Clyde Season 23/24

[ScottishLoon]

Just genuinely sorry for you guys when I read this thread, you deserve much better.

I certainly don't take my club for granted when I see how you feel, I'll be rooting for you to turn the bad atmosphere around quickly or to get a good Scottish cup run at least.

[Bullyweeno1]

1 hour ago, Clyde01 said:

As for Duffy he’s been on the bench interfering in all 3 games so far. Heard him shouting ‘what are you doing Ewan’ at Cameron at one point. Something I’ve wondered every time I see that c**t playing. 

Couldnt agree more

At last something tonight that brought a smile to my face

Edited July 25, 2023 by Bullyweeno1

[RutherGlen]

1 hour ago, Shawfield78 said:

Jurassic Jim has incredibly made us even worse than last season . Hard to do well done Jim 

Not that incredible when you consider the fact 11 of last season's squad are still with us. 

I guess if the board sees fit to reward failure then why wouldn't our management team follow suit and keep the majority of a relegated squad? 

[the_bully_wee]

It is getting harder and harder to see any real positives from the boardroom, and you'd like to think that failure to get over the line with Crownpoint (the one thing they appear to have handled in a non-ham-fisted fashion of late) would result in big changes, voluntary or otherwise. Given Finnart seemingly have a few councillors sweet on them I think that's a fairly likely scenario, so the question is: what then?

As much as the CIC model has its sceptics (and its haters), it is eminently advantageous in several ways. Firstly, it ties in well with the Foundation side of the club (pretty much the sole perpetual bright spot Clyde-wise in the past dozen years), which should always be a key pillar of any attempt to embed ourselves within whichever community, or communities, we come to exist. Secondly, it (and the aforementioned) provides the kind of set-up which gives us the ability to seamlessly apply for community asset transfers, as in the Crownpoint circumstance, which represent our only realistic hope of self-determination; even if Crownpoint falls through, there may well be others in the future. Thirdly, it insulates the club to a pretty significant degree from roguish characters who could raze it to the ground and decentralises complete control. Finally, the power ultimately exists for Clyde fans to enact fundamental change within the club, should they come to a voting consensus and join the membership.

There's no doubting that the one member, one vote system has been pathetically short of any kind of meaningful action in the past dozen years, but then it's on members to change that, and it's surely coming time for folk to join up en masse, put differences aside, find a consensus on key issues and hold the board to account. I do, unlike some others, think it's fair enough that most important decisions are made as a board with a mandate rather than being decided referendum-style, but there's a glaring lack of anything else - even relative trivium - to drive engagement and a feeling of inclusion when it comes to membership. What we really need, though, is to look to the final point in the above paragraph; unite, work cohesively as a fanbase to get clarity over boardroom mechanics and then, if they won't do it themselves, proactively identify and support at least a few folk from within the support who have the requisite time, enthusiasm, skills, manner and fresh, modern ideas to either support or largely replace the current incumbents. As has been said many times, that's by far the hardest part and cheap talk is so easy to come by.

You look at two very long-term and fairly popular Clyde fans in David Alexander and Ian Fitzpatrick, who have both volunteered for the club historically. They are now CEO and head of media, respectively, at Stenhousemuir - can't realistically have any idea about the job the former is doing, granted, but you just have to look at their thread on this forum to see how proactive the latter seems to be and how well his work is being received. Andy Clark, who was co-opted to do marketing stuff recently, is another young(-ish!) one who's in the same category as those two. We also have some great volunteers at the club presently - on the media team especially - and I'm sure with better resources and more influence, these guys could help to drive more engagement of the kind that we have to enviously look on at clubs smaller than ours enjoying. There will be others out there who have something to offer, too.

David Dishon is an example of a non-Clyde man who got involved and, though he eventually came to use us as a stepping stone to move up the food chain, did great work for the club for a long period. People of his profile who are either professionals in a field with potential, or who have done great work at lesser lights, are exactly the types we should be targeting. Like it or not, we were never going to be a destination club any player would be satisfied about reaching his ceiling at, and any sliver of a positive future we are to have is in embracing the club as a stepping stone for people on and off the pitch towards better things. Any reputation we can foster in that regard will incrementally improve our appeal to talented players, staff and club officials. 

