Jump to content

The Ultimate Super Ayr Thread


Recommended Posts

Things may have been starting to go wrong, but all the situation required was a competent manager with the ability to identify a central midfielder. 
 

Zanatta, Smith, McCowan, Walsh, Anderson, Cameron, Ndaba, Murdoch, Reading, Muirhead and Sinisalo. All range from decent to excellent players at this level, all were here last year. Things were starting to go wrong because of inept management, which was compounded by Smith. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BukyOHare said:

This gets banded around all the time without any real substance. In theory it's how we should be aiming but I don't see how it can ever work in practice.

It feels like our home crowds and nucleus of support generally decline season after season, and have done for as long as I can remember. I don't see how these levels of self sufficiency are going to match what should be our medium and long term goals.

The good times under McCall show that its not just a winning or entertaining team that gets queues forming up Somerset Road every 2nd week. The club need to have a massive rethink about how they look to retain and grow the fan base. 

It goes much much further than handing out 20 tickets to a local football team or primary school. 

Other clubs manage it by focusing on other areas of business away from the team.

for instance, all weather parks that can be hired out (don’t want one personally) letting office space or commercial space in the stadium. Hospitality space for rental. A gym and physio space that members can use in the evenings and available to players during the day. 
There are junior clubs that attract the best players because of the money they make from their community rather than gate money.

Having a setup like this means that the financial burden on individuals are less. 
From

what I have seen, the hub, the conference facilities and the hospitality facilities will all be available to the public out side of match days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was never confirmed but was certainly rumoured that the two board members left due to the appointment of Mark Kerr. We have been on a extremely quick downward spiral since then. A disaster appointment in Hopkin and then Smith panicked and gave it to Duffy after a couple of good results where we could of went out and got John Hughes. That decision will forever haunt us.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Finlay21 said:

Did he really though ? Kerr was sacked not long after Smith took over due to the teams performances , financially he could or would not sustain much longer , I don’t see that as a reasonable state , McCall left as he knew there was no money to get the team he wanted and at that time things were starting to go wrong in the boardroom , 2 directors resigned due to what was happening under Lachlan if I remember correctly , just weeks before he sold the club 

This is all news to me.  What was happening “under Lachlan”?  My personal recollection is that you were very positive about Kerr’s appointment and were very critical of anyone who saw it as a cheap option appointment that lacked ambition.  Now you seem to be saying it was a sign of a deepening malaise that Cameron bailed out on at the first opportunity. My own understanding is that Cameron was looking to sell the club for the best part of a decade and spent years chasing carpet baggers and trying to find someone he could trust to take the club forward.   Is this just revisionist spin to justify the mess we’re in now or was there things that weren’t in the public domain at the time?  With due respect, this kind of ITK nod and wink stuff doesn’t help the club at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Finlay21 said:

Did he really though ? Kerr was sacked not long after Smith took over due to the teams performances , financially he could or would not sustain much longer , I don’t see that as a reasonable state , McCall left as he knew there was no money to get the team he wanted and at that time things were starting to go wrong in the boardroom , 2 directors resigned due to what was happening under Lachlan if I remember correctly , just weeks before he sold the club 

I don't have much knowledge of Lachlan's finances. What i do remember though was for many seasons that he kept saying he didn't have the cash to continue and would sell up to the right person. The main variable i saw changing was that Smith appeared and he finally found someone genuinely interested in helping the club. McCall may also have left due to supporting the team he moved to. Got to say these challenges you describe have come out of the blue. i always thought at the time everything was going very well in the boardroom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HMIP said:

This is all news to me.  What was happening “under Lachlan”?  My personal recollection is that you were very positive about Kerr’s appointment and were very critical of anyone who saw it as a cheap option appointment that lacked ambition.  Now you seem to be saying it was a sign of a deepening malaise that Cameron bailed out on at the first opportunity. My own understanding is that Cameron was looking to sell the club for the best part of a decade and spent years chasing carpet baggers and trying to find someone he could trust to take the club forward.   Is this just revisionist spin to justify the mess we’re in now or was there things that weren’t in the public domain at the time?  With due respect, this kind of ITK nod and wink stuff doesn’t help the club at all. 

Nobody can hide the mess we are  in just now on the pitch , remember Lachlan picked about 8/9 poor managers before he got the right guy , it’s was plainly obvious latterly that Lachlan was not going to invest much more , he actually stated online that the club would need to become more self efficient as he was not going to throw more money at it , that’s not an ITK fact , that was general public news 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, AyrExile said:

always thought at the time everything was going very well in the boardroom

2 directors resigned only leaving Lachlan plus 2 , when around half your board resign there must have been something going on , why that was a number of people have views , but the reason is still rather cloudy , 

Edited by Finlay21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HMIP said:

This is all news to me.  What was happening “under Lachlan”?  My personal recollection is that you were very positive about Kerr’s appointment and were very critical of anyone who saw it as a cheap option appointment that lacked ambition.  Now you seem to be saying it was a sign of a deepening malaise that Cameron bailed out on at the first opportunity. My own understanding is that Cameron was looking to sell the club for the best part of a decade and spent years chasing carpet baggers and trying to find someone he could trust to take the club forward.   Is this just revisionist spin to justify the mess we’re in now or was there things that weren’t in the public domain at the time?  With due respect, this kind of ITK nod and wink stuff doesn’t help the club at all. 

