SWINDON TOWN: THE VIC MORGAN COLUMN: All we want is a safe future

The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald: THE VIC MORGAN COLUMN THE VIC MORGAN COLUMN

SO, what should I write about this week then?

It’s sometimes difficult to come up with a topic when the club you support is so stable. It seems that nothing ever happens at the jolly old County Ground.

Yes, obviously I’m speaking nonsense. And I know it’s not for the first time.

We’ve just had another of those Swindon Town weeks when the last thing that gets discussed is the action on the pitch. By the way, we won 3-1 against Carlisle on Saturday.

In years gone by all we heard about from football clubs was the news of any transfer or managerial change. Matters in the boardroom didn’t interest fans. Be it the local butcher, baker, candlestick maker in charge, we didn’t really care. Now it’s all about who’s in control, what their strategy is and how long it will take to get to Fat Cat Land (the Premier League).

We know more about what stake so and so has in a club than how serious A Player’s thigh injury is. Do we need to know? How much do you need to know about the goings-on behind the closed doors of the directors’ quarters? Well I would suggest you need to know this - the truth about the club’s financial situation and how stable it is.

And I mean the truth.

How secure is the manager’s position? What money may or may not be there for new players. Apart from that I care little about who owns what and who says what to who.

You see, all I really care about is what happens on the green bit of the County Ground. You know, the bit where the ball is played around, a little too slowly perhaps at times, and how it makes me feel after a game.

Over the years I’ve dealt with many people in power at Swindon Town. Most have one thing in their mind, and that’s to make the club successful. I wish Lee Power well. I don’t know him, he doesn’t know me.

Rest assured I’ll back him to the hilt if he’s genuine in his plans for the Town. That’s all we ask. Be genuine in what you intend. We know we have to be realistic. No pie in the sky please, just straight talking and honest dealings.

Don’t promise the earth if it isn’t there. All we want is a safe and secure future for the club we love and follow to ridiculous degrees.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:55am Thu 5 Dec 13

Chish and Fips says...

Vic -The wonders of the Tinternet ramp up this 'need to know' or in some cases the ol' keyboard managers and owners appear out of the woodwork with their plans, theories and accusations, some good some bad I might add.
Vic -The wonders of the Tinternet ramp up this 'need to know' or in some cases the ol' keyboard managers and owners appear out of the woodwork with their plans, theories and accusations, some good some bad I might add. Chish and Fips

8:10am Thu 5 Dec 13

stfc2012 says...

Chish and Fips wrote:
Vic -The wonders of the Tinternet ramp up this 'need to know' or in some cases the ol' keyboard managers and owners appear out of the woodwork with their plans, theories and accusations, some good some bad I might add.
Shah has said we are financially robust; Power says we have no debt; Jed says we are in a good place. So we shouldn't worry : unless that's not true. Not sure what this audit proves exactly. Fingers crossed we won't have to wiry.
[quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote: Vic -The wonders of the Tinternet ramp up this 'need to know' or in some cases the ol' keyboard managers and owners appear out of the woodwork with their plans, theories and accusations, some good some bad I might add.[/p][/quote]Shah has said we are financially robust; Power says we have no debt; Jed says we are in a good place. So we shouldn't worry : unless that's not true. Not sure what this audit proves exactly. Fingers crossed we won't have to wiry. stfc2012

8:40am Thu 5 Dec 13

old town robin says...

Don’t promise the earth if it isn’t there. All we want is a safe and secure future for the club. Think we all agree with you on that Vic. No mention of the departing Jed in his column,,

Sometimes what's not said is as important as what is
Don’t promise the earth if it isn’t there. All we want is a safe and secure future for the club. Think we all agree with you on that Vic. No mention of the departing Jed in his column,, Sometimes what's not said is as important as what is old town robin

10:09am Thu 5 Dec 13

Rebel_phish says...

At the time of the Seebeck87 take-over in Feb, I seem to remember some vibes about Jed being the front man for an - at that time - unknown buyer. Jed formed a company with others as directors and proceeded with the take-over from AB. They did seem to be playing fast and loose on several issues, hiding behind non-disclosures and a wall of silence to the media and fans, telling us nothing or anything that they wanted us to hear.

Jed did a job that I feel was his remit all along, get the club on a better financial footing. Losing PDC as the manager was certainly a financial plus. Trimming the staff on and off the field was also needed. Other procedures and ventures were implemented. STFCMyWorld, a success, Summer concerts, no so, The improvements to the hospitality, open for debate.

All in all, Jed has made some drastic changes. Changes that were needed, to stop the gaping holes within the structure of the club from leaking money at an alarming rate.

In the meantime, the unknown buyer is getting his own finances in order. Once the unknown buyer was happy that things were indeed moving in the right direction, and he was able to get the required FA approval, he could make his move.

The take over by Lee Power was always going to happen, whether we knew it or not. Clauses within deals, share options, etc were probably in place as Lee worked his way into the club's board structure. Once the audit was done and he had passed the FA's fit and proper persons test, everything was in place.

Power exercised his share option clause and its job done.

Jed knew this was going to happen, but I think that during his tenure, he got a feel for the place and was in fact enjoying it, being the Big Cheese suited him. He'll miss the place for a while. Not quite sure that the fans will miss him though.

So a new chapter in the ever changing life of STFC. I just hope that Lee does indeed have inspirations of the promised land. That will mean keeping stability with the current squad, not selling prized assets mid season, building on this team that promises so much. Maybe not this season, BUT DEFINITELY not this season if Wes goes and the Spurs loanees are moved on in Jan.

The future can be bright and it definitely can be RED. Here's hoping.
At the time of the Seebeck87 take-over in Feb, I seem to remember some vibes about Jed being the front man for an - at that time - unknown buyer. Jed formed a company with others as directors and proceeded with the take-over from AB. They did seem to be playing fast and loose on several issues, hiding behind non-disclosures and a wall of silence to the media and fans, telling us nothing or anything that they wanted us to hear. Jed did a job that I feel was his remit all along, get the club on a better financial footing. Losing PDC as the manager was certainly a financial plus. Trimming the staff on and off the field was also needed. Other procedures and ventures were implemented. STFCMyWorld, a success, Summer concerts, no so, The improvements to the hospitality, open for debate. All in all, Jed has made some drastic changes. Changes that were needed, to stop the gaping holes within the structure of the club from leaking money at an alarming rate. In the meantime, the unknown buyer is getting his own finances in order. Once the unknown buyer was happy that things were indeed moving in the right direction, and he was able to get the required FA approval, he could make his move. The take over by Lee Power was always going to happen, whether we knew it or not. Clauses within deals, share options, etc were probably in place as Lee worked his way into the club's board structure. Once the audit was done and he had passed the FA's fit and proper persons test, everything was in place. Power exercised his share option clause and its job done. Jed knew this was going to happen, but I think that during his tenure, he got a feel for the place and was in fact enjoying it, being the Big Cheese suited him. He'll miss the place for a while. Not quite sure that the fans will miss him though. So a new chapter in the ever changing life of STFC. I just hope that Lee does indeed have inspirations of the promised land. That will mean keeping stability with the current squad, not selling prized assets mid season, building on this team that promises so much. Maybe not this season, BUT DEFINITELY not this season if Wes goes and the Spurs loanees are moved on in Jan. The future can be bright and it definitely can be RED. Here's hoping. Rebel_phish

12:37pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Swindon1984 says...

Quite agree Vic - unfortunately some aren't happy with the truth, and see long term plans and realistic goals as showing that we "lack ambition" i.e. no-one's chucking money hand over fist to get us however up the pyramid NOW.

Rather than showing lack of ambition I'd argue that living within your means and slowly crawling up the league/s is far more abitious a proposal than the boom or bust attitude where clubs spend beyond their means gambling on the prospect of promotion, only to find when it doesn't come off they've no longer got a club to support, or at least one which will be consigned to the doldrums due to financial ruin in the process.

We all want success, but ultimately having a club with a future is so much more important. Pompey came within inches of disppearing out of existence, and there were far more interested parties trying to save them than there ever would be for us if we found ourselves in a similar position, let's not forget that.
Quite agree Vic - unfortunately some aren't happy with the truth, and see long term plans and realistic goals as showing that we "lack ambition" i.e. no-one's chucking money hand over fist to get us however up the pyramid NOW. Rather than showing lack of ambition I'd argue that living within your means and slowly crawling up the league/s is far more abitious a proposal than the boom or bust attitude where clubs spend beyond their means gambling on the prospect of promotion, only to find when it doesn't come off they've no longer got a club to support, or at least one which will be consigned to the doldrums due to financial ruin in the process. We all want success, but ultimately having a club with a future is so much more important. Pompey came within inches of disppearing out of existence, and there were far more interested parties trying to save them than there ever would be for us if we found ourselves in a similar position, let's not forget that. Swindon1984

1:17pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Oi Den! says...

Swindon1984 wrote:
Quite agree Vic - unfortunately some aren't happy with the truth, and see long term plans and realistic goals as showing that we "lack ambition" i.e. no-one's chucking money hand over fist to get us however up the pyramid NOW.

Rather than showing lack of ambition I'd argue that living within your means and slowly crawling up the league/s is far more abitious a proposal than the boom or bust attitude where clubs spend beyond their means gambling on the prospect of promotion, only to find when it doesn't come off they've no longer got a club to support, or at least one which will be consigned to the doldrums due to financial ruin in the process.

We all want success, but ultimately having a club with a future is so much more important. Pompey came within inches of disppearing out of existence, and there were far more interested parties trying to save them than there ever would be for us if we found ourselves in a similar position, let's not forget that.
'84, I don't think anyone's arguing that we should live outside our means. The truth is that, in a manner of speaking, we lived within our means under the pre-McCrory regime because the owners funded the costs. In an ideal world all football clubs would be self-sufficient. The unfortunate reality is that most incur losses year on year.

But those who argue that having a wealthy backer is a bad thing are missing the point. It's not about having loads of money to spend (although that is helpful). It's about having the financial clout to be able to build our own team by holding onto the good players that have been developed within the club or acquired through astute scouting and/or transfer dealing. All clubs are selling clubs but those with the least money are the most vulnerable when the vultures come circling. That's why I believe the Black era offered us our best ever chance to make real progress. If only Di Canio hadn't wanted everything yesterday, we could have made real progress as a club and he could have been moving towards being the top manager he thinks he is. I don't think there's a shred of doubt that he's got the coaching ability. Pity he also has the knack of wrecking everything.

Meanwhile, it's clear that McCrory's sustainable model sustained him very well.
[quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote: Quite agree Vic - unfortunately some aren't happy with the truth, and see long term plans and realistic goals as showing that we "lack ambition" i.e. no-one's chucking money hand over fist to get us however up the pyramid NOW. Rather than showing lack of ambition I'd argue that living within your means and slowly crawling up the league/s is far more abitious a proposal than the boom or bust attitude where clubs spend beyond their means gambling on the prospect of promotion, only to find when it doesn't come off they've no longer got a club to support, or at least one which will be consigned to the doldrums due to financial ruin in the process. We all want success, but ultimately having a club with a future is so much more important. Pompey came within inches of disppearing out of existence, and there were far more interested parties trying to save them than there ever would be for us if we found ourselves in a similar position, let's not forget that.[/p][/quote]'84, I don't think anyone's arguing that we should live outside our means. The truth is that, in a manner of speaking, we lived within our means under the pre-McCrory regime because the owners funded the costs. In an ideal world all football clubs would be self-sufficient. The unfortunate reality is that most incur losses year on year. But those who argue that having a wealthy backer is a bad thing are missing the point. It's not about having loads of money to spend (although that is helpful). It's about having the financial clout to be able to build our own team by holding onto the good players that have been developed within the club or acquired through astute scouting and/or transfer dealing. All clubs are selling clubs but those with the least money are the most vulnerable when the vultures come circling. That's why I believe the Black era offered us our best ever chance to make real progress. If only Di Canio hadn't wanted everything yesterday, we could have made real progress as a club and he could have been moving towards being the top manager he thinks he is. I don't think there's a shred of doubt that he's got the coaching ability. Pity he also has the knack of wrecking everything. Meanwhile, it's clear that McCrory's sustainable model sustained him very well. Oi Den!

1:48pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Davidsyrett says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Swindon1984 wrote:
Quite agree Vic - unfortunately some aren't happy with the truth, and see long term plans and realistic goals as showing that we "lack ambition" i.e. no-one's chucking money hand over fist to get us however up the pyramid NOW.

Rather than showing lack of ambition I'd argue that living within your means and slowly crawling up the league/s is far more abitious a proposal than the boom or bust attitude where clubs spend beyond their means gambling on the prospect of promotion, only to find when it doesn't come off they've no longer got a club to support, or at least one which will be consigned to the doldrums due to financial ruin in the process.

We all want success, but ultimately having a club with a future is so much more important. Pompey came within inches of disppearing out of existence, and there were far more interested parties trying to save them than there ever would be for us if we found ourselves in a similar position, let's not forget that.
'84, I don't think anyone's arguing that we should live outside our means. The truth is that, in a manner of speaking, we lived within our means under the pre-McCrory regime because the owners funded the costs. In an ideal world all football clubs would be self-sufficient. The unfortunate reality is that most incur losses year on year.