We do have talented, intelligent people in our support and wider 'family' and there will always be people with the relevant skills and desire to step up within - or, if need be, outwith - that group. In the coming months, more than ever, everyone of the opinion that things have to change has to find a way of getting together and then from there, apply pressure on the board to restructure with fresh blood they can identify, or then unite as an ownership and identify replacements to elect themselves. It's not an easy proposition whatsoever and I certainly do not have all, or any, of the answers, but P&B diatribes aren't worth the pixels they're visible on; if we are serious about halting what's looking like a bit of a death march to likely oblivion then there's going to have to be a big effort made by as many people as possible. If the desire to really change things is there, then we do have that capacity.

[Clinically Proven]

Probably back to trying again with Shettleston, unless that's another bridge we've burnt too that I'm unaware of. Looking at another 3-5 years minimum at NDP I reckon.  In the Lowland League as well almost certainly. 

[Right turn Clyde]

4 hours ago, Brian Carrigan said:

I didn’t see Duffy at all tonight to be honest. 

He was down at the bench 100%

[BullyWeeStonehouse]

I was quite optimistic about this season but the recent cup results - especially last night - have killed that off already. 

I had planned on going to Spartans away for the first league game but doubting that now.

The shitshow continues…

Edited July 26, 2023 by BullyWeeStonehouse

[Clyde85]

From what am reading the new right back seems to be a downgrade on Lyon which I didn’t think was possible . Why can we not find competent fullbacks?

[SLClyde]

7 hours ago, the_bully_wee said:

It is getting harder and harder to see any real positives from the boardroom, and you'd like to think that failure to get over the line with Crownpoint (the one thing they appear to have handled in a non-ham-fisted fashion of late) would result in big changes, voluntary or otherwise. Given Finnart seemingly have a few councillors sweet on them I think that's a fairly likely scenario, so the question is: what then?

As much as the CIC model has its sceptics (and its haters), it is eminently advantageous in several ways. Firstly, it ties in well with the Foundation side of the club (pretty much the sole perpetual bright spot Clyde-wise in the past dozen years), which should always be a key pillar of any attempt to embed ourselves within whichever community, or communities, we come to exist. Secondly, it (and the aforementioned) provides the kind of set-up which gives us the ability to seamlessly apply for community asset transfers, as in the Crownpoint circumstance, which represent our only realistic hope of self-determination; even if Crownpoint falls through, there may well be others in the future. Thirdly, it insulates the club to a pretty significant degree from roguish characters who could raze it to the ground and decentralises complete control. Finally, the power ultimately exists for Clyde fans to enact fundamental change within the club, should they come to a voting consensus and join the membership.

There's no doubting that the one member, one vote system has been pathetically short of any kind of meaningful action in the past dozen years, but then it's on members to change that, and it's surely coming time for folk to join up en masse, put differences aside, find a consensus on key issues and hold the board to account. I do, unlike some others, think it's fair enough that most important decisions are made as a board with a mandate rather than being decided referendum-style, but there's a glaring lack of anything else - even relative trivium - to drive engagement and a feeling of inclusion when it comes to membership. What we really need, though, is to look to the final point in the above paragraph; unite, work cohesively as a fanbase to get clarity over boardroom mechanics and then, if they won't do it themselves, proactively identify and support at least a few folk from within the support who have the requisite time, enthusiasm, skills, manner and fresh, modern ideas to either support or largely replace the current incumbents. As has been said many times, that's by far the hardest part and cheap talk is so easy to come by.

You look at two very long-term and fairly popular Clyde fans in David Alexander and Ian Fitzpatrick, who have both volunteered for the club historically. They are now CEO and head of media, respectively, at Stenhousemuir - can't realistically have any idea about the job the former is doing, granted, but you just have to look at their thread on this forum to see how proactive the latter seems to be and how well his work is being received. Andy Clark, who was co-opted to do marketing stuff recently, is another young(-ish!) one who's in the same category as those two. We also have some great volunteers at the club presently - on the media team especially - and I'm sure with better resources and more influence, these guys could help to drive more engagement of the kind that we have to enviously look on at clubs smaller than ours enjoying. There will be others out there who have something to offer, too.

David Dishon is an example of a non-Clyde man who got involved and, though he eventually came to use us as a stepping stone to move up the food chain, did great work for the club for a long period. People of his profile who are either professionals in a field with potential, or who have done great work at lesser lights, are exactly the types we should be targeting. Like it or not, we were never going to be a destination club any player would be satisfied about reaching his ceiling at, and any sliver of a positive future we are to have is in embracing the club as a stepping stone for people on and off the pitch towards better things. Any reputation we can foster in that regard will incrementally improve our appeal to talented players, staff and club officials. 

