0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Latest article from SC in the EDP today - https://www.edp24.co.uk/sport/23393420.stephen-cleeve-big-day-kings-lynn-town-youngsters/Positives around the academy but still doesn't want to seem to face the reality when it comes to crowd numbers. For me it seems pretty straightforward, a lot of 'diehards' were lost when the old folded, new fans have replaced them but we are unlikely to 'double the gate', particularly in the short to medium term, which SC says is what is required to make us sustainable (I have my doubts on that as think it is would probably need more). SC makes some reasonable arguments, particularly in relation as to what happens to the club should something happen to him but what the article fails to acknowledge that many of the issues are as a result of choices he has made - full time status, push for NL without supporting infrastructure etc. I have seen calls on Facebook for more investment or additional investors - why can't people say it for what it is - they want our club to be financially doped to a false position out of someone else's pocket, that can't work for every club and can't be right long term for the good of football as a whole. Hopefully a football regulator will be in place sooner than later and allow a reset button to be pressed on club finances throughout the pyramid.
Quote from: TonyM on March 18, 2023, 12:23:23 PMLatest article from SC in the EDP today - https://www.edp24.co.uk/sport/23393420.stephen-cleeve-big-day-kings-lynn-town-youngsters/Positives around the academy but still doesn't want to seem to face the reality when it comes to crowd numbers. For me it seems pretty straightforward, a lot of 'diehards' were lost when the old folded, new fans have replaced them but we are unlikely to 'double the gate', particularly in the short to medium term, which SC says is what is required to make us sustainable (I have my doubts on that as think it is would probably need more). SC makes some reasonable arguments, particularly in relation as to what happens to the club should something happen to him but what the article fails to acknowledge that many of the issues are as a result of choices he has made - full time status, push for NL without supporting infrastructure etc. I have seen calls on Facebook for more investment or additional investors - why can't people say it for what it is - they want our club to be financially doped to a false position out of someone else's pocket, that can't work for every club and can't be right long term for the good of football as a whole. Hopefully a football regulator will be in place sooner than later and allow a reset button to be pressed on club finances throughout the pyramid.My thoughts exactly.What happens when he walks away, or is no longer prepared to pump money in? Its got to happen at sometime, and as Tony says this is a problem of his own making (and is more often than not the case with the sole benefactor model).Why do people expect others (such as Cleeve) to pump money in so they can watch a higher level of football than the club can really afford?I find it strange that we embarked on the quest for a higher level of football without the infrastructure in place at the club to support it.It's no good to keep going on about the gates. If he requires 1600 to break even or wants the gates to double, I'm afraid that's not going to happen. I just can't see it. We are a circa 1000-1,100 gate club.Positives around the Academy which is good, as apparently its a good source of income for the Club.Whereas the edp article didn't really ask any questions, and seems to be continuing along the same theme as we have heard in recent weeks, neither did it give any answers.
When did Liam and Noel play the Sahara ?