RabTheJag Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 Is anybody worried that this loss of £100k per annum could cause serious problems for the club, ie. going part time, having to scrap the youth system etc? In my opinion, every other First Division club remains full time (apart from Ayr I assume?) even though most of them have smaller crowds than us (as it stands we have the third highest average attendances so far this season) and none of them have the benefit of the extra income we get from the Warriors. So if these clubs can get by without this extra income, surely there's no reason why we cant as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindau Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 Is anybody worried that this loss of £100k per annum could cause serious problems for the club, ie. going part time, having to scrap the youth system etc? In my opinion, every other First Division club remains full time (apart from Ayr I assume?) even though most of them have smaller crowds than us (as it stands we have the third highest average attendances so far this season) and none of them have the benefit of the extra income we get from the Warriors. So if these clubs can get by without this extra income, surely there's no reason why we cant as well? Valid points but but only the directors have the answer to that. In real terms if we keep up a challenge and get say an extra 400 paying fans on average, that would cover any shortfalls in any given season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 Is anybody worried that this loss of £100k per annum could cause serious problems for the club, ie. going part time, having to scrap the youth system etc? In my opinion, every other First Division club remains full time (apart from Ayr I assume?) even though most of them have smaller crowds than us (as it stands we have the third highest average attendances so far this season) and none of them have the benefit of the extra income we get from the Warriors. So if these clubs can get by without this extra income, surely there's no reason why we cant as well? It's always been a mystery to me how we struggle so much compared to teams with lower attendances and presumably less overall income. I wonder what the year-long saving will be from the (welcome) reduced polis presence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 Valid points but but only the directors have the answer to that. In real terms if we keep up a challenge and get say an extra 400 paying fans on average, that would cover any shortfalls in any given season So it's up to us all to try to get folk along who normally wouldn't go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindau Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) So it's up to us all to try to get folk along who normally wouldn't go. I took two mates up on Friday and they loved it, sadly they are regular supporters of other Glasgow clubs and wont be back unless there are further Friday night fixtures. Also the fact that Friday was payday, tempted them along Edited October 2, 2011 by Lindau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kni Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 Is anybody worried that this loss of £100k per annum could cause serious problems for the club, ie. going part time, having to scrap the youth system etc? In my opinion, every other First Division club remains full time (apart from Ayr I assume?) even though most of them have smaller crowds than us (as it stands we have the third highest average attendances so far this season) and none of them have the benefit of the extra income we get from the Warriors. So if these clubs can get by without this extra income, surely there's no reason why we cant as well? I am wondering what Jackie really thinks of our youth system. The players who are under 21 and regular members of the first team squad were signed from other clubs - Sinclair, Lindsay, Hutton, Elliott, O'Donnell and Balatoni. Jackie has put Fraser and Burns out on loan. McBeth, Stevenson and Ketterer are presumably injured as they have not even featured for the reserves. Campbell and Bannigan have only made the odd appearance, mainly from the bench. That's not much of a return on our investment. If I was on the board, I'd be asking Jackie whether we should concentrate on recruiting more young players from other clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fredthecheesecloth Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 I firnly believe that the board of directors will be able to deal with this. No point in engaging in speculation re PT football etc, thats just doom and gloom. I am certain Beattie will speak out about in the press/next programme, he always has been open and honest. Remember we beat Morton 5-0? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 I am wondering what Jackie really thinks of our youth system. The players who are under 21 and regular members of the first team squad were signed from other clubs - Sinclair, Lindsay, Hutton, Elliott, O'Donnell and Balatoni. Jackie has put Fraser and Burns out on loan. McBeth, Stevenson and Ketterer are presumably injured as they have not even featured for the reserves. Campbell and Bannigan have only made the odd appearance, mainly from the bench. That's not much of a return on our investment. If I was on the board, I'd be asking Jackie whether we should concentrate on recruiting more young players from other clubs. That's a valid point. Frankly if we had the choice between getting into the SPL and surviving there on transfer deals or continuing in the 1st (and occasionally the 2nd) division with several youth teams that might produce a couple of 1st team squad players now and again, then I would advocate ditching the youth system right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_mac Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 I think it's important to remember that we relied on the warriors money because the club was being run so badly at the time, and it was a very easy way out for Tom Hughes at that time. Tom Hughes is not involved anymore so maybe this situation is not as bad as it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurph Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 My friends missus is affiliated with Warriors to some extent, and she said that Beattie was very very worried about Warriors pulling the plug. The situation is as bad as it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurph Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 I am wondering what Jackie really thinks of our youth system. The players who are under 21 and regular members of the first team squad were signed from other clubs - Sinclair, Lindsay, Hutton, Elliott, O'Donnell and Balatoni. Jackie has put Fraser and Burns out on loan. McBeth, Stevenson and Ketterer are presumably injured as they have not even featured for the reserves. Campbell and Bannigan have only made the odd appearance, mainly from the bench. That's not much of a return on our investment. If I was on the board, I'd be asking Jackie whether we should concentrate on recruiting more young players from other clubs. How long have we had the youth system in place? Three years? It takes a lot longer than three years to crop your own players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fawlty Towers Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 The good thing is at least the club know what the situation is and have time to work at getting something else in place. Whether that is another football team sharing Firhill with us or having non-football events at Firhill (boxing for example) will need to be looked at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryHell Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 The good thing is at least the club know what the situation is and have time to work at getting something else in place. Whether that is another football team sharing Firhill with us or having non-football events at Firhill (boxing for example) will need to be looked at. Correct - I think the club missed a trick last year when they announced the £100,000 deficit and then two months later announced it was all sorted. If the club, JT etc. could have knuckled down and organised a few more events, we'd have more money in the bank. The Firhill cup was a success, the business club golf day seemed to be a success, the shirt sponsorship raffle was a success and i'm sure the upcoming 1971 celebration will be too, we just need a few more events and to add a couple of hundred to the gate and we'll easily make up the £100,000. I'm not suggesting we play Celtic every year (unless we get promoted of course!) but the gate from that game and the Morton game alone must have generated a sum that would be a sizable percentge of £100,000. The sooner the club sort out what they are doing with the membership scheme and the fans can look at what they want from a supporters body, the sooner we can start taking a chunk out of the £100,000 we'll lose next season. We have got to start working on it ASAP THIS SEASON though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kni Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 How long have we had the youth system in place? Three years? It takes a lot longer than three years to crop your own players. True but, with the Warriors leaving next season, can we afford to wait 3 years or more for players to be ready for regular 1st team football? Every player on a full-time contract, bar the apprentices, should be capable of challenging for a 1st team place. We cannot afford any passengers or duds on average home gates below 3,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 True but, with the Warriors leaving next season, can we afford to wait 3 years or more for players to be ready for regular 1st team football? Every player on a full-time contract, bar the apprentices, should be capable of challenging for a 1st team place. We cannot afford any passengers or duds on average home gates below 3,000. I don't disagree with a lot of your posts but for the life of me I can't understand this one above or previous posts for that matter you've made about youth & periphery squad players. I think this time agreeing to disagree should be sufficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broomhill jag Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 I can't see the Warriors leaving meaning that we will: a)Have to go part time. b)Scrap the youth system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 I've always thought GCC couldn't give a about Thistle and this was yet another opportunity to stick the knife in. As paranoid as a Celtic fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggyman Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 GCC are probably up to their eyeballs in debt and are trying to make savings all over the place. Stands to reason they would be happy to get some money from the warriors for the hire of scotstoun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted October 2, 2011 Members Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 GCC are probably up to their eyeballs in debt and are trying to make savings all over the place. Stands to reason they would be happy to get some money from the warriors for the hire of scotstoun Do the Warriors not also pay for the Groundkeeping as well? Perhaps the Club should perhaps think about trying to re-negotiate with the Warriors to see if they can undercut the Council? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick bateman Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 Hopefully the spl will endorse 5g pitches soon . If it's deemed good enough for the champions league. With the rugby away then firhill could become a real hub for the community. Boys and youth teams are screaming out for facilities and games could be Played before kick off on matchdays Without damaging the pitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alx Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 I wouldn't like to be an eggroller fan going to that place. Stations rubbish. Parking tricky. Long hike to pubs. Pubs in hiking distance shockers anyway. Very exposed to elements. Nooooo. I can't say that I'm very sympathetic though.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_mac Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 I wouldn't like to be an eggroller fan going to that place. Stations rubbish. Parking tricky. Long hike to pubs. Pubs in hiking distance shockers anyway. Very exposed to elements. Nooooo. I can't say that I'm very sympathetic though.... Totally agree, would hate to watch a football game there and can see why Warriors fans would feel the same. Horrible green/blue seat combination for a start. Closest pub would probably be McNabbs or "McStabbs" as it's nicknamed by locals - tells you everything you need to know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindau Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) I can't see the Warriors leaving meaning that we will: a)Have to go part time. b)Scrap the youth system. This might make you think again. If they were paying £200,000 a year and thats a figure I have never seen quoted before, I cannot see how the club can fill that Oh yes and what a great photo with the City end terracing intact!! http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/jags-chief-admits-warriors-exit-leaves-a-hole-to-fill-at-firhill-1.1127456 Edited October 4, 2011 by Lindau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broomhill jag Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 This might make you think again. If they were paying £200,000 a year and thats a figure I have never seen quoted before, I cannot see how the club can fill that Oh yes and what a great photo with the City end terracing intact!! http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/jags-chief-admits-warriors-exit-leaves-a-hole-to-fill-at-firhill-1.1127456 And it has repeatedly been said that they were only paying 100k a year, so I'm not going to believe the quote in the ET unless someone at the Club confirms what the exact amount is. If the Club in the next 12 months is run as well as it has been since posting a £46k profit you could argue we're already down £54k next year. That's just assumptions though. I know there are more financially clued up folk on here who are in a better position to make comments on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindau Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 And it has repeatedly been said that they were only paying 100k a year, so I'm not going to believe the quote in the ET unless someone at the Club confirms what the exact amount is. There is no actual club quote in the ET and I totally agree, as I said, that £200,000 is a figure that I have never ever seen quoted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.