It's really time for Scally to hang up his boots | Page 2 | Vital Football

It's really time for Scally to hang up his boots

jogills - 27/9/2017 11:27

You have missed the point again JK. I pointed to the investors distinction as being a perfect ongoing excuse, for keeping PT in charge, for making a temporary appointment, for making a celebrity appointment for any appointment, or none. It also helps him to deflect any criticism because of course we have an elastic hiatus while these investors are accommodated. Any investment decisions, or lack of put down to the possible new regime. He is buying time.
Click to expand...

I understood the wider point of your post which is why I didn't comment on the whole..

I don't understand why Scally would bother coming up with such claims. He is the owner and if he wanted Taylor in charge then he could just hire him again (not that I think Scally would even if Taylor wanted it) - it isn't like at Barcelona where he could be voted out. People would threaten to boycott the club if Taylor was made permanent again, but looking at the attendances then I doubt anyone would notice if a few individuals kept away.

Scally could easily "buy time" by claiming he was taking his time to find the right man (he took over a month to hire Stimson and Edinburgh), claim he had identified his man but then upon not materializing blame circumstances that it fell through at the last minute.

Long story short, if Scally wanted to buy time then he could come up with some other more feasible sounding excuse. People have been critical for Scally for decades so I doubt he cares about needing to deflect criticism...
 
WMGill - 27/9/2017 12:10

Why would any party want to 'invest' in the football club other than buy it outright? A fan of the club must think that they can do better than Scally, while anyone looking for a conventional return on investment isn't going to put money into a business that isn't issuing shares or bonds. After 20+ years I still can't work out if the chairman really believes what he says or genuinely thinks that the supporters will buy it. There is no new ground (if the council find the land, the priority will be housing) and there are no investors willing to let him continue to run the show or to pay the unrealistic price I suspect he wants to walk away. In other any business, the customers wouldn't care (and would go to a competitor), but I guess we are stuck with it now.
Click to expand...
Same with Michael Anderson. Can offer a loan in exchange for part ownership or a salary. Otherwise it could be a vested interest in the new or old stadium - Asda or Venetian Sands in the past.

A foreign investor or group may well want Scally to remain as either chairman, CEO or otherwise. Geographical reasons as well as experience.
 
If you think Scally has a thick skin then you haven't been paying attention over the last 20 years. He certainly does care about criticism and has always tried to avoid and deflect it. I think our current situation is fragile and he knows it. It may be that we are going through a dangerous phase and he may yet ride it out but the short term outlook is poor. The crosshair is inexorably moving towards Scally having moved through managements, backroom staff, players, Centreplate and former CEOs. He is not a fool and will realise that he has very little leeway left.
 
There is no new ground (if the council find the land, the priority will be housing)

Not true. As I understand it the Local Plan includes the site for mixed use which could include a stadium. As I have explained previously, the Plan ultimately goes before a government appointed inspector. They will look at any objections including alternative proposals that could be housing. If there is already enough proposed housing in the plan that would be unlikely to succeed. There might not be objections seeking that in any event. The inspector might also conclude that the site is more suitable for mixed use than for housing. As I understand it, the Council's general position is clear that they want mixed use rather than housing on the Mill Hill site.
 
Therealwaldo - 27/9/2017 16:23

There is no new ground (if the council find the land, the priority will be housing)

Not true. As I understand it the Local Plan includes the site for mixed use which could include a stadium. As I have explained previously, the Plan ultimately goes before a government appointed inspector. They will look at any objections including alternative proposals that could be housing. If there is already enough proposed housing in the plan that would be unlikely to succeed.
Click to expand...

Plus upon the club moving to the new site, an equal amount of land would be freed up where Priestfield is now (theoretically - I appreciate building a load of new houses en mass in a street is probably has more hassles than in the middle of a park.
 
jogills - 27/9/2017 14:42

If you think Scally has a thick skin then you haven't been paying attention over the last 20 years. He certainly does care about criticism and has always tried to avoid and deflect it.

The crosshair is inexorably moving towards Scally having moved through managements, backroom staff, players, Centreplate and former CEOs. He is not a fool and will realise that he has very little leeway left.
Click to expand...

My recollection of people being critical is for Scally to go on the attack and cause a PR issue when doing nothing would make sense, whether or not he bans people or organisations or threaten legal action. I don't recall many times when Scally has seemingly backed away and avoided criticism unless you mean on the few occasions where he has amended a policy based upon feedback from fans (or just issued a press release to clarify the policy based upon misunderstandings).

