ChapmanBully

HH, this is stoic of you and in a way I admire your optimism. However your allegiance is blinding you to reality. 24 organisations down. No further forward. No definitive insight on progress...how many years down the line and associations with organised criminals. Is this why a "Relocation Committee" was formed of the Board headed by the evergreen and untouchable Mr. Alexander. It's a bigger mess than Hiroshima and some folks actually think they're doing a decent job. If steering a three-time Scottish Cup winning club to it's death is deemed a decent job then the incumbents are positively galactic in their prowess. This is quite simply the most incredible example of mismanagement, incompetence and skullduggery in the history of the Scottish game. I am utterly disgusted and saddened by this demise. And there seems no end to the destruction being wrought at our great club. Never in the field of football conflict was so little done by so few against so many.

"If enough..." indeed. Would you be surprised if that motion were defeated? Seems though that the time is coming for such a motion, whilst potentially deeply divisive, to be the only answer to real progress. Saw today on the Club website that a meeting was held with the SFA on relocation. This must mean that something is about to give. Could Shettleston rear it's ugly, shabby head again? Can you imagine playing at Shettleston Juniors ground in the Lowland League!! Would that be what the Board consider great progress of their tenure and the success of the CIC??

Would it be right to suggest that when the incumbent "taker" decides on who can or can't take the next one then the whole organisation has to accept the monster it has created? Now how do we change the current situation in the short term? Short answer is, you can't. Unless the incumbent steps aside and makes way. For whom? Well it seems some fans (who may or may not be "Members") want to change things. Especially after the debacle of the recent league form. How do they do that? They can't until the next AGM and even then they would need to be "Members". Also it is my understanding, although I can't corroborate such, that the manager, Barry Ferguson, has utilised an average of 30 players a year over the last four years. 120 players in four years? No small business can operate efficiently with such turnover. Mere rhetoric I confess but given the current emanations from the bowels of the club with the manager pulling the strings, both organisationally and financially, that he has never had to answer to the Board for his decisions then the club is in a perilous position with a rudderless and spineless hierarchy. The manager has never had to deliver an operational report to the Board. That's not the fault of the manager but a Board that has lost all sense of formality, operational structure, standards, procedure and in fact proprietary responsibility. But you're right to ask what can be done to change this. Problem is that the Board, whoever that might be, have total control. The CIC is not a operationally viable model. That's why Ferguson is seen to be propping things up and thus untouchable. Speculation abounds but it is hard to argue against the, questionable, evidence.

Were there cash reserves to cover this loss? Or are the "Members" willing to cover the losses? Are you a "Member"?

How many missed penalties would you let one player take before telling him to step aside?

Four failed attempts? More like 24! Shettleston. Benburb. Shawfield. Ashfield. Cuningar. Broadwood. Glencairn. East Kilbride...and I'm led to believe many more.

Didn't the club announce an £80,000+ loss for the last financial year at the latest AGM? That would be considered as debt for a "business" that has little to no revenue.