Jump to content

The Clyde FC 2018-19 Thread


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Clydeontheup said:

Agree with much of this yet question it more.

First of all Tom English has no love for Clyde or any other clubs at our un-newsworthy level. He was very outspoken retrospectively about Goodwillie, and in my opinion quoted us for cheap effect.

My limited knowledge of board members show no arrogance apart from our most recent former chairman- and that’s no bad thing . Furthermore- perhaps because I’m of a certain vintage - I didnt think  the Glasgow Branch we’re anywhere near as big as the Castlemilk Branch, and without having a pop were no more than the colourful bunch of Santa’s at Cliftonhill.

Regardless of a supporters branch size, backing like you mention is fantastic, but surely it’s for love of club and not as you say to get value. Just not sure how that correlates to a points deduction. 

If you are suggesting it’s a result of the same people being responsible then to me that’s a sad indication of what little or more specifically over worked skill sets we have.

if there’s a long list of directors lining up to offer their skills, all they need to do is declare at an agm.  

 

Your remarks regarding English are bang on. Cheap effect is putting it mildly- he's been around long enough to have established himself as either the new Traynor/Keevins, or as a keen questioner. And he certianly wasn't giving this much of a shit about a poor Scotland side before, either, despite us being shite for the duration of the century thus far. 

 

Now for the argument.

 

If you use terms like "limited knowledge of board members", this  indicates that maybe it's not a subject you should be readily dismissing, as you appear to be. It's not an easy thing to have to feel forced into writing, but in doing so, i don't believe anything i or anyone else says can do any more damage than some of those with 'good intentions' have managed. This isn't the place for specifics, but the information i have is readily available to all interested parties on various platforms. Perhaps if enough people cared to find this, and act accordingly, the instances i have provided would be avoided. This isn't a time-exhaustive or limited-skill issue, it's a personality one. 

 

The comments regarding the Glasgow Branch activity are very disappointing. Summing up 18 months close work with the club (in the main, the "arrogant" Norrie Innes- another shocker, mate) with a Santa suit gimmick is evidence enough of the ignorance you're displaying, in matters you have no clue or genuine interest in, otherwise you would be more enlightened. As far as most of the 'factions' at the club, opposing or otherwise, are concerned, the GB are relatively pulling their weight. There are Exec/Arria club members, matchday volunteers and everyone in between among the subscribers, and its very possibly the second-largest affiliated club administration after the CIC, depending on the numbers of season tickets. With respect to the Castlemilk, the only times it has forged serious links with the club is when there's been something in it for them, and it's been a long time since that was the case. Judging by my book number, purchased in September, the GB has more members than Clyde have ST holders. Not insignificant, wouldn't you say? Someone's already found that out, the hard way. 

 

Disregarding a branch size,of whichever magnitude, in favour of applauding all collective efforts,is again clutching at the low-hanging fruit from the tree. Just assuming something will always be there isn't exactly great practice. There IS value in the purchases made, beyond a one-off flash in the pan. The club being reimbursed with both the profits, and additionally sourced income, isn't the sort of revenue stream they seem to believe is a requirement of the business, and with that outlook displayed publicly and regularly, its easy to see why the background was set for such a disastrous schoolboy error. 

 

Anyone declaring themselves fit and able to schmooze their way onto the board at an AGM would require the skin of a rhino, for a start, as that would imply the present incumbents were somewhat lacking. At any given point this decade, any hint of this has been met with derision and very quickly descends into smear campaigns and vendettas. I don't expect you, or many others to be aware of this, as the more deferential and trusting among us tend to steer clear, and in many cases actively believe the bullshit they are told by any given fifth-columnist who's available at the time. It's certainly an effective way of putting any insurgencies to bed, i'll concede that. 

 

At least it appears you're not quite in that circle just yet, although you're certainly leaning to the correct side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your remarks regarding English are bang on. Cheap effect is putting it mildly- he's been around long enough to have established himself as either the new Traynor/Keevins, or as a keen questioner. And he certianly wasn't giving this much of a shit about a poor Scotland side before, either, despite us being shite for the duration of the century thus far. 
 
Now for the argument.
 
If you use terms like "limited knowledge of board members", this  indicates that maybe it's not a subject you should be readily dismissing, as you appear to be. It's not an easy thing to have to feel forced into writing, but in doing so, i don't believe anything i or anyone else says can do any more damage than some of those with 'good intentions' have managed. This isn't the place for specifics, but the information i have is readily available to all interested parties on various platforms. Perhaps if enough people cared to find this, and act accordingly, the instances i have provided would be avoided. This isn't a time-exhaustive or limited-skill issue, it's a personality one. 
 
