ton v alloa

[LargsTON]

IF they do take over at Cappielow, we won't be able to hold them to account for their failings or hound them out the club like HS if they make a complete arse of things.

 

Let's face it, the whole of Inverclyde are s*** scared of them.

That thought had crossed my mind too.

[capitanus]

Y'know, it's just dawned on me that one thing that is likely put off potential investors is going up against them as competition and/or rival bidders.

 

Perhaps this never-ending courtship between Crawford and the Charabanc Brothers has been very counter productive. We're fucked.

[Toby]

And yet, they still can't get their money out of Rangers. 🤔

Aye, it’s almost as if they’re big fish and Inverclyde is a small pond.

[so72]

Y'know, it's just dawned on me that one thing that is likely put off potential investors is going up against them as competition and/or rival bidders.

 

Perhaps this never-ending courtship between Crawford and the Charabanc Brothers has been very counter productive. We're ****ed.

The Marrs who owned Dundee have a similiar reputation, albeit they do not have the same level of money or national reputation. Of course, their involvement there ended in administration and the Di Stefano farce.

 

Alternatively, Hamilton are also owned and ran by unsavoury characters and have made a real success of it.

 

There are certainly plenty of cases to look at in Scottish football of people with questionable reputations running football clubs.

[TheGoon]

See - Dave King.

[TonInDublin]

At the risk of saying it once more for tedium, the difference between finishing third and finishing ninth is 200k, or pretty much all of the 300k losses. Couple that with increased revenue if challenging for the league and making decent business decisions like firing an ineffective CEO and getting someone decent in to grow the business and profitability is not some aspirational ask. This whole sustainability shite should be seen As, and pointed and laughed at, as the most brainless idea ever, given it is,by it's very ambition, condemning you to deliberately give up on that 200k every year by definition. None of this is hard.

[capitanus]

The Marrs who owned Dundee have a similiar reputation, albeit they do not have the same level of money or national reputation. Of course, their involvement there ended in administration and the Di Stefano farce.

Alternatively, Hamilton are also owned and ran by unsavoury characters and have made a real success of it.

There are certainly plenty of cases to look at in Scottish football of people with questionable reputations running football clubs.

The bit in bold, yes there are plenty of villains, charlatans and wrong'uns involved in Football over the years and despite regulations to prevent there being going forward, there probably will continue to be in the future, but considering our previous with a certain individual who fits the description of the above, should we not be a little bit more cautious?

[cmdc]

At the risk of saying it once more for tedium, the difference between finishing third and finishing ninth is 200k, or pretty much all of the 300k losses. Couple that with increased revenue if challenging for the league and making decent business decisions like firing an ineffective CEO and getting someone decent in to grow the business and profitability is not some aspirational ask. This whole sustainability s***e should be seen As, and pointed and laughed at, as the most brainless idea ever, given it is,by it's very ambition, condemning you to deliberately give up on that 200k every year by definition. None of this is hard.

A major problem being that we don’t have any cover if we speculate to accumulate and fail to finish third - which has happened to us and to other clubs in the past. The owners will no longer absorb those losses or underwrite that risk. In that context we simply have to budget cautiously until such times as new investment or ownership comes along.

[vikingTON]

This whole sustainability s***e should be seen As, and pointed and laughed at, as the most brainless idea ever, 

 

You forgot about spunking £100k of the club's first significant profit ever in decades on some shan electronic turnstiles, another Iron Man classic.

[TONofmemories]

A major problem being that we don’t have any cover if we speculate to accumulate and fail to finish third - which has happened to us and to other clubs in the past. The owners will no longer absorb those losses or underwrite that risk. In that context we simply have to budget cautiously until such times as new investment or ownership comes along.

Shitebags. 

[vikingTON]

A major problem being that we don’t have any cover if we speculate to accumulate and fail to finish third - which has happened to us and to other clubs in the past. The owners will no longer absorb those losses or underwrite that risk. In that context we simply have to budget cautiously until such times as new investment or ownership comes along.

 

If the club wanted to 'budget cautiously' then it shouldn't have handed a novice dud of a manager a nearly two-year contract. If the club wanted to 'budget cautiously' then it shouldn't have let said manager already sign up a dung midfielder, who can't even get a game in a side currently winless in six, for next season. If the club wanted to 'budget cautiously' then it shouldn't have spunked a large part of its only significant profit in decades (and at a time when Douglas Rae was hardly a spring chicken) on a set of shan turnstiles. There is nothing 'cautious' about Iron Man and the club's actions. It is rather a complete lack of ambition for the first team squad combined with recklessness when it comes to all of the big decisions. 

