Clyde4life Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 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 To me it is. It may be subject to a vote, but the chairman said as much that he knew what the answer would be. Think we collectively now need to wait and see what alternatives will pop up - no doubt before this particular Ek one, and discuss then what would be best for the club collectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde4life 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!!!!So it's ok for you to look at the footballing side, not the boardroom and not the football manager? Ok then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chucky10 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 The reason why I don't say much about the boardroom situation or any other off field matters is because I am not educated enough to offer a solution to the problems and in no way can I put forward any usefull ideas on how to change things. The football side of the club for me is a shambles and the current managet does not have a clue. Just read an article in the Daily Record confirming Craig McLeish has returned to EKFC on loan, what the hell was that signing all about? He is a 25 year old midfielder so if he isn't good enough to play then why sign him. Also, in the same article it confirms that we have used 30 players already this season, I am no expert but that cannot be the correct way to manage and try to progress with a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShawfieldAggro Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 To me it is. It may be subject to a vote, but the chairman said as much that he knew what the answer would be. Think we collectively now need to wait and see what alternatives will pop up - no doubt before this particular Ek one, and discuss then what would be best for the club collectively. Working on one mans assumption that the result would only go one way answers absolutely nothing. I dont know how peoples minds work when they are basically told something and thats that....what about those who didnt attend who are still in favour of a move and expect it to be delivered? Everyone who voted did so for a reason, succumbing to practically no pressure, merely hearsay on forums and at matches, is no reason to.disregard what to my mind is and will remain a legally binding decision. But, as said in DWs notes, it apparently wasnt tbe biggest issue to be discussed. What was then?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Sally Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 With the Clyde board confirming that should Clyde make the move to East Kilbride that any potential name change to EK Clyde would require a fresh vote by the owners then understandably the fans who have stayed away because of the name change will need a new reason to not attend matches. This presents them with a problem, but luckily I have compiled a handy, cut out and keep list of excuses that you can use to avoid having to actually go to any of your teams matches. Barry Ferguson is a sh#t manager. The board are w#nkers. Because John Sweeney Some of the Clyde support voted Yes to independence. I don't like Broadwood I won't be back until Ferguson is gone, then I won't be back until the next manager is gone, and the one after him. Bobby Gracey ate my hamster. The toilets don't work They changed the date on the badge to the actual date of formation The pink strip I'm working in Copenhagen I'm in love with Jeff Stelling I once played for Clyde and was released and I'm embarrassed about it. Broadwood is cold. Pat Scullion no longer plays for Clyde This list is not exhaustive but offers some easy reasons for you to continue to stay away, thus removing you of the problem of the removal of the name change threat leaving you in a position where attending games is the normal thing to do for a supporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrigtonClyde Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Working on one mans assumption that the result would only go one way answers absolutely nothing. I dont know how peoples minds work when they are basically told something and thats that....what about those who didnt attend who are still in favour of a move and expect it to be delivered? Everyone who voted did so for a reason, succumbing to practically no pressure, merely hearsay on forums and at matches, is no reason to.disregard what to my mind is and will remain a legally binding decision. But, as said in DWs notes, it apparently wasnt tbe biggest issue to be discussed. What was then?? As of today, effectively nothing has changed in terms of the previous vote in relation to Langlands specifically. It still stands. What changed was the delay in the Langlands project moving ahead, as time passes the deadline to get a new minimum 5 year renewable lease to retain a license draws closer and the impact of the vote has been noted. Langlands is a matter for EKCT & South Lanarkshire to resolve. At the moment it looks like it could take a while meaning if that development happens at all, it could take 5 - 7 years. But if the extra £100k is stumped up, it could move now. That's a whole situation out of Clyde's control. So it could come into play soon, further ahead or never. At the moment the board would still have the option in any negotiation with EKCT to use the name If an EGM was called now proposing a new vote, and it went ahead, everyone whether for or against will have the opportunity to voice their opinion - so that would answer your question about "What about those who voted for it". If the outcome were different from last time, then it means should the Langlands proposal come back into play either sooner or later, the name won't be available as part of negotiations. It gets rid of the issue once & for all irrespective what the future holds which at the moment is uncertain. That's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannibal 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. Whilst I agree the Board were not instructed to move to EK, they told us they had to or the club would die and asked owners permission to do it - and they got it. The rest of your comment is not quite right though is it? Resolution 2 states that "Subject