The comments regarding the Glasgow Branch activity are very disappointing. Summing up 18 months close work with the club (in the main, the "arrogant" Norrie Innes- another shocker, mate) with a Santa suit gimmick is evidence enough of the ignorance you're displaying, in matters you have no clue or genuine interest in, otherwise you would be more enlightened. As far as most of the 'factions' at the club, opposing or otherwise, are concerned, the GB are relatively pulling their weight. There are Exec/Arria club members, matchday volunteers and everyone in between among the subscribers, and its very possibly the second-largest affiliated club administration after the CIC, depending on the numbers of season tickets. With respect to the Castlemilk, the only times it has forged serious links with the club is when there's been something in it for them, and it's been a long time since that was the case. Judging by my book number, purchased in September, the GB has more members than Clyde have ST holders. Not insignificant, wouldn't you say? Someone's already found that out, the hard way. 
 
Disregarding a branch size,of whichever magnitude, in favour of applauding all collective efforts,is again clutching at the low-hanging fruit from the tree. Just assuming something will always be there isn't exactly great practice. There IS value in the purchases made, beyond a one-off flash in the pan. The club being reimbursed with both the profits, and additionally sourced income, isn't the sort of revenue stream they seem to believe is a requirement of the business, and with that outlook displayed publicly and regularly, its easy to see why the background was set for such a disastrous schoolboy error. 
 
Anyone declaring themselves fit and able to schmooze their way onto the board at an AGM would require the skin of a rhino, for a start, as that would imply the present incumbents were somewhat lacking. At any given point this decade, any hint of this has been met with derision and very quickly descends into smear campaigns and vendettas. I don't expect you, or many others to be aware of this, as the more deferential and trusting among us tend to steer clear, and in many cases actively believe the bullshit they are told by any given fifth-columnist who's available at the time. It's certainly an effective way of putting any insurgencies to bed, i'll concede that. 
 
At least it appears you're not quite in that circle just yet, although you're certainly leaning to the correct side. 


Not one supporter or group of supporters are better/superior than the other. Period. Nor does the amount that they “do” entitle them to more than another supporter. Period.

I do hope that whoever was considering putting themselves forward for board election from the GB and was subject to “smear campaigns and vendettas” took legal action for defamation of character.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fandabbywee78 said:

Not one supporter or group of supporters are better/superior than the other. Period. Nor does the amount that they “do” entitle them to more than another supporter. Period.

Who said otherwise? I cited a poor example of product delivery, and was then very clearly challenged to provide context and relevance. The communitarian, come-to-Jesus drivel referenced here, is absolutely 100% incorrect, save for the only equity being that all fans are treated equally like shit. Which is just not true at all. 

 

2 hours ago, fandabbywee78 said:

I do hope that whoever was considering putting themselves forward for board election from the GB and was subject to “smear campaigns and vendettas” took legal action for defamation of character.

Where was it mentioned that anyone involved in the GB had stood, or shown desire to? By all means, point this text out to me, please.

 

As it happens, you don't need to put oneself forward for such a fallout. Merely questioning club policy, and/or continued support for failed, flogged-out schemes in sync with policy, are sufficient to provide trigger warnings against the individual(s) in question. 

 

If specifics are what you'd like, from me, you're going to have to ask the correct questions, and nicely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where was it mentioned that anyone involved in the GB had stood, or shown desire to? By all means, point this text out to me, please.

 

As it happens, you don't need to put oneself forward for such a fallout. Merely questioning club policy, and/or continued support for failed, flogged-out schemes in sync with policy, are sufficient to provide trigger warnings against the individual(s) in question. 

 

If specifics are what you'd like, from me, you're going to have to ask the correct questions, and nicely. 

 

Where you completely disregarded the Castlemilk Branch and them only forging links with the club when there was something in it for them. It’s also littered in the subtext of your entire post. It’s getting boring to be honest. We know you think they’re great. I applaud anyone’s effort for fundraising and volunteer for the club, but there are those that do this that aren’t part of this branch. They deserve equal respect.

 

If it wasn’t anyone from the Glasgow branch then name who was subject to smear campaigns or vendettas, as I recall no-one getting that treatment. You must be party to more information than I.

 

Tell you what I’ll ask nicely if you actually start behaving in the same manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fandabbywee78 said:

 

Where you completely disregarded the Castlemilk Branch and them only forging links with the club when there was something in it for them. It’s also littered in the subtext of your entire post. It’s getting boring to be honest. We know you think they’re great. I applaud anyone’s effort for fundraising and volunteer for the club, but there are those that do this that aren’t part of this branch. They deserve equal respect.

 

If it wasn’t anyone from the Glasgow branch then name who was subject to smear campaigns or vendettas, as I recall no-one getting that treatment. You must be party to more information than I.

 

Tell you what I’ll ask nicely if you actually start behaving in the same manner.

Guys, some of you could  start a fight in an empty hoose!

I've supported the 'team' for 50 years, but I don't know if I always got the 'club'.   What exactly is the club?  Is it the supporters, the  officials, the directors or the owners?   For the first time in ages we seem to have a management and team togetherness which links to the fans.  The support often extends a benign patience with the performance that was not always evident over the last few seasons; this has to be good.  The team has a self belief that was absent for too long.  We've picked up results against Edinburgh City and Annan, when we might not have been superior on the park on the day.  That for me is something worth celebrating,  but that's by the way, I suppose for others. 

What's done is done regarding the registration of Fitzpatrick.  I can't imagine that one of the admin / directors phoned up Danny and said, 'I've got an idea, why don't you play the big lad that's on loan with Clydebank?'  It's not always to productive to find someone to blame; sometimes we might not like it when we find the person who was actually at fault...

I take my hat off to the guys who volunteer at Clyde.  I'm not too sure why they do, and to imply it's self-serving,  I think is wide of the mark.  Like any sort of arrangement where there is a 'committee' it's too easy to stand outside and complain.  If you think the PTA / Scouts / Works Xmas party is being run badly, get involved and improve it.  By the same token, if the 'Club' needs new blood maybe it should throw open the doors and ask, ask and ask again for people to volunteer.  Was it JFK's line, 'ask not what the party can do for me, ask what I can do for the party'/  Alternatively, you can be like me...buy a season ticket, sign up for ownership / 200 club, buy a programme, buy a lottery and leave others to steer the ship.

With a favourable wind, we might just find ourselves having these sort of arguments in league 1...keep the faith and let's not look for a horsehair shirt to wear.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, fandabbywee78 said:

 

Where you completely disregarded the Castlemilk Branch and them only forging links with the club when there was something in it for them. It’s also littered in the subtext of your entire post. It’s getting boring to be honest. We know you think they’re great. I applaud anyone’s effort for fundraising and volunteer for the club, but there are those that do this that aren’t part of this branch. They deserve equal respect.

 

If it wasn’t anyone from the Glasgow branch then name who was subject to smear campaigns or vendettas, as I recall no-one getting that treatment. You must be party to more information than I.

 

Tell you what I’ll ask nicely if you actually start behaving in the same manner.

Firstly, the Castlemilk branch were mentioned as being a larger presence, in the view of another poster, despite being mentioned nowhere at that point. This was not in doubt for many years, but has now sadly dwindled to a few hardy souls. I eagerly await to see what offence gets drawn from that observation.

 

In my eyes, the initial remark "no more than colourful Santas" is far more incitement for reaction than my response. We're done here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Officer Barbrady said:

Firstly, the Castlemilk branch were mentioned as being a larger presence, in the view of another poster, despite being mentioned nowhere at that point. This was not in doubt for many years, but has now sadly dwindled to a few hardy souls. I eagerly await to see what offence gets drawn from that observation.

 

In my eyes, the initial remark "no more than colourful Santas" is far more incitement for reaction than my response. We're done here. 

The Santa comment was down to my lack of knowledge or more specifically awareness of this branch.

to clarify is this a supporters bus or a group that Clyde fans can join - if it’s as big as you say it is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, the Castlemilk branch were mentioned as being a larger presence, in the view of another poster, despite being mentioned nowhere at that point. This was not in doubt for many years, but has now sadly dwindled to a few hardy souls. I eagerly await to see what offence gets drawn from that observation.
 
In my eyes, the initial remark "no more than colourful Santas" is far more incitement for reaction than my response. We're done here. 


Oh dear, talk about spitting the dummy out. Do you not like being told that you’re not behaving nicely? Nice backtracking as well on the Castlemilk Branch front.

I forgot you decided on here what we can and cannot talk about. Never mind I’ll keep posting my observations anyway.

Hopefully the GB member who was booted out of Broadwood on Saturday for racial abuse will also feel the same wrath that a previous person “found out the hard way”.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, fandabbywee78 said:

 


Oh dear, talk about spitting the dummy out. Do you not like being told that you’re not behaving nicely? Nice backtracking as well on the Castlemilk Branch front.

I forgot you decided on here what we can and cannot talk about. Never mind I’ll keep posting my observations anyway.

Hopefully the GB member who was booted out of Broadwood on Saturday for racial abuse will also feel the same wrath that a previous person “found out the hard way”.

