology budget. The reality: The £29 billion figure is for NHS England specifically, and its budget will rise by 3 per cent a year in real terms, within a 2.8 per cent per year overall Department of Health rise. Capital budgets were increased last year but will be held flat for the rest of this parliament. Increasing technology spending further will therefore come at the cost of crumbling buildings or modern scanners and other kit. NHS leaders are already saying they will find it harder to shift to more modern, efficient treatments without extra equipment and buildings. Efficiency savings The claim: Reeves said the government had carried out a zero-based review of all government spending that would make public services 'more efficient and more productive' and, according to the Treasury, save £13 billion a year by 2029. The reality: These savings are, to put it charitably, extremely hypothetical and in some cases seem wildly optimistic. The NHS, the government thinks, will save nearly £9 billion from higher productivity — despite the fact that the health service has got less rather than more productive since Covid. And the culture department thinks it will save £9 million from 'digital reform' — despite the fact that the MoD, which is a much larger organisation, only thinks it can save £11 million. Overall the savings appear, at best, to be highly aspirational. But if they are not met, it will have a real-world impact on the amount of money the government has for public services.
