BrigtonClyde

That's right, & what you've described there is absolutely fine if part & parcel of wider and ongoing activity. The problem in 94 was it seemed to be treated as a short term PR campaign that didn't include much in the way of direct in person engagement, personal representations from the club around schools, local businesses, community centres etc, the idea apparently being get to the first game or two when I think tickets were given out for free (again a perfectly decent idea), but then treated as job done. It was a million miles from done, that's just the introductory stage. Certainly a poor team in a lower league the first few season(s) didn't help, but again the reason to go there halfway through a season was crazy. They should have held off to the summer, assessed the fact we were then in the league below and put together a plan to recruit well aimed at winning the league in our first season there. IE a winning team at that level would have been easier to build some momentum than the introduction being a struggling team ultimately relegated. That combined with no particular further ongoing local engagement would absolutely see interest diminish. It's obviously past now, the point is lessons can be learned from that and also the work done 4 years later which began to reverse the damage done. All of that said, I doubt anything written here today's going to make a blind bit of difference, the Board appear to be speaking with one voice now that relocation is the main target. Having listened to everything they've said about it, at least so far, I have absolutely no idea how they think they can make it a success.

What you're saying here, this is exactly the thing 1994, adopt a "build it and they will come policy". That might have worked in 1954, but in a modern era, a club can't take that approach or even rely on some decent results. Especially as is often the case now, grounds are being built away from town centres etc. You have to get serious about engaging with the community. 4 years later Ronnie McDonald comes in, primarily for the football side. It's no coincidence with his business background he decides to get the sleeves rolled up and takes it upon himself to go round all the schools, drum up interest & support - remember all the kids that started turning up with the hats etc. In a relatively short period of time the crowds are growing steadily and were decent by the time we were up for the first season. But that's a work in progress, early days, still more opportunity to build the club in the community, but then of course he leaves. We've never replaced that role he played. What it shows is that it's possible, there is a potential support there, but we don't live in an age where you can just expect people to turn up, you need to graft hard taking it to them....and obviously if you make it very public you're desperate to leave, well that's disastrous. It also shows that at least an element of what was required had to be sourced outwith the club, albeit it came about more by chance than design. If you're in charge of things but don't have the ability or resource to do what's needed, very easy to take the default position "nah, it's not possible", when clearly from our own history there's enough there to suggest that it is. As for focus groups, whatever, give it a try by all means but seems to me the underlying inference was that ultimately this was a way for the Club to see if they could get more volunteers at the end of it. Fine if you get people who are experts in the required fields, but if we had that they'd likely have been operating for some time by now.

I honestly don't know the reasoning behind it. I doubt it would have been to help the team, moving from a tight, narrow pitch at Douglas Park which the players were used to for 2 or 3 years to the more expansive Broadwood pitch would be unlikely to help the cause much. Whatever it was, at every conceivable level it was the wrong decision and blew the small window of opportunity to progress quickly. We've suffered for it ever since when combined with a few other factors.