Could you clarify as to what he has very little leeway left about? Or from whom?
 
Therealwaldo - 27/9/2017 16:23

There is no new ground (if the council find the land, the priority will be housing)

Not true. As I understand it the Local Plan includes the site for mixed use which could include a stadium. As I have explained previously, the Plan ultimately goes before a government appointed inspector. They will look at any objections including alternative proposals that could be housing. If there is already enough proposed housing in the plan that would be unlikely to succeed. There might not be objections seeking that in any event. The inspector might also conclude that the site is more suitable for mixed use than for housing. As I understand it, the Council's general position is clear that they want mixed use rather than housing on the Mill Hill site.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure a more cost effective 'mixed use' plan could be put in place, that did not involve a stadium. The only reason I can see that a developer would back such an approach, is that Scally has convinced them that no other mixed use will get the nod ... maybe all those free tickets to the boardroom for council members and their families after 20 years has paid off!

We really should not be cheering on this new stadium adventure (not that I believe it exists). Why? Well, the club will not own the stadium .... we will simply be tenants. Priestfield will get developed into flats / houses .... Scaly et al, fill their pockets. Then what .... an increased rent scheme in order to pay for this 20k seater beaut .... assuming a 4k attendance, we can probably stretch out and advertise 'flat bed seats' ala business class on flights !

The chairman wants to realise the cash from the ground .... to trouser away for his retirement ... after all, he has earnt it!

Any move away from Priestfield will be the final nail in the coffin of GFC as it stands, bankrupt within 5 years of a move I would wager.

No new stadium is going to suddenly increase revenues significantly for the club. If an increase in capacity equated to financial success, we would see more success stories to date following that strategy ....

The core of the club is broken ... post the Championship years, we only briefly regained any sense of pride, engagement and genuine sense of a brighter future, when Martin A was running the team. But that quickly fell away and we are back to a club that is dysfunctional ...

Never mind the playing staff ... the club is second division at best, we really are on a slippery slope.

The sooner its over the better ... then we can rebuild and at least have a sense of pride about what we are as a club again; rather than this current incarnation of a cash cow, funding a lifestyle and ego.

I still cannot get over the last player of the year event ... with Scally being applauded as he entered the venue to the tune of eye-of-the-tiger with lights and a smoke machine ...
 
I genuinely don't see you making any coherent argument that Scally is anything other than very thin skinned. That is why he falls out with people, why he attacks first and considers later. Sometimes it has worked for him, sometimes not but he does care about what people think, say and do.

He has very little leeway because he is relying on a good outcome from the Centreplate case at the very least to fund the second half of the season. Medium term he does not appear to have the pennies to do anything other than hang on and there are several further potential mantraps out there.
 
Strood, if you think a new ground can't lead to increased revenues there are a number of clubs that have had vastly increased attendances on the back of new stadia. Swansea and Reading are the best examples. Scally has seen that the only way of breaking out of the cycle of league 1, league 2, league 1 etc is to have a new ground. In that respect he seems to have a lot more vision and ambition for the club than a lot of its supporters. Darlington are the only club that people can point to where a new ground has been an abject failure. However, it really is the exception rather than the rule. Anyone who has had personal contact with Scally will realise he cares a lot about the club. Yes it is his income but that is far from being his only motivation. Given the club's history I'm amazed that you feel that you can't have pride in the club following our years in the championship. They were by far and away the highlight of our entire history. Why not feel pride in our position that we have held for all bar 5 of all our seasons since 1920 when the Football League South was created.
 
Therealwaldo - 27/9/2017 19:24

Darlington are the only club that people can point to where a new ground has been an abject failure. .
Click to expand...

Coventry wasn't what you would call a success and other club`s like Colchester dont seem to have moved forward despite a new ground.


 
All I'm saying is that with the ground we've got, we will never be more than a League 1 or League 2 club. If we aspire for anything better, we've got to have a new ground. In the grand scheme of things going down to League 2 is the usual state of affairs for this club. Am I stupid for hoping that we might have a better long term future than that ? Is Scally really the only person who is genuinely ambitious for the club in the long term ?
 
I think we all are but there's ambition and there's ambition. Mine would be to have us buzzing on the pitch which I believe would enhance chances of moving. If we get to that stage let's hope the planning inspector - usually from Bristol office I believe - looks favourably on a new ground Application .
 
