BrigtonClyde

Pretty sure it's a greenfield site. That's why they couldn't build houses on it despite the reported plans in 86. So can only be used for "leisure". The surrounding redevelopment is earmarked for a mix of industry & leisure. Progress is slow because of the state of the economy, it's like the 70's all over again, so if they're struggling to sell the land already prepared for that purpose, no reason to think they'd be rushing to apply the same to that land. As I said earlier, the overall developers spoke with the current owner around 8 years ago, and it was with a view to demolish and rebuild the stadium, not housing or industry. Course they've just had to spend even more money cleaning up the back of the old Arnold Clark lot because they thought they'd managed to get rid of the contamination in the underground burn there that flows into Richmond Park, but when they double checked more recently, realised they'd still a lot of work to do. They could use an eyesore getting removed and something new going up in its place to at least present that there is some level of progress happening. Clyde building it could certainly tick a box for them

14C tomorrow it says. That's no "taps aff" in Cumbernauld, that's "difficult sleeping conditions" up there !

About 20 year ago or so ? Remember they did share for a season or two. Don't blame your uncle, that was another disastrous road we nearly went down but just managed to avoid.

The terracing's condemned on H&S. The tree roots have compromised the foundations of the terracing wall, so there's no chance they'd get a safety certificate for it even if cleaned up. The stand is starting to rot away, large areas sectioned off. The dogs are away, they'll never return. It would be a demolish and rebuild, but as I've said before, that's at least a possibility if interested parties come together. Location-wise it ticks more boxes for potential catchment area than 1 or 2 other options mentioned, even if only a mile or so away. I agree with SLW's post, because unless all of that is finally put in place you're just taking a fundamental problem from one place to another, wherever it is. They absolutely have to learn their lessons, sub-contract if need be, it's a vital part of making anywhere a success, not a little bonus add on that would be handy if someone could help out & if they don't, blame the locals for not coming along.

The reality's more along the lines that NLC have wanted us out for a very long time (I doubt that stadium will be there in a few years), so they saw the DGW situation as an opportunity to pull the trigger. They tried to pre-empt criticism by saying that they only took over the running of the place very recently - must've been in the few days that the player was at Rovers then being loaned back - and it was NLL who were in charge previously. Laughably they tried to make out that NLL and NLC are two completely different organizations. Only slight problem being, the records show that NLC took over the running of NLL operations with effect from April last year, so, y'know.... That said, Clyde have been talking about moving for a long time - a cardinal sin when they had nothing set in stone to move to - then wondered why the locals had disengaged, over and above the fact that the club had done very little over all the years to really become part of the community. Both sides have a case to answer, but it's done now. As for trusting the board to have the competence to come up with the right decision in terms of new location, and not look at the minimum 3 years at Hamilton as an opportunity to kick things into the long grass for a while, always happy to be pleasantly surprised. I think Airdrie used Broadwood as a home for a year or two, is that right ? Appropriate then you'll be the last away team I suppose. Ironic however it's due to be fairly warm tomorrow ! We lost the first ever game there, so feel free to bring things full circle. Thankfully you need the points more than we do, and after Cove Rangers' Security Officer shenanigans in January leading to false accusations by Logan, which have STILL not been resolved, can't say I'd lose any sleep if you managed to get over the line ahead of them.

Correct. The dogs are finished there, ban or no ban. They're holding out for land value but they've a problem. The terracing was condemned H&S years ago. Most of the stand is now also. They're wide open to a CPO on those grounds alone providing there's something to go up in its place. Clyde Gateway made him a very generous offer around 8 years ago which he rejected. He doesn't have many years left. Time to make him an offer he can't refuse. None of the other options mentioned in the past or now come close to that location's potential given redevelopment nearby and the greater expansion of the Rutherglen area over the years But it's Clyde, so, y'know.....

Sort of, but not necessarily. The terracing was condemned years ago for multiple reasons, not least the foundations of the wall have been compromised due to tree roots, so it's not a case of it just needing a tidy up, you wouldn't get a safety certificate to open it. The stand from the outside looks OK, but it's been deteriorating the past few years to the point large areas of it have now been sectioned off. So again, very unlikely a safety certificate would be issued. It's pretty much common knowledge the dogs are finished there, the pandemic was the final nail in the coffin and the trainers have moved elsewhere. The ownership of it is another thing. There's what's officially on paper and what's in reality. May well be holding on for the land value, there's certainly no value left in the building itself, but when the property gets into that level of disrepair you are open to various possible actions being taken. When Clyde originally moved there they didn't own the land, they rented it. They owned what they built and of course earned from everything that took place there. It was some years later before the land was also purchased. Shawfield was always going to have to be a demolition and rebuild, but wherever they were looking to go there would be a new build requirement, so in that sense as an option, it's no different. In other senses it has far more potential for the club to develop longer term, certainly from the point of view of catchment area, than anything else that has been suggested so far. It's certainly not an impossible option, enough stars are beginning to align. But what the club actually decide to do, who knows. What is certainly not an option is continuing to put forward the idea that it would be possible to make the best of Broadwood for the time being, engage with local business and community while having made it perfectly clear your intention is to move away. You can't square that circle, it won't work and no wonder. Whoever put forward that idea is operating miles above their pay grade.

State of this post. Making light of the situation in Ukraine & folks' efforts to try & do something to help. Sawn off little runt's beneath contempt

So presumably you, and others, were so outraged by these 'clowns' you approached them to voice your fierce opposition of what they were singing, and insisted they cut it out ?

Fair to say the positivity levels aren't too great this evening I take it ?

Just out of interest, how did you come to the conclusion ? If you mean the majority of those who've voiced an opinion on P&B that would seem about right, but P&B is irrelevant. There's what, a dozen or so regular posters left, maybe a couple dozen gave their thoughts on it. You could of course be right, I've personally no idea, but just wondering how you'd manage to work out what the majority of Clyde fans think about this or any other subject and present it as a statement of fact. Was a questionnaire sent out to everyone I'm not aware of ?

John Hart. Filthy fuckers.

Would you go as far as to say, All hail Dan Guardiola .....?

Who have you got in the Champions League in the new year...fail fail the Celts are here, eh ? Know we invented yer big team. Wee Walf was never away fae Barrowfield 'scuse me mister, gonny tell me how tae start a side, aw gonny aw gonny ?' f**k sake, no again. Awrite wee man, we're busy the now but stand oe'r there & we'll tell ye later...here, have a lolly meantime ya wee scrote *pats on head*

Thanks. Just the 2 major honours will be as good as it gets for you. Enjoy.

Correct. There may well be some tears tonight, but no necessarily from the Falkirk fans. The real question is imagine what he could do if he didn't have the rug pulled from under him. It's been clear for weeks he'd certainly not lost the dressing room given the shift the players have been putting in. Fair play to the coaching and playing staff for putting that run together, about time we saw that kind of effort matched in the padded seats.

Is this based on your vast experience in football management ? Presumably it must be given you'd never criticize the Board on the basis of having 'no understanding of corporate matters' And yet you'd still give Danny the January transfer window You're the one that's full of shite hop-a-long

To my mind Gomis is a defensive midfielder but another who's getting played a bit further forward to try & counter what's missing. If we had what we're talking about, and let Gomis play his natural role I think we'd get the best out him. But either way, it's definitely the area we need to strengthen. Presumably DL has outlined to the recruitment team what he's looking for and it's up to them to source and present the required type & quality. At least I'm assuming that's the case, otherwise I don't know what role they're supposed to be playing. I can't think of any specific players either, just the type of player.

Agreed on DGW & it points to what I suspected might be a problem from the start of the season, the midfield. Understand why the focus has been on the defence while shipping goals but I think we've enough there that'll be decent enough. What we lack in midfield is a bit of creativity & energy, probably a couple players light. IIRC DL said at recent meeting he'd like a creative ball carrying player there. That's a start but we also need someone who can take a game by the scruff of the neck with pace. You get a couple players like that in, likely they'd help Cuddihy, Gomis & Splaine, we'd be able to control longer periods of the game and impose ourselves more when the opposition have it, create more chances for the likes of DGW, Cunningham and Love who've all shown they can score, and also take the weight off the defence, allow them to do their job. It'll also allow players to be in their right position. Could be he's been moving some around to counter the fact we don't yet have what we really need in there, DGW possibly being an example in the hopes that with his ability he'd be able to create something. I've no idea who's available, if they'd have a budget for them, but if they were able to add that in there I'm pretty sure it'd make a big difference to the whole team.

I'm not even sure it would have much impact on playing budget. You're talking here about a basic business transaction where a company are hired to carry out these tasks. They'd predominantly be working off a commission basis, perhaps with a nominal monthly payment to cover costs, but it would also be based on achieving targets. If such a company did the initial feasibility assessment and decided it was possible to achieve the targets set, then they would accept the terms. Commission is usually around 20% - 25%, but it could be more generous for them because anything they generate is likely to be more than what exists now. What's certainly true is it needs addressed now. It hasn't been for many years, the "gap" being filled during that time by a couple of generous donations which as I understand it were withdrawn this year. But that's no way to operate in any case, relying on donations. So whether we're at Broadwood or anywhere else, unless this is put in place you're still going to have the same fundamental problems

It's a reasonable enough approach. Of course we're left crossing fingers that at least injuries don't destroy it, and as for loanees, from recent examples we maybe got 2 or 3 out of all of them who could honestly cut it. The point is more that all of this is a symptom, we shouldn't be in this position, he should be able to get his primary targets building a squad of around 16 or 17 on that basis, then if need be flesh out that number a little more with loanees etc. That's the underlying issue and it's time it got addressed once and for all.

