Cannibal
-
Posts
375 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Cannibal
-
-
8 minutes ago, Jack Burton said:
Struggling to see a great benefit in being able to open a club shop during the week in Hamilton when the majority of your fan base is in Cumbernauld and Glasgow.
The impact on the home crowd is completely unknown as well. Hopefully the club has figured in a reduced home crowd in working out the finances of moving to Hamilton.
I think we all knew a move away from Broadwood was on the cards but the move to Hamilton seems to have come about fairly quickly.The only potential impact here can be a drop in crowds. Certain people wanted us out of Broadwood even if there was no better offer. They've got what they wanted. In five years time it won't be shettleston juniors v broadwood, it will be shettleston juniors or nothing. Congratulations to those folk
0 -
4 minutes ago, Scott-Replay said:
Without having any official insight, I am lead to believe we will actually save quite a reasonable amount on the rent. At least we’ll be able to open a club shop which can be open on non-match days. More than we can do at the moment.
How much income do you think we are missing out on by not being able to open a club shop on non-match days?
5 -
Let's face it, those who were willing to move us to any old shithole as long as it wasn't cumbernauld, even if it meant changing the club's name will now get their way.
1 -
Honestly have no idea how Clyde make decisions despite throwing money away as an owner in the hope of getting some information.
In the last few months we had an AGM to vote in the Board, followed by some updates on working parties who were looking into improving Broadwood and/or potential relocations. Fast forward a few weeks and we've had some sponsor force the Board into signing a player they didn't want to sign, then 5(?) new people added to the Board without any mechanism for the owners to do anything about it (including one returning board member who previously tried to kill the club by changing its name and moving us to a stadium that didn't yet exist), immediately followed by announcing a move to fucking Hamilton (christ, i'd have rather the cliftonhill april fools joke was true). I'm not saying we should stay at Broadwood but I literally have no idea how the fan-owned club works or how the owners actually influence things in any way.
6 -
And folk on here were claiming it was essential for Scottish football that the SPFL allowed more promotion from this league?
0 -
14 hours ago, Dev said:
This does not even apply to the Highland League so why penalise those clubs? The SPFL2 doesn't ONLY have relegation to the Lowland League you know!
Are you suggesting that because many strong ex Junior clubs aren't yet in the Lowland League then it's OK for the likes of Brechin City to have to face, firstly, a play-off with the Lowland League's Champions before then needing to play-off again against the poorest club in SPFL2 in order to regain their place in SPFL2? That is, of course, if they, as an example of relegated SPFL2 clubs, are even strong enough to win one of the two Tier 5 Feeder leagues. East Stirling, Berwick Rangers and, now, probably Brechin City haven't shown that they can make the return to SPFL2. How many more weak SPFL2 clubs does it take to be relegated before the penny drops?
Blocking fair promotion and relegation between Tier 4 and 5 is just a half-baked attempt at blocking natural promotion and relegation within the Pyramid. Dump the excuses and get on with it.
I am suggesting that, yes. Blocking fair promotion into Tier 5 should be sorted if Tier 5 wants more upwards promotion. This seems reasonable to me.
Fairness will only be achieved when we have a system that guarantees teams find their level not one that is tweaked now and again to increase the chances of promotion for whatever team happens to be getting bankrolled to a league title in a season, or gifts a playoff to team that has played three games.
0 -
On 01/04/2022 at 00:14, Robert James said:
I am NOT in favour of B teams being given preferential (promotion) treatment over pyramid clubs, and I don't buy the view that there is a correlation between Celtic & Rangers B-teams, and the national team. A more effective loan system between Premiership and SPFL clubs, would be a better development opportunity for talented players, IMO. It seems to work very well in the EFL.
However, the more important change in the current Scottish Pyramid, must be promotion to, and relegation from, SPF League Two. Scotland now has an inclusive system for no-league clubs, which makes it timely to further open up the system.
As I have said before, Club 42 should be relegated automatically, and replaced by the winners of the Highland/Lowland Play Off. In addition, Cub 41 should face the losers of the HFL/SLL, in a play-of, with the winning club retaining or gaining League Two status..
This is particularly essential now, with the West of Scotland champions adding strength & quality to the Lowland League, with only a 'drip feed' of one club per season having the chance of promotion. SPFL clubs, when relegated, will find it increasingly difficult to return to league status, especially because the trap door is to small to climb back through. Ask East Stirlingshire or Berwick Rangers for their views. Also, Brechin City have performed well in the Highland League, but they won't be HFL champions at the end of this season.
I am sure we agree on where we would all like to be but there's absolutely no reason why it is "essential" that an extra team in League Two should drop into a league half made up of dross that are voting against plans to let better teams get promoted into it.
in the last couple of years we've had a highland league team getting in a promotion play-off having played three league games and a lowland league team twice refusing more promotion into it whilst making space for old firm B teams. The essential thing is for the leagues outside the SPFL to ensure they are as competitive as possible to prove they actually produce the next best teams in the country and make the prospect of dropping into it less disastrous.
3 -
Surely it's time to drop this. starting to sound like old firm fans using something like this to point score
6 -
31 minutes ago, Bully Wee Clyde FC said:
From the Courier today.
Says Clyde can't necessarily wriggle out of the loan deal. On top of this self inflicted lobotomy, we've lost money too!
Unbelievable Jeff.
I honestly find it hard to believe we are putting anything more than a pittance towards his wages. I mean surely he was guaranteed his Raith Rovers money and they couldn't get out of that so why would we pay anything more than a token amount (or maybe some bonuses that he'll now not get)? (I'm well aware that there is one potentially obvious answer and it is that we are fucking idiots.)
0 -
5 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:
Yeah, they could have; I wonder if he’d have to be named specifically on the contract as persona non grata (which he won’t have been). From this tho (and the firm’s name here is…eesh!) it looks like you can terminate a commercial lease in Scotland on 40 days notice - even if that didn’t apply then the council would be within their rights to simply not renew the lease at renewal date, meaning the club are still getting papped out; just a bit further down the line.
https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2020/09/terminating-leases-in-scotland
I don't think whether they are legally able to do it or not is overly relevant now. Surely the club aren't going to push it and take legal action to force them to let goodwillie in, as that would just keep this going and embarrass us further. But then again who knows what they might do. An all-time low, which as a Clyde fan is saying something.
0 -
58 minutes ago, Brian Carrigan said:
Never wanted Falkirk to win a game of football until now. Hope we get absolutely horsed. At least if we get relegated all the way down and cease to exist the club can't embarrass itself any further.
We don't need to take everything to extremes like this. I agree the Club have made the wrong decision but there's no need to go that far. The club has existed for 140-odd years and will continue long past this furore as long as the fans get a grip and stop seeing people with a different view as enemies.
Having said that, I don't expect anything from the game (other than some negative headlines and much comment on the fans reactions to one player, if he even plays).
3 -
Just now, BullyWee Craig said:
I don't think you can blame any clyde player for wanting full time football and a better wage. Would refuse to take Mitchell back if he became available?
The punishment is he isn't making nearly the same amount he would have been or playing at the level his ability deserves.
Well a) he should be getting his money from Raith as they were stupid enough to sign him and b) if he's not playing or being paid at the level he should be it is his own fault.
Unreal some of the logic being used here
0 -
19 minutes ago, BullyWee Craig said:
Metoo started in 2017 around the time we signed Goodie, it's not that much a difference to how it's viewed now.
Take Val Mcdermit out this equation and I think he would be playing at Raith.
Do we just punish someone who has never been found guilty for the rest of his life?
In defence of the board I wouldn't describe taking this decision as spineless, the easy option was to take the money and run. They were pushed into listening to fans and sponsors but they made the tough decision in the end.
Us not re-signing him is not him being punished for life for a crime he didn't commit. What a hill to die on. Honestly i've never known a fanbase to be so hostile to ex-players (other than this one). He hands in a transfer request when we are in a relegation battle and all you lot are treating him like a hero and willing to have the club be the shame of the nation to get what? One and a half seasons of league 1 football that we would likely have anyway?
1 -
12 minutes ago, BullyWee Craig said:
At least that's a principled stand to take and while I might disagree with the reasoning I have respect for you standing by your decision.
I have no respect for those who change their opinion on goodie depending on what's in the papers that week.
Quite a lot has changed actually and not just what is in the papers. Most despicably of all we now have a group who hero-worship and defend Goodwillie both on messageboards and at games. That is quite different to letting a guy play football for the worst team in Scotland (which at the time seemed like more humiliation and some small punishment for his actions).
What has also changed is a lot of people going back and seeing exactly what happened at the time and re-considering whether we should ever have signed him. Let's not forget this all came back in the media because he thought he could make a bit of money and didn't give a f**k what impact it would have on anyone else.
What has also happened is the realisation that the club is being run by people without a backbone who will let the club be shamed nationally under pressure from a few individuals.
Now you can pretend you are the one taking a principled stand if you are comfortable with all the above if you want but perfectly reasonable for others to view differently.
2 -
32 minutes ago, RutherGlen said:
I understand your points and thank you for stating them in a calm and reasonable way. That said, I disagree with the thrust of your argument.
You say that this was an opportunity for Clyde to demonstrate that we now understand the seriousness of the situation, thus implying that it was not seen as particularly serious/potentially damaging first time around. I think the board have always been acutely aware of how serious this situation is and how divisive it has the potential to be and took the decision to employ Goodwillie despite that. The very detailed explanation centering around rehabilitation and our role within that when he first signed showed the club had not taken the decision lightly.
To not re-sign him now (on loan or otherwise) would be tantamount to admitting they were wrong to employ him in the first instance. I don't believe they were wrong then and, therefore, don't believe they are wrong now. For some to say it was basically ok then but not now given the Raith situation/media backlash seems more about PR than morals.
A previous Chairman (who has since supposedly tried to demand money from the club for a different matter) gave a statement in completely different circumstances.
Regardless of anyone's views on goodwillie and whether he should play football, the Current Board need to explain to owners why they took the decision, whether they were pressured into it and what they intend to do to offset the massive negative reaction it was inevitably going to cause.
Quite seperate to whether DGW should he playing anywhere we need to know who actually runs this club and what they are doing to address the key long-term problems we have, i.e being able ot put a decent team on the park and build a bigger fanbase. Signing DGW does very little for the former (every other player is garbage) and good luck at pretending to be a community club after this.
0 -
Jesus Christ. Just shut the club ffs. What is the point
0 -
27 minutes ago, haufdaft said:
I'm sure the tone deaf idiots will step up and fill the financial void that will be created by NLL ending commercial partnerships. No doubt other sponsors will come under pressure.
For example, Caplan won't want bad publicity for sponsoring the team that employs Goodwillie.
Some of our supporters thought the furore would only last a couple of days.
It really is incredible how stupid some folk are. I'm haufdaft but I could see this coming a mile away.
Caplan has given his thoughts on the owners forum via some "intermediary" in the last few days. If you are an owner it is on page 2 of the "would you have DGW back" thread. Given it is a private forum, I won't be posting what he said but thought I'd mention it.
0 -
10 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:
For me it’s quite simple. If he had shown genuine remorse or contrition there might have been a path back for him in the game; he’s shown neither. I am not opposed to rehabilitation but that is reliant on the person owning their wrongdoing, without that there is no chance of rehabilitation.
Like many others I’m astounded by Clyde’s decision. Do the people running the club live in a social and moral vacuum?
The Board should never be signing him again and they have disgraced the club with this move but this whole going on about remorse thing is pointless. Even if he was remorseful, he is hardly going to admit a crime he hasn't been charged with is he?
0 -
An absolute embarrassment of a club and it's clear those in charge of it are a bunch of fucking morons.
1 -
29 minutes ago, LJClyde said:
Thats one take on it yes - which you're fully entitled to.
Another take might be that the woman has been responsible for dragging the name of an ex player through the mud who conducted himself with exemplary professionalism during his 5 years at Clyde - leading to the mass spread of misinformation about the case causing outrage majoritively from people who just read a tweet and make assumptions without even looking into the facts of the case.
A man who has not been convicted of any crime and only lost a civil case on the balance of probability based on zero evidence from a judge who is about as qualified enough to hand down a judgement in a criminal case as a joiner is.
Her sexual orientation does not change the fact she looks like Guy Fieri and thus has a shite haircut.
No idea where you have popped up from but if you really are a Clyde fan, please do the rest of the fans and the Club a favour and delete these posts or at least give up posting on the subject
3 -
12 minutes ago, Broken Algorithms said:
If Clyde sign him, you'll get it absolutely fucking rotten from the press and people who are now a lot more aware of the situation.
Unfortunately a good number on the Clyde owners' forum seem to disagree.
0 -
10 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:
He's not done that though which again, is fairly straightforward.
It is quite clearly quibbling. If you think he's suggesting that your support started singing in unison racial abuse then you're a bit thick tbh.
It's already been pointed out to you that the annoyed responses are in relation to the language used in the daily record article which makes claims that Logan didn't make so you might want to reconsider who the thick one is here. I don't think any Clyde fan is going to take lectures off a fucking clown with charlie adam as his picture either.
3 -
I remember hoping this club would win its relegation playoff then thinking it would be good to see them fight their way back up. What a disgrace of a club.
0 -
Disgrace
0
Clyde v East Fife
in Scottish League 2 General Chatter
Posted
Honestly as bad a performance as there has been in the last few years, and that is saying something. Only hope is the McCall now knows exactly what he is dealing with here.