Dave King Supporter Update

[buster. 4,808]

4 minutes ago, Tannochsidebear said:

Yes, its grandstanding by King no matter the small details. He seems to revel in fighting with authorities, even when he is wrong.

He put his money where his mouth was and with some others fought a battle no one else seemed prepared to do and that should be fully recognised but I don't think he or others for him have went about  executive control of the club in a coherent fashion and that is partly why we struggle to take the next step.

[Tannochsidebear 2,315]

Just now, buster. said:

He put his money where his mouth was and with some others fought a battle no one else seemed prepared to do and that should be fully recognised but I don't think he or others for him have went about  executive control of the club in a coherent fashion and that is partly why we struggle to take the next step.

That's a whole separate issue though @buster., and on the point you make he has done an absolutely magnificent job in getting control and getting rid of Ashley (almost!), refurbishing the stadium and Auchenhowie, starting to deal with the cabal in the SFA/SPFL. He gets huge approval for all that work.

 

However if the last decade has taught us nothing it is that nobody gets a free ride anymore, and scrutiny will come in certain areas where there is clearly something that could have been handled better. This whole TP could and should have been dealt with quicker and cleaner. The appointment of Pedro and subsequent hanging out to dry of the youth coach were huge errors.

 

Some good, some not so good. Is that not fair?

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

22 minutes ago, buster. said:

It makes for an interesting debate..............

 

A more settled and clearly improving side on the park would certainly help some of the other issues.

eg. players doing well = less pay offs and potential profit on player trading, increased European revenue, etc.

 

There is an argument that suggest that this is the current approach, opposed to 'top down', which in some areas is proving very difficult.

 

If so, it's a big gamble.

At the moment we're seeing much of the same issues we've previously been blighted with:

 

Extremely poor football with no discernible style. 

Embarrassing results and final league position.

Lack of any clear vision or direction. Hopefully this is changing now. 

A squad worth peanuts with a lack of noticeable player development

Poor signings often needing paid off - no profit made. A revolving door usually resulting in constant losses.

Lack of youth players being integrated into first team

 

And what exactly is the debt at now? 

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by Ser Barristan Selmy

[buster. 4,808]

22 minutes ago, Tannochsidebear said:

That's a whole separate issue though @buster., and on the point you make he has done an absolutely magnificent job in getting control and getting rid of Ashley (almost!), refurbishing the stadium and Auchenhowie, starting to deal with the cabal in the SFA/SPFL. He gets huge approval for all that work.

 

However if the last decade has taught us nothing it is that nobody gets a free ride anymore, and scrutiny will come in certain areas where there is clearly something that could have been handled better. This whole TP could and should have been dealt with quicker and cleaner. The appointment of Pedro and subsequent hanging out to dry of the youth coach were huge errors.

 

Some good, some not so good. Is that not fair?

Yes, good and not so good but my main bugbear is too long without a coherent, holistic strategy and the lack of a hard-nosed, more than competent CEO to carry it out......It's not a new thought, I wrote a Gersnet article that featured that,  way back.

 

Too much tends to be reactionary rather than following a strategy.

eg. Counter-attacks on individuals on governing body boards came after the 2 SFA charges.

 

Regards SDI, let's review that in a couple of weeks after the courtcase.

Regards TP, it doesn't look good and I doubt that it will end well. As for not effecting the football club, (TRFC), IMO he's being disingenuous....... it might well effect RIFC and hence the club...eg. share issues ?

 

Regards the football, it's been that much of a mess, AJ called it an "institutiuonal failure"

We hope that the SG&Co appointments can help turn the tide.

Hopefully, the changes and improvements to the football operation as a whole are a sign of 'strategic approach' at that level.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by buster.

[Gaffer 1,665]

11 minutes ago, buster. said:

Yes, good and not so good but my main bugbear is too long without a coherent, holistic strategy and the lack of a hard-nosed, more than competent CEO to carry it out......It's not a new thought, I wrote a Gersnet article that featured that,  way back.

 

Too much tends to be reactionary rather than following a strategy.

eg. Counter-attacks on individuals on governing body boards came after the 2 SFA charges.

 

Regards SDI, let's review that in a couple of weeks after the courtcase.