Don’t get how it’s news to you , it was all on social media sites that Lachlan was leaving as soon as someone he trusted would take the reins and his investments were not going to be increased saying the club must become more self efficient, 2 directors resigned not long after Kerr was announced again public knowledge ( the reasons for them resigning still remains a mystery) yes I thought Kerr was a decent choice at the time and defended him , turned out be a wrong choice , bailing out at first opportunity is mentioned nowhere in my posts , he certainly didn’t leave at first opportunity he left as soon as he got the person he trusted which just happened  to be not long after he appointed Kerr ( not the reason for him bailing out ) there nothing that was not in the public domain apart from the reason the directors resigned , so nothing I posted was ITN as you say 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Finlay21 said:

2 directors resigned only leaving Lachlan plus 2 , when around half your board resign there must have been something going on , why that was a number of people have views , but the reason is still rather cloudy , 

Which 2 are you referring to as I'm not sure a time when we've only had 2 directors? Kirkwood and Grant? If so Smith was already a director when both of those resigned along with Houston and Murray. Or are you going further back to Pettigrew and Peterkin leaving a couple of months after Torrie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:

Yet another game day where I feel apathy and like it's a chore going to the game! Regardless I'll be there tonight. I've gave Duffy some goodwill up to now but if he starts with Afolabi and we drop points to a rank rotten Hamilton team, he can GTF any time 

Me too also wrt. the apathy.

However, my goodwill has drained away and I fully expect to be chanting 'Duffy GTF' at some point this evening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AyrExile said:

I don't have much knowledge of Lachlan's finances. What i do remember though was for many seasons that he kept saying he didn't have the cash to continue and would sell up to the right person. The main variable i saw changing was that Smith appeared and he finally found someone genuinely interested in helping the club. McCall may also have left due to supporting the team he moved to. Got to say these challenges you describe have come out of the blue. i always thought at the time everything was going very well in the boardroom

Cameron sr took the club on from Barr for £1 and inherited the debt. 
Cameron Jr wiped out the “hard” debt but the “soft” debt increased every year from directors. Cameron and the board were putting in at least 5 figures a year if you believe him. This was to keep the club afloat and operating.

Chucking 50 to a hundred grand at something every year only to get moaned at can’t be very pleasant and it is the measure of the guy that he didn’t sell it to some conman.

Had Smith not appeared, I expect that Cameron would still be owner, still making a loss with no hub.

Would we be doing better on the pitch? Hard to say. His appointments were mostly shite 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, diegomarahenry said:

Cameron sr took the club on from Barr for £1 and inherited the debt. 
Cameron Jr wiped out the “hard” debt but the “soft” debt increased every year from directors. Cameron and the board were putting in at least 5 figures a year if you believe him. This was to keep the club afloat and operating.

Chucking 50 to a hundred grand at something every year only to get moaned at can’t be very pleasant and it is the measure of the guy that he didn’t sell it to some conman.

Had Smith not appeared, I expect that Cameron would still be owner, still making a loss with no hub.

Would we be doing better on the pitch? Hard to say. His appointments were mostly shite 

 

Lachlan and his father deserve an enormous amount of gratitude for what they did for the club. Without them there would be no Ayr United. It's as simple as that.

I think Kerr would still have been in charge if Lachlan was owner. He gave managers a lot of time, sometimes more than they deserved. I'm sure he said at some point that he didn't listen to the fans and used his own judgement about whether to fire a manager.

Kerr might have been given enough time to come good eventually, but at the time I wanted him gone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ayrunitedfw said:

It was never confirmed but was certainly rumoured that the two board members left due to the appointment of Mark Kerr. We have been on a extremely quick downward spiral since then. A disaster appointment in Hopkin and then Smith panicked and gave it to Duffy after a couple of good results where we could of went out and got John Hughes. That decision will forever haunt us.  

I disagree that not getting John Hughes will forever haunt us. We are above Dunfermline in the league and he has still to prove himself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Richey Edwards said:

I think Kerr would still have been in charge if Lachlan was owner. He gave managers a lot of time, sometimes more than they deserved. I'm sure he said at some point that he didn't listen to the fans and used his own judgement about whether to fire a manager.

Kerr might have been given enough time to come good eventually, but at the time I wanted him gone. 

Yes, I remember just before he was fired we played some bizarre line-up, with Ndaba in midfield. At that point I thought "he's lost the plot" and I didn't think it was unreasonable that he was fired, particularly when you consider that the squad on paper was decent. The appointment to replace him was a very poor decision that most people on here criticised based on Hopkin's record and was compounded by not firing him at the end of the season.

The thing that none of us knows is what conversations Smith is having with Duffy - if we get to the end of the January window and our squad has not been improved then I think any and all criticism of Smith would be fair. Until then I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt - as someone once said, reserving judgement is a matter of infinite hope.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...