Todd_is_God wrote:Is us spending £1.5m for a glorified indoor fives pitch "living within our means"?
I could perhaps understand it a little if it was a full size pitch, but its not. We have an artificial surface that can be used in all weather, if we really must keep our players dry we can use the likes of Ravenscraig or Toryglen. The "dome" solves an issue that simply isn't there. (I am well aware these facilities cost money, but they are a drop in the oxean in comparison, are full size, and can be shared, thus reducing cost.)
Re-investing the Hendrie money (£400k - £1m) into the youth system is in line with the ethos of the club, using the Neil and Andreu money (reported to be £1.25m) to invest in maintaining performance on the park, leading to being a mid to bottom end premier club for the coming years would be the right thing to do.
Nobody expects the club to bankrupt themselves trying to get pumped out the Europa League on away goals by B36 Tórshavn, but i think it is reasonable to expect them to reinvest wisely, in a way that compromises neither the standard of the club, nor the future of the club itself. Ringfencing £1.5M for a roof, for a club our size, compromises the standard of the club imo, as witnessed by the last 9 games.
Bann Joe Strinnge wrote:Living within your means is fine, but as I understand it, there was a bit of superfluous cash from the Neil/#22 moves down south, and with the apparent financial stability the club has achieved over the last couple of years, I would have thought there would have been the means to bring in a coach/mentor/temporary manager to assist/instruct canning in a new craft.
I fail to see the logic of r&w1874 - the uber results he refers to should be the benchmark, but the set up and approach which created the success does not now exist - a significant part of it is in East anglia. I would suggest the last decade as an example has not been relative success, but has been the yo yo effect of the cyclical process I referred to in my last post - effectively boom and bust - which is what we are seeing this season.
Youth and inexperience develops in to maturity and experience, which is sold on, to be replaced by youth and inexperience etc etc.
As I say, the situation need not perpetuate if a succession strategy is developed whereby the youth and inexperience is bolstered by a shrewd purchase or two and an appointment of an experienced coach to steer things along - there is no shortage of candidates who could fit the bill at this level.
I would like to see regularity in our performance season on season, competing as a premier division club, winning as much as we lose, but competing. Yes, a great buzz when we get promoted, no, not pleasant when plummeting down the league in free fall - perhaps that is the rough with the smooth when supporting the accies, but it need not be that way as evidenced by the first part of the season. The loss of a manager is usually due to sacking when results are poor, resulting in a new manager bounce, we have a new manager with literally no experience and instead of bounce, we have deflated the ball.
Where is the logic....perhaps some wiser posters than me can explain?
Park Materson wrote:FCUK THE DOME.
Pinchermartin wrote:Q - Do you know where they are hiding?
Pinchermartin wrote:Two weeks since I first asked the question 'do we have a BOD'
Still not a whimper!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests