Is It Time For The Rae Family To Move Step Aside?

[Jamie_M]

He's not though. He's saying the aim is to have as many players in the first team coming through the academy as possible - not that it's the be all and end all.

 

He wouldn't be doing his job if he talked it down and will want to make it as attractive an option as possible to young player.

I'm talking about the puffing about how many youth graduates are in the current squad, including the likes of Quitongo and O'Ware in those numbers, players who came to us, later in their youth careers, from elsewhere just like Scullion, Orr etc.

[Jamie_M]

Only 2 people have said that the Rae's shouldn't leave the building...

So Dougie and Warren DO read the board!

[vikingTON]

He's not though. He's saying the aim is to have as many players in the first team coming through the academy as possible - not that it's the be all and end all.

No, Hawke has already provided a specific figure for the number of players that should be in the first team from the academy - half of the squad. That is going to the figure on which the 'sustainability' model is based. There is no substance to your belief that this figure will be lowered if/when it turns out that the academy products aren't very good. There is no clear mechanism for 'sustainably' increasing the first team budget available to a manager as and when it turns out that the youth players aren't up to scratch. The first team will be sent out to sink or swim, and the former of those outcomes is overwhelmingly likely (as was the case in 2013/14). Because the dominant purpose of the exercise is not to improve or even just consolidate the progress of the first team last season but rather to get the Raes 'their' money back. 

 

He wouldn't be doing his job if he talked it down and will want to make it as attractive an option as possible to young player.

 

Well no: his job is the chief executive: he is not in charge of the youth academy. It is in the interests of Derek Anderson and others to fight the corner of the youth development approach and to sell it to potential youth prospects; a competent chief executive makes a detached assessment about what is in the best interests of the football club based on evidence rather than wishful thinking. 

 

That the Raes and Hawke have already wedded themselves to their sustainability through youth development model is in fact part of the problem at the club, not a natural function of their positions.

[Alibi]

There are already several players who are not good enough to influence a game at our level filling out our starting line up.

 

FTFY

[Toby]

And here's me thinking that you said it wasn't up to the fans to come up with solutions. Keep playing you could be onto something.

Who were the sectarian bigots who hounded Jim McInally out of Cappielow for being a Catholic?

[LargsTON]

It might be fantasy indeed, but IMO there's a lot of stripping back still to come to get to that point. Say we get down the line having continued this penny pinching mission, and the youth doesnt work out as hoped, we'd be ****ed

I think this is precisely why we're all feeling so anxious about the future. This brainfart of a plan is only going to end in one way. Sustainability will drive away hundreds more fans as we fall through the leagues. It'll effectively kill us off unless fresh investment is found, including businessmen with the wherewithal and ambition to take us forward.

[ralston]

He's not though. He's saying the aim is to have as many players in the first team coming through the academy as possible - not that it's the be all and end all.

He wouldn't be doing his job if he talked it down and will want to make it as attractive an option as possible to young player.

Not strictly true, based on what was said at the q&a. It wasn’t to have as many academy players ‘as possible’. It was to have a first team where the majority (8 or 9) are academy players/graduates, supplemented with others. And taken in conjunction with the presumed alignment of available resource to the academy (others who were at the meeting can confirm if I am/ am not interpreting this correctly) this suggests a dependence on the academy, rather than on a scouting and recruitment strategy, as has apparently been adopted by our recent visitors.

 

So £20 to watch the development squad (£18 if you turn up early, or have ninja internet skillz).

[Scott]

Not strictly true, based on what was said at the q&a. It wasn’t to have as many academy players ‘as possible’. It was to have a first team where the majority (8 or 9) are academy players/graduates, supplemented with others.

 

That sounds grim. Lower leagues here we come..

[cotter]

Most people here know I watch a lot of development squad and academy games. But even though I think we have talented youngsters, I don't think any of them are ready for regular 1st team foitball and none of them anywhere near making us money in transfer market.

The most consistent players at that level for me are

Lewis Strapp. Possibly the pick of the bunch. Strong left back good going forward. Definitely worth a chance. Came through whole academy set up.