We do have talented, intelligent people in our support and wider 'family' and there will always be people with the relevant skills and desire to step up within - or, if need be, outwith - that group. In the coming months, more than ever, everyone of the opinion that things have to change has to find a way of getting together and then from there, apply pressure on the board to restructure with fresh blood they can identify, or then unite as an ownership and identify replacements to elect themselves. It's not an easy proposition whatsoever and I certainly do not have all, or any, of the answers, but P&B diatribes aren't worth the pixels they're visible on; if we are serious about halting what's looking like a bit of a death march to likely oblivion then there's going to have to be a big effort made by as many people as possible. If the desire to really change things is there, then we do have that capacity.

It would be great to see people coming together and wanting the club to go in the same direction, but everyone is so divided over literally everything it’s hard to see it being able to happen. That’s not to say it can’t. 
 

After last year everyone desperately needs something to galvanise the support, last night was an opportunity to get something going and we served up a lot of shite. Those full back performances were as bad as I’ve seen for the past 10 years. 
 

People may not like the CIC setup, but it is the way to force change if it is wanted by a majority. 

[Jacksgranda]

10 hours ago, Scott-Replay said:

It’s absolutely unbelievable that our board let Danny Lennon scoosh away numerous playing budgets on rubbish.

It’s unbelievable he wasn’t sacked after defeats to Broomhill, Clydebank and a whimpering 8th place finish.

It’s unbelievable he wasn’t sacked after blowing another transfer window before we lost NINE league matches in a row.

It’s unforgivable we replaced Lennon with Jim Duffy.

It’s unbelievable we moved Duffy to a nice upstairs position after an embarrassing relegation and replaced  him with a Head Coach who looks to have a fairly limited amount of autonomy (putting it politely).

It’s unbelievable we sold our first choice striker (regardless of the general opinion of him) and replaced him with one boy released from Killie and another from Glasgow Uni.

I’m not one for board bashing but that’s a small handful of systematic failures our board have overseen in the past couple of years.

Our board have told owners that we have a budget that should have us competing for promotion. They have told us that there is still plenty in reserve to strengthen the squad. I’d think we had better start seeing evidence of this because the feeling around the club feels like a club accepting it’s dropping into the Lowland League. It’s simply unacceptable.

But from which division?

As someone old enough to remember Clyde finishing third in the top flight, and who used to regularly leave from Pittodrie with 1 or 2 points, it's sad to see the state of Clyde nowadays.

I genuinely feel they are in danger of exiting the SPFL- and then what?

[JIMMY CHOO]

12 hours ago, Scott-Replay said:

That defence will have us relegated.

THANK GOD THE PENNY HAS FINALLY DROPPED WITH YOU. I HAVE SAID COUNTLESS TIMES THAT SQUAD UNDER THAT MANAGEMENT TEAM WILL RELEGATE US INTO THE LOWLAND LEAGUE.

[RutherGlen]

1 hour ago, SLClyde said:

It would be great to see people coming together and wanting the club to go in the same direction, but everyone is so divided over literally everything it’s hard to see it being able to happen. That’s not to say it can’t. 

Not everything. Is there a Clyde fan left (who isn't on the board or has the surname Duffy) who still thinks Jim should be involved in ANY capacity? 

[Brian Carrigan]

3 minutes ago, RutherGlen said:

Is there a Clyde fan left (who isn't on the board or has the surname Duffy) who still thinks Jim should be involved in ANY capacity? 

I genuinely don't know any Clyde fans who actually wanted him to return in the first place, let alone stay on in an elevated capacity. Only Clyde FC would reward a performance as pathetic as ours was last season with a job upstairs. Beggars belief.

[Ocelot1877]

Feel like the boardroom has regressed along with the club  since Innes and Dishon left us. The both of them by no means perfect but purely from a leadership off the park and on the park point of view the difference is there to see.

I was willing to give Duffy and McLean a chance considering that was the hand we were given but it’s became evident quite clearly this isn’t going to work. A DOF should not be in the dugout and barking instructions. Criminal it has been allowed to happen.

As always with our board it’s 1 step forward and 2 steps back. The idea of a DOF and having someone run that side of the club is a good idea. It has been poorly executed and poorly implemented and it has left us hamstrung with a squad that doesn’t align with our coaches vision full of players who are not good enough. 