to the board being satisfied that all appropriate steps have been taken to enable the company to move to premises in or around East Kilbride, that the company's name be changed to EK Clyde Football Club Community Interest Company." and Resolution 3 "That, once the company’s name is changed to EK Clyde Football Club Community Interest Company, the directors shall use all reasonable endeavours to procure that the company’s trading name and the name under which it is registered with the Scottish Football League, or its successors, shall be EK Clyde Football Club" Therefore if we move to EK - the Directors WILL change the name (or do all they can to). There is no mention of them deeming anything suitable. The only thing they have to do is decide whether "appropriate steps have been taken to enable the company to move there". This isn't a moan and I'm sorry to bog down the thread in the details but the details are the issue. Is it not the case that the Chairman still maintains moving to EK is one of the plans. If so, how can the name change be ruled out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthLanarkshireWhite Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 With the Clyde board confirming that should Clyde make the move to East Kilbride that any potential name change to EK Clyde would require a fresh vote by the owners then understandably the fans who have stayed away because of the name change will need a new reason to not attend matches. This presents them with a problem, but luckily I have compiled a handy, cut out and keep list of excuses that you can use to avoid having to actually go to any of your teams matches. Barry Ferguson is a sh#t manager. The board are w#nkers. Because John Sweeney Some of the Clyde support voted Yes to independence. I don't like Broadwood I won't be back until Ferguson is gone, then I won't be back until the next manager is gone, and the one after him. Bobby Gracey ate my hamster. The toilets don't work They changed the date on the badge to the actual date of formation The pink strip I'm working in Copenhagen I'm in love with Jeff Stelling I once played for Clyde and was released and I'm embarrassed about it. Broadwood is cold. Pat Scullion no longer plays for Clyde This list is not exhaustive but offers some easy reasons for you to continue to stay away, thus removing you of the problem of the removal of the name change threat leaving you in a position where attending games is the normal thing to do for a supporter. Not exhaustive at all The team are very poor The team are a shadow of what we have watched before and that is important The whole matchday experience is dreadful I have better things to spend my money on and so on... Not sure why anyone does go anymore actually. Blind loyalty? Hope they continue as it offers me the option to return at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannibal Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 With the Clyde board confirming that should Clyde make the move to East Kilbride that any potential name change to EK Clyde would require a fresh vote by the owners It is really quite disturbing that people have taken this message from what has been said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShawfieldAggro Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Im absolutely shocked at how many messages ive had today from people breathing sighs of relief and saying that the long drawn out affair is now done and dusted. Its not. Nowhere near it. He thinks the supporters are fucking idiots. To my mind, there has been murmurings of discontent, nothing more. If this response has merited such reactions, then no-one has learned a thing. With the Clyde board confirming that should Clyde make the move to East Kilbride that any potential name change to EK Clyde would require a fresh vote by the owners then understandably the fans who have stayed away because of the name change will need a new reason to not attend matches. This presents them with a problem, but luckily I have compiled a handy, cut out and keep list of excuses that you can use to avoid having to actually go to any of your teams matches. Barry Ferguson is a sh#t manager. The board are w#nkers. Because John Sweeney Some of the Clyde support voted Yes to independence. I don't like Broadwood I won't be back until Ferguson is gone, then I won't be back until the next manager is gone, and the one after him. Bobby Gracey ate my hamster. The toilets don't work They changed the date on the badge to the actual date of formation The pink strip I'm working in Copenhagen I'm in love with Jeff Stelling I once played for Clyde and was released and I'm embarrassed about it. Broadwood is cold. Pat Scullion no longer plays for Clyde This list is not exhaustive but offers some easy reasons for you to continue to stay away, thus removing you of the problem of the removal of the name change threat leaving you in a position where attending games is the normal thing to do for a supporter. Maybe no-one needs an excuse. The football's shite. Its dear as f**k. The weather's pish. It's a matter of personal choice, and clearly, attending matches equates to sod all's worth of a voice concerning anything to do with the club, but paying thirty quid not to darken the doorstep does. People will only bother if its worth it. I reckon now might be the time to find out the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde4life Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I'm not sure what's hard to understand. The board last April did not demand we do anything and were not given a directive to change name. There was a vote to delegate them the authority if certain conditions were met. The board have now publicly relinquished that delegated authority completely. Should a move to the Langlands site come to fruition, and such a move has a necessary name change as a condition, then - like before - it will be put to the members to vote on again. It's only a factor on that one particular site, and even the chairman conceded that such a vote would not go the same way as last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhoonaman Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 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 It is a