But those who argue that having a wealthy backer is a bad thing are missing the point. It's not about having loads of money to spend (although that is helpful). It's about having the financial clout to be able to build our own team by holding onto the good players that have been developed within the club or acquired through astute scouting and/or transfer dealing. All clubs are selling clubs but those with the least money are the most vulnerable when the vultures come circling. That's why I believe the Black era offered us our best ever chance to make real progress. If only Di Canio hadn't wanted everything yesterday, we could have made real progress as a club and he could have been moving towards being the top manager he thinks he is. I don't think there's a shred of doubt that he's got the coaching ability. Pity he also has the knack of wrecking everything.

Meanwhile, it's clear that McCrory's sustainable model sustained him very well.
If we are to aspire to the upper reaches of the football ladder, we will need someone to invest money in the club, but not necessary on the playing side of things, but the infrastructure. To progress we need a new stadium or at least a redeveloped CG, without that I fail to see how we can progress far. AB & Co invested heavily on the pitch, but on the whole the money disappeared, on high wages and not good enough players (baring a few exceptions), we have no real assets, hence why there will never have stability until we do.
If we can become sustainable on the pitch, and have investment off, then perhaps weeks like we have just endured will become a thing of the past.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote: Quite agree Vic - unfortunately some aren't happy with the truth, and see long term plans and realistic goals as showing that we "lack ambition" i.e. no-one's chucking money hand over fist to get us however up the pyramid NOW. Rather than showing lack of ambition I'd argue that living within your means and slowly crawling up the league/s is far more abitious a proposal than the boom or bust attitude where clubs spend beyond their means gambling on the prospect of promotion, only to find when it doesn't come off they've no longer got a club to support, or at least one which will be consigned to the doldrums due to financial ruin in the process. We all want success, but ultimately having a club with a future is so much more important. Pompey came within inches of disppearing out of existence, and there were far more interested parties trying to save them than there ever would be for us if we found ourselves in a similar position, let's not forget that.[/p][/quote]'84, I don't think anyone's arguing that we should live outside our means. The truth is that, in a manner of speaking, we lived within our means under the pre-McCrory regime because the owners funded the costs. In an ideal world all football clubs would be self-sufficient. The unfortunate reality is that most incur losses year on year. But those who argue that having a wealthy backer is a bad thing are missing the point. It's not about having loads of money to spend (although that is helpful). It's about having the financial clout to be able to build our own team by holding onto the good players that have been developed within the club or acquired through astute scouting and/or transfer dealing. All clubs are selling clubs but those with the least money are the most vulnerable when the vultures come circling. That's why I believe the Black era offered us our best ever chance to make real progress. If only Di Canio hadn't wanted everything yesterday, we could have made real progress as a club and he could have been moving towards being the top manager he thinks he is. I don't think there's a shred of doubt that he's got the coaching ability. Pity he also has the knack of wrecking everything. Meanwhile, it's clear that McCrory's sustainable model sustained him very well.[/p][/quote]If we are to aspire to the upper reaches of the football ladder, we will need someone to invest money in the club, but not necessary on the playing side of things, but the infrastructure. To progress we need a new stadium or at least a redeveloped CG, without that I fail to see how we can progress far. AB & Co invested heavily on the pitch, but on the whole the money disappeared, on high wages and not good enough players (baring a few exceptions), we have no real assets, hence why there will never have stability until we do. If we can become sustainable on the pitch, and have investment off, then perhaps weeks like we have just endured will become a thing of the past. Davidsyrett

2:17pm Thu 5 Dec 13

old town robin says...

Davidsyrett wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Swindon1984 wrote:
Quite agree Vic - unfortunately some aren't happy with the truth, and see long term plans and realistic goals as showing that we "lack ambition" i.e. no-one's chucking money hand over fist to get us however up the pyramid NOW.

Rather than showing lack of ambition I'd argue that living within your means and slowly crawling up the league/s is far more abitious a proposal than the boom or bust attitude where clubs spend beyond their means gambling on the prospect of promotion, only to find when it doesn't come off they've no longer got a club to support, or at least one which will be consigned to the doldrums due to financial ruin in the process.

We all want success, but ultimately having a club with a future is so much more important. Pompey came within inches of disppearing out of existence, and there were far more interested parties trying to save them than there ever would be for us if we found ourselves in a similar position, let's not forget that.
'84, I don't think anyone's arguing that we should live outside our means. The truth is that, in a manner of speaking, we lived within our means under the pre-McCrory regime because the owners funded the costs. In an ideal world all football clubs would be self-sufficient. The unfortunate reality is that most incur losses year on year.

But those who argue that having a wealthy backer is a bad thing are missing the point. It's not about having loads of money to spend (although that is helpful). It's about having the financial clout to be able to build our own team by holding onto the good players that have been developed within the club or acquired through astute scouting and/or transfer dealing. All clubs are selling clubs but those with the least money are the most vulnerable when the vultures come circling. That's why I believe the Black era offered us our best ever chance to make real progress. If only Di Canio hadn't wanted everything yesterday, we could have made real progress as a club and he could have been moving towards being the top manager he thinks he is. I don't think there's a shred of doubt that he's got the coaching ability. Pity he also has the knack of wrecking everything.

