Jump to content

Sons' sorrow


Recommended Posts

VT is right. If the owners are not stumping up sponsorship money they said they would then the fans shouldn't be handing cash over for f**k all either. If they want investment now they can hand over shares.

Glad I didn't watch the game yesterday but I wish I'd avoided this thread too. New folk turning up to tell us the owners are the problem without actually explaining what can be done. I appreciate the posts from OKelly trying to outline things but ultimately I don't know what to do with that information. A concerted effort from fans was mentioned a few posts back - someone wake me up when that plan is made public and I can actually do something about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, virginton said:

From the outside perspective, you'd have to be off your head to chip in money to a manager's fund at Dumbarton, when there's little evidence that the owners are investing in the club themselves.

Giving hauners to a football club to make the first team less dung is a terrible idea. Fans already pay their season ticket/gate money and buy cheap tat merchandise to do that.

Exchanging fan contributions for a first team fund for leverage i.e. shares with a view to (at least partial) fan/community ownership of your club is the only reasonable play. If Dumbarton's current owners are not willing to acquiesce in that then that raises all the red flags about their intentions that you need.  

The MF is voluntary. People are free to contribute as much or as little as they wish and the fund is held by the Trust and released to the club when there is a specific request relating to play acquisition - just to be clear. It’s another mechanism we can use to support the club alongside lottery’s and the like, usual for many lower league Scottish clubs.

I take your wider point, although the acquisition of shares in return for capital investment is a slightly more complex objective when your dealing with the constraints of our current ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DobbiesAgent said:

If the supporters Trust really wanted to gain more members or hear from supporters/members then they would hold catch up meetings with supporters. I think truthfully they just won’t like what they hear in short. 

I’m all for constructive criticism, and have said previously that feedback like this can be useful in pushing the Trust to improve, but I have to pick up on a couple of points here that I think are both unfair and unhelpful.

The first paragraph above implies that the Trust doesn’t really want to gain more members. Come on. Our strength lies i our numbers and the more engaged members we have the stronger voice we’ll have. When electing a new board there was a concerted effort to engage as many fans as possible and an open invitation to anyone willing to stand for election. Like similar requests for volunteers, the uptake was poor.

You make a similar point regarding people electing their pals. Election to the Trust board was a free and open process. I recall a hustings pre-match in the bar for election of our rep on the club board. It was anything but the closed shop you imply here.

10 hours ago, DobbiesAgent said:As for the trust, yeah instead of forcing every member to grab the attention of the trust maybe it would be nice of the trust to reach out and say let’s come together and hear and see if we can answer your concerns. As opposed to expecting them to come to you whilst they take the membership fee 

Are these people that are selected qualified in any way to be a board member of a football club? Or are they just drawn out a hat of who’s pals with who? 

By any measure the above does cross the line. Is inaccurate and unfair.

1 hour ago, DobbiesAgent said:but the general vibe there is we don’t have general meetings cause we don’t want to listen to peoples concerns? 
 

also, by no way am I shooting the messenger…but as I said and as ballochsonsafan said, maybe that needs to be having a direct trust table set up in The community suite? 
I know there’s the newsletter etc but that’s fine for that younger generation. Have to consider that we have a huge number of supporters who you aren’t so easily connected via email, Facebook whatever else. 

We certainly do want to listen. You’re forgetting that the Trust board members are lifelong songs fans like every other fan. We share the same concerns. There is no ‘them and us’ here. There is a Trust table at every home game in Bar 72, but granted it’s maybe not as visible as it could be and that’s something we need to improve.

We are currently working on a new Trust website which is taking longer than we hoped to go live but BBPF makes a very valid point re social media. That’s the key imo to better engagement, certainly with the younger generation, balanced with a presence at home games to discuss issues/updates with those not social media savvy. However you’ll have seen from the recent Club request that social media volunteers are thin on the ground, and that makes it difficult.

Equally we need to consider fans not on social media and not able to attend home games. Emails and newsletters allow us to hit that demographic. So all outlets are useful.

I’m in Bar 72 before pretty much every home game and would be more than happy to make myself available as a Trust rep to answer any queries you have over a beer of two, as best I can. As BSF said previously though a more formal meeting has to have a clear agenda otherwise it’s nothing more that a grumbling session with unanswerable queries and frustration the Trust board with share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boghead ranter said:

Equally, what's the point in having these meetings if the 4 of you aren't allowed to do anything with the information you're told?

