Monkey Tennis Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 2 minutes ago, Kunter said: My point is folk see we have a big squad and assume that this means he's had a decent budget. Fair enough. I don't suppose we do have a decent budget. If it's very tight in relative terms though, then it really was especially bonkers to employ many more players than was necessary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Blue Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 2 hours ago, Diamonds are Forever said: I think in most cases this is a huge backward step for clubs and doesn't bring the benefits that people expect. The simplest argument is to look at the league tables, Arbroath were an outlier for a few seasons but are now back down, next season there won't be a part-time team above League 1 (unless Montrose or Alloa win play-offs obviously). Apart from Arbroath, very few part-time teams have escaped League 1 in recent years and those that did soon dropped back down. There's not much evidence to suggest it's an effective strategy, Arbroath did well by it but they had a well established core of experienced players and manager built up over a few years. Queens would be starting from scratch. There is an assumption that by going part-time you then get pick of the bunch, but that's also not the case. Infact you can end up moving into a market where clubs can still out-compete you financially but now you don't even have the lure of full-time football to tempt them. There's plenty money in the lower leagues now and whoever the next Darvel, Cove, Edinburgh City, Kelty, East Kilbride etc is could pay more. So you still don't necessarily get the best part-timers and now you don't have any of the benefits that full-time should bring either. An extreme example of that is us signing Dylan Easton from Kelty in the Lowland League. He will have been on the same or probably more at Kelty, but it was the chance to play full-time that meant he signed, and then won POTY that season. We'd never have got him if we were part-time. I see loads of parallels between Queens and Airdrie a decade ago. Like Queens, we were hanging on to full-time football for dear life with crowds that could barely sustain it and had the decision to make. Went part-time for a few seasons which just resulted in us getting worse, being a relegation threatened side for a couple of years and crowds falling further. When we went hybrid things started to turn as the offer of effectively going full-time for players attracted better players. I think the market for clubs like us and Queens at that level is guys who were full-time, have had to drop to part-time and want one last shot at full-time. They are usually in their early twenties and have already played 100+ games so aren't young lads with no experience, they are highly motivated as they know it's their last shot, and obviously have ability or they wouldn't have been at a higher level previously. Our promotion winning team was built on these types of players, most of which are still playing with us now - Frizzell from Dumbarton, Gallagher from Dumbarton, Watson from East Fife, Ballantyne from Montrose, plus Easton from Kelty. Add in a few younger players and couple of experienced heads and that's a good mix. Of course the problem is that requires good knowledge of the lower leagues and good recruitment. Everything comes down to what you can afford ultimately, but for any club with aspirations to get into the Championship going part-time seems a backward move. ^^^ This. Excellent post, thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubber_duck Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 Bartley is deluded. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Blue Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 1 hour ago, Greenacres said: With our budget being full time is actually holding us back. We need experienced decent players only way we can get that is going part time pay what we do now to our full time players think you will find the better part time players will sign for us . At our level is a full time player any better than part time certainly fitness wise nowadays no difference. This we must be full time is like a advantage to us well the last 2 seasons have shown no difference from any part time team we have played Suggest you read the post from @Diamonds are Forever again, he lays out his reasoning (to stay FT) well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FFC 1876 Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 That Bartley interview is incredible, zero accountability at all from him. Just "I know I've gave everything" and crying about the budget neglecting the fact he brought in shit players last summer. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 9 hours ago, HighlandQueen said: In corporate life I gave it 110 percent irrespective of who my boss was out of personal pride. Er... Congratulations? Well done you. That's really terrific to hear. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swarley Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 9 minutes ago, rubber_duck said: Bartley is deluded. Indeed, completely deluded. He knew the budget before he accepted the job. It would have been brought up in the interview. I refer back to my BS excuses bingo post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Blue Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 7 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: Fair enough. I don't suppose we do have a decent budget. If it's very tight in relative terms though, then it really was especially bonkers to employ many more players than was necessary. The concern here for me is that there is an underlying (admittedly guessed at) implication that the board perhaps weren't approving every signing. I'd like to assume that the board did approve each player transaction, or at the very least question each signing and apply downwards pressure on the size of squad being assembled. That said, I'm sure Marvin was probably good at presenting a compelling argument in each case, especially given his virtually limitless self-confidence. Anyhow, water under the bridge now and we move on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mon_The_South Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 10 minutes ago, Homer Thompson said: Seems like odd timing to wind up the Tanner Fund. I get the perceived perception of difficulties dealing with the outgoing board but with a new board coming, surely the Fund could have kept going and worked out a relationship with the new board? What you appear to be saying is the club wanted the Fund money and their help at the club but the Fund decided to fold. Seems like there must be more to it. Also, the things you've listed aren't really linked. We've had SLOs and fan cleanups without any funding before, so why is it required now? From what I'm told, the TF was going to be doing both SLO and Clean up voluntarily, not for financial input but was being set up to be a cracking support leg for the club... with additional 'duties' it was hoped that Fund would increase, thus ending up with their cash increasing into the club... The TF struggled constantly to get the club to take their money which was well documented, resulting in them agreeing to support Youth as was always refused by the club to add to senior players budget....... and the problem wasn't with the 'old' board.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Blue Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 15 minutes ago, rubber_duck said: Really interesting managerial candidate insights there from the "Record" ... I'm guessing that the "journos" at the "Record" glean most of their ITK information from P&B, aye? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19QOS19 Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 16 minutes ago, rubber_duck said: Bartley is deluded. I can't be the only one who's heart sank reading "Hearts hero in frame..." and thought they were going to say Murray? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 11 minutes ago, Mon_The_South said: From what I'm told, the TF was going to be doing both SLO and Clean up voluntarily, not for financial input but was being set up to be a cracking support leg for the club... with additional 'duties' it was hoped that Fund would increase, thus ending up with their cash increasing into the club... The TF struggled constantly to get the club to take their money which was well documented, resulting in them agreeing to support Youth as was always refused by the club to add to senior players budget....... and the problem wasn't with the 'old' board.... Again, that doesn't really explain why it folded or gave up on doing the SLO role or fan cleanup. So, if the problem wasn't with the old board it must have been someone at the Tanner Fund? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slipmat Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 Must be a real sickener for Bartley that he lost his job on the same day that his brother got Marlow promoted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mon_The_South Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 32 minutes ago, Homer Thompson said: Again, that doesn't really explain why it folded or gave up on doing the SLO role or fan cleanup. So, if the problem wasn't with the old board it must have been someone at the Tanner Fund? or new addition????????? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 3 minutes ago, Mon_The_South said: or new addition????????? The new addition had only been in place for about a month when the Tanner Fund folded and he was on holiday for at least a week of that. He can't be responsible for the "constant" struggle to get the club to accept money. I wouldn't have thought that was really enough time to establish any kind of working relationship either,let alone enough time to decide to simply chuck it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mon_The_South Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 11 minutes ago, Homer Thompson said: The new addition had only been in place for about a month when the Tanner Fund folded and he was on holiday for at least a week of that. He can't be responsible for the "constant" struggle to get the club to accept money. I wouldn't have thought that was really enough time to establish any kind of working relationship either,let alone enough time to decide to simply chuck it. As I said before, the Tanner folded when its Chairman stood away and the others didn't want to continue the struggle, deciding that the new director may very much have his own agenda. I didn't mention the new member influencing the previous struggles. As I commented a few pages back, when Tanner chairman stood back, I genuinely thought we were going to see an announcement onto the Club board as he has always been talking with them. Turns out I was very much mistaken 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeJay Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 Bartley should have left quietly. He failed at Palmerston. His piece to camera with Sandra, and the interview with the Record, does him no favours at all and only underlines what the majority of our supporters think of him. Like many I was excited when he was appointed. Someone not from the usual pool of failed managers. But his naming of players and blaming everyone else in interviews showed he really hasn't got it. I doubt any club board members reading these gems will not rush to appoint him to another managers job anytime soon. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighlandQueen Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 2 hours ago, Otis Blue said: ^^^ This. Excellent post, thanks. I concur 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 51 minutes ago, BeeJay said: His piece to camera with Sandra, and the interview with the Record, does him no favours at all... I think they were both one and the same weren't they? Every quote in the Record piece came from Sandra's OS interview. The point stands though that self serving bleating is involved. He's history now though - albeit an inglorious chapter. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 2 hours ago, Mon_The_South said: As I said before, the Tanner folded when its Chairman stood away and the others didn't want to continue the struggle, deciding that the new director may very much have his own agenda. I didn't mention the new member influencing the previous struggles. As I commented a few pages back, when Tanner chairman stood back, I genuinely thought we were going to see an announcement onto the Club board as he has always been talking with them. Turns out I was very much mistaken Sorry, just want to make sure I'm clear, are you saying the Chairman of the Tanner Fund resigned because he thought he was going to be on the new board but then wasn't asked? Sounds odd. Strange he wouldn't just go back to the Tanner Fund. I'm sure he posts on here as @Baghdad_QoS maybe he can clear things up 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.