Meanwhile, it's clear that McCrory's sustainable model sustained him very well.
If we are to aspire to the upper reaches of the football ladder, we will need someone to invest money in the club, but not necessary on the playing side of things, but the infrastructure. To progress we need a new stadium or at least a redeveloped CG, without that I fail to see how we can progress far. AB & Co invested heavily on the pitch, but on the whole the money disappeared, on high wages and not good enough players (baring a few exceptions), we have no real assets, hence why there will never have stability until we do.
If we can become sustainable on the pitch, and have investment off, then perhaps weeks like we have just endured will become a thing of the past.
David i would tend to agree with you and Den on the investment on the field which Lee seems to be aiming for. With regards to the off field investment I would personally prefer improvements to SN1 rather than new developments suggested on M4 corridor. However, as we are all aware there is a huge obstacle to overcome namely Swindon Borough Council and quite honestly I cannot see them ever giving the green light to changes to the present ground.
[quote][p][bold]Davidsyrett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote: Quite agree Vic - unfortunately some aren't happy with the truth, and see long term plans and realistic goals as showing that we "lack ambition" i.e. no-one's chucking money hand over fist to get us however up the pyramid NOW. Rather than showing lack of ambition I'd argue that living within your means and slowly crawling up the league/s is far more abitious a proposal than the boom or bust attitude where clubs spend beyond their means gambling on the prospect of promotion, only to find when it doesn't come off they've no longer got a club to support, or at least one which will be consigned to the doldrums due to financial ruin in the process. We all want success, but ultimately having a club with a future is so much more important. Pompey came within inches of disppearing out of existence, and there were far more interested parties trying to save them than there ever would be for us if we found ourselves in a similar position, let's not forget that.[/p][/quote]'84, I don't think anyone's arguing that we should live outside our means. The truth is that, in a manner of speaking, we lived within our means under the pre-McCrory regime because the owners funded the costs. In an ideal world all football clubs would be self-sufficient. The unfortunate reality is that most incur losses year on year. But those who argue that having a wealthy backer is a bad thing are missing the point. It's not about having loads of money to spend (although that is helpful). It's about having the financial clout to be able to build our own team by holding onto the good players that have been developed within the club or acquired through astute scouting and/or transfer dealing. All clubs are selling clubs but those with the least money are the most vulnerable when the vultures come circling. That's why I believe the Black era offered us our best ever chance to make real progress. If only Di Canio hadn't wanted everything yesterday, we could have made real progress as a club and he could have been moving towards being the top manager he thinks he is. I don't think there's a shred of doubt that he's got the coaching ability. Pity he also has the knack of wrecking everything. Meanwhile, it's clear that McCrory's sustainable model sustained him very well.[/p][/quote]If we are to aspire to the upper reaches of the football ladder, we will need someone to invest money in the club, but not necessary on the playing side of things, but the infrastructure. To progress we need a new stadium or at least a redeveloped CG, without that I fail to see how we can progress far. AB & Co invested heavily on the pitch, but on the whole the money disappeared, on high wages and not good enough players (baring a few exceptions), we have no real assets, hence why there will never have stability until we do. If we can become sustainable on the pitch, and have investment off, then perhaps weeks like we have just endured will become a thing of the past.[/p][/quote]David i would tend to agree with you and Den on the investment on the field which Lee seems to be aiming for. With regards to the off field investment I would personally prefer improvements to SN1 rather than new developments suggested on M4 corridor. However, as we are all aware there is a huge obstacle to overcome namely Swindon Borough Council and quite honestly I cannot see them ever giving the green light to changes to the present ground. old town robin

3:00pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Oi Den! says...

OTR, I suppose it depends what those changes might be. With the number of dodgy people we've had involved with the club, I've come round to the conclusion that the Council have done us all a favour by holding onto the ground. I shudder to think what would have happened if certain individuals (in the guise of the club) had got their hands on it.
OTR, I suppose it depends what those changes might be. With the number of dodgy people we've had involved with the club, I've come round to the conclusion that the Council have done us all a favour by holding onto the ground. I shudder to think what would have happened if certain individuals (in the guise of the club) had got their hands on it. Oi Den!

4:19pm Thu 5 Dec 13

old town robin says...

Den, agreed it does depend on what those changes might be. What has been promised for the future? A cover over Stratton bank, an absolute must if the championship beckoned we could expect big increase of away support to cater for. I would say at a budgeted £150k this is more than feasible.

The proposed capacity increase from 15k to 25k , most probably to the town end, nothing going forward there and not likely to expand without a new investor experienced in development joining the board. Brady, Bill Power and St Modwen have all been interested in the early part of the millennium but nothing ever come of it, Not sure if you are referring to them as in the guise of the town or diamond Mike, Water under the bridge, but i would think any new investor would want to know they can work with the council and as far as I'm aware no consortium has managed to do that as yet.
Den, agreed it does depend on what those changes might be. What has been promised for the future? A cover over Stratton bank, an absolute must if the championship beckoned we could expect big increase of away support to cater for. I would say at a budgeted £150k this is more than feasible. The proposed capacity increase from 15k to 25k , most probably to the town end, nothing going forward there and not likely to expand without a new investor experienced in development joining the board. Brady, Bill Power and St Modwen have all been interested in the early part of the millennium but nothing ever come of it, Not sure if you are referring to them as in the guise of the town or diamond Mike, Water under the bridge, but i would think any new investor would want to know they can work with the council and as far as I'm aware no consortium has managed to do that as yet. old town robin

4:45pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Old-Stager, Hilperton says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Swindon1984 wrote:
Quite agree Vic - unfortunately some aren't happy with the truth, and see long term plans and realistic goals as showing that we "lack ambition" i.e. no-one's chucking money hand over fist to get us however up the pyramid NOW.

Rather than showing lack of ambition I'd argue that living within your means and slowly crawling up the league/s is far more abitious a proposal than the boom or bust attitude where clubs spend beyond their means gambling on the prospect of promotion, only to find when it doesn't come off they've no longer got a club to support, or at least one which will be consigned to the doldrums due to financial ruin in the process.

We all want success, but ultimately having a club with a future is so much more important. Pompey came within inches of disppearing out of existence, and there were far more interested parties trying to save them than there ever would be for us if we found ourselves in a similar position, let's not forget that.
'84, I don't think anyone's arguing that we should live outside our means. The truth is that, in a manner of speaking, we lived within our means under the pre-McCrory regime because the owners funded the costs. In an ideal world all football clubs would be self-sufficient. The unfortunate reality is that most incur losses year on year.

But those who argue that having a wealthy backer is a bad thing are missing the point. It's not about having loads of money to spend (although that is helpful). It's about having the financial clout to be able to build our own team by holding onto the good players that have been developed within the club or acquired through astute scouting and/or transfer dealing. All clubs are selling clubs but those with the least money are the most vulnerable when the vultures come circling. That's why I believe the Black era offered us our best ever chance to make real progress. If only Di Canio hadn't wanted everything yesterday, we could have made real progress as a club and he could have been moving towards being the top manager he thinks he is. I don't think there's a shred of doubt that he's got the coaching ability. Pity he also has the knack of wrecking everything.