I think we all are but there's ambition and there's ambition. Mine would be to have us buzzing on the pitch which I believe would enhance chances of moving. If we get to that stage let's hope the planning inspector - usually from Bristol office I believe - looks favourably on a new ground Application .
 
I think we all are but there's ambition and there's ambition. Mine would be to have us buzzing on the pitch which I believe would enhance chances of moving. If we get to that stage let's hope the planning inspector - usually from Bristol office I believe - looks favourably on a new ground Application .
 
I think we all are but there's ambition and there's ambition. Mine would be to have us buzzing on the pitch which I believe would enhance chances of moving. If we get to that stage let's hope the planning inspector - usually from Bristol office I believe - looks favourably on a new ground Application .
 
jogills - 27/9/2017 18:52

I genuinely don't see you making any coherent argument that Scally is anything other than very thin skinned. That is why he falls out with people, why he attacks first and considers later.
Click to expand...

I've not made an argument concerning if Scally is thin skinned or not as I don't really disagree with you - you seem to be arguing about something we broadly agree on...

Where i disagree is whether or not Scally goes out of his way to avoid criticism in his decision making. You think he does, but I don't which is why he reacts aggressively when people do criticise.

As you comment yourself, he tends to attack first and considers later - if you agree that is the case then clearly he isn't considering the potential criticism when he is making decisions.

Where we do clearly differ in opinions, You think Scally wants Taylor as full time manager, but I don't think Scally would offer it nor Taylor accept. How quickly Scally moves to replace Pennock will depend on success of the caretaker team. If it goes badly expect a quick decision, but if we start to pick up a few points then that buys Scally some time.
 
Bloody hell Wayne - I realise you want to be top of the posting charts for this month, but posting the same thing four times is not remotely subtle... :83:
 
Mixed-use land is such a broad category that there's only a small possibility that Mill Hill could involve a stadium. The pressure on land for housing in the South East, particularly in commuting distance of London, is extremely high and it's not comparable with Swansea, Reading or Leicester on a cost or use (all of those have shared their grounds with rugby teams) basis.

A couple of years back when I had a bit of time on my hands, I crunched some numbers relating to attendances of clubs which had built new grounds. Taking Arsenal and Man City out of the equation, it was mainly Swansea, Brighton and Rotherham that saw a massive upturn in attendances in the first few years after moving grounds, but at the same time, their league positions were improving. Clubs we might consider as being at the same level or lower (Shrewsbury, Colchester, Morecambe) and who didn't see onfield improvement plateaued or saw crowds fall.

Are you confident that diverting money to build a new ground will pay off? The relatively minor distraction of the Centreplate case has apparently led to the lowest budget in the division - will it be volunteers only to make up the numbers on a Saturday if this goes ahead?
 
WM, the planning issue is about land zoning. Zoning for mixed use gives the land a value that it would not have as green belt. When the land is purchased it would have pretty much the same value for a stadium as it would for any other use that falls in the mixed use category. Scally has been working on an overall development that would include a number of other uses. Both Bolton and Reading include a hotel in one end of their grounds. That's one of the things that might be included. There is very little in the way of hotels with full conference facilities in the Medway area. That's one option but retail and other leisure uses are others. Just as an example, Leeds and Birmingham as cities both have indoor artificial snow ski slopes. How about that as one of the options ? Each Local Plan has to be balanced and simply allocating any available land to housing wouldn't be acceptable either locally or to a government inspector. I've had enough experience of the planning system to know that there is every chance the land will be zoned in a way that would allow a stadium. That's still a long way from getting full permission which would require a whole lot of impact assessments which I am sure the club is already working on.

I personally don't think it's quite as 'pie in the sky' as people think. The big question is whether the long term return for a comprehensive development would be enough to attract an investor. Some of the grounds already built have that sort of development background. Scally won't be doing this alone. He will be getting a lot of professional advice from people with experience of large scale developments. They are never easy but they are doable with persistence and determination.

The best example of a new ground success is Swansea. They certainly didn't start life in their new stadium with a successful side but that came as gates grew over their first couple of years. I agree with you if you believe that we still need to invest in the team but I'm not sure that a new stadium project will require us to find the funding for it. It won't work unless it gets paid for as part of a wider development.

ps I'm impressed with Wayne's knowledge of the planning process. The Government Inspector will indeed come from Bristol. 10/10.
 
I think we must accept that we are talking at cross purposes John. I have offered no opinion on whether Scally wants to keep Taylor in position. What I have said is that he has laid out enough excuses and explanations for most eventualities. Whatever decision he does, or does not take can be laid at the door of investors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.