BrigtonClyde

True, that's what any fan of any team is most interested in. The only thing is, how can that be addressed if the rest isn't in order ? Cause & effect, one thing leads to another. The direction of travel is live within means, no speculate to accumulate. OK, fine. Well in that case, the rest has to be put in place to generate what's needed. So what's the plan then ? Or is it more of the same, feed them crumbs for a few years more til we work out what the hell we're doing ourselves? They honestly think after this season and years of this, it's going to wash anymore ? We're all together hoping the team avoid relegation and try to help where we can, but that comes with conditions. You've had years now, get your act together, present something in the summer worth buying into, you owe the support that much. If you can't, get people who can.

We're all agreed we're hoping we manage to avoid relegation, but where's the Club's rallying call in all this ? A statement to the effect, we appreciate it's been a disappointing season, we've 2 games to ensure our league status, we're asking all supporters to give the players as much backing as possible SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE, if we do survive we can then proceed with exciting plans for next season. Can anyone show me anything to suggest that even if we do dodge a bullet this season, that next season won't just be more of the same? Where's the evidence ? This ties in to what happened with the debt repayment. OK, so they made a decision to clear it off. So they're saying to the fans, look, due to this the standard's going to decrease dramatically, it'll be a hard watch, but stick with it & the moment we're clear, here's the blueprint we can instigate from day one to reverse it all. Something to buy into. So the debt got cleared and then.....nothing. And apparantly we've to celebrate people who are living off the kudos of clearing debt who had absolutely no idea what to do next ? Club's a one trick pony. Everything's on the never never, kicked into the long grass, something will sort it out at some unspecifiied point in the future, but meantime our hands are tied with debt / Broadwood / A.N. Other....so it's all you can expect. The latest version seems to suggest that everything will be sorted out by re-location. So exactly when & where is this happening? Meantime they're looking to be recognised for work within the Cumbernauld community while making it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that you intend to leave the place. What the hell are you people doing? We've had years of this garbage and it's had the inevitable result on the pitch. If you're incapable of running the club in all its capacity as required, that's not a crime, but source people who can. If not from within, then from elsewhere. You've got one so far, but his will be a specific role as project manager for project relocation. You'll need more than that. If we survive this and then you're asked for the plan, it's no longer good enough to shrug shoulders and suggest there's a few wee things you're working on. Answers this summer or f**k off.

That's a possibility. You'd view them as bonus add ons while looking to build a proper core support from the area being represented. The south east's grown quite a bit since we were last there

I basically agree. Coming back to Glasgow and ticking all the boxes is tricky, but representing the area in the south east has potential given its size and historic separation from the city. Dalmarnock Rd kind of ties with Rutherglen and the greater area, but ideally it's closer. Celtic and Rangers don't represent areas, they represent ideas though have strong affiliations with specific locations. So in the same way the LaRue XI have been associated with representing the north, there's a gap in the market

That's true Sydney, but there's some basics here. Any option Clyde are looking at will either be a new build or a demolition and re-build. The latter wouldn't just apply to Shawfield. Shawfield is unlikely but the situation there is simple. All of the terracing is condemned by H&S. Clyde Gateway made an offer to the current owner that would have had Clyde involved. It would have been demolition & rebuild. He knocked it back because he has fewer days ahead than behind him, hanging on hoping that as the newly developed Oatlands emerges and perhaps more of the Clyde Gateway land is sold and then built on, that will automatically add value to his property - location! Meaning that when he finally pops his clogs, there is a greater inheritance to pass on to those known to be riddled with debt. The first thing they will do is sell it. A CPO is possible but that's not in the hands of the club, it relies on a 3rd party, and presumably Clyde want to move quickly There's a few locations including a huge piece of land on Dalmarnock Rd itself, but that might be earmarked for the Gateway's planned industrial development, I don't know. I do know they've not sold land as quickly as they'd hoped so are perhaps looking at secondary options now. It's possible as it would tie into their industry / lesiure mixed usage target for the area., Relocation needs a feasible community to build into, and a ground that presents an impression that attracts people into it. My guess is it'll need to be south of the river or an area very closely associated with it. I doubt Crownpoint would tick that box. With the latter, forget an E Fife / Dumbarton / Annan style development. Along similar lines to what SSB was saying, something initially like Forthbank providing there is the potential to develop further if the club progresses to maximize the potential. Otherwise you're creating your own destiny and there shouldn't be any complaints about being stuck in the lower 2 leagues with the occasional visit to the Championship. With Innes' background I'm assuming whatever is planned will involve partnerships. Owning your own ground and being saddled with a mortgage is fine providing it's something worth owning. He's clearly been brought in to be project manager of "Project Relocation", given the title chairman because organisations prefer dealing with the boss. OK, let's see how he does.