Meanwhile, it's clear that McCrory's sustainable model sustained him very well.
Oi Den....
I certainly agree with your references to the erstwhile Di Canio.
I also think that Andrew Black would not have "jumped ship" had it not been for the extravagances of the highly strung Italian.
It was a shame that he accepted Jeremy Wray's choice of Di Canio as manager at that time, because there were so many moderate managers around that could easily have lifted Swindon Town back out of League Two at a fraction of the cost.
Unfortunately our future probably still hangs in the balance, but only time will tell as the saying goes.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote: Quite agree Vic - unfortunately some aren't happy with the truth, and see long term plans and realistic goals as showing that we "lack ambition" i.e. no-one's chucking money hand over fist to get us however up the pyramid NOW. Rather than showing lack of ambition I'd argue that living within your means and slowly crawling up the league/s is far more abitious a proposal than the boom or bust attitude where clubs spend beyond their means gambling on the prospect of promotion, only to find when it doesn't come off they've no longer got a club to support, or at least one which will be consigned to the doldrums due to financial ruin in the process. We all want success, but ultimately having a club with a future is so much more important. Pompey came within inches of disppearing out of existence, and there were far more interested parties trying to save them than there ever would be for us if we found ourselves in a similar position, let's not forget that.[/p][/quote]'84, I don't think anyone's arguing that we should live outside our means. The truth is that, in a manner of speaking, we lived within our means under the pre-McCrory regime because the owners funded the costs. In an ideal world all football clubs would be self-sufficient. The unfortunate reality is that most incur losses year on year. But those who argue that having a wealthy backer is a bad thing are missing the point. It's not about having loads of money to spend (although that is helpful). It's about having the financial clout to be able to build our own team by holding onto the good players that have been developed within the club or acquired through astute scouting and/or transfer dealing. All clubs are selling clubs but those with the least money are the most vulnerable when the vultures come circling. That's why I believe the Black era offered us our best ever chance to make real progress. If only Di Canio hadn't wanted everything yesterday, we could have made real progress as a club and he could have been moving towards being the top manager he thinks he is. I don't think there's a shred of doubt that he's got the coaching ability. Pity he also has the knack of wrecking everything. Meanwhile, it's clear that McCrory's sustainable model sustained him very well.[/p][/quote]Oi Den.... I certainly agree with your references to the erstwhile Di Canio. I also think that Andrew Black would not have "jumped ship" had it not been for the extravagances of the highly strung Italian. It was a shame that he accepted Jeremy Wray's choice of Di Canio as manager at that time, because there were so many moderate managers around that could easily have lifted Swindon Town back out of League Two at a fraction of the cost. Unfortunately our future probably still hangs in the balance, but only time will tell as the saying goes. Old-Stager, Hilperton

5:46pm Thu 5 Dec 13

mancrobin says...

Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Swindon1984 wrote:
Quite agree Vic - unfortunately some aren't happy with the truth, and see long term plans and realistic goals as showing that we "lack ambition" i.e. no-one's chucking money hand over fist to get us however up the pyramid NOW.

Rather than showing lack of ambition I'd argue that living within your means and slowly crawling up the league/s is far more abitious a proposal than the boom or bust attitude where clubs spend beyond their means gambling on the prospect of promotion, only to find when it doesn't come off they've no longer got a club to support, or at least one which will be consigned to the doldrums due to financial ruin in the process.

We all want success, but ultimately having a club with a future is so much more important. Pompey came within inches of disppearing out of existence, and there were far more interested parties trying to save them than there ever would be for us if we found ourselves in a similar position, let's not forget that.
'84, I don't think anyone's arguing that we should live outside our means. The truth is that, in a manner of speaking, we lived within our means under the pre-McCrory regime because the owners funded the costs. In an ideal world all football clubs would be self-sufficient. The unfortunate reality is that most incur losses year on year.

But those who argue that having a wealthy backer is a bad thing are missing the point. It's not about having loads of money to spend (although that is helpful). It's about having the financial clout to be able to build our own team by holding onto the good players that have been developed within the club or acquired through astute scouting and/or transfer dealing. All clubs are selling clubs but those with the least money are the most vulnerable when the vultures come circling. That's why I believe the Black era offered us our best ever chance to make real progress. If only Di Canio hadn't wanted everything yesterday, we could have made real progress as a club and he could have been moving towards being the top manager he thinks he is. I don't think there's a shred of doubt that he's got the coaching ability. Pity he also has the knack of wrecking everything.

Meanwhile, it's clear that McCrory's sustainable model sustained him very well.
Oi Den....
I certainly agree with your references to the erstwhile Di Canio.
I also think that Andrew Black would not have "jumped ship" had it not been for the extravagances of the highly strung Italian.
It was a shame that he accepted Jeremy Wray's choice of Di Canio as manager at that time, because there were so many moderate managers around that could easily have lifted Swindon Town back out of League Two at a fraction of the cost.
Unfortunately our future probably still hangs in the balance, but only time will tell as the saying goes.
Doesn't that episode neatly show the point that a wealthy backer isn't sustainable. Black got bored, pulled the plug and we nearly went down the hole. Indeed, would have but for McCrory.

The only sustainable model is one based on one part community, one part reality.
[quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote: Quite agree Vic - unfortunately some aren't happy with the truth, and see long term plans and realistic goals as showing that we "lack ambition" i.e. no-one's chucking money hand over fist to get us however up the pyramid NOW. Rather than showing lack of ambition I'd argue that living within your means and slowly crawling up the league/s is far more abitious a proposal than the boom or bust attitude where clubs spend beyond their means gambling on the prospect of promotion, only to find when it doesn't come off they've no longer got a club to support, or at least one which will be consigned to the doldrums due to financial ruin in the process. We all want success, but ultimately having a club with a future is so much more important. Pompey came within inches of disppearing out of existence, and there were far more interested parties trying to save them than there ever would be for us if we found ourselves in a similar position, let's not forget that.[/p][/quote]'84, I don't think anyone's arguing that we should live outside our means. The truth is that, in a manner of speaking, we lived within our means under the pre-McCrory regime because the owners funded the costs. In an ideal world all football clubs would be self-sufficient. The unfortunate reality is that most incur losses year on year. But those who argue that having a wealthy backer is a bad thing are missing the point. It's not about having loads of money to spend (although that is helpful). It's about having the financial clout to be able to build our own team by holding onto the good players that have been developed within the club or acquired through astute scouting and/or transfer dealing. All clubs are selling clubs but those with the least money are the most vulnerable when the vultures come circling. That's why I believe the Black era offered us our best ever chance to make real progress. If only Di Canio hadn't wanted everything yesterday, we could have made real progress as a club and he could have been moving towards being the top manager he thinks he is. I don't think there's a shred of doubt that he's got the coaching ability. Pity he also has the knack of wrecking everything. Meanwhile, it's clear that McCrory's sustainable model sustained him very well.[/p][/quote]Oi Den.... I certainly agree with your references to the erstwhile Di Canio. I also think that Andrew Black would not have "jumped ship" had it not been for the extravagances of the highly strung Italian. It was a shame that he accepted Jeremy Wray's choice of Di Canio as manager at that time, because there were so many moderate managers around that could easily have lifted Swindon Town back out of League Two at a fraction of the cost. Unfortunately our future probably still hangs in the balance, but only time will tell as the saying goes.[/p][/quote]Doesn't that episode neatly show the point that a wealthy backer isn't sustainable. Black got bored, pulled the plug and we nearly went down the hole. Indeed, would have but for McCrory. The only sustainable model is one based on one part community, one part reality. mancrobin

6:52pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Oi Den! says...

mancrobin wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Swindon1984 wrote:
Quite agree Vic - unfortunately some aren't happy with the truth, and see long term plans and realistic goals as showing that we "lack ambition" i.e. no-one's chucking money hand over fist to get us however up the pyramid NOW.

