Jump to content

The Clyde FC 2018-19 Thread


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Adolfo Rios said:

 


Where did you see the update on this? Had a look and couldn’t see anything.

Delighted to get Grant for next season.

 

There's a bit in the Club Insight section saying "Two year deal with sports supplier agreed and confirmation of shirt sponsors to be announced in due course."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a bit in the Club Insight section saying "Two year deal with sports supplier agreed and confirmation of shirt sponsors to be announced in due course."

Club insight, got a 2 year deal with someone 


Oh yeah...cheers gents. Completely missed that when I read it the first time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some serious questions about the whole Goodwillie issue, as there are some genuine follow-on issues that are worth exploring. It's stating the obvious to conclude that he's far too good a player for this league, and that without the off-field baggage he'd have been in the division team of the year and back with a full time club by now.

He may still go, but what if he doesn't. The logical conclusion would be that 41 (potentially) other clubs deem him to be too high risk, which would leave Clyde very isolated, either viewed as progressive or pariahs. For me this raises the following questions:

Would Clyde have offered the same level of support with a player of average ability?

If the answer to that is no then it leaves the club's moral justification in tatters. If yes, does that not create a danger that Clyde will be seen as the first port of call for every decent player with a similar background, thereby justifying your policy but leaving you even more exposed to critical media commentary?

Clearly every other club in this league would prefer not to have to face a player of his quality next season, but would Clyde's loss be to their long term benefit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Spider said:

Some serious questions about the whole Goodwillie issue, as there are some genuine follow-on issues that are worth exploring. It's stating the obvious to conclude that he's far too good a player for this league, and that without the off-field baggage he'd have been in the division team of the year and back with a full time club by now.

He may still go, but what if he doesn't. The logical conclusion would be that 41 (potentially) other clubs deem him to be too high risk, which would leave Clyde very isolated, either viewed as progressive or pariahs. For me this raises the following questions:

Would Clyde have offered the same level of support with a player of average ability?

If the answer to that is no then it leaves the club's moral justification in tatters. If yes, does that not create a danger that Clyde will be seen as the first port of call for every decent player with a similar background, thereby justifying your policy but leaving you even more exposed to critical media commentary?

Clearly every other club in this league would prefer not to have to face a player of his quality next season, but would Clyde's loss be to their long term benefit?

We kept Ally Love on (who I consider a very average player) after being found guilty of racism whilst an employee of Clyde. 

In his various interviews, Norrie Innes has answered your second question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m sure if we looked at every club in the land they will have players past and present with various level of convictions which in other walks of life would be questionable. Including managers.

Drink driving. Sectarian singing, assaults, drug taking, inappropriate betting etc the list is endless and depends on your personal view of what is more serious than the other.  The argument that it  depends on how talented you are is valid, but that is football I’m afraid. I’m sure there are one or two current international players who, if not decent footballers may well be unemployed given their past mistakes. Including our SFA director of football or whatever his title is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I’m sure if we looked at every club in the land they will have players past and present with various level of convictions which in other walks of life would be questionable. Including managers.



Livingston being an example.

There has been little or no discussion about their signing policy in the Scottish press.

It's about time we all moved on as everything has been said many many times before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, FREDDYFRY said:

I’m sure if we looked at every club in the land they will have players past and present with various level of convictions which in other walks of life would be questionable. Including managers.

Drink driving. Sectarian singing, assaults, drug taking, inappropriate betting etc the list is endless and depends on your personal view of what is more serious than the other.  The argument that it  depends on how talented you are is valid, but that is football I’m afraid. I’m sure there are one or two current international players who, if not decent footballers may well be unemployed given their past mistakes. Including our SFA director of football or whatever his title is.

 

Decent response Freddy and happy to take the hint of others and move on, but will be interesting to see how this pans out. Re the director of football comment, it would be holier than thou of me to let that pass unanswered. Despite having watched the man progress through all playing levels of my own club and knowing him personally, I think he has no place whatsoever being in a position of example to others, and personal connections aside I was and remain completely against his appointment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Spider said:

Decent response Freddy and happy to take the hint of others and move on, but will be interesting to see how this pans out. Re the director of football comment, it would be holier than thou of me to let that pass unanswered. Despite having watched the man progress through all playing levels of my own club and knowing him personally, I think he has no place whatsoever being in a position of example to others, and personal connections aside I was and remain completely against his appointment.

I’m sure he’s deeply upset. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Karpaty said:

I’m sure he’s deeply upset. 

You either miss or ignore the point. Anyone who supports Goodwilliie's right to resurrect his career with Clyde would lose any sense of credibility were they to be against Mackay's appointment purely on the grounds of principle. He won't be in the least bit upset as he's won a watch with that job, whereas Goodwillie (with due respect to Clyde) is having to work his way back up from the bottom, and if that doesn't strike you as an inequitable situation then I'm clearly wasting both my time and yours attempting to explain it to you.

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...