Officer Barbrady

Arguing amongst ourselves about who's to blame for us being pish, mostly. I don't see any revelling except from those who believed the lies of a Napoleonesque dictator, who thankfully have now all buggered off from the public gaze.

I wouldn't know, or suggest they have one Moonie. There's one thing a club struggling against relegation as a matter of natural selection, as Arbroath's more intelligent representative on here seems to believe is the extent of his club's birthright, but i haven't encountered a similar defeatist attitude from any of you guys. As i've said before, a team doing shite doesn't make it "diddy" - revelling in its mediocrity does.

You were doing well until the last sentence Abshok, because if the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the quickest ones to lay it are positivity tyrants. In all seriousness, i do think your figures are a bit bananas. C01 gives a truthful, if a little dystopian picture of plenty of empty grounds witnessing their finest football (could add the two Ayrshire grounds to those mentioned) in a lifetime. Cumbernauld is no more full of diehard football "supporters" than any other town, and that's regardless of Clyde's fortunes. You only need to look at Livingston, who arrived in their town with a clean slate, and within a decade had paraded a trophy and qualified for Europe. Fast forward to the next one, and yes Almondvale was well-stuffed during the recent playoffs, but from the Third Division days through to last season, they barely have scraped the 1000 or so 'home' gates we had at our 'peak'. That said, however, only pulling in the figures we did when actually challenging for some relevance, was evidence of how poorly managed and ill-prepared we actually were to build a substantial and worthwhile Premier League club, off the field. BC has it spot on, that this requires a great deal of work in order to promote the full package. The only thing that unites Clyde fans frankly is our equal and widespread ability to be cunningly divisive and very often piss on our own chips, even when winning. We might cheer goals in unison but the minute the game is done, the discussions swiftly move to subjects like this very one - who are we, what division do we belong in, where should we play (to cap it at three for now) - and of course we all argue because we think we're right. In our own way, most of us probably are, but it's still a dwindling number even if groups like the Glasgow Branch are getting right tore in with helping the club, on top of individuals' commitments with 200 club or STs, merch, etc. There's no reason we should feel marginalised at all if the club cast its net and seeked to take full advantage of the new generation in and around the town and the city at large, too.

You'll have us greetin', Abs. I'm certain that it's all in hand.

I'm terribly sorry but i genuinely only properly read this part. Quite rude of me, actually. Apologies. I had no idea what had driven Arbroath's success, but if you attribute it to these reasons, then maybe i ought to point out that a great deal of the same are now applicable to Clyde, providing us with similar paths to resources eventually leading to proving me correct. All being well, of course.

But Simon, what exactly then IS your station? What do you believe your ceiling to be, and why should your club (in your opinion) only ascend to a certain level? You're about to enter tier 2. With that attitude, you'll bounce back out of it in 2 years or less. Peaks and troughs are generally natural phenomena in football, but no one endures the latter deliberately to maintain a balance. What's the fucking point in that, for anyone? I only picked on the clubs i did because they're the most recent, and logically for my club to succeed, yours and the others would need to be defeated for that to happen. The idea of false bonhomie among the 20-odd diddy clubs is exactly why every time there's a reconstruction, its those clubs who are targeted, and its nearly as bad an attitude held in the Premier for clubs salivating at visits from the not-so-old firm. It all sounds very backward to me, as I certainly have no kinship with any other club based on any shared trajectory or whatever, i'm also aware that Clyde could yet fall arse over tit this year and disappear back to the bottom half, and stay there, despite the genuinely best efforts of the club to succeed. How that is responded to - i believe Arbroath sacked two managers in relatively quick time to stop the rot of 'inevitable' "ups and downs", correctly - is the key to whether you're a diddy club or not. Not just your current abode or league position, as that can change almost overnight.

I already outlined everything achieved in the recent period, Eaton. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are completely unneccessary, i have made no concessions, Arbroath have had a better 10s than Clyde. It isn't in doubt. Stop stamping your feet like a petulant six-year old just because i don't throw myself at the feet of a team who've done alright, and because i don"t consider it to be that the universe is finally aligned perfectly now that Arbroath are better than us, at this moment. By your logic, Arbroath shouldn't even get to be in the same stratosphere as Dundee United (another of your teams) yet may be sharing a division with them purely on merit very soon. How does that tally up with your mentality being beset by how things stand, just because they're good for you? What happens when they are not, but are good for others? When you were 9th in 2016, did you have belief in ambitions for greater success, or did you just readily accept it just like you appear to suggest we do, so that i don't attempt to discuss anything that may upset you or aim to ruin your fucking glory days? f**k sake.

Now that's just bonkers, Simple Simon. You're now into the centuries!! For the avoidance of doubt, no. Queen's Park have maintained a degree of their ethos which saw them lose status very quickly, and appear thoroughly chuffed with themselves having done so, until now at least. Clyde and Arbroath have often shared a division, and on recent showings you have had only two seasons worse than ours ('14 and '16). Two L2 titles and an imminent further promotion might represent a halcyon period for you, but in our eyes, you're only keeping the seat warm for us. That's really just the way it is. The fact that Arbroath's best is never truly that far from our worst, is justification enough for my statement.

Persistent little beaver, aren't you? I just noticed your hard-on mate Simon's waded in, so i'll keep this fairly general. One division, is NOT "miles behind/in front" whatsoever. Neither is a club's present standing set in stone; such a statement is fucking stupid. No one thought ten years ago Bournemouth or Huddersfield would be in the EP instead of Leeds, Villa, Forest etc, but they are, because football changes. Sometimes, Eaton, very quickly. Recent times have been good to your main club (2 years? Fairly short-term, would you agree, Ryan?) and despite a dreadful, self-inflicted decade at my only club, which is NO problem of anyone else's, ours has shown signs of being far more promising than it has been for arguably a generation in football terms, and now with some steel behind it instead of bluffing wankers milking us for a payday, we appear to be getting into the sort of position to work to our potential. None of that is anyting to do with Arbroath's clear and concise better performance over ours in that period, and along with Alloa, they're enjoying themselves. Well done. And i repeat, my best wishes to them. Yet, they're never quite THAT far away, in truth. Despite how bad we've been, a bit of ambition and direction can close any gap you imagine to exist. The only reason you think you might be "miles" ahead is because nearly everyone else beneath the Championship are really only a slightly better version of L2, with equally shite crowds filled with idiots who can't see past the end of their nose, either. No one is likely to correct statements like that when you're top of the league, but you know us Clyde lads, we love sticking our nose in and putting people straight. You actually probably really miss us, as well!

Several, actually. There may be a generational gap here, and specifically to you, a definite intelligence gap to be able to understand it. Now f**k off.

That's the spirit. It's been alluded to recently that tying the manager to a longer, fuller contract was a primary target, but full-time football altogether would still be some way off. Personally i don't think it's something which should be considered until we are numero uno part-time club in the country, and consistently. I look at Alloa and Dumbarton's recent forays into Tier 2, and wish Arbroath well in theirs, and while very admirable of them fighting the tide, i consider us a bigger club with more to offer than any of those. If given the platform to expand to FT, i'd think it would be a logical move upon consolidation, like in the MacDonald days, with perhaps small steps like a half/half mix initially.

I thought that myself, ie paying in more, initially. From what you have said, you're certainly supporting the club to a greater degree than a £40 subcharge. I'd say on the basis that you're obviously unable to attend games often, you're doing far more than some who pay this fee, albeit the club may see it that a service is being provided through the channels you currenty do use and the membership provides a very different one. Its a shame these obstacles exist. I'll readily admit to being a tad facetious in forwarding the post that i responded with, if only to protect quotes from our FD from becoming public tit-for-tat, but given your input and eagerness to assist where you can, it's clear you'd be a better addition than large swathes of the current membership are.

