Commercial Activity

[vikingTON]

44 minutes ago, Greacen2000 said:

You mentioned 1 out of 18 goals which the document contains.  The buck will stop with Dale for many if not all of these.  

We are less than 6 months into this 3 year strategy, so no I don’t expect Dale to get emptied if we fail to make the top 4 this season.  I do fully expect that every one of the items contained therein will be reviewed on a regular basis, with the expectation that progress is being made towards them.  

Well here we totally disagree in our view about how seriously the club will be taking these 'benchmarks' and applying them to a GM's performance. I don't see evidence of any club doing that degree of executive review at this level and GMFC certainly weren't doing so for any previous incumbent. Unless an egregious incident occurs (which they have before at the club!), I think the GM will be here for as long as he wants to pad out another section of a CV. And then that 3 year strategy will be for the birds. 

What I will say in credit is that the German night at Cappielow for the Euros opening match seems to have gone well - based on the account of someone who attended it. We'll have to see whether the sales made it worthwhile but that is at least one example of doing something slightly different to generate revenue at the club. 

[Cet Homme Charmant]

37 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

Well here we totally disagree in our view about how seriously the club will be taking these 'benchmarks' and applying them to a GM's performance. I don't see evidence of any club doing that degree of executive review at this level and GMFC certainly weren't doing so for any previous incumbent.  

Just because you don't see any evidence of executive review of the GMs performance, it doesn't mean it isn't happening. In fact, I'd be astonished if there isn't a regular review, although I agree that did indeed seem to be the case under the Rae's tenure.

If there are indeed regular reviews by the board of the GM's performance, then of course they will not make any conclusions from that public. But if there are no such reviews, than I agree, that's amateurish and tin-pot.

[Greacen2000]

2 hours ago, vikingTON said:

Well here we totally disagree in our view about how seriously the club will be taking these 'benchmarks' and applying them to a GM's performance. I don't see evidence of any club doing that degree of executive review at this level and GMFC certainly weren't doing so for any previous incumbent. Unless an egregious incident occurs (which they have before at the club!), I think the GM will be here for as long as he wants to pad out another section of a CV. And then that 3 year strategy will be for the birds. 

What I will say in credit is that the German night at Cappielow for the Euros opening match seems to have gone well - based on the account of someone who attended it. We'll have to see whether the sales made it worthwhile but that is at least one example of doing something slightly different to generate revenue at the club. 

Dales comments from 15:50 onwards in this video would suggest otherwise (and it’s not the first time that the strategy has been discussed in these interviews).

 

I don’t really think that so-called “evidence” from what other clubs are doing (or what we have done under the previous regime) is terribly relevant to our current situation.  
 

Until there is good reason to do otherwise, I will take these updates from the club at face value rather than indulging in speculation and hyperbole.

[TRVMP]

Official site still has the next game as Alloa, and you need to go to the News to find the Partick Thistle ticket information. Pretty poor.

[SassenachTon]

13 hours ago, Greacen2000 said:

I do fully expect that every one of the items contained therein will be reviewed on a regular basis, with the expectation that progress is being made towards them.  

Or the items get binned one by one as stark reality begins to kick in.

[Greacen2000]

1 hour ago, SassenachTon said:

Or the items get binned one by one as stark reality begins to kick in.

What stark reality is that?  Feel free to highlight which of the points you feel it wouldn’t be possible for us to make progress on

Edited August 1 by Greacen2000

[SassenachTon]

Just now, Greacen2000 said:

What stark reality is that?  Few free to highlight which of the points you feel it wouldn’t be possible for us to make progress on

Any organisation can make progress on anything given enough focus and resources - resources which are lacking in the context of a fan-owned club at our level with relatively small attendances. My point was that goals and targets only mean something if they're realistic and achievable. Publishing a manifesto with 18 points on it is (in one respect, anyway) entirely laudable as it lays out a roadmap. But I sometimes wonder whether or not it would be better not to publish these wishlists (especially since they were very light on the 'how' detail) - and instead, publish each little victory as it's won. Human nature being what it is - if 10 out of the 18 published goals are achieved, folks will only talk about the 8 ones which didn't. It's like setting yourself up for failure. Just my opinion FWIW.

[vikingTON]

13 hours ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

Just because you don't see any evidence of executive review of the GMs performance, it doesn't mean it isn't happening. In fact, I'd be astonished if there isn't a regular review, although I agree that did indeed seem to be the case under the Rae's tenure.

The facts that it didn't happen under the Rae's tenure, or (visibly) happen to the immediate post-Rae incumbents, and also clearly doesn't happen to absolute clowns like Scot Gardiner who tramp from one failure to another mean that the onus is very much on GMFC to demonstrate how this Very Serious Performance Review will happen.

Do you think that establishing Morton in the top 16 of Scottish football is a benchmark that will be seriously used to evaluate any GM's performance? A simple yes or no answer will suffice. 

Edited August 1 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, SassenachTon said:

Any organisation can make progress on anything given enough focus and resources - resources which are lacking in the context of a fan-owned club at our level with relatively small attendances. My point was that goals and targets only mean something if they're realistic and achievable. Publishing a manifesto with 18 points on it is (in one respect, anyway) entirely laudable as it lays out a roadmap. But I sometimes wonder whether or not it would be better not to publish these wishlists (especially since they were very light on the 'how' detail) - and instead, publish each little victory as it's won. Human nature being what it is - if 10 out of the 18 published goals are achieved, folks will only talk about the 8 ones which didn't. It's like setting yourself up for failure. Just my opinion FWIW.

Not quite. Setting yourself up for failure is when you claim that a club can 'return' to 5,000 average crowds - that never existed at this level, ever - because it changes the entire complexion of what the business needs to do to achieve that engagement. The task is categorically not to 'bring back' levels of support which never existed; it is generating a massively increased new support. Our core fanbase is as large now as it has ever been for such meagre returns at this level; that the GM of the business doesn't recognise that is a serious failure. 

I also disagree with your description of those points as a 'roadmap', because there's no actual formal mechanism to record progress or to hold someone specifically to account for veering off in a totally different direction. It's a nice-sounding wish list rather than a serious business strategy. 

[Ferguson]

9 hours ago, SassenachTon said:

But I sometimes wonder whether or not it would be better not to publish these wishlists (especially since they were very light on the 'how' detail) - and instead, publish each little victory as it's won. Human nature being what it is - if 10 out of the 18 published goals are achieved, folks will only talk about the 8 ones which didn't. It's like setting yourself up for failure. Just my opinion FWIW.

Exactly. Regardless of what's actually being done, if you publish 18 mostly open-ended targets with no measurable indicators or goals and then follow it up by saying that 75% of these targets are seeing progress, again without presenting evidence for the majority of them, all you're doing is hanging yourself out to dry.

As you say, being successful in 10 of these goals will be seen as failing in 8 of them and claiming progress in 75% without clarifying how we're doing it just comes across as empty jargon. You can't just say "we're doing great in 75% of the immeasurable targets we asked you to measure our success on" and not expect to be scrutinised. It's a shame as it distracts from the good stuff the club are doing such as team ton, the big increase in kit sales and small things like the collaborations with the new 'Cowshed' group. 

[Chicken_Soup]

10 hours ago, vikingTON said:

Not quite. Setting yourself up for failure is when you claim that a club can 'return' to 5,000 average crowds - that never existed at this level, ever - because it changes the entire complexion of what the business needs to do to achieve that engagement. The task is categorically not to 'bring back' levels of support which never existed; it is generating a massively increased new support. Our core fanbase is as large now as it has ever been for such meagre returns at this level; that the GM of the business doesn't recognise that is a serious failure. 

I also disagree with your description of those points as a 'roadmap', because there's no actual formal mechanism to record progress or to hold someone specifically to account for veering off in a totally different direction. It's a nice-sounding wish list rather than a serious business strategy. 

You’ve made it clear that you’re annoyed at things like this - rather than just saying that the ambition is to increase average attendance, they’ve said they want it to return to 5,000, which is inaccurate. Fine.
 

My genuine question is - where would you like us to go from here? Presumably the termination of Dale’s contract, given your perception of his performance. So what comes next? How do we improve the standard of applicant or the standard of performance once someone else is in the role? 
 

 

 

[Alan_Partridge_Ton]

1 hour ago, Chicken_Soup said:

You’ve made it clear that you’re annoyed at things like this - rather than just saying that the ambition is to increase average attendance, they’ve said they want it to return to 5,000, which is inaccurate. Fine.
 

My genuine question is - where would you like us to go from here? Presumably the termination of Dale’s contract, given your perception of his performance. So what comes next? How do we improve the standard of applicant or the standard of performance once someone else is in the role? 
 

 

 

Chicken Soup for the Soul!

[Cet Homme Charmant]

13 hours ago, vikingTON said:

The facts that it didn't happen under the Rae's tenure, or (visibly) happen to the immediate post-Rae incumbents, and also clearly doesn't happen to absolute clowns like Scot Gardiner who tramp from one failure to another mean that the onus is very much on GMFC to demonstrate how this Very Serious Performance Review will happen.

Do you think that establishing Morton in the top 16 of Scottish football is a benchmark that will be seriously used to evaluate any GM's performance? A simple yes or no answer will suffice. 

No.

I would hope and expect there are many other KPIs, e.g., increasing revenue streams.

[SassenachTon]

15 hours ago, vikingTON said:

I also disagree with your description of those points as a 'roadmap', because there's no actual formal mechanism to record progress or to hold someone specifically to account for veering off in a totally different direction. It's a nice-sounding wish list rather than a serious business strategy. 

Fair point, well made. 

[Chicken_Soup]

On 7/30/2024 at 7:20 PM, capitanus said:

So, there is definitely no suitably qualified person in or around the Inverclyde area who has experience in running a SME or even a larger organisation who would relish the opportunity to be involved with the running of an SPFL club on a daily basis?

I suppose we're fucked for when he eventually leaves then.   Not.

 

Next.

 

There apparently wasn’t the last time (the last several times in fact) the post was advertised. If such a person has since become available, send them down to Cappielow to offer their services. 
 

 

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Chicken_Soup said:

There apparently wasn’t the last time (the last several times in fact) the post was advertised. If such a person has since become available, send them down to Cappielow to offer their services. 
 

 

What led you to that conclusion? 

[Greacen2000]

59 minutes ago, Chicken_Soup said:

There apparently wasn’t the last time (the last several times in fact) the post was advertised. If such a person has since become available, send them down to Cappielow to offer their services. 
 

 

It’s horses for courses I’m afraid.  Just as we currently operate close to the bottom of the market for what we pay full time professional footballers, I expect the same to be the case for management/executive positions.  As such any local candidates with more talent/ qualifications/ experience  are likely already employed in roles that pay more than we can offer

[TRVMP]

Football clubs have an advantage in that it's an exciting industry that people want to work in. It's the same reason that most people who work on film and TV earn absolute peanuts. But there are still limits. 

[Greacen2000]

48 minutes ago, TRVMP said:

Football clubs have an advantage in that it's an exciting industry that people want to work in. It's the same reason that most people who work on film and TV earn absolute peanuts. But there are still limits. 

Perhaps, but even with that being the case we will still be towards the bottom end of the salary football clubs offer for these types of role.

[Chicken_Soup]

1 hour ago, vikingTON said:

What led you to that conclusion? 

That no such person was appointed.