Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

yes

29 (48.3%)

no

31 (51.7%)

Total Members Voted: 37

[Robins Retweet]

Speaking to a few supporters they feel there has been an unwanted distraction, not to cause any arguments...i thought a vote would be the easiest way...

[Teasierbeaver]

Distraction yes, unwanted no. We've needed the CSH for years, people forget how embarrassing it is going to places like Lancaster and wishing we had a social like theirs.

Never the less, the clubs footballing decisions in the past 18 months make it tough to deny it caused some distraction from making good on pitch decisions.

[sweetfa]

This is just wrong. The CSH was built and run by people who have no involvement with the playing side.The football Club was ringfenced from it. It took no money away. It provides excellent changing room facilities for the players.. And it is now generating cash through bar and turnstiles. You might as well blame the down turn in results on Brexit.

[Uncle Globnasty]

This is just wrong. The CSH was built and run by people who have no involvement with the playing side.The football Club was ringfenced from it. It took no money away. It provides excellent changing room facilities for the players.. And it is now generating cash through bar and turnstiles. You might as well blame the down turn in results on Brexit.

I knew it, the balance of the team is all wrong, not enough quality on the left.

[TheCultOfIanTunnacliffe]

This is just wrong. The CSH was built and run by people who have no involvement with the playing side.The football Club was ringfenced from it. It took no money away. It provides excellent changing room facilities for the players.. And it is now generating cash through bar and turnstiles. You might as well blame the down turn in results on Brexit.

He must have been one of those Neil Young signings who I didn't get to see play.

 

[Malty G]

Hold on a minute! Didn't the board announce at the AGM that it had paid £20k of CSH wages? Who knows what Lee Sinnott  would have done with that if it had been available to him but we may not be looking at our second relegation battle and fifth managerial pairing in six months. I find the claim that no football money was lost disingenuous as funds raised from the fans for the CSH is money they could have spent at the club. The fans don't have unlimited pots of cash to be drawn on whenever.

[wayno]

This is just wrong. The CSH was built and run by people who have no involvement with the playing side.The football Club was ringfenced from it. It took no money away. It provides excellent changing room facilities for the players.. And it is now generating cash through bar and turnstiles. You might as well blame the down turn in results on Brexit.

do we know how much additional revenue has been generated so far ?
Do we know what additional revenue we hope it will generate in the future year on year  ?
How has this money been invested into the first team ?
What impact has this had on first team fortunes so far?
How do we see the impact in the future being to compete in the transfer market in the future so we can compete with teams with less of a following than us ?

I won't hold my breath as it's the 3rd time I have asked various people.

[Teasierbeaver]

This is just wrong. The CSH was built and run by people who have no involvement with the playing side.The football Club was ringfenced from it. It took no money away. It provides excellent changing room facilities for the players.. And it is now generating cash through bar and turnstiles. You might as well blame the down turn in results on Brexit.

Did the chairman not say he was involved on the project from the beginning in that interview?

I'm not questioning the finances because I believe we could have stayed up with the players we had last season give or take maybe a decent loan signing brought 5 to 10 games earlier than when we did bring loanees in.

I think we went down because the manager lost faith in himself and the players or vice versa and the club left it far too late to make a change, which wasn't actually instigated by the club. And that change was bringing in Tolson. The chairman went on record about us being a community club and a family and thats why Tolson was given the opportunity, plus he had been given the outgoing managers backing. It was all to friendly and happy, and dare I say inward thinking, and it triggered a spiral that we are still in.

That attitude, in my opinion, is what cost us because it drove the decisions made on the pitch. The two things are separate and should have been treated separately in our attitude to footballing matters. Instead the chairman, board and some fans got carried away that this community spirit would translate into a good footballing philosophy.

So, its not just wrong its a perfectly valid theory and the burden of proof is with you to show how that wasn't responsible because right now I dont see any theory of significant validity which lays out a case for why we are in the position we are in which doesnt involve the boards culpability driven by their attitude.

I think the board overall have done a good job, ive already said it. I also think the CSH is great and much needed, i've said that too. But its still fair to say that somewhere along the line the club have blurred the lines between off and on pitch objectives and as a result we are rock bottom of the league below with only the slimmest of hopes of not sinking even lower.

People need to take the blinkers off and start accepting where we are accountable, its bloody obvious and exactly why we haven't progressed.

The recent minutes from the AGM included some accountability and a clear vision to get things right from the board. Its no surprise to me that in line with that we start to see a tiny glimmer of hope on the pitch.

If we survive i'll be the first to congratulate the chairman and board for rolling their sleeves up and finally getting things right on the pitch.

[PukkaPieman]

This is just wrong. The CSH was built and run by people who have no involvement with the playing side.The football Club was ringfenced from it. It took no money away. It provides excellent changing room facilities for the players.. And it is now generating cash through bar and turnstiles. You might as well blame the down turn in results on Brexit.

+1

[Robins Retweet]

Dare i say there is a distinct divide here? most that have voted no probably work for the club in some way and most that have voted yes are fans?

[ManagementGuru]

Robins Lecoste - I think that may be an assertion that is unprovable; and it has the fallacy baked in to it that those who work for the club cannot be fans.  Given it only takes one counter example to disprove an assertion I give you Brian Flynn; works for the club, and is a fan.

[Robins Retweet]

Robins Lecoste - I think that may be an assertion that is unprovable; and it has the fallacy baked in to it that those who work for the club cannot be fans.  Given it only takes one counter example to disprove an assertion I give you Brian Flynn; works for the club, and is a fan.

of course they are fans too...but you know what im getting at

[Leon]

I think the pretence that there is no connection between the running of the CSH and the football club is silly and a bit insulting. We all know the two are intimately linked - you only need to look at the personnel involved to see that. It would be weird if they weren't closely connected.

Didn't GR say in an interview a while back that the initial fee from the sale of Duncan Watmore was spent partly on getting in Walshaw and Boshell and partly on building the CSH? That seemed very sensible to me btw. Plus it seems clear that the club lent the CSH £20k to pay initial wages, money that presumably could otherwise have been made available to the first team manager? I honestly think that a bit more frankness about all of this in the first place would have helped enormously and we wouldn't all now be trying to 'catch them out' over instances of the club putting money into the CSH. As it is, I think most fans understood the implicit deal with the CSH - it was our version of Arsenal moving into the Emirates, if you like - and accepted that it was hugely worthwhile in the long term, as long as we could sustain our footballing position in the short term.

For what it's worth, I don't think the CSH had any effect on the three decisions - the failure to sack LS at the right moment, the appointment of Neil Tolson and the appointment of Neil Young - that have put us into this mess. I think the board lacked ruthlessness in the first case and I would question their motives in the second case and their diligence in the third. Perhaps John E's next session with GR could be about his managerial appointments? Now that would be interesting.

[beaker141]

Robins Lecoste - I think that may be an assertion that is unprovable; and it has the fallacy baked in to it that those who work for the club cannot be fans.  Given it only takes one counter example to disprove an assertion I give you Brian Flynn; works for the club, and is a fan.

Can i suggest a change from "work" to "volunteer" - there are not many who get paid to work at Alty ! 

[Robins Retweet]

Robins Lecoste - I think that may be an assertion that is unprovable; and it has the fallacy baked in to it that those who work for the club cannot be fans.  Given it only takes one counter example to disprove an assertion I give you Brian Flynn; works for the club, and is a fan.

Can i suggest a change from "work" to "volunteer" - there are not many who get paid to work at Alty ! 

As stated previously i started the poll to avoid this type of red tape debate, i reiterate you know what im getting at....