Its the nature of the beast. We could either meet with Stainton and Wilson, get access to as much as we possibly could and then try to plan the trust's actions on the basis of what we knew or we could stop the meetings and let Stainton and Wilson do whatever they wanted without any kind of supporter voice. Sometimes there was stuff we could make public. Sometimes there was stuff that we couldn't, or that we had to delay before making public. Thats the nature of any discussions with a 3rd party. Its why trust members elect their board - the membership needs to invest a degree of trust that the board members will act in their best interests and that on occasion the need for confidentiality if it helps build a working relationship thats in the trust's wider interest is something that we need to observe.

There's a time and place for getting angry. If Henning Kristofferson and the latest band of carpet baggers don't engage with the trust then you may well see that happening sooner rather than later. But its something you can only do once and when you've done it, it destroys any prospect of constructive dialogue. You need to pick and choose when you push the big red button and sometimes being able to have those constructive discussions is more useful. Wilson absolutely hated the 4 of us. He was out and out aggressive towards one of us. But the fact that we were able to still have those constructive discussions with the then club owners was better at that time than being locked out of any further conversations and having absolutely no access to anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BallochSonsFan said:

Its the nature of the beast. We could either meet with Stainton and Wilson, get access to as much as we possibly could and then try to plan the trust's actions on the basis of what we knew or we could stop the meetings and let Stainton and Wilson do whatever they wanted without any kind of supporter voice. Sometimes there was stuff we could make public. Sometimes there was stuff that we couldn't, or that we had to delay before making public. Thats the nature of any discussions with a 3rd party. Its why trust members elect their board - the membership needs to invest a degree of trust that the board members will act in their best interests and that on occasion the need for confidentiality if it helps build a working relationship thats in the trust's wider interest is something that we need to observe.

There's a time and place for getting angry. If Henning Kristofferson and the latest band of carpet baggers don't engage with the trust then you may well see that happening sooner rather than later. But its something you can only do once and when you've done it, it destroys any prospect of constructive dialogue. You need to pick and choose when you push the big red button and sometimes being able to have those constructive discussions is more useful. Wilson absolutely hated the 4 of us. He was out and out aggressive towards one of us. But the fact that we were able to still have those constructive discussions with the then club owners was better at that time than being locked out of any further conversations and having absolutely no access to anything.

Is it better? Having conversations couldn't stop them flogging the club to dodgy Norwegians or snaring off a piece of land to Rankine and we're now where we are now, in a complete mess. Perhaps pushing the big red button sooner might've meant more Sons fans aren't passive in relation to these matters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye, for a thread that for weeks has been quiter than a home game at The Rock it has fairly sparked into life, and I welcome that, especially the constructive suggestions.

For the avoidance of anyone's doubt however, the Sons Supporters Trust is not the fucking problem in all of this.  And neither is the club ownership 100% per cent the problem.  Succesive DFC Boards have lacked vision and dynamism, and in my opinion have preferred to hope for the best rather than confront challenges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Jordo1872 said:

I’m all for constructive criticism, and have said previously that feedback like this can be useful in pushing the Trust to improve, but I have to pick up on a couple of points here that I think are both unfair and unhelpful.

The first paragraph above implies that the Trust doesn’t really want to gain more members. Come on. Our strength lies i our numbers and the more engaged members we have the stronger voice we’ll have. When electing a new board there was a concerted effort to engage as many fans as possible and an open invitation to anyone willing to stand for election. Like similar requests for volunteers, the uptake was poor.

You make a similar point regarding people electing their pals. Election to the Trust board was a free and open process. I recall a hustings pre-match in the bar for election of our rep on the club board. It was anything but the closed shop you imply here.

By any measure the above does cross the line. Is inaccurate and unfair.

We certainly do want to listen. You’re forgetting that the Trust board members are lifelong songs fans like every other fan. We share the same concerns. There is no ‘them and us’ here. There is a Trust table at every home game in Bar 72, but granted it’s maybe not as visible as it could be and that’s something we need to improve.

We are currently working on a new Trust website which is taking longer than we hoped to go live but BBPF makes a very valid point re social media. That’s the key imo to better engagement, certainly with the younger generation, balanced with a presence at home games to discuss issues/updates with those not social media savvy. However you’ll have seen from the recent Club request that social media volunteers are thin on the ground, and that makes it difficult.