procedural/constitutional matter. With the EGM coming up in Spring to amend the articles of membership, a new vote to remove the mandate to change the name will be put onto the agenda and this has to come from the membership. I will ensure it is as many other members will too. It also gives time to rally support and make sure that the 50% turnout and 75% majority required is there too. My one observation from last night was the lack of appreciation from the board that while in their own minds they would not use the mandate to change the name and that it was now low on their list of priorities, the membership are not privvy to the new location discussions and other board matters, therefore name change is OUR main priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde4life Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 It is a procedural/constitutional matter. With the EGM coming up in Spring to amend the articles of membership, a new vote to remove the mandate to change the name will be put onto the agenda and this has to come from the membership. I will ensure it is as many other members will too. It also gives time to rally support and make sure that the 50% turnout and 75% majority required is there too. My one observation from last night was the lack of appreciation from the board that while in their own minds they would not use the mandate to change the name and that it was now low on their list of priorities, the membership are not privvy to the new location discussions and other board matters, therefore name change is OUR main priority. Fair point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShawfieldAggro Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Thats better. Much better, than the other head-in-the-sand answers from those taking one mans word as gospel. Also glad there is a strength of feeling, any feeling, being demonstrated. Althiugh the question remains is what was the main agenda(s) instead?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannibal Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 It is a procedural/constitutional matter. With the EGM coming up in Spring to amend the articles of membership, a new vote to remove the mandate to change the name will be put onto the agenda and this has to come from the membership. I will ensure it is as many other members will too. It also gives time to rally support and make sure that the 50% turnout and 75% majority required is there too. My one observation from last night was the lack of appreciation from the board that while in their own minds they would not use the mandate to change the name and that it was now low on their list of priorities, the membership are not privvy to the new location discussions and other board matters, therefore name change is OUR main priority. Thanks bhoonaman - great to hear this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhoonaman Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Thats better. Much better, than the other head-in-the-sand answers from those taking one mans word as gospel. Also glad there is a strength of feeling, any feeling, being demonstrated. Althiugh the question remains is what was the main agenda(s) instead?? The name change was the most discussed subject by far last night but we were all a bit blindsided (in a good way) by the potential new venue news. This perhaps took a bit of the sting out of the meeting, especially with it being something that could happen for next season. That said, JA did caution that while two sites were biting our hands off to get us to sign up, a bit of due diligence on the long term viability needs to be done. This I would guess is the priority of the board. The point made earlier about the SPFL membership was my question. I wanted assurance that in light of the board's confidence in BF getting it right and the inherent risk in that stance, that the prospective new venues would not suddenly drop us like hot potatoes if we dropped through the trapdoor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrigtonClyde Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 It is a procedural/constitutional matter. With the EGM coming up in Spring to amend the articles of membership, a new vote to remove the mandate to change the name will be put onto the agenda and this has to come from the membership. I will ensure it is as many other members will too. It also gives time to rally support and make sure that the 50% turnout and 75% majority required is there too. That's how I understood it, so it will formally / officially remove that condition via a specific procedure as that's not presently the case Cheers for clarifying Bhoonaman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_BullyWee Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 The name change was the most discussed subject by far last night but we were all a bit blindsided (in a good way) by the potential new venue news. This perhaps took a bit of the sting out of the meeting, especially with it being something that could happen for next season. That said, JA did caution that while two sites were biting our hands off to get us to sign up, a bit of due diligence on the long term viability needs to be done. This I would guess is the priority of the board. The point made earlier about the SPFL membership was my question. I wanted assurance that in light of the board's confidence in BF getting it right and the inherent risk in that stance, that the prospective new venues would not suddenly drop us like hot potatoes if we dropped through the trapdoor. This seems like pretty good news to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfcuk Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Chairman wants due diligence over new venues pity he didn't do that with EK we have spent nearly 20 months waiting on a pipe dream and how much revenue did it cost with the civil war due to name change Good news about the new venues The cynic in me says he is trying to delay the going for a new venue in the hope EK can be resurrected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhoonaman Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Loss of trust was another topic discussed. I guess yours will never be won back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.