Regards TP, it doesn't look good and I doubt that it will end well. As for not effecting the football club, (TRFC), IMO he's being disingenuous....... it might well effect RIFC and hence the club...eg. share issues ?

 

Regards the football, it's been that much of a mess, AJ called it an "institutiuonal failure"

We hope that the SG&Co appointments can help turn the tide.

Hopefully, the changes and improvements to the football operation as a whole are a sign of 'strategic approach' at that level.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with much of what you've said here Buster.

 

Your point about a strategy is a good one, but I do think there is a strategy to improve our financial security, however this is being negatively affected by the costs involved in paying off failed players and managers.  As for the footballing strategy, some of it has been delivered but the important parts have not.  We do now have what appears to be a good appointment in Mark Allen, and we do appear to have a pretty solid strategy around our youths and their development.  But let's face it, this is great longer term but we will always regard the club as a failure unless we can start challenging again.  It's hard to be too critical because every manager is a risk, but where I think criticism is justified is when the board sanctioned such huge sums on players and managers that were a risk.  We were not in a position to take these risks and I feel that this could have been handled differently.  There would have been lots of noise from the support about lack of funds, but the board should have been open enough to say that PC was a risk (although not necessarily as blunt as that) as therefore they would limit the funding until he proved he could demonstrate he wasn't the right man for the job.

 

I rate DK, but not so much the members of the executive board.  When DK gets involved, things change and normally for the better.  I just don't see that same impact from the others and that's why I agree with your point about the CEO.  I'm not looking out for SR's communications so I may have missed things, but he seems to be invisible.  If he's playing good cop from the inside (e.g. At the SPFL or SFA), that's fine and makes sense, but when will we see the results of his efforts?  It needs to be soon.

 

The part I disagree with is your assessment of the TP.  I don't think it impacts the club, and in many ways I'm glad he's brave enough to challenge an injustice.  His initial manipulation of the rules was wrong and no one can condone that, but the subsequent management of this by the TP is ridiculous and I think he's quite right to hit back.  I expect him to win his case against the contempt of court charge, because it's absolute nonsense in my opinion.  Having said that, its noise we could do without and I'd really like it to be dealt with asap.

 

The appointment of Gerrard has bought the board some time because I think most sensible fans think this was a great coup for the club.  He needs to work out though.  If he does not, I have no idea who the club can turn to next without taking another serious risk.

[craig 5,199]

17 hours ago, colinstein said:

he got the dough out of South Africa to buy 30%+ of our shares

so it will be a hard sell for him

 

he might be a duplicitous bastard but he's our duplicitous bastard

 

somebody said that

How do you know that the money was brought out of SA ?  Could also have been those people he was buying from opened accounts in SA and he transferred internally.... unlikely of course...

[colinstein 294]

Just now, craig said:

How do you know that the money was brought out of SA ?  Could also have been those people he was buying from opened accounts in SA and he transferred internally.... unlikely of course...

I don't.

One of his companies in in the British Virgin Islands....maybe it came from there. Regardless of where though he has shown he can get the money when he needs it.....and if he can, how can he argue with the TOP that it's all in SA?

[buster. 4,808]

25 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

I agree with much of what you've said here Buster.

 

Your point about a strategy is a good one, but I do think there is a strategy to improve our financial security, however this is being negatively affected by the costs involved in paying off failed players and managers.  As for the footballing strategy, some of it has been delivered but the important parts have not.  We do now have what appears to be a good appointment in Mark Allen, and we do appear to have a pretty solid strategy around our youths and their development.  But let's face it, this is great longer term but we will always regard the club as a failure unless we can start challenging again.  It's hard to be too critical because every manager is a risk, but where I think criticism is justified is when the board sanctioned such huge sums on players and managers that were a risk.  We were not in a position to take these risks and I feel that this could have been handled differently.  There would have been lots of noise from the support about lack of funds, but the board should have been open enough to say that PC was a risk (although not necessarily as blunt as that) as therefore they would limit the funding until he proved he could demonstrate he wasn't the right man for the job.

 

I rate DK, but not so much the members of the executive board.  When DK gets involved, things change and normally for the better.  I just don't see that same impact from the others and that's why I agree with your point about the CEO.  I'm not looking out for SR's communications so I may have missed things, but he seems to be invisible.  If he's playing good cop from the inside (e.g. At the SPFL or SFA), that's fine and makes sense, but when will we see the results of his efforts?  It needs to be soon.

