Squad for next Season

[Brian Skelton]

If it was a case of going part-time versus selling the club and taking a chance and someone  taking the club by the scruff of the neck I would take the latter.

[SpoonTon]

35 minutes ago, Jamie_M said:

We are largely down to the hardcore support who have shown for years that they will largely turn up regardless to watch any old shite put in front of them and year after year of failure.

I don't think many are advocating wholesale part time, but most of the negative perception of it was borne by the former regime continually using it as a threat to demand the fans bring a friend. 

What would be wrong with a quiet shift to hybrid, tweaking the training schedule to suit and shopping from a larger pool of players? Why would they even have to announce that in such dramatic fashion, and even if they did, it surely wouldn't be too hard to promote the benefits of that?

As for the part time teams paying almost full time wages, again, what's the difference doing that initially than paying for full time players? If anything there's probably still some saving there.

Do the same thing, get the same result. Which means our next downward spin on the yoyo is due anyway.

I agree with much of this, and I've said elsewhere that we might be at the point when trying something different with at least an element of part time football involved.

One thing I would say, though, is that there isn't a part time club (or a club who have went down that route at some point) that have been a championship club for more seasons than we have over the past 15 years or so. Full time football absolutely gives a better platform for success than part time, but only if it's something which is actually affordable (a hybrid of proper full time players and cheap local younger players isn't something that has worked). And a caveat here is that a really well run part time club can achieve more success in individual seasons than poorly run full time clubs. 

Practically speaking, if we can't quite afford to function properly as a full time club then part time or hybrid set ups are sensible options. 

[vikingTON]

31 minutes ago, SpoonTon said:

One thing I would say, though, is that there isn't a part time club (or a club who have went down that route at some point) that have been a championship club for more seasons than we have over the past 15 years or so. 

What do you think any of their net profit/losses were, compared to GMFC prior to Golden Casket leaving the building? 

We would have had far, far fewer seasons in the second tier based on a break-even budget and the incompetent way in which we have been run for the past 15 years. The same goes for the likes of Raith who were running up losses of £400k per year in the third tier just a few years ago. Inverness have lost well over £2 million in the top half of the Championship. 

Once you account for the never never spending policies that blight most full time clubs outside of the top flight, the edge provided by their training model is really not demonstrated at all. They simply do better because of the huge correlation between clubs with full time status and clubs chucking money around that they don't actually have.

But that option is not available to us and nor should it be either.

Edited July 19, 2022 by vikingTON

[HamCam]

While it has been yet another depressing start to the season it is still early days. Astonishing though the club, regardless of the ownership model, continue to over-promise and under-deliver. Yes there has been a marked improvement off the park but on the park it remains a tough watch. Full-time, part-time or a hybrid model does not concern me, I just want to see progress. Without at least a couple more signings, ideally in the middle of the park and upfront, this season and progress could be a tough ask.

[Alibi]

I don’t think the suggestion was to go entirely part time, rather to have some part time players who were better than what we have. IIRC, our 77-82 teams were not entirely full time and they got us into the top tier. When full time players are earning a pittance, might they themselves not want to consider changing to part time as they would be better off if they had a day job?
 

It might be different at a much higher level, but at our level I would suggest a hybrid model would serve us best.

[TRVMP]

Surely with the young players we're on a de facto hybrid model as it is? Or are the likes of Hynes full-time players?

[GiGi]

How much are our lower earners likely to be on these days? We're reaching the point where a £300pw contract is not a liveable full time wage. 

[Jamie_M]

3 hours ago, SpoonTon said:

One thing I would say, though, is that there isn't a part time club (or a club who have went down that route at some point) that have been a championship club for more seasons than we have over the past 15 years or so.

Which may be true, but what's the data comparable to our current model though - taking into account that most of that period was when we were racking up £2m of debt, which is no longer our option?

 

[EanieMeany]

3 hours ago, SpoonTon said:

I agree with much of this, and I've said elsewhere that we might be at the point when trying something different with at least an element of part time football involved.

