Jump to content

Clyde FC Season 24/25


Recommended Posts

The reason given is to concentrate on football side. He acknowledges an overspend and goes to lengths to say a good proportion has been clawed back with promises . Suspect he got carried away with the optimism with weak  financial controls and  there has been a board split resulting in his resignation as chair, but who knows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Bob731 said:

So what was the reasoning for stepping down? I’ve bought into his pish this season lol 

Basically he made a c#nt of it

Spent £180k unauthorised too thinking that the Clyde Globetrotters this season winning by 4 and 5 each game would have 1,000s of extra fans rolling back to NDP

Two small miscalculations he made

1. The squad assembled on the inflated budget is p#sh and made even  Edinburgh look a decent outfit.

2. Even if we had won every game this season by 4 or 5 playing open and attacking football we would have at max 100-150 extra fans on the gate as we aren’t some sleeping giant.  So would have added £1900 - £2850 to home gate receipts

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Replays said:

I’d imagine it’s his attempt to take accountability for the overspend. Perhaps the DoF role will suit Maitland better.

Accountability would be for the “football department” to personally fund the £60k gap that needs filled.  
 

Don’t know who is in the “football department” but expect Maitland, McCall and someone else?

If that the case both Maitland and McCall should easily be good for £20k personally either from savings, equity in home or taking a personal loan

They got us in this mess so should be personally accountable to get us out of it

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the squad assembled and the fact a lot of them won't be on peanuts, I think everyone could see Clyde have gambled massively on promotion this season (which is obviously still a possibility). But if it's reliant on bigger attendances during the season, is there a risk of serious financial trouble before the season even ends? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contents of the email have been posted on the "Read the room" thread of the owners' forum, for those who haven't received it.

It's another almighty mess, really. Don't want to broadcast any of the finer details on here but the crux of it, as has been said, seems to be that Maitland has grossly overestimated the size of our core support and overextended the budget in line with that grand delusion. The details and figures being thrown around raise big questions about some sources of funding, but beyond that it's simply hilarious how much we seem to have spent on this lot and the coaching staff. Budgeting 101 dictates that you spend about 80-85% of your season's budget and hold a bit back to reassess in January, but instead we've gone all-in (and more) on this lot. I just cannot fathom the logic behind this boom or bust approach that the club seems to default to every four or five years, which then results in hall of shame seasons in between.

On the park today, further evidence that McCall is just flapping around, flinging shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Shelling aimless balls up top in the first half with two wingers who want the ball to feet, two central midfielders plodding about second to every ball, it's just chronic stuff from a man who I'm growingly convinced is unable to adapt his methods to the challenges of part-time management. I had some concern over our performances in the second half of last season but was happy to give the benefit of the doubt, given the considerable difficulties posed by our circumstances and the fact that results eventually came; now, though, we still have the same absence of any sort of identity and it looks every bit as though McCall expected that a surfeit of good players would result in us automatically pissing the league.

We missed Grant today and have missed Cuddihy since his injury (a good player, but one we can sadly no longer rely on), but the whole point of signing Docherty, Lyon and then Murdoch was that we wouldn't be any weaker if they dropped off or were unavailable. Unfortunately, we are and although Murdoch is evidently a cut above, he'd only really shine in a front-footed team with a much better physical balance to it. Redfern looks dangerous when he gets the ball to feet, isolated against a man, so naturally we rarely seek to create the conditions for it. Robson and Houston both like to bomb forward down the line, so naturally we seldom have a central player peeling wide to help construct moves down either flank or, on the rare occasion we do, the attempts to link up are ham-fisted at best. Connelly is a waste of a jersey, signed based on the very incorrect assumption that we'd have the cigars out every week. 

While it is an imbalanced squad that I think big mistakes have been made in the construction of (even forgetting about the money), it's still capable of much better than what we've seen in the last half a dozen games. McCall out for me, if we can afford it that is!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bullyweeno1 said:

Doubt many will as on current form who would take them

Whatever we're paying them, or what is known in EPL circles as the "Man United exchange rate". You're not getting rid of guys YOU have willingly overpaid for easily. 

Going back two weeks, how does the initial post that pounded the alarm on all this look? I'm no fan of the individual but he's the only one to have made a statement with nothing to be gained from it; in the time the club (THE ENTIRE CLUB) has ignored the supporters concern, they've extorted two thirds of the tick they now tell us wasn't a crisis worthy of note.

 

Pathetic all round, but completely in character. They don't deserve a penny and clearly they don't need ours, or value it enough to be honest. I'm not even blaming John Alexander any longer, and that was my favourite hobby. Clyde are f**ked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Doc Holiday said:

If you go back to Maitland chairman interview he basically admits the budget had been agreed and he had to find the funding for it. I think I'd prefer if he left now rather than this DOF role. 

Yes and very quickly 

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...