CLYDE FC season 16/17 Thread

[Clydeontheup]

4 minutes ago, David W said:

I'll be honest, I don't take much interest in this sort of thing. Can anyone explain what the problem with a CIC is? I always assumed the problem is the people operating the structure, combined with the lack of engagement by the support caused by the infighting and division we're famous for?

I asked this previously on here when I first got joined on here, and I didn't really get an answer. Theres PLENTY wrong with our club just now, and for a while, but I'm not convinced the genesis is this CIC, but happy to be proved wrong if the information is forthcoming about why its wrong.

[Sao Paulo]

I think we should all be contented by what the Chairman said in his interview. He addressed not some but all of the concerns which have been a feature of this thread; he was utterly frank in doing so, too.

The idea that the legal personality of Clyde and the governance it operates with as a consequence is in any way at fault for the present fortunes of the club has a long way to go before it's even naive. Those wishing to argue otherwise really oughtn't bother unless they have a plausible alternative on-ice.

There's really only one imperative for supporters; it's tripartite: be CIC members, be interested and do not, whatever you do, make clever and sophisticated apologies for players who're below average at best and woeful at worst. The failure of supporters - and, yes, management more relevantly - to acknowledge the latter part of the imperative is why we are where we are. We don't realise how much of a voice we have.

[Hampden Diehard]

22 hours ago, Sao Paulo said:

QPFC plant, I reckon.

Nah, that was wee Barry.

[Sao Paulo]

Reading my post back, I will say one thing for those who antagonise the CIC. There is an argument which says: 'So what, if I'm not a member, am I less entitled to have my opinion of the team's performance listened to?'. I have some sympathy with that. It'd be an affront to most football supporters if they were told by their club of choice that their views on playing matters were less important than those of others. But I don't think that's the case at Clyde. And even if were, supporters of clubs which are limited companies express the same frustrations. Only, in those cases, the antagonism might be directed toward shareholders as opposed to members.

The thing about football clubs, and Clyde are no exception, is that they are, in a sense, run both formally and informally. I've never really thought, while being and not being a CIC member, that I was any more or less influential re the team on the pitch. Other than to the extent that I might've chipped in with more money for wages. And that's not insignificant, of course. But the bottom-line is that if supporters aren't happy, that gets through eventually. It doesn't matter whether they're members, shareholders, guys paying in each week or posters on forums like this ('well-kent faces'). The Chairman's interview speaks to this fact, IMO.

[Bully Wee Villa]

How do you become an owner? Is it a certain amount renewed each season or calendar year or something else?

[LiviClyde]

2 hours ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

How do you become an owner? Is it a certain amount renewed each season or calendar year or something else?

There's information and an application form on the home page of the Official Site,(bottom left beside the lottery)

Annual Subscription runs to June. Currently a ridiculously low (IMO) £40 per annum.

Edited April 7, 2017 by LiviClyde

[Glenconner]

On 14 May 2016 at 17:58, clyde123 said:

What odds for the title?

Lowland League?

[Bully Wee Villa]

There's information and an application form on the home page of the Official Site,(bottom left beside the lottery)

Annual Subscription runs to June. Currently a rediculously low (IMO) £40 per annum.

 

I looked at that but when you go into the "shop" section it says "currently unavailable". If it runs till June I'll just wait till July and get it sorted for next season. I'd like to think I make some financial contribution seeing as I'm not able to attend games very often.

 

Cheers.

 

[SouthLanarkshireWhite]

2 hours ago, Sao Paulo said:

Reading my post back, I will say one thing for those who antagonise the CIC. There is an argument which says: 'So what, if I'm not a member, am I less entitled to have my opinion of the team's performance listened to?'. I have some sympathy with that. It'd be an affront to most football supporters if they were told by their club of choice that their views on playing matters were less important than those of others. But I don't think that's the case at Clyde. And even if were, supporters of clubs which are limited companies express the same frustrations. Only, in those cases, the antagonism might be directed toward shareholders as opposed to members.

The thing about football clubs, and Clyde are no exception, is that they are, in a sense, run both formally and informally. I've never really thought, while being and not being a CIC member, that I was any more or less influential re the team on the pitch. Other than to the extent that I might've chipped in with more money for wages. And that's not insignificant, of course. But the bottom-line is that if supporters aren't happy, that gets through eventually. It doesn't matter whether they're members, shareholders, guys paying in each week or posters on forums like this ('well-kent faces'). The Chairman's interview speaks to this fact, IMO.