I did notice the error. Other responses have covered what i'd ask, as a sizable percentage (at least 10%) of members are overseas based including Oz. And i'd have thought when sponsoring match balls etc, usually some form of communication with the club GM takes place, i don't see why he wouldn't be of help in securing these for you. I'm sure you agree, if so concerned by our previous financial carryings-on, that this platform is not the place for what would be third-hand source material to be analysing them?

No one posting on here has been called anything of the sort, Sally. That's just a complete lie. It has come up in the general discussion, and the only current volunteer to comment on it has, in my view, agreed with the principle that supporting the initiative should be exactly that, and demonstrated this by his actions. And rightly has been praised not just for that, but for his honesty and transparency in giving his viewpoint. You're the person using pejoratives, Sally. Freeloading seems to be the one sticking in your throat, for reasons unknown. You outline various instances of why one would volunteer in the first place, as if they are all mutually honourable reasons, just because it is done for free. How you can't see that exploitation can easily (and in my opinion, DOES) go both ways on this is a mystery, particularly when it comes to the outrage displayed when non-volunteers seeking to gain an insight or raise any related issue turns into a battlefield. You seem perfectly capable of understanding whenever that situation arises, and leave no doubt as to who deserves your recognition regardless of their reason for lending their hand to the cause you support so strongly.

Of course you don't!! How long has it taken for this to sink in? Is it that we are NOT a charity and never, ever were? No charity is stupid enough to advertise that it insists on charging its most loyal "donators" £200-£450 just to sustain its 'business model', and not bothering to compete in its specific market, far less declaring war on those "donators" who step out of line by questioning the purpose of the club's decade of nihilistic chivalry. Is it from watching the competitive team on the park, which we have as a result of a very different recruitment process from the one just three years ago where the club was plainly being used by complete charlatans to further their coaching and PR careers through individuals brought to the club via the fabled Clyde foundation (sic deliberately), and who nearly pissed us up the wall under The Manager Who Could Not Be Sacked? Or is it the realisation now that it never had to be that way? Very fair comment, i concede. Both however, possess an individual skill set greater than the rest of the board combined, a fact i'm sure was behind their acquisitions. And i'm throwing no shade at the others in expressing this view. Norrie's early wording was very Glasgowcentric, his line of business completely in sync with the view his predecessor described his vision for the club and still does on the SD page, of the club "based in a community in which it is relevant", and very clearly with one eye cast on placing roots in the city and relocating. I think the last fifteen months supercede the first four of Norrie's tenure in firmly simple terms, we're clearly in no hurry to leave and without the sideshow of any uncertainty of where the club thinks it wants to be (which suited an agenda previously and NOTHING ELSE), it appears to be slowly getting its act together in a community where it may yet again be "relevant". Now that's just bloody stupid. Part II But it isn't a choice, is it? Not according to your opening paragraph. If its so endemic in the game, and without a volunteer structure it will cease to exist, then it seems to be that the only logical outcome would be for everyone in the country who patronises the sport to become one in some way or another. Just do away altogether with the great evil, that is hard currency. Volunteer staff, volunteer security, volunteer players, managers, coaching staffs and volunteer match officials, the whole lot. Everyone gets in for the same, and gets the same from it. The players, well, they get the privelege of entertaining us. And be thankful, too. It's a policy that's worked wonders for world peace since 1917, wouldn't you agree Sally?