What's certainly true is when we moved there, Clyde knew it was on a rental basis, there was never an inference they would ultimately own the ground but must have still felt we could flourish there. Maybe it was because we haven't owned our own ground since 1936 and anything we've done of note happened after that, but the t&c's haven't changed, it's the same deal. This is where you can throw up all sorts of examples. Annan own their own ground, rent our their pitch, social club etc, never been out L2. For decades Juventus were very successful domestically & in Europe while not owning their own ground. Then there's examples the other way round, point being it's a case by case basis, specific circumstances, it's not it's either definitely better to own or to rent, it depends on the situation. The architect of the proposed move to Crownpoint went into more detail recently on the OS. There he said as part of the deal, Glasgow City Council insisted the Club would have to proactively engage with the community in advance and while there. The fact a club would need to be told that is telling in itself, but if they don't have that resource now, how are they magically going to produce it on relocating ? You're just moving what has been the fundamental problem from one place to another. I heard the new Chairman give an interview recently. He's a decent lad, I've time for him, but he specifically said on the potential of earning income at our current location "a series of commercial managers can't be wrong". I'm afraid they can be, because they've been relying on well meaning volunteers to carry out what's a specialist task dealt with on a far bigger scale by professionals. It's been mentioned before, the club should engage with a professional marketing and commerical sales company (there's loads), and at the initial meeting set out the Club's aims and targets for revenue. The agreement would be based mainly on commission perhaps with a modest retainer. At that point, the company would do an initial feasibility study and assessment outlining whether it's possible. If they say it isn't, and cite the non ownership of the stadium as the primary issue, I'm much more likely to take their opinion on board. However it's also entirely possible they would feel it is achievable because it's unlikely all that activity would be centred around the stadium. Point being, the basis on which we're being told that a relocation with stadium ownership is the only answer hasn't been fully tested. But the policy of "make the most of it while here" has already been blown out the water. It is impossible to engage with the local community and businesses while it's quite clear the aim is to get out of dodge as soon as possible. But that kind of thinking comes from people who have no experience in handling this specific area. It's up to each individual whether they prefer to stay or relocate, but at least think about the background to all this and the future implications. At no point, at any proposed future location, has there ever been a study carried out to assess even whether there would be a local demand for the club, ie whether they would likely be able to generate a new support. If they can't but still move, it's the equivalent of driving with a car battery when the alternator's shot, just a question of time.

Good question. For reasons I'll never understand the decision was made to move there with over half a season played. What should have happened is they played out the full season at Douglas Park, used the extra time to build into Cumbernauld and the local community, a serious full on PR campaign where the club would be visible everywhere, and have one or two glamour friendlies in the summer. You get small windows of opportunity to get things like this right, and the club didn't. I'd like to say lessons would have been learned had it been today, but I doubt it, there just isn't a function within the club who understand or know how to handle something like this. As a result the stadium was opened with a regular league game against Hamilton which we lost. We also went a few home games without even scoring. We'd just been promoted and it was a case of finding their feet, so we went there not on the best form - another reason it was criminal to go there during a season On top of all that due to league reconstruction, 3 teams would be relegated from Division 1 at the end of that season and, yes, you guessed it. There was talk of a friendly with Kaiserslautern in the summer who were also sponsored by OKI who had a base in Cumbernauld, but by that time the horse had bolted, OKI themselves didn't last much longer and it never materialised The specific way we handled our move there should be held up as the blueprint of what you should absolutely never do. There again that could be said of many things....

Israel are decent on the ball & their movement's good. The best we played against them was the same week we beat Serbia last year when we'd adopted a proper pressing game & forced them into a lot of mistakes. If we do that tomorrow we'll beat them. If we adopt this "kind of" pressing game we seem to do now at different stages of a game, sit off them for long periods and let them get into their stride, could be a long evening. As for right backs, the most comfortable on the ball we've had recently was Palmer who was also playing last year and when he was we looked a lot more balanced. No idea what's happened to him, but Patterson does look very promising. That said, if the young lad's serious and has ambitions, him and his people need to go into Gerrard's office and demand that either he gets played or gets loaned out in January. He's learning nothing sitting on his backside every week. I'm sure he is getting good coaching going by his recent interview, but at this stage he needs game time at a decent level. That's a hard gig going from the bench every week to international football for an 18 year old. Reckon we'll edge it 2-1

Except it didn't. GT first of all confirmed that in terms of budget, we are in the bottom half of L1 In terms of recruitment he explained it was twofold. There were some players DL worked with previously he was interested in bringing in. However, it is also the role of the two individuals to source players, present them to the manager who then has the final say. In both scenarios this is in the context of working with a barely competitive budget so having to operate within these constraints and trying to make the best of it. There's a lot I disagree with GT about, I don't think he yet has a handle on what is actually required that would help resolve a number of the issues he highlighted, however he's a decent enough lad and certainly made the recruitment situation clear.

When at the time he'd just turned 20 and had up until then only played in Middlesborough's youth team. A few years back he also suffered a bad knee injury which has clearly disrupted his progress. But OK, from your vast experience and knowledge of the game, tell us all exactly what you would do, who you would sign, where you would get the money from, by which month you'd have the league wrapped up, and why it is that a multitude of clubs haven't been knocking your door down to get you in as a head coach for the past decade.

Presumably if they're on contracts, they'd need to be guaranteed another club to go to before agreeing to basically rip up the paperwork...I'm assuming that's the case ? I've no idea whether there'll be folk leaving or coming in. What we don't need are any more strikers, we've guys there proven to do the job & I'd still like to see Cunningham used more centrally as he's shown if you create chances for him he can do the business. Defence needs looked at. Don't know the score with the lad Page. Twice injured before the league started, maybe just a coincidence. From the little I saw of him pre-season he looked reasonably solid, but if he's injury prone or whatever, been through that before with others. Midfield also needs one or two more bodies in, Gomis is a holding midfielder and a good one, but need more energy in there to play further up and help control the game more. Wouldn't be surprised if he got one or two of the kind of players in midfield he needs it's the last you'd see DGW back there somehow.

Last time he invites his da to a game then.....

Yeh, but from from the way the guy was going on it sounded like a younger kid. IIRC the father of the lad I was speaking to is a scout in the area, and something to the effect that he's that talented he could just about walk into any team including those in his home city. Didn't say his name, probably just b/s......so it's well suited on here lol

For the Montrose lads, don't know how accurate this is but I heard through the grapevine you've signed a young lad from Dundee (not sure if as a loan or on full contract) whose supposedly a real player. Think it was from a Junior team IIRC. This ring a bell ? The job Petrie's done is pretty incredible. Doesn't seem that long ago Montrose were in a LL relegation playoff and you'd fancy their chances to end up top 4. Smart money's on a home win, but depending on who we have available, have a feeling we might scrape a draw here by playing for one.

The extent to which he protested was suspicious. Smoke's clearing. Uni lecturer whose remit is to teach the importance of leadership in business etc etc. This is the kind of thing that started in the 90's, it's all theoretical, unquantifiable rhetoric. Anyone who comes out these courses, and management trainees were a classic for this, end up speaking in cliches, their approach is unnatural, a workforce picks up on that straight away. You're either born to do that or you're not. Anyway, he's trundling along with his pretty decent public sector wage, but like all these characters likes a bit of private sector cash on the side. So he starts hawking his wares, usually seminars and talks. Lo & behold the SFA fall for it. So he's giving a talk to a room full of managers and coaches where he puts forward the proposition that the success of football may rely a lot less on ability (think about that for a minute), but much more on having 11 leaders on the park, to the point that having one team captain may be a problem, the inference being it allows 10 others to shirk responsibility. This is the kind of garbage someone like that comes away with. 2 easy examples that rip that theory apart. As Scotland boss, Roxburgh once put out a starting eleven that had "5 or 6 club captains"....got horsed. Howieson is ex RAF, so presumably he'd advocate everyone in the RAF were at least at wing commander level ? It then turns out he's published a book available online. Fair to say he's enjoyed a reasonable amount of publicity on social media, online (like P&B) and now in a national newspaper since Saturday ? Think I'd respect the guy more if he just came clean and put an ad online "Bullshitter for Hire, very reasonable rates"

You obviously know your stuff mate, but looking at that photo is pretty incredible, suggests a few other possibilities maybe. What's the drainage there like ? Know yourself, it's been a long dry summer, ground's rock hard, if he has been watering it & it's basically just lying there the sun could burn it. End up ultimately with the dreaded dry patch which is a dig out. Could even be he's put too much fertilizer down & the nitrogen's ripped it a new one. Cuttin it too tight's definitely no a good idea all the same if it can't handle it. Either way that's brutal right enough

