Sons' sorrow

[Boghead ranter]

10 minutes ago, Ross Forbes said:

Live scenes from the DFC Transfer Graphic department.

PITK

[Howlin' Wilf]

4 hours ago, Boghead ranter said:

With thanks to @HibeeJibee for his post in the Premiership thread, here's a breakdown of our average attendances, at ten year intervals, since the war.

There was a return to 50s levels in the early to mid 70s. At that time our attendances were comparable with the likes of Motherwell, Dunfermline,Falkirk,Thistle and the like.  It would have been fair to say that in that brief period we could claim to be a middle ranking club. League reconstruction, when we were reconstructed to the first division (second tier) in 1976 was a big blow. Attendances dropped dramatically.

[Old Scrotum]

2 hours ago, Sons FC said:

 If you went to the pub on Saturday afternoon, you had no idea what was happening, except for one game on the radio.

Oh, you young whipper-snapper, you. In my day pubs weren't open in the afternoons although you could take your kerry-oot (before there were carry-outs, FifeSon) to the game with you. 

And the "one game on the radio" (or wireless/transistor) was only second-half commentary and the match being covered wasn't revealed until half-time, although you could usually guess from which particular sectarian chanting you could hear in the background.

Pubs had no televisions and did not allow women entry except to the snug. On the downside they sold Watney's bloody Draught Red Barrel.

[Old Scrotum]

Reading Duffy's comment that DT might return to Kilmarnock so that Stevie Clarke can have another look at him makes me think our number 20 won't be gracing the grassy Glebe this Saturday.

 

[squeezeboxson]

13 minutes ago, Old Scrotum said:

Reading Duffy's comment that DT might return to Kilmarnock so that Stevie Clarke can have another look at him makes me think our number 20 won't be gracing the grassy Glebe this Saturday.

 

It sounds a bit daft, but I wouldn't be surprised if the club were happy for him to go back for a couple of week so we can save on his wages those weeks and then we have more chance of being able to afford him for the rest of the season.

It would be so nice if we had just a little bit of money to spend this month 

[optimistic]

It sounds a bit daft, but I wouldn't be surprised if the club were happy for him to go back for a couple of week so we can save on his wages those weeks and then we have more chance of being able to afford him for the rest of the season.
It would be so nice if we had just a little bit of money to spend this month [emoji20]

But would you spend it on Thomas’s return fur Saturday, or to bring 4/5 players in to add to the numbers? [emoji20]

[The Moonster]

9 minutes ago, squeezeboxson said:

It sounds a bit daft, but I wouldn't be surprised if the club were happy for him to go back for a couple of week so we can save on his wages those weeks and then we have more chance of being able to afford him for the rest of the season.

It would be so nice if we had just a little bit of money to spend this month 

I highly doubt that's the case. Given that Jordan Jones has made an absolute pigs ear of his move to Rangers it wouldn't shock me if Clark genuinely wanted to have another look at Dom. Having him for the next two weeks is much more beneficial to us than saving on a week or two wages. 

[Howlin' Wilf]

7 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

I highly doubt that's the case. Given that Jordan Jones has made an absolute pigs ear of his move to Rangers it wouldn't shock me if Clark genuinely wanted to have another look at Dom. Having him for the next two weeks is much more beneficial to us than saving on a week or two wages. 

That depends entirely on just how tight money is.

[The Moonster]

15 minutes ago, Howlin' Wilf said:

That depends entirely on just how tight money is.

Duffy is quoted as saying he wants to add the squad this week on the OS. That would suggest there is money there. If he plans on using Thomas' money on someone else then fair enough, but everything we've heard so far seems to suggest we're just waiting on the green light from Killie.

[Howlin' Wilf]

4 hours ago, Ross Forbes said:

Celtic's attendance more than doubling, whilst the turnouts at clubs relatively nearby absolutely plummet. 

Sad.

I think you can take the Celtic attendances before the advent of seating with a huge pinch of salt.

[FifeSons]

PITK... 

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

I'd be astounded if the club was happy to do without one of our best players for a week or 2 to save cash.

We aren't well off, we aren't able to go out and revamp the squad but things aren't so bad that we would be willing to risk winning games to save a bit of cash. Are we any worse off than other clubs in the league? Looking at the players we have versus other squads in the league i'd take a stab at us being mid table in terms of wages at the very least. I think too much emphasis is put on how skint we are. This league is a fairly level playing field in terms of wages with us in the top half IMO. We also have the advantage of a sponsor offering our players full time employment.

That's not to take away from the work the likes of the trust and the board do to ensure that's the case. We're lucky to have that sort of backing, a lot of other clubs don't have that.

[Howlin' Wilf]

4 hours ago, Ross Forbes said:

Celtic's attendance more than doubling, whilst the turnouts at clubs relatively nearby absolutely plummet. 

Sad.

I think you can take the Celtic attendances before the advent of seating with a huge pinch of salt.

