Jump to content

Clyde Season 23/24


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Clyde01 said:

We are not allowed to play any trialists as far as I know, expect a few to sign tonight or tomorrow. 

Didnt wee sign one or two players on a month contract who got released before start of league campaign, one might have played v hibs and other was on bench?!

Thats one way round it but completely agree with all others posters it is indeed farcial

Farcial is the word for this season for so many reasons at our club and outwith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Brian Carrigan said:

Cheers but absolutely fucking not anymore

 

Why do people think it’s for financial reasons people don’t wish to become “owners” or “members”? 
 

“become an owner and have a say in the running of the club” don’t make me laugh!

Wouldn't be value for money or representative of being an owner, shareholder, member or whatever they call it at £1 for the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Harry Hood Fan Club said:

“become an owner and have a say in the running of the club” don’t make me laugh!

This is exactly it. I didn’t renew after the club signed a literal rapist because I felt like that didn’t align with my views and tbh that was just the final straw, given how little say or even information I got when I was an owner. The club have done absolutely nothing since to convince me that the model is worthwhile in any sense. I’d absolutely love to be a real part of my club, but unfortunately that’s not what you pay for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CIC model doesn't work for a club of our size. There just isn't a big enough pool of talent to maintain high quality in all required fields.

Like many other (the majority?) I consider my "ownership" fee a donation to the club. I do not have the knowledge or skills to hold the board to account nor to offer any kind of skill set that may be beneficial to the club.

Hence, I suppose I'm part of the problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless there's some serious business in the next couple of days then the pool of players we'll be going into Saturdays game with is nothing short of embarrassing. I know it's an early start but it's been that way for a few years now since the League Cup groups came in so I don't really buy the excuse that clubs can't build a squad on time any more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, haufdaft said:

The CIC model doesn't work for a club of our size. There just isn't a big enough pool of talent to maintain high quality in all required fields.

Like many other (the majority?) I consider my "ownership" fee a donation to the club. I do not have the knowledge or skills to hold the board to account nor to offer any kind of skill set that may be beneficial to the club.

Hence, I suppose I'm part of the problem. 

I'll bet a club like Clyde do have the knowledge in their support to run the club. The problem I think is that these people don't always have the time required to put in (as they'll more than likely have successful businesses/careers to look after) or that they come up against barriers (such as other people they are unwilling to work with). In theory any idiots should be voted out and the people with the know how prevail but if idiots have enough support among other idiots it can be a difficult situation. I don't know how Clydes board is elected but it sounds to me like you have enough disgruntlement amongst your support to change things. What process do the members have for calling an EGM or something along those lines? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ironic thing is I think the board accept the model doesn’t work, certainly CIV initially did it’s job and probably saved the club, however as has been said that, in fact very recently if an alternative was available then the board is open facilitating a change. Unfortunately there is no one it would seem interested in taking over. Who would?
There is very little to encourage anyone with finance to come in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FREDDYFRY said:

The ironic thing is I think the board accept the model doesn’t work, certainly CIV initially did it’s job and probably saved the club, however as has been said that, in fact very recently if an alternative was available then the board is open facilitating a change. Unfortunately there is no one it would seem interested in taking over. Who would?
There is very little to encourage anyone with finance to come in. 

No one with any £ would buy us unless it was as a hobby.  We have no assets, little goodwill, a small customerbase and are subject to competitors with greater resources.

WTF is happening to our BoD? Vice chair recently stepped down, 1 director, Letham, left and we are looking for a new commercial dir.  Do we still have a sponsor or did we chase away the Homes Book factoring guy? Why did we employ Jim Thomson and what happened there? 

Scunnerred 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things I have always wondered about the current BOD is how it always seems to be the same faces no matter what. New people are placed on the board, new chairmen, new directors yet no one seems to last long and the same old faces stay in place. 

So what is happening behind closed doors? Are the board so risk averse, scared of change or threatened that they can’t be worked with? It’s worth noting a couple of Clyde fans who were close to/working with the board have left their roles and ended up in higher positions elsewhere. 

From the outside it seems like a weird boys club that has absolutely no accountability. Since they have given up the football side of things we have put out and embarrassing statement r.e. Conference league and not been able to get a white top, and handled that whole situation appallingly with them choosing the worst possible option.
 

I also appreciate the possibility that once new people come in they are not up to the task and the current board have steadied the ship. The turnaround and feel good factor off the park since we got promoted has been notable however, bringing back Letham and Alexander were bizzare moves and ones that should really have been a fan vote given our ownership

 

 

Edited by Ocelot1877
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SLClyde said:

Assuming he was one of the trialists? 

Looking back at the Paul Kelly cup photo and trying to figure out if it’s him. If he’s the lad the played up front at number 10 he looked not bad. Good physical size and at 18 you’d think plenty of potential to develop. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...