Regarding the CIC, or any other governance structure, much of the effectiveness or otherwise is down to how it is operated and who operates it within the framework in place. In other words the professionalism and capabilities of the officers are generally more important.

Strategically however, the CIC may have an impact for good and bad. If the engagement of fans can be improved by the operation of a well structured and operate CIC then the club will generally benefit. Where it may have a negative impact is in the attraction of external funding if those who are of a mind look at the lack of influence they would have and decide it is not for them. Not every funder wants the same thing, but putting money into a system that allows them little say on how their money is spent is likely to be less attractive than where they can take a notable shareholding for example.

All of which is a moot point if you have the right manager, appropriate players and a good match day experience. Get that right and the rest follows. 

[shawfield shed boy]

Can we have a seperate CIC Thread please mods

[Sergeant Wilson]

4 hours ago, Sao Paulo said:

I think we should all be contented by what the Chairman said in his interview. He addressed not some but all of the concerns which have been a feature of this thread; he was utterly frank in doing so, too.
 

Really? From an entirely neutral point of view, it read like some of the tripe on here. He certainly went to the same school of ten words when two would do as you.

The early part is like a David Brent motivational lecture.

[Pride_of_the_Clyde]

Agreed. It's a bizarre interview.

[Sao Paulo]

45 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Really? From an entirely neutral point of view, it read like some of the tripe on here. He certainly went to the same school of ten words when two would do as you.

The early part is like a David Brent motivational lecture.

You've wilfully misunderstood me. But you are right. Clyde have never done interesting Chairmen, so when I read patter about "the paradox of perpetual poverty", I skipped a few questions.

Our supporters have said they're concerned about: i) inexperienced managers; ii) the future whereabouts of Clyde; and iii) the CIC. About those things he was both frank and concise, happily.

[Sao Paulo]

2 hours ago, SouthLanarkshireWhite said:

Not every funder wants the same thing, but putting money into a system that allows them little say on how their money is spent is likely to be less attractive than where they can take a notable shareholding for example.

As I daresay most will remember, at inception of the CIC this was the main concern put-about: 'what if X comes along with money for blood and finds out we're a stone?'. Like I said above, if anyone could produce or even point to evidence that this characteristic of the CIC has operated to see us, on balance, be less well off (£) I'd love to hear it.

2 hours ago, SouthLanarkshireWhite said:

All of which is a moot point if you have the right manager, appropriate players and a good match day experience. Get that right and the rest follows. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

16 minutes ago, Sao Paulo said:

You've wilfully misunderstood me. But you are right. Clyde have never done interesting Chairmen, so when I read patter about "the paradox of perpetual poverty", I skipped a few questions.

Our supporters have said they're concerned about: i) inexperienced managers; ii) the future whereabouts of Clyde; and iii) the CIC. About those things he was both frank and concise, happily.

Surely the reference to the east end of Glasgow is vague and bound to lead to speculation.

[Sao Paulo]

It is, aye. But it's necessarily vague. I don't think anyone's going to have a go at him for not announcing, before he's sure, where we're going. I say fair play to him for saying where he wants us to be. Even if I'd die in a ditch before I saw us move in near them.

[haufdaft]

As predicted, here is some speculation.

During the future Chairman's previous interview he stated "The club is seeking to root itself within its NATURAL local and footballing community"

I don't know how the East End meets the natural local community criteria.

Unless by some stretch of his imagination the Cunningar Loop is considered the East End. [emoji288] And bad geography.

Of course, I'm not too bright and may have misunderstood our grandiloquent leader

[cfcuk]

Maybe I'm wrong but hasn't Mr Innes appointment got to be ratified by a vote by owners / members? Or is it just an accession to the throne ?

[clyde_darren]

Jim Chapman having a laugh and taking a few photos with the chairmen? And a director? New manager if we stay up?

[SouthLanarkshireWhite]

1 hour ago, clyde_darren said:

Jim Chapman having a laugh and taking a few photos with the chairmen? And a director? New manager if we stay up?

He is saying 'what do you mean you don't understand the paradox of perpetual poverty'?