The points above. I've already covered them but to try & clarify once and for all The question about "The Board". What I've said is that the way the club is run appears to be that every part of its operation must be filled by volunteers. If you find the expertise needed, then that's the ideal scenario. But after all these years it's clear that at least in the area of commercial / marketing it doesn't exist there. The suggestion being the club then look to engage with a professional company to handle that, but initially would meet with them, set out the aims and targets and ask for a feasibility assessment be done. If that assessment suggests it can be done, and operating on a predominantly commission basis, that could be a game changer. If it suggests it can't be done and cites the non ownership of the stadium as the primary reason, then you actually have an expert assessment to use as the basis of any decision to relocate. Player recruitment, or to simplify, the overall standard of player we can get to the club. Comes down to a combination of the manager's decision, in our case it appears to be there is also a recruitment team, and the budget available in the context of the other clubs you're competing with, so all play a part. I have said that some of Danny's signings over the years have been poor, but in the overall picture of what we can attract, a combination of these factors are in play. That's different to Haufdaft's insistence that the sole responsibility of the quality of player we can recruit is on the shoulders of the manager. The idea of going with a smaller pool, quality over quantity. In theory, yes, more money offered to a smaller number of players could have improved the quality of perhaps the first 11 - 14. But it's a long season, the smaller the pool the more you're relying on luck that suspensions and injuries won't have a serious impact. We've suffered that in recent seasons. So in that case, who do you flesh the squad out with, how do you know they'll still be of adequate quality, and as for "options 2, 3 or 4" at League 1 level, are you confident whoever they were would've been much better quality than what we already have ? On the one hand, yes, it's fair to look at some of the decisions in recruitment, and all who are involved in that - there's clearly more than one - but on the other if the underlying position was that the club were producing an adequate budget in the first place, it's less likely we'd even be discussing any of this.

To try & summarize As for the Board. It's not a case of questioning their integrity, it's a question of listening to what they have to say and applying some basic logic to it. There is a huge area of the club which hasn't been properly addressed for a long time, and that's specifically extensive commercial activity. I posted on here thoughts on that a couple of days ago as to what I felt should be done so won't repeat all that. But generally, the club appear to have a policy that unless the required expertise can be found from within our numbers as volunteers, then if need be, it will have to remain unaddressed. In any organization that position is untenable, it's effectively negligence. I've never particularly advocated for a "big money man" to come in, because if a company were hired to carry out this operation to a professional level, I don't see the need. That links to your thoughts on owning your own stadium. You've taken it at face value that's the case because the Board said so. Again in a post from a couple of days ago I've outlined the reasons where it may be the case to at least consider whether that view is automatically correct. I can think of many reasons why Danny, at the first of official fans forums launched by the Chairman, would have publicly stated what he did about the backing. The fact he was unable to get his first choice players is purely down to finance, clearly that's the primary motive of the majority of players. Given where they ultimately did move to, that's pretty damning of the overall club situation. It's not a question of glossing over recruitment. He's made many quality signings in the past, and others definitely less so. However the current quality of recruitment is linked directly to what has been made available to him. It was also explained that those two other individuals do have a role to play in sourcing players, Danny telling them what he needs, their job to source them. But again that's within the constraints of the budget available. If he had the required budget, he would have landed his primary targets. So of course he has the final say, but there's context. There's things you don't do when money's tight, and there's things you literally can't do. Football is like any other industry, word goes around about the "state" of each club. Right now, I cannot see any evidence to suggest that a string of potential candidates, all of whom would need to be better than Danny self evidently, would be lining up to be manager. I'd suggest you look at the list of managers we've had since around 2009 as a guide to the quality of candidate we've been able to attract. For me, warts & all, DL has been by some distance the best in that time. Little wonder others suggest to be careful what you wish for.

For some time you've made your stance clear. You place the responsibility for the team performance - players signed, tactics, results - solely at the door of the manager. By the same token, do you accept how an oranization is run has a direct affect on its ability to operate and in turn determines the success of achieving its primary aims, and is the sole responsibility of those who run it ?