120 day review and following days/weeks

[forlanssister 3,050]

T EDIT by craig : you should know better than to engage in personal insults

 

I laughed and in all honesty probably STB did too.

 

it was quite tame.

[simplythebest 0]

I laughed and in all honesty probably STB did too.

 

it was quite tame.

Yep, I've given out and taken far worse to be fair

[TheTinMan99 0]

I meant no harm. I wouldn't have said it if I thought STB would've taken it personally, and he obviously hasn't. I actually think he would be a decent poster, if he could figure a way out of the hole he's dug for himself, with his unstinting support for literally everything our boards, past and present do/say. As a vocal opponent of David Murray, I don't understand why he doesn't hold the present incumbents to the same level of scrutiny.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I laughed and in all honesty probably STB did too.

 

it was quite tame.

 

Well done Craig.

[Darthter 542]

Regardless of the content of the 120-day review, there will always be a large section of fans that will find fault.....and there will be a large section that will be encouraged by it. If GW states that a share issue will happen next week, there will be those crying "what about this week???"

 

What needs to come out of the review is a clear & concise way forward for the club - a sound business plan. That alone will attract investment.

 

As for building an SPL capable side....the Board over the last couple of season have allowed the management to sign some of the SPL's top players - we already have to level of players to compete at the top end of the SPL (on paper). The key thing will be how these players perform against the country's "top" teams - will they & the manager be able to step up their play & tactics???

[andy steel 0]

I'm not so sure it's as black and white as that, Darther. As long as the main power blocs in terms of shareholding remain the same then any board is going to be at best firefighting - we've seen the last couple of years that in terms of decision making the main players have got it wrong on many counts that you'd have to be a phenomenally forgiving person, on the level of Jesus, to have any faith left in them. So the cynicism seems justified because be it Mather, or Somers, or Murray, or whoever, it's faceless and apparently secretive companies or people who are telling them what to do.

 

Of course, you know I think them all to be agents of the other side killing us slowly...although all these fan statement threads have left me thinking that we don't need much help in that department from anyone else.

[der Berliner 3,231]

Regardless of the content of the 120-day review, there will always be a large section of fans that will find fault.....and there will be a large section that will be encouraged by it. If GW states that a share issue will happen next week, there will be those crying "what about this week???"

 

What needs to come out of the review is a clear & concise way forward for the club - a sound business plan. That alone will attract investment.

 

As for building an SPL capable side....the Board over the last couple of season have allowed the management to sign some of the SPL's top players - we already have to level of players to compete at the top end of the SPL (on paper). The key thing will be how these players perform against the country's "top" teams - will they & the manager be able to step up their play & tactics???

 

Thanks for posting the above! Was about to write something similar and ask people - for the time being - to stop the constant and utterly tiring flak they hand out. We've heard it all before, even King has asked to await the results of the 120-day review ... and maybe folk can just refrain from having one sh'tstorm after the other till then. For that is what it has essentially come down to by now.

[Darthter 542]

I'm not so sure it's as black and white as that, Darther. As long as the main power blocs in terms of shareholding remain the same then any board is going to be at best firefighting - we've seen the last couple of years that in terms of decision making the main players have got it wrong on many counts that you'd have to be a phenomenally forgiving person, on the level of Jesus, to have any faith left in them. So the cynicism seems justified because be it Mather, or Somers, or Murray, or whoever, it's faceless and apparently secretive companies or people who are telling them what to do.

 

very true....but at what point to a large section of fans actually allow them to do their job without constant criticism???? As it stands at the moment the current board can't seem to fart without a message board/forum somewhere commenting on it. Folk are convinced 110% that mystery shareholders are pulling the strings, yet (IMHO) there is no concrete evidence of this happening. Certain shareholders have given Mr Easdale proxy voting rights, but voting rights doesn't necessarily run a club day-to-day. The only shareholder with apparent direct access to the board is Laxey/Crichton.

 

With the 120-review, it is the CEO/boards roadmap for the way forward. I hope that it is positive & that sections of the fans are able to see past their opinions of the board/shareholders etc and actually allow the folk tasked with running the club the space to do it.

[Frankie 8,145]

Of course everyone should judge the review contents on its own merits. However that will prove understandably difficult for some given the inconsistent at best signals from the club in recent months and years. In saying that, the board should know the importance of this report so that, along with the four month time-frame in putting it together should enable a more in-depth insight than we've seen for a long time.

 

Clearly the content has to be accompanied with genuine action though for its words to be given the kind of immediate credibility and faith it will require. For example, anyone could point out the obstacles the club faces along with the positive resources it does have. The main difficulty isn't doing that but being able to convince people we can change the situation for the better. Thus, the primary challenge for Graham Wallace isn't providing a suitable report per se but being able to apply the recommended changes.

 

Investment is key. Can they provide this? So far they have not so it's not a surprise people remain cynical.

[Darthter 542]

Of course everyone should judge the review contents on its own merits. However that will prove understandably difficult for some given the inconsistent at best signals from the club in recent months and years.

 

Inconsistencies or changing landscapes???? There are some who don't seem to understand that situations change & therefore plans that were in place 3-4 months ago, may not be relevant now. When this happens, the board are seen as inconsistent. The biggest issue for me is that 99.9% of the folk commenting on the clubs business practices etc have absolutely no insight or access to the day to day workings of the club - it is all based on media reports and opinion passed as fact.

 

The fact (as per interim accounts) is that the club has made a £3.5m loss for the 1st 6 months, compared to £7m for the previous year - That's a good thing surely. Yet I'd put money on folk/media still commenting about "the board losing £1m per month".

 

I think a good number of folk need to take a few steps back and re-assess things based on FACTS as officially presented by the club & sometimes apply a touch of common sense.....