I personally wouldn't ever step so far to the left, to accuse any volunteer of seeking to gain admission just for turning up. All roles, whether or not they are carried out to extreme success through raising further revenue or merely to get a weekly or monthly task over the line, come with a great responsibility that i'm absolutely certain is borne direct from a core belief in the product, and to aim to firstly keep the club on the correct path, fiscally and then financially being the apparent order, but even this could realistically only ever be executed to any serious degree by individuals with a love for the football team at its centre. I do hope, Fat Sally, that i haven't opened a can of worms regarding any ill-feeling among some volunteers that others may be swinging the lead simply for a free peek at our growing external operation fronted by our superbly developing young football team? I may have taken the tin opener out of the drawer, but your opening sentence hints at a resentment i'd never have considered existing, to be completely honest. What i had thought, and fleetingly believed to be true in the past, was that the product being so utterly shite without peer in the entire league, was a much harder watch for those of us with an attatchment to the club far beyond 2 hours a week, than it may be for motivated individuals with very few scruples and a keenness for climbing ladders, who in turn may have been welcomed into the fold and given a directive to act as a supportive 'buffer' to the board from criticism of all things from the shite team to the flawed (at best) business model (more to follow in a minute on that!), whilst carrying out tasks which would then be played back to supporters as not having presented those skill sets when the club required them. Thus, supporting the football team and the business model (!!) became mutually inclusive and inseperable ideals, and only people supportive of the latter were ever considered relevant in matters relating to the former. This of course was only ever my opinion, but having witnessed the club, right from the top, through the middle and eventually on the pitch fail its collective 'Duck Test' spectacularly, culminating in a stolen draw at Montrose keeping us in the leagues, i certainly feel it a bit rich if noses are out of joint about the type of individuals who were introduced to the club by proponents of the volunteer-based model in the first place to plug a 'skills shortage' (there never, ever was...) now seeking recompense by saving £14, after likely petrol and food not to mention loss of personal time if they genuinely did not/do not give a f**k about the team, as you suggest they may not, it would appear that the whole thing was, is, and always will be the equivalent of a bloody Ponzi scheme in reverse. I often wonder if T. S. Elliot had Clyde in mind when penning the phrase, "This is how the world shall end, not with a bang; but a whimper".

I wish more carried that attitude. Likewise, i've used barely any vouchers from mine, yet only missed Edinburgh at home, from having had use of sponsorship facilities etc. At the end of the day, however, people's relationship with their club essentially is their own business. They might get a good night's sleep on a Saturday, but that'll be about it.

I think that's a very mixed bag of views, if i'm honest. Firstly, the internet is now almost as available as colour television. The fact that it (the 200) is an online initiative is not an attack on those without. Also, being online flies directly in the face of the deplorably unsuccesful "word of mouth" promotional tool, often used by those who need to keep themselves and their 'selfless' sacrifice - an oxymoron if ever one existed, but the very description used on various platforms to discuss drops in revenues - to ensure they remain in full relevance. The lounge, again, is not a taunting device for those who do not or cannot drink whilst out at the match. But the focus on those putting nothing in, has to move away from where the money currently is, to where it is not. One hears many figures of complimentaries, and other streams of individuals getting in for hee-haw. In my eyes, no one should be watching the football for free, at all. Volunteers can be rewarded by being fed and watered at HT using a voucher/ticketing system, players' Wags and families can be permitted access to the Arria and in certain circumstances two or three in the Boardroom if the players so wished - but we're needing the £14 at the door, from everyone. Its a fairly straightforward thing, this. If they truly support their son/brother/partner/friend, they'll surely be happy enough to help assist in paying their wages as they go.

I'm a bit confused by this post, do you care to elaborate?

Some of us did, Cfcuk. The results were not good. One of the major problems in discussing club matters at that time, and right through until very recently, was a prevalent "judge not lest ye be judged" policy, neatly packaged as chivalry and self-sacrifice in order to impede debate or encourage thought-crime. There's bound to be a coffee house somewhere with a regular Tuesday afternoon meetings picking these apart, to this day. Only in my opinion, of course.

How could that possibly be ascertained from the post, when i'm clearly directing him to the page containing the function which entitles him to see the discussion on the subject matter for himself? I wouldn't worry too much about the name. No one knows who that reference was initially made towards.

This should meet your ownership requirements Abshok without the club's laundry being aired in public. You're welcome, in advance.

Dividing average attendances by the number of participants, approximately 0.39 per head. Of course the actual figure will be a lot less, as not all will be supporters of the club. It needs to be pushed to the maximum, in my opinion.

Alternatively, people could increase their 200 fund entries. As per the post above, having to declare on matchday revenue actually reduces the amount which goes to the club itself.

I should think none.