It’s July and the excitement is 0 for the new season. Says it all. I’m afraid nothing changes until those in charge  are removed or grow a pair and actually lead the club instead of appearing to.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Ocelot1877

[Replays]

I’m enjoying the video interviews pre and post matches (thanks to the media team for that one) but I couldn’t contain my laughter after ‘Season Tickets Available Now’ popped up after we’ve shipped 10 goals in three games and been pumped off of Brechin.

[RutherGlen]

24 minutes ago, Ocelot1877 said:

Feel like the boardroom has regressed along with the club  since Innes and Dishon left us. The both of them by no means perfect but purely from a leadership off the park and on the park point of view the difference is there to see.

I was willing to give Duffy and McLean a chance considering that was the hand we were given but it’s became evident quite clearly this isn’t going to work. A DOF should not be in the dugout and barking instructions. Criminal it has been allowed to happen.

As always with our board it’s 1 step forward and 2 steps back. The idea of a DOF and having someone run that side of the club is a good idea. It has been poorly executed and poorly implemented and it has left us hamstrung with a squad that doesn’t align with our coaches vision full of players who are not good enough. 

It’s July and the excitement is 0 for the new season. Says it all. I’m afraid nothing changes until those in charge  are removed or grow a pair and actually lead the club instead of appearing to.

I agree with some of the points you have raised here such as your assessment of a DoF being allowed to meddle in first team affairs during a match. Being in the dugout, shouting instructions and undermining the first team manager by doing so is potentially damaging and has already been shown not to work. Not to mention completely embarrassing/amateurish.

That said, you lost me when you stated a DoF is a good idea, particularly for a club as small and apparently skint as Clyde FC. Can you explain why this extra tier of management structure is required in the first place? Assuming we trust and want to give the manager full autonomy? 

I'm sure Brian McLean has plenty of folk in his phone book who he can call upon for advice as/when required - no problem if Duffy is one of them! What we don't need is someone like Duffy hanging around our club and slowly strangling it to death. He presided over our relegation and yet our board were almost definitely going to keep him on as manager. They suspected this wouldn't go down too well with the support and so have sneaked him in the back door as "Director of Football" when in actual fact he continues to act as manager in most respects. The board need to accept they've made a huge error here and ask Jim to leave. 

Edited July 26, 2023 by RutherGlen

[The Moonster]

4 minutes ago, Scott-Replay said:

I’m enjoying the video interviews pre and post matches (thanks to the media team for that one) but I couldn’t contain my laughter after ‘Season Tickets Available Now’ popped up after we’ve shipped 10 goals in three games and been pumped off of Brechin.

If that's the sort of energy and charisma McLean is showing in the dressing room I can completely understand why Duffy is still in the dug out barking orders. He sounds like the sort of shit pundit you get on BBC Alba alongside the gaelic speaking commentator. 

[Ocelot1877]

30 minutes ago, RutherGlen said:

That said, you lost me when you stated a DoF is a good idea, particularly for a club as small and apparently skint as Clyde FC. Can you explain why this extra tier of management structure is required in the first place? Assuming we trust and want to give the manager full autonomy?

In the circumstances that we are in the DOF is a good idea for 3 main reasons in my opinion 

1) In Brian McLean we have an inexperienced coach cutting his teeth at being in charge of a senior team. Having someone above him who has been around the block to mentor and guide whilst using contacts they have made in the game to help implement their vision is on paper a good thing

2) With the boards attention being drawn elsewhere and with them under their own admission looking to find a more experienced and “football minded” individual to run that side of things ( this statement is also a bit mad from a football club board at this level but c’est la vie), I feel a director of football is a good step to take. 

3) The board have stated numerous times that the intention is to get promoted again, considering how we struggled previously in league 1 , having this structure in place would be a fresh approach to what clearly didn’t work before. Implementing this as early as possible when the goal is to move up the league again is a good step. I don’t think we will be close to getting promoted for what it’s worth but if we were I’d rather have this structure in place now than implement it the season we go up for example

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Ocelot1877

[Clyde01]

2 hours ago, Clyde85 said:

From what am reading the new right back seems to be a downgrade on Lyon which I didn’t think was possible . Why can we not find competent fullbacks?

Jon Craig was rank rotten last night too, the whole defence is a shambles and with Livi beating Cove 5-0 last night I dread to think what Saturday will bring.

[Right turn Clyde]

The Head Coach is looking for a reaction- does he know we are away to an SPL side next?

not sure the boys will be hurting less on Saturday if Livingstone turn up.