Clyde soccer trendy Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Clyde FC! The Rangers of the lowest league. A fucking joke! Hahaha Oh dear......and the Partick Pooftas say they don't care about Clyde. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 It's only the pure gold comedy you provide! Haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BullyWeeLad Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Obsessed hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David W Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Club has a number of stadium options, including ones in Glasgow council area and at least one in another council. They could sign up at one of them within the month but it's more likely to wait for a few months to make the right choice. Could conceivably be elsewhere for next season though. Funding ideas are clearly set out for each but differ depending on location; some linked to councils, others private. Meetings been held on this during the previous few days so it's a current situation. Not dependent on us staying in SPFL. EK Clyde, as a name, will not happen without another vote. Confirmed. An EGM can be called to get members to make it more formal but the board have stated that they now can't implement it. Good financial results. BF injured and awaiting surgery. He's not against playing if needed but literally can't just now. Keeping himself fit so that he can play if needed post surgery. Didn't attend tonight as he was watching Dumbarton v QP (I think) but he's offered to meet any small groups of supporters who want to talk about football. Chairman and board not happy with performances, however still back manager. He's apparently the best they've worked with in terms of professionalism, work ethic, involvement in the wider club, willingness to look for advice. We still have the smallest budget in Scotland. They're hopeful Alan Martin will stay until the end of the season but nothing signed yet. Other players have "shook hands" on deals to sign for the club in January but BF is awaiting confirmation of budget. In discussions regarding stadium condition. Slow progress as always. There's a rugby tournament in February so the floodlights will remarkably be fixed by then. That's the facts. I left tonight feeling reasonably positive about the off-field stuff but BF's absence meant there wasn't much to go on regarding the on-pitch stuff. Over to the masses for discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 How do Clyde know they have the smallest budget in the country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_bully_wee Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 By looking at the annual accounts of other clubs, I'd imagine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 By looking at the annual accounts of other clubs, I'd imagine Where can you see them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_bully_wee Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Can't remember exactly where they're found - but from what I can remember, you can get access to them online for a nominal fee. Not sure if it's for every company, mind. Had a good laugh when my Accounts teacher bought access to Sevco's annual accounts and showed them to the class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Can't remember exactly where they're found - but from what I can remember, you can get access to them online for a nominal fee. Not sure if it's for every company, mind. Had a good laugh when my Accounts teacher bought access to Sevco's annual accounts and showed them to the class.Haha superb, that'd be interesting to see however I'm not really sure I fancy paying for the opportunity too!Why is everybody going mental then if you have the smallest budget in Scotland? Without being cheeky surely your current position is about correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottR96 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 It seems to me that neither the board or Ferguson are burying their head in the sand over performances with the latter in particular being quite pro-active in engaging with supporters about it, so credit where credit's due. I don't even think Millar offered to meet with supporters out with the Fans Forums despite having quite a good rapport with the fans. So it looks like the board have made their position clear on the matter: the manager has their full backing. I can only imagine that they're going to let the dust settle on January's signings before making any decision on his future. Whether you agree with it or not, it's now up to the fans to stick by the team and give them a bit of a backing instead of berating the manager for 90 minutes, as tonight has reaffirmed how counter-productive it is. Looking forward to Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannibal Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Club has a number of stadium options, including ones in Glasgow council area and at least one in another council. They could sign up at one of them within the month but it's more likely to wait for a few months to make the right choice. Could conceivably be elsewhere for next season though. Funding ideas are clearly set out for each but differ depending on location; some linked to councils, others private. Meetings been held on this during the previous few days so it's a current situation. Not dependent on us staying in SPFL. EK Clyde, as a name, will not happen without another vote. Confirmed. An EGM can be called to get members to make it more formal but the board have stated that they now can't implement it. Good financial results. BF injured and awaiting surgery. He's not against playing if needed but literally can't just now. Keeping himself fit so that he can play if needed post surgery. Didn't attend tonight as he was watching Dumbarton v QP (I think) but he's offered to meet any small groups of supporters who want to talk about football. Chairman and board not happy with performances, however still back manager. He's apparently the best they've worked with in terms of professionalism, work ethic, involvement in the wider club, willingness to look for advice. We still have the smallest budget in Scotland. They're hopeful Alan Martin will stay until the end of the season but nothing signed yet. Other players have "shook hands" on deals to sign for the club in January but BF is awaiting confirmation of budget. In discussions regarding stadium condition. Slow progress as always. There's a rugby tournament in February so the floodlights will remarkably be fixed by then. That's the facts. I left tonight feeling reasonably positive about the off-field stuff but BF's absence meant there wasn't much to go on regarding the on-pitch stuff. Over to the masses for discussion. Thanks for the report David. I must say I have serious doubts about this statement in bold. The whole point of the "democratic" structure of the club is that the owners tell the Board what to do. As far as I can see the Board have been given a Direction to move the club and change the name. How can the Board decide unilaterally to discard a Direction given to them by 84% of the owners voting on it? Why would there be any need to call an EGM to "make it more formal" if it was confirmed it COULD NOT happen? I am not disputing your reporting, David but that comment from them stinks of a comment to pacify fans who don't know any better. The Board is there to do what they are instructed to. They have been instructed to move the club to EK and change the name. If the chance arose tomorrow then that is what they would do. (And when it happens they'll say you could have called an EGM for another vote if you wanted.) Or, equally disturbingly, are they openly saying that they will IGNORE the members should they vote on something overwhelmingly in the future? I also wish they would stop using "the smallest budget in Scotland" as an excuse. I've never heard any other club moaning about this or using their own ineptitude as an excuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShawfieldAggro Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 You beat me to it Cannibal, that is far and away a more concerning statement than the proposal itself. If i were a CIC i'd be quite intrigued as to what else i'd voted on which may or may not have been decided on a whim later. He's not only had you once; he's still having you with this one sentence. Its obvious that the concern regarding fans' frustrations over EK, which imo have been extremely reserved, have found their way into discussions at boardroon level, and now it appears panic isn't far away should those concerns grow arms and legs. The rest of DWs report (kudos btw) seems fairly comprehensive, and covers probably most other issues at the minute. Except that one. Sort that out, and we might have a club again. You'd be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggy Snake Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Thanks for the report David. I must say I have serious doubts about this statement in bold. The whole point of the "democratic" structure of the club is that the owners tell the Board what to do. As far as I can see the Board have been given a Direction to move the club and change the name. How can the Board decide unilaterally to discard a Direction given to them by 84% of the owners voting on it? Why would there be any need to call an EGM to "make it more formal" if it was confirmed it COULD NOT happen? I am not disputing your reporting, David but that comment from them stinks of a comment to pacify fans who don't know any better. The Board is there to do what they are instructed to. They have been instructed to move the club to EK and change the name. If the chance arose tomorrow then that is what they would do. (And when it happens they'll say you could have called an EGM for another vote if you wanted.) Or, equally disturbingly, are they openly saying that they will IGNORE the members should they vote on something overwhelmingly in the future? I also wish they would stop using "the smallest budget in Scotland" as an excuse. I've never heard any other club moaning about this or using their own ineptitude as an excuse The board were never instructed to change the name or move to EK. They were given the right to change the name, as part of the move to EK, if they deemed it suitable. Which obviously now, they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiviClyde Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 The board were never instructed to change the name or move to EK. They were given the right to change the name, as part of the move to EK, if they deemed it suitable. Which obviously now, they don't. Beat me to it. But why let the facts get in the way of another moan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrigtonClyde Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 The AGM was attended by roughly 15% of the overall membership. One of the first things they did was re-appoint the chairman by a massive majority, a handful voted against The name change was a major issue, many in the room wanting it binned. The initial response to that by the chairman was that there were far bigger issues at play but conceded he was surprised at the depth of feeling about it. That's true, he said as much prior to the vote itself. What David W is saying is correct, but to clarify. Bearing in mind that the chairman was in the national press only 3 - 4 weeks ago citing EK as the preferred option as location & that he felt Langlands would happen "one day", they are also aware that if it were to happen it would still be some considerable time off. (5 - 7 years latest estimate) In other words, they also know the likelihood of it happening by a preferred date has reduced. It doesn't mean it's dead, but does mean they are looking at other options, especially with the licence up in a couple years. As a result, they are more relaxed about the idea of an EGM as proposed by GT So the situation is that a new vote is not needed regarding a plan for Langlands, because that's what it was specifically tied to. It would be needed if a name change was proposed for any new plan for another location. Only an EGM could reverse the original decision linked to Langlands - that was confirmed by the chairman at the Queens Park game. As for BF, he probably should have been there but in all honesty it's hard to see the point. Never known a manager to be anything other than confident in his own abilities to do a good job, no matter the situation they are currently in. The board couldn't give a specific reason as to why they felt the performances were poor, but also knew BF wouldn't be there. So they had obviously spoken with him knowing there would be questions, and came up with a "solution" of "get your requests in" to meet the manager, names will be looked through, and a shortlist drawn up. To achieve what? Ask a predictable question and receive a predictable answer? As suspected he'll be given January and beyond, and we'll all just need to hope & pray he can at least avoid relegation. Speaking of which, let's hope "Meetings been held on this during the previous few days so it's a current situation. Not dependent on us staying in SPFL." isn't an early attempt to sew the seeds of an idea that being relegated into the Lowland League might not be great, but it wouldn't be disastrous. Yes it would, just so you're clear about that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShawfieldAggro Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Why then is there any necessity to have another vote, before anything else happens? I fail to see why they'd be moved to such an action if not prompted by the very people who voted for it. Unless someone knows something that the rest of us don't. Its not like they have anyone but the 'owners' to appease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_BullyWee Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 The board were never instructed to change the name or move to EK. They were given the right to change the name, as part of the move to EK, if they deemed it suitable. Which obviously now, they don't. Exactly, but the people that have been complaining about this recently have now got what they seemed to wanting but are still looking to blame the chairman. I don't get it! Seemed to be some positive news from the meeting last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde4life Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 The AGM was attended by roughly 15% of the overall membership. One of the first things they did was re-appoint the chairman by a massive majority, a handful voted against The name change was a major issue, many in the room wanting it binned. The initial response to that by the chairman was that there were far bigger issues at play but conceded he was surprised at the depth of feeling about it. That's true, he said as much prior to the vote itself. What David W is saying is correct, but to clarify. Bearing in mind that the chairman was in the national press only 3 - 4 weeks ago citing EK as the preferred option as location & that he felt Langlands would happen "one day", they are also aware that if it were to happen it would still be some considerable time off. (5 - 7 years latest estimate) In other words, they also know the likelihood of it happening by a preferred date has reduced. It doesn't mean it's dead, but does mean they are looking at other options, especially with the licence up in a couple years. As a result, they are more relaxed about the idea of an EGM as proposed by GT So the situation is that a new vote is not needed regarding a plan for Langlands, because that's what it was specifically tied to. It would be needed if a name change was proposed for any new plan for another location. Only an EGM could reverse the original decision linked to Langlands - that was confirmed by the chairman at the Queens Park game. As for BF, he probably should have been there but in all honesty it's hard to see the point. Never known a manager to be anything other than confident in his own abilities to do a good job, no matter the situation they are currently in. The board couldn't give a specific reason as to why they felt the performances were poor, but also knew BF wouldn't be there. So they had obviously spoken with him knowing there would be questions, and came up with a "solution" of "get your requests in" to meet the manager, names will be looked through, and a shortlist drawn up. To achieve what? Ask a predictable question and receive a predictable answer? As suspected he'll be given January and beyond, and we'll all just need to hope & pray he can at least avoid relegation. Speaking of which, let's hope "Meetings been held on this during the previous few days so it's a current situation. Not dependent on us staying in SPFL." isn't an early attempt to sew the seeds of an idea that being relegated into the Lowland League might not be great, but it wouldn't be disastrous. Yes it would, just so you're clear about that Glad you'll be back though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrigtonClyde Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Glad you'll be back though shucks You'll accept it's not officially off the table though? It's just looking that way given the issues facing EKCT, further likely delay and the need for Clyde to find something else in the interim. If the interim is a stop gap, then it could very well be back on the table. A concrete alternative...no pun intended...would of course be the end of it, on the assumption they've learned their lesson about any alteration to the name. We'll just have to wait & see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chucky10 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Our season so far in my opinion has been a disaster. I am someone who looks at the football situation rather than the boardroom situation. The manager is the wrong man to take us forward, results have been dreadful, player morale seems low and more changes in January are being discussed. Can BF be trusted to bring in a new group of players again, out of all the signings he has made only Alan Martin and at times Scott McManus have been a success. Also, considering the poor results this season and the team sitting in 9th position, in my opinion the manager should have attended the agm last night no matter what. As has been mentioned previously in this thread, the manager was at a game and that was the reason he could not attend the agm, I can assure you that if he was at a game it was not the Dumbarton v QP U20 game as this was postponed due to QP U20's involvement in the youth cup on Sunday. Total lot of rubbish in my opinion, and the fact that the manager has supposedly offered to meet fans if they want, he should have just went last night and been big enough to do so. Tommy Craig has been sacked today for a poor season so far and BF should follow!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.