 

Jamie McGowan. Good young goalkeeper who has performed well at 20s and while out on loan at troon. Picked up a bad injury which if story is true our club haven't paid for his operation yet.

Came from st Mirren at end of u17s.

 

Ben Armour. I think a decent striker but not given much of a run out this season. Out on loan at Annan.

Signed from queens park at u20s. I think academy player at St Mirren and Celtic.

 

Ruaridh Langan. Centre mid. Good box to box can also play centre half at times. Bench warmer most weeks for 1st team. Came through our academy I think.

 

Reece Lyons. Centre mid. 1st year at 20s and a good footballer. Very similar I think to tidser in style of play. Came through our academy.

 

These are the ones I think that have a chance at Morton. I watch them most weeks and they deserve a go at 1st team football I think but even I think it's crazy that Hawke would want to build a team round them.

[Malt]

be as well going part time.

[HamCam]

be as well going part time.

Why is it I think this is really the Rae's business plan? Guess who will be to blame? That's right - us fans.

[BishopBrennan]

Hawke needs to realise that the origin of some of this criticism is that our absolutely humiliating relegation is still fresh in our memories. The model was trying to achieve the same results with a lower budget, with the modus operandi being 'almost good enough'. Peciar was almost as good as McLaughlin. Page was almost as good as Rutkiewicz. Fitzpatrick was almost as good as Dyer. Robertson was almost as good as Tidser. Habai was almost as good as Hardie. Hands was almost as good as Bachirou. Modou-Cham was almost as good as MacDonald. McNeil was almost as good as Weatherson. 

The culmination of this 'almost good enough', penny-pinching philosophy resulting in finishing 14 (FOURTEEN) points behind part time Cowdenbeath and part time Alloa. Mark my words, this 'sustainability' model WILL see a manager be put in place who replicate this model. Hawke's jargon machine will be working as hard as physically possible. He will be hosting Q+As and doing press interviews for the benefit of our 1200 supporters, shouting from the rooftops that his homegrown talents are 5 points ahead of Ayr at the top of League One.

Our third-tier youth conveyor belt will produce results that will only cut the mustard in the third tier of Scottish football. It won't be enjoyable. It won't be ambitious. And crucially, it won't be sustainable. 

[cmdc]

Hawke needs to realise that the origin of some of this criticism is that our absolutely humiliating relegation is still fresh in our memories. The model was trying to achieve the same results with a lower budget, with the modus operandi being 'almost good enough'. Peciar was almost as good as McLaughlin. Page was almost as good as Rutkiewicz. Fitzpatrick was almost as good as Dyer. Robertson was almost as good as Tidser. Habai was almost as good as Hardie. Hands was almost as good as Bachirou. Modou-Cham was almost as good as MacDonald. McNeil was almost as good as Weatherson. 

The culmination of this 'almost good enough', penny-pinching philosophy resulting in finishing 14 (FOURTEEN) points behind part time Cowdenbeath and part time Alloa. Mark my words, this 'sustainability' model WILL see a manager be put in place who replicate this model. Hawke's jargon machine will be working as hard as physically possible. He will be hosting Q+As and doing press interviews for the benefit of our 1200 supporters, shouting from the rooftops that his homegrown talents are 5 points ahead of Ayr at the top of League One.

Our third-tier youth conveyor belt will produce results that will only cut the mustard in the third tier of Scottish football. It won't be enjoyable. It won't be ambitious. And crucially, it won't be sustainable. 

 

Two quick things I'd add to this:

 

- I don't think Morton were expecting the same for less, in that Moore's target was reduced from 'win the league' to 'reach the play-offs' when his budget was cut (and reaching the play-offs was explicitly stated as being his target at the start of that season).

 

- On one level 'almost as good' was inevitable in the sense that we put that Hardie et al squad together by paying big wages - but at 110% of turnover and with no reward that was unsustainable (to use the buzzword). The budget couldn't stay at that level meaning we had to hope players would accept reduced deals (unlikely in most cases) or that we could find others who were 'almost as good'. So I don't think reducing the budget was itself a huge problem - it had to happen, others (including Partick when they pipped us) had success with much less, and it is easy to forget that Moore had a budget that was about in line with a fourth place finish and genuinely thought he had put together a squad that could take us up.

 

The problems, I think, were (1) hindsight is 20/20 but we spent that budget badly (Moore admitted he gambled, and it didn't pay off) and (2) given the re-allocation of prize money we could perhaps have reduced the budget less sharply. The (then) board would say in defence of the latter that there was no real certainty even late in the day as to the extent of that redistribution, and it would only filter down after the fact.

[capitanus]

I mentioned last weekend that I felt that Morton are being 'downsized' by stealth.

 

The current situation of Morton looks similar to that of Clyde around 10-12 years ago in their Dougie Imrie era, when they were riding high in the first division only to find themselves floundering in the bottom league a couple of seasons later.

 

With all these cost-cutting exercises, plus youth for the sake of it, dwindling support, alienation, apathy and disillusion amongst the support; an owner who looks like he's given up etc.

 

Don't be surprised if we end up just like Clyde in 5 years time.

[TRVMP]

As some of us pointed out at the time, everyone else was suffering under the same uncertainty and didn't decide to piss the bed over it. They tried to do it on the cheap and it backfired. Lessons learned? Not from where I'm standing. We're getting ready to do the same next season.

[cmdc]

As some of us pointed out at the time, everyone else was suffering under the same uncertainty and didn't decide to piss the bed over it. They tried to do it on the cheap and it backfired. Lessons learned? Not from where I'm standing. We're getting ready to do the same next season.

Well, it’s been done to death and we won’t change minds either way, but I don’t think it was done on the cheap in comparison to other budgets in the league. The problem with the budget was how steep the fall was from an unsustainable starting point.

[TRVMP]

I mentioned last weekend that I felt that Morton are being 'downsized' by stealth.

The current situation of Morton looks similar to that of Clyde around 10-12 years ago in their Dougie Imrie era, when they were riding high in the first division only to find themselves floundering in the bottom league a couple of seasons later.

With all these cost-cutting exercises, plus youth for the sake of it, dwindling support, alienation, apathy and disillusion amongst the support; an owner who looks like he's given up etc.

Don't be surprised if we end up just like Clyde in 5 years time.

I think we'll be closer to Ayr and Raith. Clyde were finished as a proper club when their heartland was torn down and they left Shawfield. They actually got better gates in Cumbernauld than in their latter days on Glasgow but they were never going to really build roots there because practically every family in Cumbernauld was 'from' somewhere else within living memory and would pass on Rangers or Celtics to their kids. And as Livingston have already discovered, and Morton will discover soon enough, youth campaigns alone do not a new generation of fans make, otherwise the makeup of European fanbases would be turned on its head.

[TRVMP]

Well, it’s been done to death and we won’t change minds either way, but I don’t think it was done on the cheap in comparison to other budgets in the league. The problem with the budget was how steep the fall was from an unsustainable starting point.

That much I agree with. It wasn't a 10th place budget, but it was a short sharp shock.

[Malt]

Two quick things I'd add to this:

 

- I don't think Morton were expecting the same for less, in that Moore's target was reduced from 'win the league' to 'reach the play-offs' when his budget was cut (and reaching the play-offs was explicitly stated as being his target at the start of that season).

 

- On one level 'almost as good' was inevitable in the sense that we put that Hardie et al squad together by paying big wages - but at 110% of turnover and with no reward that was unsustainable (to use the buzzword). The budget couldn't stay at that level meaning we had to hope players would accept reduced deals (unlikely in most cases) or that we could find others who were 'almost as good'. So I don't think reducing the budget was itself a huge problem - it had to happen, others (including Partick when they pipped us) had success with much less, and it is easy to forget that Moore had a budget that was about in line with a fourth place finish and genuinely thought he had put together a squad that could take us up.

 

The problems, I think, were (1) hindsight is 20/20 but we spent that budget badly (Moore admitted he gambled, and it didn't pay off) and (2) given the re-allocation of prize money we could perhaps have reduced the budget less sharply. The (then) board would say in defence of the latter that there was no real certainty even late in the day as to the extent of that redistribution, and it would only filter down after the fact.

So we had a target that season and it was known?

[cmdc]

So we had a target that season and it was known?

Yep.