One thing I would say, though, is that there isn't a part time club (or a club who have went down that route at some point) that have been a championship club for more seasons than we have over the past 15 years or so. Full time football absolutely gives a better platform for success than part time, but only if it's something which is actually affordable (a hybrid of proper full time players and cheap local younger players isn't something that has worked). And a caveat here is that a really well run part time club can achieve more success in individual seasons than poorly run full time clubs. 

Practically speaking, if we can't quite afford to function properly as a full time club then part time or hybrid set ups are sensible options. 

I think the bit in bold is it, really. I don't know how an alternative model would look and I'm not sure I really fancy the concept but given the position we're in, I think it's maybe a prudent time for an open conversation/consultation to take place about what the future holds with everything and anything on the table to be discussed. 

It could well be MCT revealing some development or other which is the catalyst for the club to push on as is, it could be the planning and development of some innovative hybrid structure,it could be a realisation that full-time football simply isn't viable and whether or not that can be resolved by anything, or it could just be a damp squib. Who knows? There's nothing to be scared of by listening to the people who care most about the club, and fans en-masse can be a helluva lot more imaginative than a bunch of lawyers in suits cozied up in a boardroom.

As it stands, there's no real sense that the club is on the verge of transforming into a genuine contender for promotion and prolonged top-flight status, and as I said in an earlier tweet there's could be a lot of turbulence if things are going badly heading into winter and people are feeling the pinch - it should be remembered that Greenock isn't the most affluent of towns and circumstances could soften up a chunk of the hardcore. If things just keep trundling along, there will be less and less to really keep the wallets open on all fronts if things get tough at home, so if nothing else setting the question of "how does this club win" and engaging the fans would (imo) help energise the MCT project, as would developing a socio-type scheme etc. Which is another issue, really.

MCT is a new and relatively untested project, it shouldn't be written off but nor should it be allowed to just pick up where the Raes left off in many regards and just trundle along with little in the way of accountability or "pressure" (for want of a better word) to drive things forward. I don't necessarily envisage any kind of impending disaster any time soon, but what I can see on the horizon is the possibility that the only real hope we had (that we knew of with any certainty...) of ending the Rae's stagnation turning out to do nothing more than embed it beyond fixing.

The early days of fan ownership should be a time for bold new ideas and discussions and exploring ways to move the club forward: fan ownership might not mean fan-run but it certainly should mean fan-propelled (pun entirely unintended) and utilising the knowledge, skills and passion of the support.

[so72]

3 hours ago, Jamie_M said:

Which may be true, but what's the data comparable to our current model though - taking into account that most of that period was when we were racking up £2m of debt, which is no longer our option?

 

You know, hands up, I never really factored in the debt to my own thinking. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have a thorough sustainability study but to do it properly we would need to spend money we progeny don't have unless there's someone qualified within the club. 

[Deego]

17 hours ago, TRVMP said:

Surely with the young players we're on a de facto hybrid model as it is? Or are the likes of Hynes full-time players?

Hynes will be 24 this season, he’ll be full time. I’m sure all the younger players are.

[Nornirontons]

I had this conversation about what was, what is and what could be a few times.... Under Wilson and McGraw there was a clear plan to stabilise and that was done by selling and finding more...Scott...well let's not go there. Rae saw it as an expensive train set imho. He was paying Tidser 1900 a week!!!...source ex Morton player over here not jenks hahaha ..however the 1 thing that we are not burdened with is the debt he built up which tbf isn't a bad deal for anyone to take on. This is very much crystal ball stuff but whichever way you look at it we need investment....otherwise part time it will be and that's the reality of it. Part time players over here are on more money. Why do you think Jenkins ended up here?....however we were part time and made the premier League in the past....granted much harder to do in this day an age but it without structured investment a full time club we will not be imho. Especially if your paying high end part time wages!

Edited July 20, 2022 by Nornirontons

[vikingTON]

8 hours ago, Nornirontons said:

however the 1 thing that we are not burdened with is the debt he built up which tbf isn't a bad deal for anyone to take on. 

We are also don't have any assets because the ground and its land have been - quite rightly - separated from GMFC itself and placed in a separate holding organisation. 

What this means is that there is no basis for a traditional investment deal. There are no assets to buy and so no valuation of the club. There is no 'flog the club to some rich guy' option and nor should there be: any investment now has to go through a much more careful/convoluted process, so that we don't end up like we were at the end of Scott or Rae's spells ever again. 

This is why the MCT proposal to try and negotiate terms of investment based on:

- pro-rated contributions alongside MCT, and

- potential directorships to oversee how those contributions are used

was a really important measure to pass in my (outside the club) view. We'll see in due course if any investors are willing to pursue this and what terms they propose in turn - it's a negotiation after all - and then MCT members can have the final say.

[The Bewilderedbeast]

From what I hear, from a good source, is that the investment discussed at the meeting last month, wont be happening.

One of the potential investors were rejected by the MCT board as "not being in the best interests of the club" and the remaining two pulled out as they feared being rejected by a public vote.

That leaves the sponsorship deal, which, as far as I know may well still be under discussion.

IIRC, and I may be wrong, but was it not said that the budget would be cut, but if the sponsorship went ahead, it would allow them to offer the same budget for players as they did last year.

 

[irnbru]

2 minutes ago, The Bewilderedbeast said:

From what I hear, from a good source, is that the investment discussed at the meeting last month, wont be happening.

One of the potential investors were rejected by the MCT board as "not being in the best interests of the club" and the remaining two pulled out as they feared being rejected by a public vote.

That leaves the sponsorship deal, which, as far as I know may well still be under discussion.

IIRC, and I may be wrong, but was it not said that the budget would be cut, but if the sponsorship went ahead, it would allow them to offer the same budget for players as they did last year.

 

This is the bit concerning me. I'm pretty sure Gordon Ritchie said the budget was already the same - it wasn't the same if we got new investment or sponsorship. 

[The Bewilderedbeast]

12 minutes ago, irnbru said:

This is the bit concerning me. I'm pretty sure Gordon Ritchie said the budget was already the same - it wasn't the same if we got new investment or sponsorship. 

As I said, I could be wrong.

[port-ton]

The way I remember it on the night was that it was that sponsorship deal that increased the budget according to Ritchie. My memory is terrible though so could be mistaken. 

[SpoonTon]

The sponsorship deal certainly doesn't seem to have come through yet, and the way that it was put on here at the time was that we were relying on it to keep the budget the same (which isn't surprising given increased running costs and perhaps also that we had the cushion of COVID money last year). 

It's not great if we were planning on the basis on money that wasn't there yet, and I'm certainly going that it's not the case. Hopefully we're just waiting on our targets being willing to sign for the money we can offer. 

[HamCam]

32 minutes ago, The Bewilderedbeast said:

From what I hear, from a good source, is that the investment discussed at the meeting last month, wont be happening.

One of the potential investors were rejected by the MCT board as "not being in the best interests of the club" and the remaining two pulled out as they feared being rejected by a public vote.

That leaves the sponsorship deal, which, as far as I know may well still be under discussion.

IIRC, and I may be wrong, but was it not said that the budget would be cut, but if the sponsorship went ahead, it would allow them to offer the same budget for players as they did last year.

 

Interesting to hear we are only attracting the 'wrong' kind of people/investor. The worry is we are over-reliant on one major investor and that appears to come at a cost to the footballing side of the business.

[Madton]

34 minutes ago, The Bewilderedbeast said:

From what I hear, from a good source, is that the investment discussed at the meeting last month, wont be happening.

One of the potential investors were rejected by the MCT board as "not being in the best interests of the club" and the remaining two pulled out as they feared being rejected by a public vote.

That leaves the sponsorship deal, which, as far as I know may well still be under discussion.

IIRC, and I may be wrong, but was it not said that the budget would be cut, but if the sponsorship went ahead, it would allow them to offer the same budget for players as they did last year.

 

I doubt the potential sponsorship is going to have a significant impact on Dougie's budget. Its not like we are in the market for 6 figure sponsorship deals. I'm guessing its no more than 20-30k

GR said the budget was pretty much the same in a separate discussion from the sponsorship chat at the start of the meeting.. if we don't sign any more players, clearly he was just talking nonsense.

Btw, he made it out the sponsorship deal was all but complete, where is it?