Sons' sorrow

[BallochSonsFan]

Brabco made the entirely wrong decision to effectively wash their hands of club matters and concentrate solely on the Youngs Farm move. They could, and should, have been exercising far greater control at the club.

They didn't.

That doesn't mean that the club chairmen can blame Brabco for not being on the ball with regards to club finances.

Successive chairmen have run the club like their own personal fiefdom. They've been allowed to do so. The owners have given them far too much freedom and we're now paying for that in the questionable way in which we're run.

[pleslie99]

If we don't address the maintenance issues at the ground what then? Could the spfl theoretically tell us we can't play at our home? Then What? We need to ground share? That would surely cost a whole lot more money that we don't have.

[BallochSonsFan]

If we don't address the maintenance issues at the ground what then? Could the spfl theoretically tell us we can't play at our home? Then What? We need to ground share? That would surely cost a whole lot more money that we don't have.

It wouldn't come to that.

But they could tell us to upgrade our floodlights or put our participation in the Championship in doubt as our floodlights don't meet the division criteria.

We've had a dispensation in the past few years pending the possible move.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Wdc have previous for this with the 3g facility at the Vale academy. It's staffed by wdc but profit goes to BAM. 
Now why should the council spend our 3 quarters of a million on Clydebank and Yoker but not the Sons?  We pay our council tax aswell. Dumbarton fc are nothing to the council for whatever reason. The investment in sports facilities in Clydebank far outstrips that of Dumbarton. New leisure facilities, face-lift on the Clyde, it even has a council run museum for a new town, ancient Dumbarton does not. 
 

3G pitch provision in Clydebank is shocking, local youth teams having to play in Glasgow and Renfrewshire is appalling.
Hopefully the new Holm Park venture will allow the 200 odd kids who play for Clydebanks academy every week to play within the town etc. I think if Dumbarton hadn’t done away with its entire youth structure there would be a very strong argument for similar investment, thats not a dig, just an observation that this development is for wider community use and the ‘stadium’ aspects like new terracing, pie huts, toilets and all the other parts will be funded by other means.

As has been discussed both Clydebank and Yoker will be paying for their lets at the ground, which will be administered by a body where there are 2 bankies, 2 yoker and 2 council reps on it, so it’s not being taken out of council ownership and they will have considerable say on the running still and ultimately still own the ground. Also other non public body funds are required just to make that site safe, the council haven’t even given the clubs enough to put in new changing facilities, this hasn’t been handed on a plate to anyone there are guys who’ve worked tirelessly for over a decade for this and the investment isn’t really even getting them close to it.

The allegations of favouritism around councillors is diminished somewhat when you see that the declining of planning permission for the stadium at goals was what put essentially the final nail in the coffin (albeit a very long drawn out process where the money was stolen by the Steedmans and spent on a soccer camp in the states) which resulted in the club being nomadic. Could it just be that we seem to elect a shower of numpties from both areas to serve on the council, you only have to meet some of them to realise that.

I would have liked to see WDC approve the plans for Dumbarton. Looking at stadium funding options however, a grant from Sportscotland to get a 3g park down is doable as is raising funds for a smaller stand opposite and terracing behind the goals. A 550 seat stand costs around £250,000 (stadium solutions ltd Maidstone stand). That coupled with behind goals terracing (safe standing?) would be more than serviceable. Is that beyond the fundraising capacity of your trust/grants/ sponsors?

The area at Dalmoak is a flood plain as well anyone knows in that area, I have little faith that the entire site would be safe from this regardless what measures were put in place.

The bowling site would have been a good one had both Clydebank and Dumbarton had the foresight to work together on it, a groundshare with a few 3g parks would provide a better outcome, I understand the contamination argument, however I understand there are bigger contamination issues on the land that DFC plans to sell for housing..?