 

Professional football is an industry that massively incentivises progression and punishes a lack of ambition with ever-declining returns. You can't just point to a set of account books to reverse that process, nor will they get season tickets flying out the front office in a few months time. 

[cmdc]

If the club wanted to 'budget cautiously' then it shouldn't have handed a novice dud of a manager a nearly two-year contract. If the club wanted to 'budget cautiously' then it shouldn't have let said manager already sign up a dung midfielder, who can't even get a game in a side currently winless in six, for next season. If the club wanted to 'budget cautiously' then it shouldn't have spunked a large part of its only significant profit in decades (and at a time when Douglas Rae was hardly a spring chicken) on a set of shan turnstiles. There is nothing 'cautious' about Iron Man and the club's actions. It is rather a complete lack of ambition for the first team squad combined with recklessness when it comes to all of the big decisions. 

 

Professional football is an industry that massively incentivises progression and punishes a lack of ambition with ever-declining returns. You can't just point to a set of account books to reverse that process, nor will they get season tickets flying out the front office in a few months time. 

 

Well, those are different arguments to my point which is purely that we are no longer in a position to speculate (i.e. to spend more in the hope of achieving a higher finish and more prize money) to accumulate because there is no-one to underwrite the considerable risk.

[EanieMeany]

A major problem being that we don’t have any cover if we speculate to accumulate and fail to finish third - which has happened to us and to other clubs in the past. The owners will no longer absorb those losses or underwrite that risk. In that context we simply have to budget cautiously until such times as new investment or ownership comes along.

Thing is though, over the last couple of decades the club must have lost a huge amount of prize money by tolerating a succession of shite managers and allowing them to ruin one or more seasons. On a purely footballing front, the mismanagement has been astoundingly bad. 

[vikingTON]

Well, those are different arguments to my point which is purely that we are no longer in a position to speculate (i.e. to spend more in the hope of achieving a higher finish and more prize money) to accumulate because there is no-one to underwrite the considerable risk.

 

Erm no they're not - you claimed that the club has to 'budget cautiously' until new investment is found: the club has already had chances to proceed with caution this season; instead it gave a totally unwarranted extra year to a novice manager and sanctioned a new deal for a complete donkey until May 2020. 

 

So the club isn't 'budgeting cautiously'; it is in fact 'chucking it until the Easdales want involved' which is not actually a legitimate strategy at all.  

[cmdc]

Thing is though, over the last couple of decades the club must have lost a huge amount of prize money by tolerating a succession of s***e managers and allowing them to ruin one or more seasons. On a purely footballing front, the mismanagement has been astoundingly bad.

Yep, wouldn’t disagree with that.

[cmdc]

Erm no they're not - you claimed that the club has to 'budget cautiously' until new investment is found: the club has already had chances to proceed with caution this season; instead it gave a totally unwarranted extra year to a novice manager and sanctioned a new deal for a complete donkey until May 2020.

 

So the club isn't 'budgeting cautiously'; it is in fact 'chucking it until the Easdales want involved' which is not actually a legitimate strategy at all.

Again, that’s a different argument. I’m saying the club has to budget cautiously. Whether it is or isn’t doing so is a different point.

[vikingTON]

Again, that’s a different argument. I’m saying the club has to budget cautiously. Whether it is or isn’t doing so is a different point.

 

It's not a different point at all: this is a forum about Greenock Morton Football Club, not a theoretical case study in an accounting textbook. What the club actually does with its budget - tieing itself to complete donkeys for no reason until 2020 - is entirely relevant to what the bottom line figures are and whether that can be considered 'cautious budgeting' or not. 

 

But you just keeping rolling out that line to provide cover for the club's current decisions; it's fooling nobody though. 

[cmdc]

It's not a different point at all: this is a forum about Greenock Morton Football Club, not a theoretical case study in an accounting textbook. What the club actually does with its budget - tieing itself to complete donkeys for no reason until 2020 - is entirely relevant to what the bottom line figures are and whether that can be considered 'cautious budgeting' or not. 

 

But you just keeping rolling out that line to provide cover for the club's current decisions; it's fooling nobody though. 

 

Nope

[so72]

The bit in bold, yes there are plenty of villains, charlatans and wrong'uns involved in Football over the years and despite regulations to prevent there being going forward, there probably will continue to be in the future, but considering our previous with a certain individual who fits the description of the above, should we not be a little bit more cautious?

Oh no, you are definitely right. There are far more horror stories than cinderella tales when it comes to such characters. It has Marrs brothers written all over it.

[HamCam]

Oh no, you are definitely right. There are far more horror stories than cinderella tales when it comes to such characters. It has Marrs brothers written all over it.

But in our current 'desperate' circumstances most fans cannot see any alternative to the Easdales.