Equally we need to consider fans not on social media and not able to attend home games. Emails and newsletters allow us to hit that demographic. So all outlets are useful.

I’m in Bar 72 before pretty much every home game and would be more than happy to make myself available as a Trust rep to answer any queries you have over a beer of two, as best I can. As BSF said previously though a more formal meeting has to have a clear agenda otherwise it’s nothing more that a grumbling session with unanswerable queries and frustration the Trust board with share.

I’d be happy to sit and catch up…I come to every home game and most away games so I can certainly make it into the bar before a game. 
 

I think perhaps having more dialogue with yourself or the trust at home games will certainly open my eyes to the going on behind the scenes and the work we are trying to do…and in any case if I can lend a hand or help towards the greater picture then I’d do my best to help 👍🏼
 

Apologies if indeed the line was crossed…but I won’t apologise for being passionate about the club especially whilst watching it tumble probably for the first time in my life time 😢

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DobbiesAgent said:

 

I've cleared the quote to keep the post clean.

To answer your various points:

1. Why does the club have no money?

It's a combination of a few things, all of them with the same root issue. We don't bring in enough money. Thats not a flippant statement, just basic fact. We have a small fanbase, many of whom have season tickets and a lot of which are concession tickets. That means we get a whack of our money up front but run into cashflow issues throughout the season as we struggle for pay at the gate income. There's only so much money that matchday concession sales generate. We don't bring in a huge amount from the club shop. We get far fewer away fans in League One than we did in the top flight. We don't always have strong hospitality sales. We struggle to attract sponsorship, and the 2 obvious major companies in the area have little appetite for giving us money. Theres nothing else to it. We can't spend what we can't bring in and Dumbarton FC doesnt bring in big money. We still have the cost of running a football club regardless of whether we get 500 fans through the doors or the 1100 we'd get when we were in the Championship. It costs us to maintain the pitch. It costs us for basic ground maintenance. It costs us for stewarding, It costs us to run floodlights. We've got wages to pay. We've got travel costs to away games. Those are the brutal facts. There's no mystery. Some of the clubs who are leapfrogging us have owners who are willing to throw money at the club. Cove do. Kelty do. Queens Park do, and also have the benefit of having sold Hampden to the SFA. 

 

2. Trust reaching out.

The trust does reach out. It keeps in contact with members. I've asked you before and I'll ask again - what do you actually want from an all members general meeting beyond an AGM? You want a one off meeting but won't approach trust board members in the community suite before a game. What are you going to bring up at a meeting that you won't bring up directly with a trust board member? The trust has run these types of meeting before and anything approaching 80 attendees was considered a big turn out. Sons fans traditionally don't attend these things in big numbers. When they do, you tend to find that the folk who shout loudest from the comfort of their home don't turn up or are as quiet as a home support. What do you want to discuss with the trust? 

 

3. Volunteering opportunities.

You say that you used to sell 50/50s and programmes. You certainly havent done it in the past 6 years. The trust has repeatedly asked for people to help out during that time. I spent 2 years flat out begging people to get involved with 50/50 and I only became involved with running it because the trust spent a full season asking for people to help out before Brian and David stepped down from their duties. Every summer the trust asks for fans to come along and help out around the ground to get it ready for hosting matches. Every single summer. It's the same people who turn up and give up their time year after year. If you genuinely want to get involved then get in touch with the trust and ask them what they need help with? Or reply to one of the numerous requests for help that the trust has made over the past 6 or 7 years. 

 

4. The need for confidentiality.

Sometimes the trust is made aware of sensitive information. Supporters trusts only work when they can build constructive relationships with club owners and the club board or when the trust is forced to become militant during a time of crisis. Again we may well be heading there sooner rather than later, but until that happens there needs to be an acceptance that you elect your trust board to act on your behalf. If there's something the trust can tell you then it will tell you. It's not in the trust's interest to withhold any information that it's able to discuss. Sometimes thats not the case. Sometimes the only way that you are able to build the kind of relationships and get to the position where you can try to influence things is knowing when you need to keep some things temporarily confidential. Thats the same in any walk of life. If you're part of a trade union then the people negotiating your annual pay rise or representing you in discussions with senior management don;t leave those meetings and immediately spill the beans. If they did then negotiations would be brought to a very swift end. It happens in every single walk of life. If the trust had a reputation for being unable to keep sensitive information confidential until a more appropriate time then the club board would stop talking to it and the owners wouldn't talk to it. What do you think it could achieve then? If the trust was essentially kept in the dark and completely ignored within the club board or the ownership group. Do you think that it would be able to represent fan interests?

 

I've tried to be patient in my responses. It's up to you if you take them on board or ignore them. The reality is that we're a lower league football team who are based in an area of relative poverty. We don't bring in significant amounts of money and there are very few places we can turn to as a source of bringing in more money. The trust has done a power of work over the years on the back of the efforts of volunteers. It has built a reputation where the club board see it as an important partnership that can benefit the club and where the previous owners eventually grew to see it as being an organisation worth engaging with. That takes time, effort and very careful management from a group of volunteers who expect nothing in return and who often get ill informed gripes and moans. If anybody thinks they can offer something that the trust currently lacks? Wire in, I'm sure that the current trust board would welcome your effort and ideas with open arms.

 

Or moan on a website. It's up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Is it better? Having conversations couldn't stop them flogging the club to dodgy Norwegians or snaring off a piece of land to Rankine and we're now where we are now, in a complete mess. Perhaps pushing the big red button sooner might've meant more Sons fans aren't passive in relation to these matters. 

Nothing would stop them flogging the club. The only people who buy football clubs are local guys done good or people who think that they can make money. Unless there's a Dumbarton born multi-millionaire looking to give something back to the community then we're going to be stuck with owners who see us as a means of making money. The way you do that at Dumbarton is in asset stripping.

The big red button. Supposing the trust breaks off all communication with the club and all attempts at communicating with the owners and simply chains itself to the front door with a sign saying "Down with this sort of thing" and "careful now". Does that progress anything? Unless somebody stumps up the cash to remove our current owners, or any club owner, then its still their ball and they can do what they want. You can try to temper their intentions by offering them ideas or advice they may not otherwise have. Ultimately they're free to ignore it, but it's telling that the eventual plan that Brabco put to the council was their 3rd version. The public meetings. The changes that were made. The information that was made available prior to the actual planning permission application going in. All of that was down to the trust building a working relationship with the previous owners.

I've been consistent on here for years trying to convince people that the club is skint and that we really don't have any money. Folk refuse to believe it. They think that we must have some money somewhere or that the owners must be in a position to invest. They're not. Fans see what they want to see and most simply don't want to look at anything beyond whats happening on the pitch until it's too late. If pushing the big red button meant that a "Save Our Sons" type campaign would raise enough money to buy the club then I'm sure that the trust would push it tomorrow. The reality? At this stage it's probably not going to achieve much. The club board would go quiet, the owners would go into hiding and we'd be absolutely no further forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

Aye, for a thread that for weeks has been quiter than a home game at The Rock it has fairly sparked into life, and I welcome that, especially the constructive suggestions.

For the avoidance of anyone's doubt however, the Sons Supporters Trust is not the fucking problem in all of this.  And neither is the club ownership 100% per cent the problem.  Succesive DFC Boards have lacked vision and dynamism, and in my opinion have preferred to hope for the best rather than confront challenges.

Alan Jardine was a dinosaur. He saw supporters as people who pay their money, go to a game and go home again. That was it. They offered little more than the money they paid to the club. Fan engagement wasn't for him. There was little ambition to grow the club and no idea how to attract either new fans or new money. Les Hope was an absolute disaster and almost killed us. John Steele was a nice guy, but he was largely ineffective. DFC boards don't have any kind of vision for growing the club or improving our income. The reaction to some of the efforts to bring in money to the club were outright hostile. The owners are a problem. They don't provide any funding and, more importantly, they don't provide any leadership. There's absolutely no demanding better or holding the board to account because the club folding wouldn't be a heartbreaker for them. It wouldn't have upset Stainton and Wilson. It won't upset Kristofferson and whoever else is with him. As mad as it sounds, you're looking back at the likes of Neil Rankin as the last DFC majority shareholder who retains some kind of general fondness towards us and a basic desire to see us keep the lights on. If there's a disconnect between the club owners at the club board then there's absolutely no clear direction and no accountability. You sometimes get the right people in who have the skills and the willingness to see the club do better, but sadly that doesnt happen often enough and we usually end up seeing those people chased away or walking away from the club for the sake of their own sanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BallochSonsFan said:

I've cleared the quote to keep the post clean.

To answer your various points:

1. Why does the club have no money?

It costs us to maintain the pitch. It costs us for basic ground maintenance. It costs us for stewarding, It costs us to run floodlights. We've got wages to pay. We've got travel costs to away games. Those are the brutal facts. There's no mystery. Some of the clubs who are leapfrogging us have owners who are willing to throw money at the club. Cove do. Kelty do. Queens Park do, and also have the benefit of having sold Hampden to the SFA. 

 

 

3. Volunteering opportunities.

You say that you used to sell 50/50s and programmes. You certainly havent done it in the past 6 years. The trust has repeatedly asked for people to help out during that time. I spent 2 years flat out begging people to get involved with 50/50 and I only became involved with running it because the trust spent a full season asking for people to help out before Brian and David stepped down from their duties. Every summer the trust asks for fans to come along and help out around the ground to get it ready for hosting matches. Every single summer. It's the same people who turn up and give up their time year after year. If you genuinely want to get involved then get in touch with the trust and ask them what they need help with? Or reply to one of the numerous requests for help that the trust has made over the past 6 or 7 years. 

 

 

The reality is that we're a lower league football team who are based in an area of relative poverty. 

So….

1. Why does the club have no money, 

for years the answer of reduced gates etc has been the main argument for our lack in revenue. However you also mention shop sales and pitch maintenance. 
 

My question would be this…apart from offering up tickets to youth teams to attend where are we advertising next home games etc? Better discounted parent and child tickets? For as long as I remember when I was a youngster every shop, factory, news outlet the lot had a poster on it around the town with our next home games and the cost etc? Surely this is extremely helpful of catching the eye of a mum or dad who doesn’t have any plans to keep their 5/6/7/8 yr old football crazed son or daughter busy on that given Saturday? Do you put out appeals then for also for ball boys and girls ? Can we engage through the community advertiser better? 
 

The club shop for me was always in the supporters bar, easy access to the shop for kits for their son or daughter or their grandchildren etc? None of this waiting months to order via a 3rd party online seller. It’s more hassle than it’s worth. 
 

The pitch, the age old debate about the pitch. Has it ever truly been considered how much benefit a grass pitch is compared to an artificial? Because from what you have just said it’s running costs that kill us? 
so does investment in an artificial surface benefit us? 
no need to pay for training facilities ? Undercut council pitch rates and gain more income through the week for some of the teams we are trying to establish links with etc? Has all of this been properly worked out ? 
 

Do rangers contribute to the maintenance costs ? Or are they still skint too? 
 

3. Volunteering. 
 

No it hasn’t been in the last 5/6 years as I said it was when I was younger and had finished being a ball boy. I wouldn’t be able to commit to selling 50/50s or being at the ground for 1 because making kick off is often dependent on a flier from work and as I reached 17 that was the way of it. I could no longer give up that hour or so extra on a Saturday before it. 
 

When I was asked to do it when I was younger someone from the trust table at the time asked me whilst I sat with my dad and uncle. Listed son do u want to sell 50/50s today. You’ll earn some pocket money. And that was me? When was the last time someone walked round the community suite before the game and asked any younger ones if they fancied that? 
 

I’d like to add that I have helped in pre season in the past and was one of the first also to raise my hand to help on match days etc when we needed frost covered lifted or laid. 
 

Finally….we might live in an area of poverty but you also said yourself round about us are three/ four massive companies…so when you compare that to our Angus counterparts that may have wealthier owners they still get people in the door paying gate prices similar to ours and we are better off area in the country than they are. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also…how come no one has raised any questions with our Norwegian owner about his statements of intent? His plan of action? He was big Enough and ballsy enough to mention full time football? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posters around town don't translate to increased fan attendance. The club tried various ticket offers when Alan Findlay was there. Uptake was really poor. Uptake of the free under 16 season ticket wasn't huge either. It was largely existing fans. You can't force people along to Dumbarton games and you can only discount tickets so much. If cutting the cost of a Dumbarton home game was the deciding factor in bringing in more fans then the club would almost certainly do it. But any cost reduction has to result in an increase in fans. You could cut the cost of a home game by £5. You'd need to attract 1 new fan for every 3 existing ones just to break even.  So for a home crowd of 450 fans, cutting the cost of entry by a fiver would lose the club money at anything less than an extra 150 supporters. And that doesnt address the general cost of running a football club. Pitches cost money to maintain. God knows our previous groundskeeper is on here often enough telling us how poor his budget was and how it was difficult for him to maintain a pitch on the money he was given. If we don't earn it then we can't spend it. Same goes for any other cost the club incurs.

You've suggested bringing in money/saving on maintenance by installing an artificial surface. A good one will set you back a minimum of £500,000. And it needs to be maintained. Replaced eventually too. We don't have £500,000 sitting around to install a 3g pitch.

Aggreko have no interest in providing sponsorship to Dumbarton. Neither do Pernod Ricard. Those companies have been contacted. Many times. They simply don't want to give us money. 

You used to volunteer. But other things got in the way and you can't commit to being at the ground early to help out. It's exactly the same for the trust board. You're asking what the trust are doing. You're asking for stand alone member meetings to discuss something (but still not actually being clear on what you want to discuss). The trust board are volunteers. They're balancing work commitments, personal commitments and trust activity. The reason you can't turn up at 1:30 on a Saturday afternoon to help out? Same reason that it might take the trust board a little bit longer to send out the latest communication, or why things might take a little bit longer to happen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, DobbiesAgent said:

Also…how come no one has raised any questions with our Norwegian owner about his statements of intent? His plan of action? He was big Enough and ballsy enough to mention full time football? 

An interesting point, and you'll have to take my word on what follows.  Myself and two others have engaged with Henning Kristoffersen on two separate on Zoom calls totalling just short of two hours in duration.  As regards questions, in the second call in particular I raised so many with him to the extent that he claimed he 'felt like he was in a US Senate hearing'.  

Direct answers however were in very short supply as is anything remotely resembling a business plan for the club's future.  Nor any coherent explanation of all the traffic we have been monitoring on Companies House and how a parcel of land which was owned by DFC is now mortgaged to a guy based in Wales.  What was not in short supply hiowever was windy rhetoric and grand statements, some of which were frankly fantastical.

But he is not the main man, that is the majority shareholder, and based on my experience and opinion neither he or Mr Kristoffersen are people capable of either taking this club forward or even taking it to the Renton Road, which is their stated intention.  And for what it's worth I believe that has also been the opinion of recent and current DFC Boards of Directors and Chairmen but they have been unwilling or unable to ask these direct questions.

I hope that answers your question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

An interesting point, and you'll have to take my word on what follows.  Myself and two others have engaged with Henning Kristoffersen on two separate on Zoom calls totalling just short of two hours in duration.  As regards questions, in the second call in particular I raised so many with him to the extent that he claimed he 'felt like he was in a US Senate hearing'.  

Direct answers however were in very short supply as is anything remotely resembling a business plan for the club's future.  Nor any coherent explanation of all the traffic we have been monitoring on Companies House and how a parcel of land which was owned by DFC is now mortgaged to a guy based in Wales.  What was not in short supply hiowever was windy rhetoric and grand statements, some of which were frankly fantastical.

But he is not the main man, that is the majority shareholder, and based on my experience and opinion neither he or Mr Kristoffersen are people capable of either taking this club forward or even taking it to the Renton Road, which is their stated intention.  And for what it's worth I believe that has also been the opinion of recent and current DFC Boards of Directors and Chairmen but they have been unwilling or unable to ask these direct questions.

I hope that answers your question.

Thank you for your openness…I appreciate that things are no doubt difficult in dealing with someone who has no footballing related intentions but sees us a profit scheme. 
 

Again thanks for being open, it does shed a little light on my question which is all I could really ask for 👍🏼

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No point discussing it with me? Don’t come on here throwing around cryptic shite then, just come out with it. How is anyone else supposed to know that? It isn’t public knowledge.
Quite clearly if they aren’t stumping up sponsorship money then that directly impacts his budget. 
Where did you get that information from?


Aye, reign it in and open your eyes Tony Soprano
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frank Quitely said:

So, is anybody still believing that the current manager and players can turn this around ?  Based on those highlights it looks a very long shot.  Big call for the board.

Manager needs to try and change something whether that’s personnel or tactics. 
 

players. Someone needs to actually show a bit of leadership and grab their team mates by the scruff of the neck and say that what’s happening at the minute isn’t good enough. 
 

I wouldn’t give Farrell the rest of the window though. Got to give another chap time to recruit at least one or two of his own instead of Faz bringing in his mates. Wylde is an example of that already 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...