This narrative has also been done to death. The board members obviously wish that position otherwise they could resign at any time. They are all also from a very similar background, accountancy / book keeping. There's nothing wrong with that in itself except that just like any organization, other areas also have to be fully functional. In our case, there is nothing resembling a commercial and marketing department who have the expertise to generate significant additional income, and there hasn't been for years. I don't expect the board to fill this role as they have no track record or background in doing so. There was nothing wrong to look into the possibility of finding what was needed from within the support base. It was established some time ago that it wasn't, but the board are still duty bound to ensure the club is adequately operational in all areas. Again just as with any other organization, when all initial routes have been exhausted there's still an obligation to explore different routes. In this case if what is required cannot be sourced from within, it must be sourced from outwith. Either the board are unwilling to source and employ the required expertise, or simply don't know how to. But in either case it's not acceptable to just shrug their shoulders and soldier on, they are accountable. The CiC model is next to irrelevant because in practice, where all areas are adequately covered and productive, the ownership is content. It has nothing to do with sourcing an inward investor because irrespective of anything else that's not sustainable, whereas an ongoing functional commercial & marketing department generates regular income year on year resulting in the club living within its means from a more profitable position. And as for stadium ownership being the silver bullet, there's absolutely nothing to back that up. The focus of that argument always centres on a select few potential sources of income, but the expert personnel aren't place who could make a full assessment of the wider range of opportunties in and around the area to determine if "non ownership" is a serious hindrance. This extends on to the potential of generating a greater fanbase in the area through greater hands on community engagement which again would be part of the remit of the broader commercial operation. Your argument is based on metrics and suggested solutions that are flawed and haven't been fully tested. That said, if nothing changes, there's little doubt that League 1 would remain the likeliest height of our ambition because despite having one of the larger fan bases at L1 & L2 level, the complete lack of a required part of the overall operation will mean we continue to struggle on below the level of the club's potential.

Just for a little context about last night, EK lost very narrowly away to Stranraer, drew with Morton away and only lost by a couple at home to Killie. While we should be looking to win, there was no reason to think we could just turn up and wipe the floor with them. Said before, this competition is little more than "meaningful" friendlies. It's the time to try out a few things before the league starts. Yes there's one or two positions probably need addressed, but that post above listing the players is an embarrassment. There's a lot of new faces in, still coming together as a team, some players were out the game for a while with serious injuries and are trying to find their way back into the game. Every one of them will give their all at least. See instead of listing players, why don't you list the Board of Directors ? They're the reason Danny's working with such a small budget and that a load of you would take ending up mid table in fucking League 1 right now. That's how far down these incompetents have dragged this club.

That's basically it. We could sign another 10 CB's, it wouldn't make any difference if we're still getting loads of crosses into our box, or that the midfield is such we're inviting a lot of pressure onto us. I don't think they're too far away from having the balance right, but RB is a priority on assumption Livingstone returns to LB. As for MF, Gomes is a class act but over the course of a season his correct role is playing deep, giving the defence a little extra protection and starting off the moves. This is where we need the "water carrier", breaks up things in midfield, has some drive to help the likes of Kennedy, Splaine and whoever. Don't mind Love being given the 10 role, not a bad idea but he still needs "that player" behind him along with Gomes. So where our resources are obviously limited the idea of Tade is bizarre. Could be we need to rely on the loan system once the Premiership teams are fully back up and running, but that's when it's best used, just one or two positions to be filled, rather than at least half a team full of them. If we did get the right players, then you'd be in a position to actually judge the CB's, but from what I've seen Page and Ballatoni together looked solid enough, but the CB's can't do everything.

Allowing for the fact that Danny's been told to shop from the bargain bucket and somehow make us at least fairly competitive, looking at that squad I'd say if it were possible, we need a powerhouse type midfielder with a bit of pace to compliment what's already there and get a hold of the game, plus a right back - at the very least to give the new lad some proper competition for a place. When fit, Livingstone's a fine enough full back and for L1 we're covered well enough with Rumsby, Ballatoni and Page at CB We don't need another striker, Goody, Cunningham and Love have all shown they'll take chances if created and played in the right position plus we've the young lads just added. Forget about Tade, with whatever morsels of a budget he has left, those two positions should be priority. If he got them, we'd have a fair chance of a decent enough season albeit at a level a fair bit below where we should be if run properly...which we're not...so we are where we are.

Cheers, right aye I see. I was watchin on & off first half then about first 10 of second. Again, don't read too much into things at this stage but thought the central defenders did a decent enough job from what I saw. Switch to 5 midfield in second seemed to suit quite well though the lad up front a wee bit isolated. Maybe that improved as game went on, obviously can't say as I didn't see it.

I see, thought from the way the commentator was talking we'd quite a few trialists. True enough about the Betfred, suppose I just keep thinking about that as if it were glorified friendlies. Wouldn't be the worst idea for clubs to be allowed to still field trialists at that stage as it's still so early ahead of the league starting, give them a chance to fine tune their squads without rushing. I'm not a huge fan of having loads of loanees, but seems to be we've a lot of experience in so ironically it probably would be ideal to get a couple quality youngsters in around that now, particularly midfield, bring some legs while getting the chance to learn from those around them. Last season they didn't really have that so didn't benefit either party. From the little I saw, looked like Gomis and Nicol linked up pretty well, but again got to think in terms of a long season, how the legs will hold up. Maybe whoever else they have in will be fine as it is. Was that the new right back playing last night ? Wasn't so sure from what I saw in the first half, but maybe he came onto a game later on.

Stopped judging too much based on pre season friendlies years ago. Can think of multiple times we looked good in the build up to a season that then went badly wrong, and vice versa. The seasons start so early now, players aren't getting the same time to fully rest and recover as they did in the past, and it shows by late in the season. The League Cup has been reduced to "meaningful" friendlies in the group stages when the players are a little further on in training, but are more or less used to get match fit for the league season starting. Watched some of it last night & all I'd take from it is they looked pretty well organized for so many new arrivals and looks like the general plan will be to play it on the deck as you'd kind of expect from a DL side. Really don't think there's much else you can read into a game like that this early. The fact so many trialists were playing suggests we're still in the market to bring in another 2 or 3 anyway, suppose it'll just depend on what we can afford and the quality available. Might even be an idea to keep doing that during the group stages to see who can cut it when there's a little bit more at stake.

Is that the penny beginning to drop then folks? The Company of Honourable Accountants have given DL the lowest budget in the division and asked him to do his best. Yes it's increased from last year's budget, but is small in comparison to every other clubs' increase. Do you honestly think those signings would have been his primary targets ? Many of you are looking in the wrong place. Obviously wish the new lads all the best, & hopefully somehow we can have a better than expected season. But this is just the beginning. If you think this summer isn't the best, brace yourselves for when contracts expire in 12 months

Hopefully he wrote that before he signed for us and no after.....

Shawfield was built with an overall exterior perimeter wall with the exception of the terracing that ran up the side of the pitch which acted as an extension of the perimeter. So originally there were a few turnstiles. By the final years, they were only open at the Brigton end. What you're saying is basically correct, you came in off the street through the large entrance of the perimeter, walked through black ash to the turnstiles. When you got through them, they were set back just a little bit off the back wall of the terracing, but you're only talking a few steps. Hear a lot about feeling you were a long way from the pitch, but that's more perception than reality based on the view you had. The terracing was quite shallow, but that was a result of the redevelopment. Remembering that most grounds were oval shaped because that goes back to the origins of how teams started, playing on multi use recreation grounds that had a running track, so incorporated that at their own ground. We're obviously not talking modern 8 lane tracks, just basically a narrower dirt track. The original Shawfield had large embankments that went all the way down to the track which was right next to the pitch. When they redeveloped it specifically for the greyhounds, my understanding is they cut into the bottom of the original terracing as they wanted more space between the track and the pitch. As a result, the track is at a slightly higher level than the pitch which appears as "sunken", so it's a bit of an optical illusion. It adds to the perception you're further away than you actually are, especially when you throw in the lights that ran round the track. Almost guaranteed that wherever anyone sits in a modern stand these days you're further away from the pitch than you would have been on Shawfield's terracing. Maybe that jogs a few memories for you

Him and the young keeper apparently.