Rather than showing lack of ambition I'd argue that living within your means and slowly crawling up the league/s is far more abitious a proposal than the boom or bust attitude where clubs spend beyond their means gambling on the prospect of promotion, only to find when it doesn't come off they've no longer got a club to support, or at least one which will be consigned to the doldrums due to financial ruin in the process.

We all want success, but ultimately having a club with a future is so much more important. Pompey came within inches of disppearing out of existence, and there were far more interested parties trying to save them than there ever would be for us if we found ourselves in a similar position, let's not forget that.
'84, I don't think anyone's arguing that we should live outside our means. The truth is that, in a manner of speaking, we lived within our means under the pre-McCrory regime because the owners funded the costs. In an ideal world all football clubs would be self-sufficient. The unfortunate reality is that most incur losses year on year.

But those who argue that having a wealthy backer is a bad thing are missing the point. It's not about having loads of money to spend (although that is helpful). It's about having the financial clout to be able to build our own team by holding onto the good players that have been developed within the club or acquired through astute scouting and/or transfer dealing. All clubs are selling clubs but those with the least money are the most vulnerable when the vultures come circling. That's why I believe the Black era offered us our best ever chance to make real progress. If only Di Canio hadn't wanted everything yesterday, we could have made real progress as a club and he could have been moving towards being the top manager he thinks he is. I don't think there's a shred of doubt that he's got the coaching ability. Pity he also has the knack of wrecking everything.

Meanwhile, it's clear that McCrory's sustainable model sustained him very well.
Oi Den....
I certainly agree with your references to the erstwhile Di Canio.
I also think that Andrew Black would not have "jumped ship" had it not been for the extravagances of the highly strung Italian.
It was a shame that he accepted Jeremy Wray's choice of Di Canio as manager at that time, because there were so many moderate managers around that could easily have lifted Swindon Town back out of League Two at a fraction of the cost.
Unfortunately our future probably still hangs in the balance, but only time will tell as the saying goes.
Doesn't that episode neatly show the point that a wealthy backer isn't sustainable. Black got bored, pulled the plug and we nearly went down the hole. Indeed, would have but for McCrory.

The only sustainable model is one based on one part community, one part reality.
No manc, I don't believe it does show that at all. It's how the money is used (or not abused, as happened in our case) that's key to it all. The wealthy backer doesn't have to be throwing shedloads of money at the playing side. He/she/they can provide the invaluable security of keeping the club ticking over while telling potential buyers of our players to s0d off. Obviously players will find their own level in the end, which of course happened with Greer, Austin, Morrison and probably Danny Ward, all of whom we could have kept if Wilson hadn't failed so spectacularly to manage a good team to success, but it is much easier to deter the vultures when you have sound financial backing.

We were very close to extinction before Black got here but in a massively better state when he left. Which is the better position, having £10m of callable debt hanging over us when he arrived or having that wiped out and having none when he left? People will no doubt cite the expensive contracts picked up by the new owners as support for their case that the the club was in trouble. Those contracts shouldn't have been much of a problem for new owners who got the club for less than the price of a half of Guinness and actually boasted that they would keep the same playing budget, while raking in hundreds of thousands from concerts, catering etc.

No wonder McCrory was always smiling.

By the way, I think it's rather unfair to say Black got bored. If he was going to get bored, it wouldn't have taken 5 years to happen. He
was probably angry and hurt by the way PDC took him and his money for granted. Enough was enough.
[quote][p][bold]mancrobin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote: Quite agree Vic - unfortunately some aren't happy with the truth, and see long term plans and realistic goals as showing that we "lack ambition" i.e. no-one's chucking money hand over fist to get us however up the pyramid NOW. Rather than showing lack of ambition I'd argue that living within your means and slowly crawling up the league/s is far more abitious a proposal than the boom or bust attitude where clubs spend beyond their means gambling on the prospect of promotion, only to find when it doesn't come off they've no longer got a club to support, or at least one which will be consigned to the doldrums due to financial ruin in the process. We all want success, but ultimately having a club with a future is so much more important. Pompey came within inches of disppearing out of existence, and there were far more interested parties trying to save them than there ever would be for us if we found ourselves in a similar position, let's not forget that.[/p][/quote]'84, I don't think anyone's arguing that we should live outside our means. The truth is that, in a manner of speaking, we lived within our means under the pre-McCrory regime because the owners funded the costs. In an ideal world all football clubs would be self-sufficient. The unfortunate reality is that most incur losses year on year. But those who argue that having a wealthy backer is a bad thing are missing the point. It's not about having loads of money to spend (although that is helpful). It's about having the financial clout to be able to build our own team by holding onto the good players that have been developed within the club or acquired through astute scouting and/or transfer dealing. All clubs are selling clubs but those with the least money are the most vulnerable when the vultures come circling. That's why I believe the Black era offered us our best ever chance to make real progress. If only Di Canio hadn't wanted everything yesterday, we could have made real progress as a club and he could have been moving towards being the top manager he thinks he is. I don't think there's a shred of doubt that he's got the coaching ability. Pity he also has the knack of wrecking everything. Meanwhile, it's clear that McCrory's sustainable model sustained him very well.[/p][/quote]Oi Den.... I certainly agree with your references to the erstwhile Di Canio. I also think that Andrew Black would not have "jumped ship" had it not been for the extravagances of the highly strung Italian. It was a shame that he accepted Jeremy Wray's choice of Di Canio as manager at that time, because there were so many moderate managers around that could easily have lifted Swindon Town back out of League Two at a fraction of the cost. Unfortunately our future probably still hangs in the balance, but only time will tell as the saying goes.[/p][/quote]Doesn't that episode neatly show the point that a wealthy backer isn't sustainable. Black got bored, pulled the plug and we nearly went down the hole. Indeed, would have but for McCrory. The only sustainable model is one based on one part community, one part reality.[/p][/quote]No manc, I don't believe it does show that at all. It's how the money is used (or not abused, as happened in our case) that's key to it all. The wealthy backer doesn't have to be throwing shedloads of money at the playing side. He/she/they can provide the invaluable security of keeping the club ticking over while telling potential buyers of our players to s0d off. Obviously players will find their own level in the end, which of course happened with Greer, Austin, Morrison and probably Danny Ward, all of whom we could have kept if Wilson hadn't failed so spectacularly to manage a good team to success, but it is much easier to deter the vultures when you have sound financial backing. We were very close to extinction before Black got here but in a massively better state when he left. Which is the better position, having £10m of callable debt hanging over us when he arrived or having that wiped out and having none when he left? People will no doubt cite the expensive contracts picked up by the new owners as support for their case that the the club was in trouble. Those contracts shouldn't have been much of a problem for new owners who got the club for less than the price of a half of Guinness and actually boasted that they would keep the same playing budget, while raking in hundreds of thousands from concerts, catering etc. No wonder McCrory was always smiling. By the way, I think it's rather unfair to say Black got bored. If he was going to get bored, it wouldn't have taken 5 years to happen. He was probably angry and hurt by the way PDC took him and his money for granted. Enough was enough. Oi Den!

9:30pm Thu 5 Dec 13

mancrobin says...

Oi Den! wrote:
mancrobin wrote:
Old-Stager, Hilperton wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Swindon1984 wrote:
Quite agree Vic - unfortunately some aren't happy with the truth, and see long term plans and realistic goals as showing that we "lack ambition" i.e. no-one's chucking money hand over fist to get us however up the pyramid NOW.

Rather than showing lack of ambition I'd argue that living within your means and slowly crawling up the league/s is far more abitious a proposal than the boom or bust attitude where clubs spend beyond their means gambling on the prospect of promotion, only to find when it doesn't come off they've no longer got a club to support, or at least one which will be consigned to the doldrums due to financial ruin in the process.

We all want success, but ultimately having a club with a future is so much more important. Pompey came within inches of disppearing out of existence, and there were far more interested parties trying to save them than there ever would be for us if we found ourselves in a similar position, let's not forget that.
'84, I don't think anyone's arguing that we should live outside our means. The truth is that, in a manner of speaking, we lived within our means under the pre-McCrory regime because the owners funded the costs. In an ideal world all football clubs would be self-sufficient. The unfortunate reality is that most incur losses year on year.

But those who argue that having a wealthy backer is a bad thing are missing the point. It's not about having loads of money to spend (although that is helpful). It's about having the financial clout to be able to build our own team by holding onto the good players that have been developed within the club or acquired through astute scouting and/or transfer dealing. All clubs are selling clubs but those with the least money are the most vulnerable when the vultures come circling. That's why I believe the Black era offered us our best ever chance to make real progress. If only Di Canio hadn't wanted everything yesterday, we could have made real progress as a club and he could have been moving towards being the top manager he thinks he is. I don't think there's a shred of doubt that he's got the coaching ability. Pity he also has the knack of wrecking everything.

Meanwhile, it's clear that McCrory's sustainable model sustained him very well.
Oi Den....
I certainly agree with your references to the erstwhile Di Canio.
I also think that Andrew Black would not have "jumped ship" had it not been for the extravagances of the highly strung Italian.
It was a shame that he accepted Jeremy Wray's choice of Di Canio as manager at that time, because there were so many moderate managers around that could easily have lifted Swindon Town back out of League Two at a fraction of the cost.
Unfortunately our future probably still hangs in the balance, but only time will tell as the saying goes.
Doesn't that episode neatly show the point that a wealthy backer isn't sustainable. Black got bored, pulled the plug and we nearly went down the hole. Indeed, would have but for McCrory.

The only sustainable model is one based on one part community, one part reality.
No manc, I don't believe it does show that at all. It's how the money is used (or not abused, as happened in our case) that's key to it all. The wealthy backer doesn't have to be throwing shedloads of money at the playing side. He/she/they can provide the invaluable security of keeping the club ticking over while telling potential buyers of our players to s0d off. Obviously players will find their own level in the end, which of course happened with Greer, Austin, Morrison and probably Danny Ward, all of whom we could have kept if Wilson hadn't failed so spectacularly to manage a good team to success, but it is much easier to deter the vultures when you have sound financial backing.

We were very close to extinction before Black got here but in a massively better state when he left. Which is the better position, having £10m of callable debt hanging over us when he arrived or having that wiped out and having none when he left? People will no doubt cite the expensive contracts picked up by the new owners as support for their case that the the club was in trouble. Those contracts shouldn't have been much of a problem for new owners who got the club for less than the price of a half of Guinness and actually boasted that they would keep the same playing budget, while raking in hundreds of thousands from concerts, catering etc.

No wonder McCrory was always smiling.

By the way, I think it's rather unfair to say Black got bored. If he was going to get bored, it wouldn't have taken 5 years to happen. He
was probably angry and hurt by the way PDC took him and his money for granted. Enough was enough.
Sorry Den but I think you're just endlessly repeating yourself. The key point of my post was the proposition that a sustainable football club is one grounded in reality and based in the community.

I believe this club has been steadily moving in that direction. I couldn't give a stuff to be quite honest what McCrory promised in the euphoric moments he took over. I am more impressed that we are working towards a more sustainable wage bill, that we have made practical improvements to the CG, that the Club has produced a business plan and shared it with the fans, that we have got a team of extremely talented and entertaining young players, that we are 7th and still in the hunt, and that I may get another trip to Wembley in a few months.

I confess that in that context, tossing and turning in bed worrying about the former words of an ex Chairman doesn't appeal.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mancrobin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-Stager, Hilperton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote: Quite agree Vic - unfortunately some aren't happy with the truth, and see long term plans and realistic goals as showing that we "lack ambition" i.e. no-one's chucking money hand over fist to get us however up the pyramid NOW. Rather than showing lack of ambition I'd argue that living within your means and slowly crawling up the league/s is far more abitious a proposal than the boom or bust attitude where clubs spend beyond their means gambling on the prospect of promotion, only to find when it doesn't come off they've no longer got a club to support, or at least one which will be consigned to the doldrums due to financial ruin in the process. We all want success, but ultimately having a club with a future is so much more important. Pompey came within inches of disppearing out of existence, and there were far more interested parties trying to save them than there ever would be for us if we found ourselves in a similar position, let's not forget that.[/p][/quote]'84, I don't think anyone's arguing that we should live outside our means. The truth is that, in a manner of speaking, we lived within our means under the pre-McCrory regime because the owners funded the costs. In an ideal world all football clubs would be self-sufficient. The unfortunate reality is that most incur losses year on year. But those who argue that having a wealthy backer is a bad thing are missing the point. It's not about having loads of money to spend (although that is helpful). It's about having the financial clout to be able to build our own team by holding onto the good players that have been developed within the club or acquired through astute scouting and/or transfer dealing. All clubs are selling clubs but those with the least money are the most vulnerable when the vultures come circling. That's why I believe the Black era offered us our best ever chance to make real progress. If only Di Canio hadn't wanted everything yesterday, we could have made real progress as a club and he could have been moving towards being the top manager he thinks he is. I don't think there's a shred of doubt that he's got the coaching ability. Pity he also has the knack of wrecking everything. Meanwhile, it's clear that McCrory's sustainable model sustained him very well.[/p][/quote]Oi Den.... I certainly agree with your references to the erstwhile Di Canio. I also think that Andrew Black would not have "jumped ship" had it not been for the extravagances of the highly strung Italian. It was a shame that he accepted Jeremy Wray's choice of Di Canio as manager at that time, because there were so many moderate managers around that could easily have lifted Swindon Town back out of League Two at a fraction of the cost. Unfortunately our future probably still hangs in the balance, but only time will tell as the saying goes.[/p][/quote]Doesn't that episode neatly show the point that a wealthy backer isn't sustainable. Black got bored, pulled the plug and we nearly went down the hole. Indeed, would have but for McCrory. The only sustainable model is one based on one part community, one part reality.[/p][/quote]No manc, I don't believe it does show that at all. It's how the money is used (or not abused, as happened in our case) that's key to it all. The wealthy backer doesn't have to be throwing shedloads of money at the playing side. He/she/they can provide the invaluable security of keeping the club ticking over while telling potential buyers of our players to s0d off. Obviously players will find their own level in the end, which of course happened with Greer, Austin, Morrison and probably Danny Ward, all of whom we could have kept if Wilson hadn't failed so spectacularly to manage a good team to success, but it is much easier to deter the vultures when you have sound financial backing. We were very close to extinction before Black got here but in a massively better state when he left. Which is the better position, having £10m of callable debt hanging over us when he arrived or having that wiped out and having none when he left? People will no doubt cite the expensive contracts picked up by the new owners as support for their case that the the club was in trouble. Those contracts shouldn't have been much of a problem for new owners who got the club for less than the price of a half of Guinness and actually boasted that they would keep the same playing budget, while raking in hundreds of thousands from concerts, catering etc. No wonder McCrory was always smiling. By the way, I think it's rather unfair to say Black got bored. If he was going to get bored, it wouldn't have taken 5 years to happen. He was probably angry and hurt by the way PDC took him and his money for granted. Enough was enough.[/p][/quote]Sorry Den but I think you're just endlessly repeating yourself. The key point of my post was the proposition that a sustainable football club is one grounded in reality and based in the community. I believe this club has been steadily moving in that direction. I couldn't give a stuff to be quite honest what McCrory promised in the euphoric moments he took over. I am more impressed that we are working towards a more sustainable wage bill, that we have made practical improvements to the CG, that the Club has produced a business plan and shared it with the fans, that we have got a team of extremely talented and entertaining young players, that we are 7th and still in the hunt, and that I may get another trip to Wembley in a few months. I confess that in that context, tossing and turning in bed worrying about the former words of an ex Chairman doesn't appeal. mancrobin