Could definitely use some assistance, only thing being I can't think of anyone available / who'd be willing to help out unless it looked like they might get the gig longer term to make it worth their while. But maybe there is, I honestly don't know.

That was acknowledged CFC, but presumably once past him he'd still have a defence to beat. Instead he had wide open space to run into. The defence has all the play in front of them, they should be able to see the dangers coming. There's also the chances Arbroath missed. But that's just one game and comes back to the point I was making about signing "good players", or at least at this level, adequate. Changing this that & the next thing and devising all sorts of systems is just countering basic deficiencies. The root of that is the signing policy, and even allowing for very limited resources, there's some key areas of a team you have to prioritize to build something around. Some had high expectations in the summer due to the signings. But as far as I could tell, Peaso aside, all of them were playing at this level last season. Not to say that they couldnt do a decent job for us, the creativity in midfield was strengthened, but the forward line was the same except for the addition of Peaso and the defence looked weaker from the outset. He had the chance to prioritize that in January, but didn't. Clearly there's no money to bring a new manager in. We have what we have and can only hope they manage to get a few results together. That's the priority right now. If they do, then will be the time to address the entire structure otherwise it'll be Groundhog Day. If they don't, there'll be nothing left to address anyway.

I would. The arsin about with fancy tactics has been discredited for some time and in themselves are another admission of failure, or more specifically, the inability to develop / sign good players for standard positions. Why the need for fullbacks to constantly bomb forward if you sign very good left and right sided midfielders in a standard 4-4-2 ? But if you don't, then you have to counteract that with more support from fullbacks, which then means you have to counteract that with holding midfielders, which then means a striker has to drop back one to 'play in the hole' It's all bullshit. A team of good players playing in their correct positions will win more games than they lose. The idea is that the system is designed around the players you have, not trying to make a circle fit a square. Ferguson had a set idea involving wingbacks but that absolutely demands a very strong centre half pairing at least. We know the rest.... Anyway for Saturday I'd play 2 at the back with 2 holding midfielders in front protected by another 3 holding midfielders in front of them, then play 3 out wide right and overload them down there. That should do the trick !

It's obvious where problems lie Take any team where the keeper is regularly voted MOTM. That suggests they've a good keeper, but also must have some serious problems elsewhere if he's having to regularly keep them in a game. As for "holding midfielder", I hadnt even heard that term until the mid 90's. It used to be a "playmaker". A holding midfielder is an admission that there's a "bit of a problem" with the defence so they need a little extra cover. Two holding midfielders is an admission the defence is a disaster. Course the art of defending seems old fashioned now, they all have to be attacking wingbacks or centre halfs really comfortable with the ball at their feet. Even the keepers have to be like Beckenbauer now ! Listen, it's simple. Defence, clue's in the name. You're there to defend, stop the fucking ball going into the net. Keeper, catch the ball, communicate with the defenders, that's pretty much all you need to do any given 90 minutes. If only we could find a holding wingback utility striker.....to play in the hole.....

Good point Jaggy and more or less ties into the reason I didnt think we'd win the league, though I didnt expect us to be down where we are. Only Montrose, Edinburgh and Cowdenbeath have scored fewer goals, only Berwick have conceded more. I agree you'd look for more from midfield, but if you don't have the basics right up front and in defence, you'll struggle. The defence, well enough said. Up front, likely have a main striker but you'll always need a second who can add a fair few as well, and that was highlighted as missing back in August. Peaso has been a great addition and lasted the pace longer than could maybe be expected, but then it's a big drop off. We needed a second option and then by all means more from midfield, but as you've said, hard to score if you've spent most of your time warming the bench or dropping deeper to cover for the weakness of the back 4. Bottom line, in 27 league games we've kept clean sheets in 15% and scored in 70%. Unlikely to win anything with those kind of stats.

If players miss a penalty, or an easy chance, or have a poor game, or get injured etc..that's not the responsibility of a board The financial health of a club which has a direct relation to its leverage to attract a specific calibre of manager and player is the responsibility of a board That's a general rule in the case of 99% of clubs We're the 1% exception (if as high as that) relating to the general health of the club because of its structure blurring the edges of responsibility. Sometimes 'members' are to shoulder a burden, while other times its not convenient for them to be fully informed due to technicalities. A model crafted by a small band of architects which became reality without any consultation If we are relegated, the arguments will become redundant. A handful of people attending can't sustain the club. If we avoid relegation, I suspect the CiC's days are numbered

I agree. These are must win games so putting 6 out with the main task of defending isn't going to work A switch around of the back 4 and that 4 putting in a proper shift would be a start

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but it's about personnel and the types of players they are So for yesterday's game I thought maybe a back 5, or 4 with 2 holding in front. But the two have to be ball winning defensive minded who can play that role effectively. Flynn, Ferguson etc are attacking midfielders, so with what we have I can only imagine a pairing of McLaughlin and McMillan or Johnston You can't just put people in anywhere and demand they do a job they're not suited for Plus the next few games are ”must wins", draws might not be enough, I don't know if a back 4 with a holding 2 will deliver. So it's a difficult one for them to strike the balance, but it's all caused by the weakness in defence. Out of interest, for the next game, what would your preferred line up be?

Yes, but look at the highlights, we only lost one goal more through good fortune than design True, their goal came from their player not being tracked back but there were still wide open spaces to run into. Some were simple long punts over the back to completely unmarked strikers Of course the midfield has a job to do, play their part, but the main problem is the lack of organisation, focus and probably ability of that defence, and has been since August. But the January window's past, they need to somehow find a way to pick up points.

I hope Bino Balls is right obviously, but I'm not so sure Yesterday's game was another example of the problem, all there in the highlights Midfield / forward we've some decent players, fairly creative or whatever. But we're just so easy to score against. Arbroath's goal, boy picks it up in midfield, simple one - two and he's got acres of space to run into, plenty time to pick his spot. Arbroath could easily have scored 2 or 3 more, not through amazing play, but just due to the basics in defending being completely absent. Clyde could have grabbed a couple, so if all easy chances taken a 4-2 home win in what was quite an even game in a general sense That level of defending isn't sustainable if we're to pull away from this situation. And with what we've been left, it can only be fixed by re-arranging the deck chairs. It's in our own hands at least but every game is a cup final for us otherwise it's relegation, and literally in every sense, game over

Or maybe you and I can meet up in Rutherglen to discuss it, you up for it? Martini situation, from tomorrow suits me How many aliases do you have? Fucking blouse

that hadn't gone unnoticed either But it's all about opinions....

Smoke & mirrors If you've got smoking mirrors, be an idea you gie the Fire Brigade a tinkle....

I wish JP and Peaso all the best in their new roles. If they were what's needed to get a response from the players, so be it The only thing that matters is Clyde and that we start picking up points and quickly. If we were to be relegated, all the talk about the board would be irrelevant, we would be finished as a club, make no mistake about it. Any pre-empted scripts "deeply disappointing / we all need to come together / it's just another part of our journey / aiming to bounce straight back up to the Senior league" ....forget about it. Club would be finished. Gone. Issues surrounding how the club is run should and can be addressed in the summer, providing there's a club left. First thing's first, win games

Is this no you on bass SLW ?

AFAIK, the model is set up as an annual renewal. So for that year, whoever are the registered members are the equal owners of the club. It seems each person can only have one equal share. So for example, if the annual levy is £35, I doubt if someone decided to pay £350, they'd receive 10 "voting shares". Or is that wrong? Relates to the suggestion anyone can come in with X amount and seize control easily. Presumably someone paying £350 would need to find 9 others to allocate that to, and then in the case of any vote, mobilize their troops. The latter's possible but likely deliberately inconvenient. The current system should be adjusted with more flexibility, it's too rigid. If we're trying to source people with the acumen to really take us forward, why should they be invoiced for giving up their time? If they were given a free hand to operate using their expertise, the checks and balances are still in place to consider any major proposals. In the main they'd be generating money, that's what they do. The only incentive for anyone to want to buy a club would be in line with what Fergus McCann did, where he felt so confident in the potential and his plans, that he knew he'd not only turn a club completely around but also make a profit then walk away. Both parties benefited. I don't mind of they put the club up for sale, and made that clear either publicly or more likely through specific channels, but I just don't see the likelihood of any takers. What's the incentive when they would likely be enthusiasts and could be offered a role without the need for cash exchanging hands ?

That's a reasonable point, it is only a snapshot of opinion. However, it would be wise to take it on board in conjunction with other factors and sources of information to help gauge an assessment of how they're performing and root causes of problems For example, attendance levels, membership levels, volunteer levels, likely take up of future plans, what appears to be working well, what needs to improve It's entirely commonplace with successful businesses and organisations actively looking to engage with their 'customer base' for feedback. In our case, the first and only time I can remember this was with the consultation process last year which was a positive move in the right direction. This was a big departure from the culture of "if you want information, pay for it and become an owner" , and of course in real terms that equated to 'some' information often tied up in carefully crafted responses Where your organisation is clearly failing in some part or parts of its operation, then to use their own favourite phrase, it's 'due diligence' to source as much information as possible to help find a resolution. P&B is just one one, but can at least represent a view or views held by a section of the support

That's what I mean, it's just so simple and happens every day in organisations everywhere. OK, if they want to be seen to follow the principle of this CiC thing, offer it to owners first. If there is interest, interview them for the position to ensure their background means they have the necessary skillset. If they don't / there's no takers, source elsewhere. What's difficult to understand? Whole thing's bizarre, very very strange way of operating.

According to the OS, the Board are well aware of what gets written on sites like this, so they'll know the supporters feelings about various issues over the past few years. OK fine. Let's say the the worst case scenario happened and we ended up in the Lowland league. Do they think rhetoric like "obviously we're all deeply disappointed / now more than ever we need all our fans to come together and give us their full backing" would have any credibility, or likelihood of their preferred response? I don't doubt they have Clyde at heart or frankly they'd prefer a hassle free time of it. So it defies logic, why constantly pursue policies or strategies they know aren't well received and don't work - look around, the evidence is everywhere. It's already been suggested new directions and approaches to take that don't equate to resignations but adding from outwith. Sitting back and saying, look, see, no volunteers from within our numbers to be chairman. Why should there be, just because an imposed system's in place? It's unbelievable and has been for years, it's so basic and got nothing to do with some splinter groups who don't seem capable of finding their backsides with both hands either. This is like the end of each sketch in Spike Milligan's Q Series.....what are we going to do now, what are we going to do now, what are we going to do now.......

True Harry, but they've been the architects of it. All organisations carry out regular reviews of their operation, identify what's working well and what clearly needs addressed. If need be, sourcing what's required from elsewhere and that should have been done several years ago. But the more important thing is the future, moving forward, and that's what they should, and hopefully are, actively doing. As for re-location, if they still feel that's necessary despite progress with NLL, they now have the benefit of hindsight. That should help guide them as to the kind of proposal most would probably buy into which will be absolutely necessary. That'll likely need to look very different from options quoted previously. The main problem for them rebuilding the club is the lack of certainty over the longer term future. Until it's resolved it's very difficult to see how they can develop strong links with any community. Otherwise, as expected, the manager's for staying. We're reduced to keeping our fingers crossed we don't drop further into a relegation dogfight. While it's not impossible, it will take a monumental turnaround of form to reach the promotion playoffs and there's been nothing in the past 3 months to suggest that's likely. He's described Saturday's match as a "6 pointer", in the same way 3 games in December would "define our season". Talk's talk, win games.