"Real changes needed within the club" says Pearson

[crazywelsh]

Originally Posted by dixienormous

We're the footballing equivalent of the Cuban state.

It’s a crusade for them, fan ownership has given people positions of power they will never relinquish that control unless forced.

If they really believe it is the way forward the 3 who seem to be running the show should stand aside for the wrongs allowing others the opportunity as let’s be honest nobody can do much worse, what league is it below the national league north?

[eosceiriog]

We are truly in a mess. Grant speaking out of place was bad enough and he should have gone long ago. Our form since his arrival is no coincidence.

For a player, especially the captain, to make such a statement about the club indicates we are completely dysfunctional as a football club and an organisation.

Disaster has been on the cards from the beginning because the constitution facilitates the organisation being run like a politburo. Supporters Direct did us no favours.

A change in personnel at the top would almost certainly improve things simply on he grounds of how much worse can it get.

However those still clinging to the flotsam and believe that is the only change needed continue to be deluded or stamped with the same mark as the current "leaders".

[mattw]

Originally Posted by sparky

I'm sure the JCP would spin it into a positive.

Seriously though, although not the player he once was, getting rid of him would be an odd thing to do. So odd it would leave you questioning their motives past managed decline.

Every post you make Sparky has a dog at the JCP, did Joe Clarke sleep with your mum or am I missing something?

[mattw]

Can someone help me out and explain to me how trust ownership to a player would be different to Private ownership?

If they’re paid on time and have a decent manager, day to day, how would life at the club differ?

I’m not a fan of the board and acknowledge THEY might affect players, but does the actual OWNERSHIP model really come into it?

If we had a board everyone was backing at the moment, would people still be saying trust ownership is the change Pearson is wanting?

Just making sure I’m not poaching my eggs when they should be scrambled

[-luke]

Originally Posted by mattw

Can someone help me out and explain to me how trust ownership to a player would be different to Private ownership?

If they’re paid on time and have a decent manager, day to day, how would life at the club differ?

I’m not a fan of the board and acknowledge THEY might affect players, but does the actual OWNERSHIP model really come into it?

If we had a board everyone was backing at the moment, would people still be saying trust ownership is the change Pearson is wanting?

Just making sure I’m not poaching my eggs when they should be scrambled

I dont think he is talking at board level, unless there is truth that the board are forcing keates' coaching staff on him

[billybersham]

Originally Posted by gazaw

I can't believe all that is being said about the influence that Darlington has on the organisation of the first team. Surely any half decent manager would have the team playing his style of football. Basically Darlington would be doing what he is told. Seems like the tail is wagging the dog, if we are to believe what is being posted/ said.

Believe it,the likes of Keates and Hughes would never have got a job as a manager at this level and are just glad to agree to whatever terms are given.

[John Neals Dynasty]

Hell of a thread this a lot of jumping to conclusions because of a few words without no real actual content in by Pearson.

On Saturday he was out injured and just before full time he was walking back to the exit, the abuse he get off some in the Techend was to put it mildly quite nasty.

Great for moral is it not fist waving and shouting obscenities at our captain because his form is poor this season.. No respect shown for what he has done the last few seasons.

If he had been playing that day fair enough, but to take the lazy inept performance out on him was wrong.

We all know and have done since Mills that the club is poisonous and needs massive changes at both board levels and staff

For me the team togetherness, team spirit under Ricketts and Barrow Has been broken by the appointment of a sacked manager at a level 3 leagues below and a footgolf specialist, to the return of whispering Keates and his fellow dumb ass Davies.. Dumb and dumber.

Another sacked manager and his assistant for getting a club relegated in one season.

Players signed by Keates have not forgotten him jumping ship and doing the dirty on them.

Should never of even been considered for the job.
Posted via mobile theme

[Welsh Kiwi]

Originally Posted by mattw

Can someone help me out and explain to me how trust ownership to a player would be different to Private ownership?

If they’re paid on time and have a decent manager, day to day, how would life at the club differ?

I’m not a fan of the board and acknowledge THEY might affect players, but does the actual OWNERSHIP model really come into it?

If we had a board everyone was backing at the moment, would people still be saying trust ownership is the change Pearson is wanting?

Just making sure I’m not poaching my eggs when they should be scrambled

Good questions...

"If" a club is well run under private ownership and well funded with investment then potentially that could be to the advantage of a player who wants to earn more money and increase their chances of success and silverware at their club.

While a club run badly or unethically under private ownership is in more danger or risk of going out of business.

We can see that fans owned clubs find investment revenue much harder to acquire as they have to work much harder to gain such funds from core activity streams, while also (in theory) needing to be more accountable and transparent in their activities to their fan base. And still try to remain competitive with other clubs who have rich private investors/shareholders such as Forest Green or Salford City etc.

"If" our club was experiencing success on the pitch and the club was financially stable then 99% of our fans would not be bothered about the fans owned model or who was on the board. It is only in times of failure that the fans scrutinise the board and consider how their club is being run. As in any other football club.

While most footballers don't like accepting 100% responsibility when results don't go in their favour over a prolonged period, especially if they feel they have nothing to lose and can identify other reasons for the club's problems.

[The Only Way Is Up]

Some of us will nostalgically remember our days in 77'/'78 being promoted to and then afterwards playing in the old second division for four seasons. One poster mentioned it, and was praising Arfon for his managerial achievement in taking us there, largely with John Neale's squad. Let's not forget that money was pumped recklessly into the playing squad during those days which left the club with huge losses - and those led to severe cutbacks in '81/'82 which saw us plummet back down to the old fourth division in two consecutive seasons when the player budgets had been cut. That was all under private ownership, and we know where that model eventually led.

Nowadays, players probably couldn't care less about a club's finances as long as they are paid the highest wages they (or their agents) can negotiate. If a better offer comes along they will move, and the same applies with managers - as we know!

Where our ability to pay the highest wages now is limited by a sensible need not to exceed our income and go into debt (i.e. sustainability) some other teams in the NL can be as reckless as they want due to there being no financial fair play rules and/or wealthy benefactors/investors.

Did our short debt-ridden spell in the old second division justify the years spent in the wilderness since then? Fans who don't care about the risks to the club's security may well say yes and that we should do the same again at any cost. Many of those are younger, and live for today without a care for tomorrow. Other supporters - who have maybe spent 60+ years supporting the club, and who don't want to see us go out of business - will say no.

Which of those last two camps do YOU belong to?