Really hope Dumbarton get something sorted but tit for tat ‘Clydebank got this’ type stuff isn’t helpful, the council are shite for both towns. I’ve got a soft spot for Dumbarton and hope this sparks a fight to change the minds of Brabco and the council over what happens to the club in future.

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

I don't think we'll need to worry about Championship requirements for much longer tbqhwy.

Are the floodlight requirements different for League 1? Would seem a bit odd if they were.

[BallochSonsFan]

I don't think we'll need to worry about Championship requirements for much longer tbqhwy.

Are the floodlight requirements different for League 1? Would seem a bit odd if they were.

They are.

The brightness requirements for league 1 are lower than for the Championship

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

They are.

The brightness requirements for league 1 are lower than for the Championship

That's pretty daft. Why should it be any different? It's the exact same game. I mean you still have League 1 games on TV, albeit maybe not as many, not that that should be a factor.

Out of interest do we meet the requirements for League 1?

[Jan Vojáček]

The stadium being left untouched situation drives me crazy. I think it was even a point I made at the meeting earlier in the season - how can we trust Brabco to build a new stadium when they have neglected our current home for the entire decade they've been in charge?

I'm planning on getting a new car later this year. Does it mean that I leave my current car a mess, don't pump up the tyres when they lose air, and don't fill up the washer fluid? Of course I don't - because I know that something might happen that means I can't buy a new car in a few months, and that might leave me in a sticky situation.

I think the floodlight thing is a nonsense. The requirements should be the same for all four divisions, but that doesn't excuse the fact they've been neglected and that issue has been swept under the carpet for a few years.

Considering they must be relatively astute businessmen (certainly to get into this situation in the first place) it shows a shocking lack of foresight. 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

27 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

3G pitch provision in Clydebank is shocking, local youth teams having to play in Glasgow and Renfrewshire is appalling.
Hopefully the new Holm Park venture will allow the 200 odd kids who play for Clydebanks academy every week to play within the town etc. I think if Dumbarton hadn’t done away with its entire youth structure there would be a very strong argument for similar investment, thats not a dig, just an observation that this development is for wider community use and the ‘stadium’ aspects like new terracing, pie huts, toilets and all the other parts will be funded by other means.

As has been discussed both Clydebank and Yoker will be paying for their lets at the ground, which will be administered by a body where there are 2 bankies, 2 yoker and 2 council reps on it, so it’s not being taken out of council ownership and they will have considerable say on the running still and ultimately still own the ground. Also other non public body funds are required just to make that site safe, the council haven’t even given the clubs enough to put in new changing facilities, this hasn’t been handed on a plate to anyone there are guys who’ve worked tirelessly for over a decade for this and the investment isn’t really even getting them close to it.

The allegations of favouritism around councillors is diminished somewhat when you see that the declining of planning permission for the stadium at goals was what put essentially the final nail in the coffin (albeit a very long drawn out process where the money was stolen by the Steedmans and spent on a soccer camp in the states) which resulted in the club being nomadic. Could it just be that we seem to elect a shower of numpties from both areas to serve on the council, you only have to meet some of them to realise that.

I would have liked to see WDC approve the plans for Dumbarton. Looking at stadium funding options however, a grant from Sportscotland to get a 3g park down is doable as is raising funds for a smaller stand opposite and terracing behind the goals. A 550 seat stand costs around £250,000 (stadium solutions ltd Maidstone stand). That coupled with behind goals terracing (safe standing?) would be more than serviceable. Is that beyond the fundraising capacity of your trust/grants/ sponsors?

The area at Dalmoak is a flood plain as well anyone knows in that area, I have little faith that the entire site would be safe from this regardless what measures were put in place.

The bowling site would have been a good one had both Clydebank and Dumbarton had the foresight to work together on it, a groundshare with a few 3g parks would provide a better outcome, I understand the contamination argument, however I understand there are bigger contamination issues on the land that DFC plans to sell for housing..?

Really hope Dumbarton get something sorted but tit for tat ‘Clydebank got this’ type stuff isn’t helpful, the council are shite for both towns. I’ve got a soft spot for Dumbarton and hope this sparks a fight to change the minds of Brabco and the council over what happens to the club in future.

Thank God, a voice of reason at last.

[BallochSonsFan]

3G pitch provision in Clydebank is shocking, local youth teams having to play in Glasgow and Renfrewshire is appalling.
Hopefully the new Holm Park venture will allow the 200 odd kids who play for Clydebanks academy every week to play within the town etc. I think if Dumbarton hadn’t done away with its entire youth structure there would be a very strong argument for similar investment, thats not a dig, just an observation that this development is for wider community use and the ‘stadium’ aspects like new terracing, pie huts, toilets and all the other parts will be funded by other means.

As has been discussed both Clydebank and Yoker will be paying for their lets at the ground, which will be administered by a body where there are 2 bankies, 2 yoker and 2 council reps on it, so it’s not being taken out of council ownership and they will have considerable say on the running still and ultimately still own the ground. Also other non public body funds are required just to make that site safe, the council haven’t even given the clubs enough to put in new changing facilities, this hasn’t been handed on a plate to anyone there are guys who’ve worked tirelessly for over a decade for this and the investment isn’t really even getting them close to it.

The allegations of favouritism around councillors is diminished somewhat when you see that the declining of planning permission for the stadium at goals was what put essentially the final nail in the coffin (albeit a very long drawn out process where the money was stolen by the Steedmans and spent on a soccer camp in the states) which resulted in the club being nomadic. Could it just be that we seem to elect a shower of numpties from both areas to serve on the council, you only have to meet some of them to realise that.

I would have liked to see WDC approve the plans for Dumbarton. Looking at stadium funding options however, a grant from Sportscotland to get a 3g park down is doable as is raising funds for a smaller stand opposite and terracing behind the goals. A 550 seat stand costs around £250,000 (stadium solutions ltd Maidstone stand). That coupled with behind goals terracing (safe standing?) would be more than serviceable. Is that beyond the fundraising capacity of your trust/grants/ sponsors?

The area at Dalmoak is a flood plain as well anyone knows in that area, I have little faith that the entire site would be safe from this regardless what measures were put in place.

The bowling site would have been a good one had both Clydebank and Dumbarton had the foresight to work together on it, a groundshare with a few 3g parks would provide a better outcome, I understand the contamination argument, however I understand there are bigger contamination issues on the land that DFC plans to sell for housing..?

Really hope Dumbarton get something sorted but tit for tat ‘Clydebank got this’ type stuff isn’t helpful, the council are shite for both towns. I’ve got a soft spot for Dumbarton and hope this sparks a fight to change the minds of Brabco and the council over what happens to the club in future.

Capacity at the current ground isn't really an issue. There is no need for extra stands at the current ground, although concerns over access and parking would make expanding where we are virtually impossible.

In terms of the need for 3g pitches in Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven then it shouldn't matter if it would be independent local clubs or clubs under Dumbarton FC control who would be using them. There's either demand or there isn't.

The proposal clearly has areas of concern. Access to the site was always going to be difficult given the state of the Renton Road. Then there's green belt policy to contend with. It was never an easy sell.

I'm not sure that there's any merit in comparing what happened with the Steedman proposal to move the club with the decision over Youngs Farm. The time between both cases is significant and the political landscape has changed. If there are any similarities between the 2 clubs then its in the provision of community sports pitches. If there's demand in Clydebank then there is certainly demand along the A82. It seems a stretch for a single additional pitch to meet the needs of 200 youth sides.

If the case for the development at Youngs Farm was weak then I do wonder how scrutiny of the case for £750,000 of public investment in Holm Park would look. Would the same case be made for a council investment at Milburn?

[The Moonster]

37 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

3G pitch provision in Clydebank is shocking, local youth teams having to play in Glasgow and Renfrewshire is appalling.
Hopefully the new Holm Park venture will allow the 200 odd kids who play for Clydebanks academy every week to play within the town etc. I think if Dumbarton hadn’t done away with its entire youth structure there would be a very strong argument for similar investment, thats not a dig, just an observation that this development is for wider community use and the ‘stadium’ aspects like new terracing, pie huts, toilets and all the other parts will be funded by other means.

As has been discussed both Clydebank and Yoker will be paying for their lets at the ground, which will be administered by a body where there are 2 bankies, 2 yoker and 2 council reps on it, so it’s not being taken out of council ownership and they will have considerable say on the running still and ultimately still own the ground. Also other non public body funds are required just to make that site safe, the council haven’t even given the clubs enough to put in new changing facilities, this hasn’t been handed on a plate to anyone there are guys who’ve worked tirelessly for over a decade for this and the investment isn’t really even getting them close to it.

The allegations of favouritism around councillors is diminished somewhat when you see that the declining of planning permission for the stadium at goals was what put essentially the final nail in the coffin (albeit a very long drawn out process where the money was stolen by the Steedmans and spent on a soccer camp in the states) which resulted in the club being nomadic. Could it just be that we seem to elect a shower of numpties from both areas to serve on the council, you only have to meet some of them to realise that.

I would have liked to see WDC approve the plans for Dumbarton. Looking at stadium funding options however, a grant from Sportscotland to get a 3g park down is doable as is raising funds for a smaller stand opposite and terracing behind the goals. A 550 seat stand costs around £250,000 (stadium solutions ltd Maidstone stand). That coupled with behind goals terracing (safe standing?) would be more than serviceable. Is that beyond the fundraising capacity of your trust/grants/ sponsors?

The area at Dalmoak is a flood plain as well anyone knows in that area, I have little faith that the entire site would be safe from this regardless what measures were put in place.

The bowling site would have been a good one had both Clydebank and Dumbarton had the foresight to work together on it, a groundshare with a few 3g parks would provide a better outcome, I understand the contamination argument, however I understand there are bigger contamination issues on the land that DFC plans to sell for housing..?

Really hope Dumbarton get something sorted but tit for tat ‘Clydebank got this’ type stuff isn’t helpful, the council are shite for both towns. I’ve got a soft spot for Dumbarton and hope this sparks a fight to change the minds of Brabco and the council over what happens to the club in future.

Agree with most of this, I don't think there is any conspiracy within the council. I would have rejected the plans if I were on the council, I tend to agree that they haven't done anywhere near enough match day impact assessments and the access to the ground was completely pish at best for anyone who doesn't have a car.

I don't think you'd have seen much support from DFC or CFC for a shared ground in Bowling though. Out of both towns and f**k all in the place, genuinely think that would've been an awful move before even considering the work required to the contaminated ground.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Capacity at the current ground isn't really an issue. There is no need for extra stands at the current ground, although concerns over access and parking would make expanding where we are virtually impossible.
- a shallow terrace behind each goal wouldn’t have much of an impact on the footprint of the ground and a smaller stand would allow you to safely meet spl criteria. This wouldn’t impinge too much on the land outside the existing area of the ground. With the parking, its pretty adequate already at the rock, what is evident however is just how badly run the organisation of the car park is, properly managed and planned out the capacity could be increased by re-arranging how cars enter and exit etc.

In terms of the need for 3g pitches in Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven then it shouldn't matter if it would be independent local clubs or clubs under Dumbarton FC control who would be using them. There's either demand or there isn't.
-the thing that drives me crazy about this is the stupid spunking of money on pitches by WDC, at the OLSP and DA sites where they aren’t actually allowed to let them out to sports clubs, why put floodlights on these parks at the costs of tens of thousands in each park if they could never be used? Surely thats what you should be mad at, not money being spent to develop a first class facility at Yoker.

The proposal clearly has areas of concern. Access to the site was always going to be difficult given the state of the Renton Road. Then there's green belt policy to contend with. It was never an easy sell.
- a ground built beside the second fastest river in Scotland fed by its 2nd biggest body of water in an area prone to extensive flooding was a mental idea from the outset. I dont understand why Havoc wasn’t considered given that it’s lying there going to waste and would be easier to develop. Thats before you even consider bowling, an area thats crying out for investment.

I'm not sure that there's any merit in comparing what happened with the Steedman proposal to move the club with the decision over Youngs Farm. The time between both cases is significant and the political landscape has changed.

-yet at the time where its most critical to both clubs, Clydebank in 1996 and Dumbarton in 2018 WDC has let both teams down... thats the comparison.

If there are any similarities between the 2 clubs then its in the provision of community sports pitches. If there's demand in Clydebank then there is certainly demand along the A82. It seems a stretch for a single additional pitch to meet the needs of 200 youth sides.
- yet there are more facilities which can be let in the Dumbarton and Alexandria area and only 1/2 which can be let currently at nighttime in Clydebank area. There is a need for investment in both towns, no one is disputing that, but Clydebank and Yoker had a very strong business case for the investment also as its a one time investment, the council won’t be paying for relaying or staffing, it will be covered by a self sustaining independent entity.

If the case for the development at Youngs Farm was weak then I do wonder how scrutiny of the case for £750,000 of public investment in Holm Park would look. Would the same case be made for a council investment at Millburn?

Thats utterly bollocks. The case for Holm Park is very strong. I also said that the implementation of a new youth structure by Dumbarton would absolutely strengthen the community aspect of any public funding for Youngs Farm. Why DFC haven’t sought to bring Dumbarton Utd under its umbrella before is beyond me, its a self sustaining youth structure from all age groups and would contribute well to Dumbartons long term future. It would also help Dumbarton in applying for sport scotland funding etc. You seem to be turning your anger at Dumbarton’s plans being rejected towards Clydebank and Yoker having secured a very modest amount of investment the case for which is very strong, rather than towards inept owners and a council which is shambolic to say the least.
I’m also sure that if the Vale (who do not wish to join the pyramid structure following the recent sjfa consultation) wanted to turn Millburn into a community 3g facility they would gain a lot of support for this, however it may be a difficult sell for WDC given the proximity to VOLA (which is another WDC clusterfuck for another thread). However they would if applying for licensing have a case for sportscotland funding.
Clydebank don’t qualify for Sportscotland funding as its geographic and they recently invested several million in a gaelic football pitch for Whitecrook, no they really have. Just think that money could have contributed to a multi-sport site at bowling had everyone got their heads together.

[1320Lichtie]

So how are you looking for a potential game versus ourselves?

I think we should get Stephen Grindlay signed up for the two games if it comes to it.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Agree with most of this, I don't think there is any conspiracy within the council. I would have rejected the plans if I were on the council, I tend to agree that they haven't done anywhere near enough match day impact assessments and the access to the ground was completely pish at best for anyone who doesn't have a car.
I don't think you'd have seen much support from DFC or CFC for a shared ground in Bowling though. Out of both towns and f**k all in the place, genuinely think that would've been an awful move before even considering the work required to the contaminated ground.

No but I do think a shared site would have been preferable to Youngs farm, however for me, Havoc would be my pick if i was a Dumbarton fan and staying at the rock wasn’t feasible.
The can you imagine the traffic on Renton Road on a saturday for access to the ground, madness.

[Silverton End]

1 minute ago, 1320Lichtie said:

So how are you looking for a potential game versus ourselves?

I think we should get Stephen Grindlay signed up for the two games if it comes to it.

 

*faints*

[Silverton End]

1 minute ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

No but I do think a shared site would have been preferable to Youngs farm, however for me, Havoc would be my pick if i was a Dumbarton fan and staying at the rock wasn’t feasible.
The can you imagine the traffic on Renton Road on a saturday for access to the ground, madness.

Havoc playing fields is a credible shout.

The close proximity to Brucehill mind you, would mean the need for razor wire, sentry towers & dog patrols

[Jan Vojáček]

4 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

So how are you looking for a potential game versus ourselves?

I think we should get Stephen Grindlay signed up for the two games if it comes to it.

On the pitch we can't score goals and, for the past few games at least, we can't defend. We like to start our best LB and best striker on the bench, and our best RB is injured.

Off the pitch...well, if you've read the last few pages you'll be pretty much in the loop.

Given our record in Angus this season however (P2 W2 F4 A1) I'm confident 

[BallochSonsFan]

There was no public funding element at Youngs Farm.

Clydebank currently has the 2 school pitches. Dumbarton currently has

The 2 school pitches

This isn't a Dumbarton FC v Clydebank FC argument. Far from it. The fact that the Bankies will benefit from council investment at Holm Park isn't the issue.

What is clear is that in recent years there has been major investment in a new sports and leisure centre in Clydebank that will be followed by investment at Holm Park.

Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven are certainly the poor relations when it comes to council investment in sports facilities. And even then, Youngs Farm required no council investment.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

 

There was no public funding element at Youngs Farm.

- but absolutely everyone involved at Clydebank would actually support public funding of £750k for a 3g park there if it was to benefit a youth set up etc.

 

Clydebank currently has the 2 school pitches. Dumbarton currently has

 

The 2 school pitches

 

- plus east end park and the pitches beside rosshead in Alexandria.

 

This isn't a Dumbarton FC v Clydebank FC argument. Far from it. The fact that the Bankies will benefit from council investment at Holm Park isn't the issue.

 

What is clear is that in recent years there has been major investment in a new sports and leisure centre in Clydebank that will be followed by investment at Holm Park.

 

- I agree, there has been investment, much of which was part of the Clydeside redevelopment project, which Dumbarton with a positive business case could also tap into. Infact havoc would be a prime contender for this kind of investment.

The playdrome was not fit for purpose and i’m pretty sure much of the investment for the new centre is secured against the land the playdrome is on? The financial investment in Holm Park is pretty insignificant in larger terms, building a much needed 3g facility anywhere else in Clydebank would meet with similar costs anywhere. All that is being funded is a one off investment in a park, fencing and floodlights, the council compared to the costs of building a new facility and maintaining it are actually getting a good deal here. You could conversely say that in the years since Clydebank High was built that this is the first real investment in facilities for the most popular participation and spectator sport in WDC that has been made in Clydebank, which given the councils responsibility for wellbeing is a shocking state of affairs. Clydebank, Yoker and Dumbarton fans should be united in calling for funding from WDC for football not looking at each other and saying oh you got this so we want that, compared to Glasgow we are all suffering from a severe lack of investment.

 

Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven are certainly the poor relations when it comes to council investment in sports facilities. And even then, Youngs Farm required no council investment

 

I don’t subscribe to this, its cyclical, some years the council invests in projects in Dumbarton/Vale which are also needed in Clydebank and vice versa. I don’t think that there is some kind of conspiracy to better one area above the other. Also ffs Clydebank is a shit hole, have you seen the houses/flats across from Holm Park, compared to the high flats in Dumbarton? Cmon this is nothing to do with one area getting preferential treatment.

 

.

 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Havoc playing fields is a credible shout.
The close proximity to Brucehill mind you, would mean the need for razor wire, sentry towers & dog patrols [emoji14]

But hey it could also be a way to bring all those kids who run about Brucehill in old firm tops into the fold at Dumbarton and with additional 3g parks ensure that they get involved with youth teams instead of young teams thus negating the need for razor wire and sentries , helping Dumbarton get its next generation of young fan. Its shit to see so many kids in Dumbarton and Clydebank going to see the OF when you’ve got Dumbarton in cup finals and playing in the Championship and Clydebank on the verge of a return to senior football (albeit slowly), but I do think investment in facilities at grass roots level is the first step in combatting this!