7:55am Fri 6 Dec 13

Oi Den! says...

manc, you asked a question and I answered it. If the only acceptable reply was "Yes", then there wasn't much point in the question.

Neither of us knows for sure what has been happening behind the scenes at the club during the McCrory tenure. However, I'd say that the information we've received recently and the sacking of Murrell, swiftly followed by McCrory's exit, are sure signs that things were far from good.
You believe the club was heading in the right direction on McCrory's watch. I believe the opposite, despite Cooper's excellent achievements with the players.

You won't catch me disagreeing with you on the community aspect. However, I'd snap your hand off for another 5 years of Black style funding. Trouble is, chances like that don't come along too often. We missed the boat.
manc, you asked a question and I answered it. If the only acceptable reply was "Yes", then there wasn't much point in the question. Neither of us knows for sure what has been happening behind the scenes at the club during the McCrory tenure. However, I'd say that the information we've received recently and the sacking of Murrell, swiftly followed by McCrory's exit, are sure signs that things were far from good. You believe the club was heading in the right direction on McCrory's watch. I believe the opposite, despite Cooper's excellent achievements with the players. You won't catch me disagreeing with you on the community aspect. However, I'd snap your hand off for another 5 years of Black style funding. Trouble is, chances like that don't come along too often. We missed the boat. Oi Den!

6:53pm Fri 6 Dec 13

mancrobin says...

Oi Den! wrote:
manc, you asked a question and I answered it. If the only acceptable reply was "Yes", then there wasn't much point in the question.

Neither of us knows for sure what has been happening behind the scenes at the club during the McCrory tenure. However, I'd say that the information we've received recently and the sacking of Murrell, swiftly followed by McCrory's exit, are sure signs that things were far from good.
You believe the club was heading in the right direction on McCrory's watch. I believe the opposite, despite Cooper's excellent achievements with the players.

You won't catch me disagreeing with you on the community aspect. However, I'd snap your hand off for another 5 years of Black style funding. Trouble is, chances like that don't come along too often. We missed the boat.
Den, fair enough, you didn't think the Club was well run under Jed and you could well be right. We might make the same conclusion in hindsight for Power's reign. All we can do is form an opinion on what we do know and I am struggling to see evidence of major problems, only moves in the right direction. We'll have to agree to differ on that.

My issue with having a large benefactor is that it is only sustainable as long as the benefactor remains. Yes, during that time the Club can advance and grow but Portsmouth and Coventry are recent examples of the risk. Even those in it for the long term like Whelan at Wigan and Walker at Blackburn run the risk of creating an unsustainable monster and both are now beginning to struggle. Walker even went to the lengths of leaving a considerable legacy following his death. Trouble is, there just aren't that many Rovers fans.

Ultimately the club belongs to its fans, me and you Den and a model that realises the potential of that (our passion) and the limitations (our no t so great numbers) is far more likely to grow organically and prosper in the long run.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: manc, you asked a question and I answered it. If the only acceptable reply was "Yes", then there wasn't much point in the question. Neither of us knows for sure what has been happening behind the scenes at the club during the McCrory tenure. However, I'd say that the information we've received recently and the sacking of Murrell, swiftly followed by McCrory's exit, are sure signs that things were far from good. You believe the club was heading in the right direction on McCrory's watch. I believe the opposite, despite Cooper's excellent achievements with the players. You won't catch me disagreeing with you on the community aspect. However, I'd snap your hand off for another 5 years of Black style funding. Trouble is, chances like that don't come along too often. We missed the boat.[/p][/quote]Den, fair enough, you didn't think the Club was well run under Jed and you could well be right. We might make the same conclusion in hindsight for Power's reign. All we can do is form an opinion on what we do know and I am struggling to see evidence of major problems, only moves in the right direction. We'll have to agree to differ on that. My issue with having a large benefactor is that it is only sustainable as long as the benefactor remains. Yes, during that time the Club can advance and grow but Portsmouth and Coventry are recent examples of the risk. Even those in it for the long term like Whelan at Wigan and Walker at Blackburn run the risk of creating an unsustainable monster and both are now beginning to struggle. Walker even went to the lengths of leaving a considerable legacy following his death. Trouble is, there just aren't that many Rovers fans. Ultimately the club belongs to its fans, me and you Den and a model that realises the potential of that (our passion) and the limitations (our no t so great numbers) is far more likely to grow organically and prosper in the long run. mancrobin

2:31pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Oi Den! says...

I don't think we're all that far apart really manc. I'll let it lie there.
I don't think we're all that far apart really manc. I'll let it lie there. Oi Den!

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree