Jump to content

BrigtonClyde

Gold Members
  • Posts

    1,004
  • Joined

Reputation

612 Excellent

Profile Information

  • My Team
    Clyde

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. By deflection, do you mean "Hi boys and girls, if you thought the result on Saturday was woeful, wait & you see the fucking shitehole we're going to" ...that kind of deflection ?
  2. That team ended up mid table of the old Division 2 that season due to results like that. It was the following season he had a big clearout, new blood in & they won the league by a record number of points at the time. "Decent" certainly in comparison to the dross that's been served up for the majority of the past 15 years due to project austerity, the conversion of the club into a model not fit for purpose & priority focus on yet another failed relocation. Agreed however on the general point. What existing community just waiting to embrace the club exactly (even if they knew this time how to learn from the mistakes made in Cumbernauld) ? The only chance was a link in to Rutherglen where there are at least some historic ties with a community which historically has always seen itself with a bit of a separate identity. It's also expanded in size since Clyde left, and of course the immediate area around the old home has undergone a lot of new redevelopment and continues to do so. Never seriously looked at because it was Crownpoint or nothing, and everyone had to be singing from the same hymn sheet. Now left scrambling around, kicking it anywhere, hopeful of anything with a G postcode & then come up with a false narrative that the club have any realistic links with whatever the next target area is, absolutely abysmal.
  3. Familiar sounding story in terms of using Covid to pull the trigger. That does sound a fair bit of usage. Linn Park Golf Course is another. Got the full story from locals there, same idea, it's been shut since Covid but the drums were beating before that. GCC are legally bound to maintain that up to a point it doesn't grow wild, but not to an actual course standard That was another traditionally pretty well used but again can only assume budgets mean they're absolutely screwed. They're literally begging to get rid & I hear most councils are the same I know Fleshers Haugh well obviously. The 5 a sides are always really busy. It did seem the hockey pitch was pretty well used, often saw the lights on. The least used are the grass pitches, weekends only at best, only during the football season. If it's true about the hockey place, can only assume Glasgow Life view the maintenance of the grass pitches less cost wise, because if it was down to usage alone, it's be those that are up for grabs. Does seem strange one.
  4. It's not true to say it's absolutely impossible, but due to multiple "events", less likely unfortunately. The current owners recently changed the name of the parent company for presentation purposes to bring it in line with the other regeneration projects happening there - although their sole interest is making money as opposed to the spirit of helping the area. They have published their plans for the site, but there's already been a substantial number of objections to it and still requires planning permission from SLC who already told them they'd need to fund and proceed with decontamination of the site before any building could take place. Could be they've decided to bite the bullet and accept that liability as part of their plan given they weren't made any other realistic or recent offers to buy them out. What they plan is the last thing the area needs, an area where over the past few decades more and more public pitches were sold off and are now built on. It could still be possible to propose a community use stadium as a joint project with SLC and others - that would involve picking the phone up finally to them to at least discuss feasibility - but unfortunately it's likely too much time has been wasted and the horse has bolted. In terms of land available for a good sized development and feasible communities to buy into, it remains the best option by miles, so it'll likely end up being a waste of an opportunity for the football club and community.
  5. Wasn't aware the usage was as high as that, but fair enough. The issue here for GCC and all other councils as has been well publicised in the media is they're basically rooked. They're struggling to meet the running costs of the vast majority of their sports facilities. COVID in some cases was a handy situation for them to permanently close down a few they had in mind anyway. Last year GCC was given a grant of £1m but said it barely scatched the surface, so had to ring fence what they viewed as the few priorties (would assume Toryglen is one of them), with just about everything else up for grabs. Bit surprised the hockey centre would be potentially up for grabs given the development there and from what you're saying the level of usage, but that's the reality. Out of interest, you say it was fully booked up until COVID. Is that not the case now, and if not is there a reason for that, or is it GCC who just decided not to re-open it ?
  6. I can understand the reason people think this, but it's a misconception. They're a million miles from being basically one in the same. They're two completely separate legal entities with completely different operations and purposes. The CCF is a charity who under their charter have to operate in a way that is for the wider public benefit, they couldn't be seen to be operating primarily for the benefit of a private company like Clyde FC CIC. If they changed their name today to something like "The Football For All Community Foundation" it would be just as accurate in terms of their actual day to day purpose and operation. Of course I know who set it up, but in that sense there's a closer comparison to Clyde FC / The Greyhound Racing Company, although the latter obviously had a completely different purpose and operation to the CCF, but the relationship between the two is closer. This is why on the club's own website they accurately explained that if the CCF did take over a facility, Clyde FC CIC would in effect be their tennants. The CCF operate almost like for like as Glasgow Life themselves do, and is exactly the reason it was the CCF who put in the proposal as they hoped it would be viewed as seemless transfer. The issue was the specific use of the existing football facility, and under the proposals whether the public would have the same kind of access as they do now. Finnart's proposal is an enhanced version of what's there now. Ownership by a private organization throws up more questions. That said, given councils are struggling with maintenance resources, had CCF put in a bid that did not include an accomodation for Clyde FC CIC, chances are they would have been successful, because unlike Finnart's proposal, that would have removed all of the running costs from GCC.
  7. Rutherglen came under GCC administrative control in 1975 until 1996 when it was switched to SLC. Clyde left Shawfield in 1986. Originally formed in 1877 when they played directly across the river at Barrowfield, Glasgow, until 1898 But in terms of the longest term roots within a community, the largest would be Rutherglen irrespective which region it came under