 

The part I disagree with is your assessment of the TP.  I don't think it impacts the club, and in many ways I'm glad he's brave enough to challenge an injustice.  His initial manipulation of the rules was wrong and no one can condone that, but the subsequent management of this by the TP is ridiculous and I think he's quite right to hit back.  I expect him to win his case against the contempt of court charge, because it's absolute nonsense in my opinion.  Having said that, its noise we could do without and I'd really like it to be dealt with asap.

 

The appointment of Gerrard has bought the board some time because I think most sensible fans think this was a great coup for the club.  He needs to work out though.  If he does not, I have no idea who the club can turn to next without taking another serious risk.

Only time will tell on much of the detail.

 

In mitigation, you have to consider the state of our main rivals and the increased difficulty to access European revenue.

I've never known Celtic to be in a stronger state, both on and off the park. Something that makes the job of whoever was in charge at the club so much more difficult and more easily  prone to risk-taking or sanctioning such, eg. transfer policy for the previous two summers.

 

European football revenue is oft mentioned as something we have to attain by 'overspend'. Given how the competitions are set-up/co-efficients/date of qualifiers, it is more difficult to qualify and for how long can you 'overspend' ?

 

SG&Co pretty much HAVE TO work and have to be given time, regardless of what happens in the next few months.

Edited July 19, 2018 by buster.

[Gaffer 1,665]

2 minutes ago, buster. said:

Only time will tell on much of the detail.

 

In mitigation, you have to consider the state of our main rivals and the increased difficulty to access European revenue.

I've never known Celtic to be in a stronger state, both on and off the park. Something that makes the job of whoever was in charge at the club so much more difficult and more easily  prone to risk-taking or sanctioning such, eg. transfer policy for the previous two summers.

 

European football revenue is oft mentioned as something we have to attain by 'overspend'. Given how the competitions are set-up/co-efficients/date of qualifiers, it is more difficult to qualify and for how long can you 'overspend' ?

 

SG&Co pretty much have to work and have to be given time, regardless of what happens in the next few months.

I completely agree with all of this.  In particular the section in bold is key.  I too would have been calling for the board to sanction these transfers and that comes from the sheer desperation to start challenging again.  If they hadn't backed the manager I'd have been asking "what's the point in appointing someone if you won't back them". Isn't hindsight wonderful though.

 

As football fans we are the most unreasonable people, and as Rangers fans who have experienced so much success in the past, any rational or logical expectations are tossed aside.  In quiet moments I try to talk sense to myself and that is why normally (or at least most of the time) I'm supporting the existing manager, fully appreciating that it's a thankless task at the moment.  I do however get caught up in the hype and that's why performances like the other night are so hard to accept.  I think I expect better, but then I realise I want better, but can't reasonably expect it - yet!  For the sake of my sanity and that of every one of us, I hope Gerrard can give us something to get behind this season.

[buster. 4,808]

14 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

I completely agree with all of this.  In particular the section in bold is key.  I too would have been calling for the board to sanction these transfers and that comes from the sheer desperation to start challenging again.  If they hadn't backed the manager I'd have been asking "what's the point in appointing someone if you won't back them". Isn't hindsight wonderful though.

 

As football fans we are the most unreasonable people, and as Rangers fans who have experienced so much success in the past, any rational or logical expectations are tossed aside.  In quiet moments I try to talk sense to myself and that is why normally (or at least most of the time) I'm supporting the existing manager, fully appreciating that it's a thankless task at the moment.  I do however get caught up in the hype and that's why performances like the other night are so hard to accept.  I think I expect better, but then I realise I want better, but can't reasonably expect it - yet!  For the sake of my sanity and that of every one of us, I hope Gerrard can give us something to get behind this season.

Good executive management needs a tadge of foresight or at least decision-making that has a sound base. During some of the times you point towards it was "institutional failure" and we still count the cost in salaries and pay-offs.

 

- don't push unreasonable expectations

- promise 'less' and deliver more 

- SG 1er season don't mention 'them', it's about us improving and building

- Give SG&Co time, this season will probably deliver little tangible reward

- Lets work towards there being real substance in our optimism for 2019/20 (politicans line but reasonable all the same, IMO)

.

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by buster.