 

No backtracking here, sweetheart. Nor any policing of topics of discussion. 

 

I find it quite amusing that discussion on an article written by a known shit-stirrer, elicits its most scathing response towards one group of supporters based on comments by myself (which i absolutely stand by, 100%) as an individual on an anonymous forum, simply for not condemning all things SFA (when they have yet to have ANY input to the case) nor for embracing the "in it together, community spirit!!" that the patholigical altruists among us seem determined to galvanise, at any cost, including apparently freedom of speech. Play nice, now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys!...and or girls!

At the end of the day all Clyde fans matter to the club. Volunteers, supporters groups, season ticket holders or people who turn up to a couple of games a year. It all counts.

I have found it quite laughable in the past that some people will criticise volunteers for getting into games for free. These guys give up their time to help the club and do a bloody good job. 

Important to note that no supporters group will ever be above the club or come close to it. I think it's important to remember that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cutty Sark said:

Guys!...and or girls!

At the end of the day all Clyde fans matter to the club. Volunteers, supporters groups, season ticket holders or people who turn up to a couple of games a year. It all counts.

I have found it quite laughable in the past that some people will criticise volunteers for getting into games for free. These guys give up their time to help the club and do a bloody good job. 

Important to note that no supporters group will ever be above the club or come close to it. I think it's important to remember that.

No one suggested anything of the sort. Whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No backtracking here, sweetheart. Nor any policing of topics of discussion. 
 
I find it quite amusing that discussion on an article written by a known shit-stirrer, elicits its most scathing response towards one group of supporters based on comments by myself (which i absolutely stand by, 100%) as an individual on an anonymous forum, simply for not condemning all things SFA (when they have yet to have ANY input to the case) nor for embracing the "in it together, community spirit!!" that the patholigical altruists among us seem determined to galvanise, at any cost, including apparently freedom of speech. Play nice, now.


Oh bless your condescending little cotton socks. Your whole post reeked of backtracking “sweetheart”. Assuming I’m female then? Not the first time you’ve been way off the mark!

I find it quite amusing that you’ve neglected to answer the point about racism and a branch member but each to their own. Perhaps you need to learn to “play nice, now”.

Point me out where I was scathing towards your “group of individuals”? In terms of the group I merely pointed out that no supporter or group of supporters are greater than the other. I was only critical of one branch member who I witnessed being racist to an Annan player. Maybe you want to consider that for your group’s wider reputation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, fandabbywee78 said:

 


Oh bless your condescending little cotton socks. Your whole post reeked of backtracking “sweetheart”. Assuming I’m female then? Not the first time you’ve been way off the mark!

I find it quite amusing that you’ve neglected to answer the point about racism and a branch member but each to their own. Perhaps you need to learn to “play nice, now”.

Point me out where I was scathing towards your “group of individuals”? In terms of the group I merely pointed out that no supporter or group of supporters are greater than the other. I was only critical of one branch member who I witnessed being racist to an Annan player. Maybe you want to consider that for your group’s wider reputation.

 

One individual's actions are not the responsibility of anyone but themselves. I never witnessed the incident, so if you could be so kind as to grass him in here, that would be just great.

 

And anyway, calling someone "sweetheart" is rather gender-fluid these days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you the people's front of Judea?  F*** off we're the Judean Peoples Front.  Come on guys (or girls).  For once can we not just get behind the team!
Splitters!

I'm with the EK Judean People's front.

Our membership subscription fee: a peppercorn rent payable to the Kean brothers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would be uproar if they reversed the decision after the P'head game as that would mean several weeks had passed. Imagine a home win followed by the points reversal. Clyde go top with few games left and Peterhead and Albion R go ballistic at having no time left to react.

Never going to happen to avoid

 

a. The above

b. embarrassing the original decision maker

They are probably hoping P'head are 12 points clear with 3 games left, so decision either way is a moot point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would be uproar if they reversed the decision after the P'head game as that would mean several weeks had passed. Imagine a home win followed by the points reversal. Clyde go top with few games left and Peterhead and Albion R go ballistic at having no time left to react.
Never going to happen to avoid
 
a. The above
b. embarrassing the original decision maker
They are probably hoping P'head are 12 points clear with 3 games left, so decision either way is a moot point.
what do you think the original punishment should have been? I haven't seen any of us say what it should have been only that it was unjust
i really can't see anything that would have pleased everyone

my personal opinion hefty fine replay the games , but if we won both we would be 2 better off so the teams above would say it unfair

it's just a mess at end if the day we only really have ourselves to blame.
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...