  8. On this post here, just to clarify at the outset I don't know anything about a possible takeover, exactly who is involved, I could care less now in any case and from the sounds of it people would be getting a choice of sticking with existing heart disease or exchanging that for malaria just for the novelty value. But on a couple things you've said here CT. First of all with the specific proposal on Crownpoint, I've yet to see anything about it that would give rise to optimism that it could provide a prosperous future, relating to the lack of a community and the very restrictive logistics of any potential build. The Board haven't stated this either, what they have said is that by comparison to the t&c's they had at Broadwood, they felt that Crownpoint's potential would bring them onto more of a level playing field to compete with the likes of Montrose - I'm quoting at least one interview here. Secondly regarding Shawfield. That's not entirely accurate. The burn flows well west of the stadium. The problem is caused by the false embankment built with contaminated soil from J White's works that formed the terracing. Queen's Park recently found a similar issue when re-developing Lesser Hampden. White's were dumping that stuff everywhere over a very large area. The problem isn't so much if it's left alone - albeit it's true it did get into the burn that travelled at the back of the now flattened Arnold Clark's - it's if the ground is disturbed. It's why Clyde Gateway have spent north of £20 million cleaning large areas of the earmarked development before they could even think about building anything, using a dilution system. This is the problem the King's have encountered in gaining approval for developing housing, they would have to incur the cost of cleaning it first which they're not exactly keen on. The blueprint for any possible return would be the TopGolf development at Farme Cross, a mix of private and public partnership involving SLC, Clyde Gateway, and various government bodies that would ultimately provide a community use stadium as well as what is required for a professional football club. There was never an attempt to at least look into this option because it was decided a couple of years ago that no other option other than Crownpoint should be the focus. When you've played the long game in setting up a pseudo charity for the specific purpose of being in a position to then use that in the bidding process, motivation to look at anything else evaporates. Either way, however it turns out, the best of luck with everything.
  9. SLC raises a good point. For clarification : The proposal submitted was by The Clyde FC Community Foundation, a charity registered as a PLC in the form of a limited liability company. As such, they are a completely separate legal entity from The Clyde Football Club CIC, with a completely different operational remit to provide sporting activities, opportunities and facilities for the wider public. Very similar in nature to Glasgow Life which is why it was the Foundation who submitted the proposal and not the football club. The Foundation have applied for a Community Asset Transfer. There’s various forms of those, but we’ll assume it’s for full ownership. If successful, the Foundation would own all of the land within the complex, and would be charged with the running of all of those facilities. As a charity, any revenue generated by them could not legally be siphoned off to the benefit of the football club. Effectively the only link between the two organisations is the ex directors of one set up the other and one individual is currently a director of both, but in a legal and practical operational sense, they are completely separate entities. If the Foundation is successful, the proposal then has an accommodation built in for The Clyde Football Club CIC to have use of the existing football pitch. But presumably there would then have to be a legally binding agreement in place between the two outlining ownership of the land, responsibility of sourcing funding for and ownership of the bricks and mortar, terms of usage – whether for example the facility must be made available for wider community use, and if so would the club be permitted to earn from that under the terms agreed between the Foundation and Glasgow Life (GCC), responsibility for running costs, and also the specifics around any lease / rental agreement reached between the Foundation and club in terms of years. This is where it’s not only relevant to the point raised by SLC, but also the underlining argument that for the club to prosper in the future, they must own their own ground. It’ll be those specific details which will indicate the likelihood of that being a possibility.
  10. You're thinking about his nephew As per Companies House....interesting 'companies' incidentally....the 3 in question are a bookmaker, a primary school teacher and a secretary Chromium kicked their housing plans into touch. The idea that in principle they're not willing to sell is laughable. Who they're willing to pick the phone up to is another matter.
  11. Aye, as own goals go, the lad Scullion's yesterday was right up there with the idea of ever going to that fucking shitehole. The day the ex chairman returned, this club nosedived. f**k him and his lackeys. Best of luck to Finnart
  12. Absolutely nailed it on the head and now the few regulars left on P&B left have their pound of flesh. But let's take that at face value, the argument for responsibility, performance and results. That's reasonable. But let's see if the same individuals are willing to be consistent, apply the same tests in terms of checks and balances to those who have run the club for the past 15 years. The catalogue of disastrous decisions, the public commitment to leave an area without an alternative in place and therefore alienate a community, the culture of blame everything and everyone else for dire failure in the hopes it detracts from a lack of ability, the fact that the club are yet again homeless but spun somehow that this is a success with a feelgood factor, the admission that the desire to have a ground of our own may or may not provide a future to be enthusiastic about but on the balance of probability, the hunch is it might do without any vision, planning or market research presented whatsoever, and ultimately a preferred future option declared that would be generous to describe as Lowland League standard at best. If it's about responsibility and results, that's reasonable, but at least apply it evenly otherwise you're clearly on manoeuvres. You've been warned about this for years
  13. Really, & how did you work that one out son ? How the f**k would you know what the majority of Clyde fans think about anything, you just picked that number out of thin air and presented it as a reasonable estimate ? Know you've history for making random allegations against supporters for this that & the next thing without any evidence to back it up, but seriously, pull your neck in & give it a rest for once.
  14. Get these 16 fingered bumpkins pumped Clyde Hopefully the guy who used to shout "Dun-ferm-line" followed by the Tarzan call is in attendance. Stevie Morrison to score a hat-trick for both sides in a 5-5 draw
×
×
  • Create New...