I had a look at HibbeeJibee's full list and I see that whilst Cetic were claiming a 21,000 (exactly) attendance in the 1940s, Partick Thistle had 20,267 and Queens Park 12,027. Most of the attendances, up to and including the 70s, will have been significantly higher with wee boys getting a lift over in those days. 

[Howlin' Wilf]

2 minutes ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

I'd be astounded if the club was happy to do without one of our best players for a week or 2 to save cash.

We aren't well off, we aren't able to go out and revamp the squad but things aren't so bad that we would be willing to risk winning games to save a bit of cash. Are we any worse off than other clubs in the league? Looking at the players we have versus other squads in the league i'd take a stab at us being mid table in terms of wages at the very least. I think too much emphasis is put on how skint we are. This league is a fairly level playing field in terms of wages with us in the top half IMO. We also have the advantage of a sponsor offering our players full time employment.

That's not to take away from the work the likes of the trust and the board do to ensure that's the case. We're lucky to have that sort of backing, a lot of other clubs don't have that.

I think the point you're missing is that Aitken blew the budget. The expectation was, I'm sure, that these players would have got us to where we needed to be.  I think you have to factor in too the massive drop in income suffered by the club whilst Aitken was signing a guy on a 2-year deal who hasn't kicked a ball in anger for months. 

You can't take the breeks off a heilanman.

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

I think the point you're missing is that Aitken blew the budget. The expectation was, I'm sure, that these players would have got us to where we needed to be.  I think you have to factor in too the massive drop in income suffered by the club whilst Aitken was signing a guy on a 2-year deal who hasn't kicked a ball in anger for months. 
You can't take the breeks off a heilanman.

Of course, but I'm confident the board have set a sensible budget in terms of wages and Aitken's payoff that wouldn't lead to us having to go without one of our best players for 2 weeks to save some cash.

I also don't think Duffy would have taken the job if there wasn't scope for at least some changes to be made this month. That would probably suggest Thomas returning to Killie isn't a financial thing, unless of course Duffy would rather use that money to sign someone else.

[Howlin' Wilf]

1 minute ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

Of course, but I'm confident the board have set a sensible budget in terms of wages and Aitken's payoff that wouldn't lead to us having to go without one of our best players for 2 weeks to save some cash.

I also don't think Duffy would have taken the job if there wasn't scope for at least some changes to be made this month. That would probably suggest Thomas returning to Killie isn't a financial thing, unless of course Duffy would rather use that money to sign someone else.

Budgets are made on assumptions of income.  Every single assumption is, I understand, short of expectations - season ticket sales, attendances and hospitality not helped by our form. The SPFL money is much less in this league too and is reliant on our league placing. I you look here we're on course to receive something like £100,000 less from the SPFL this season as things stand.   

[George Parr]

The early-May confirmation of all the players we're binning can't come quick enough. Hopefully we're still in League 1 when the re-build starts,

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

Budgets are made on assumptions of income.  Every single assumption is, I understand, short of expectations - season ticket sales, attendances and hospitality not helped by our form. The SPFL money is much less in this league too and is reliant on our league placing. I you look here we're on course to receive something like £100,000 less from the SPFL this season as things stand.   

Ok, so back to the point in question...

Do you really think we're that skint that our board would send arguably our best player back to his loan club for two weeks to save some cash? I certainly don't. Nor do I think that we should be using the finances to paint ourselves as some sort of hard luck story. Of course our ownership situation isn't ideal but I can't see many clubs in this division having an owner who pumps money into their respective clubs. They might be more pro active in the day to day running of their clubs but in all honesty I'm glad our owners aren't, we have better people in place to do that.

Relegation was always a massive posibility, not finishing top 4 was never guaranteed, a hit in season ticket sales was probably to be expected and sacking Aitken was always going to be on the cards. I'm confident the board considered all of the above before setting budgets this year.

[The Moonster]

I have absolutely no clue how the loan market works - is the figure we pay even related to the weeks we'll have him?  What I mean there is perhaps Killie are just charging a fee for taking the player, rather than saying "you'll have him for 18 weeks and you'll pay X% of 18 weeks wages". So whether we take him this week or in 2 weeks time, the fee may well be the same?

But even if it is related to the weeks we'll have him, it's apparently £5K to keep Thomas for the remaining 16 games if Old Scrotum's earlier post is to be believed.  £312.50 per game he's costing us then. The assertion here is that we'd rather save £625 than give ourselves a better chance of taking 6 points from the next two games, I find that hard to believe. 660 attended last weekends game, if only we'd got them all to throw a quid into a bucket.

Really though, nobody on here has a clue how this works, so all we can really do is take what Duffy says as gospel and we're just waiting on Killie letting us keep him. That seems the much easier and less stressful solution here.

[Old Scrotum]

Could DT play as a "trialist" then come back as a loanee?