Paul Douglas to speak to press next week.

[frogmiller]

Right now all I want to hear is we've signed a striker or two.

Really?

[UlleyMiller]

Surely they do have an obligation though? Or a least a responsibility, if they are good custodians of the club? Lets not forget, they might own the shares but without customers, the business is screwed. And yes of course, there will always be 3-4000 hardcore who will turn up irrespective of the situation but a football club cannot survive on those numbers in this day and age.

I'll give you an example. I go to the matches with between 20 - 25 season ticket holders - we have been there since 2012 at the NYS. Over the past 3 years, this has dwindled down to about 15 people. Of those remaining, at least half of them are considering the future. Myself, I will always go but I am seriously considering whether I renew or simply buy on the day. The main gripe from that group is lack of transparency from the ownership since the Warne years. This year has taken the biscuit in many peoples eyes because of the clear malais from TS and the total lack of visibility. Not may have taken to MH in that group despite him being "one of our own". I think part of that is the results but most of it is the lack of charisma and his engagement with the fans.

Paul Davis is just part of the problem. He doesnt challenge. He is fearful of the door being shut in his face. Some clubs closer to where I live had a real challenge from their local press. Ours is pathetic. I challenged PD about this last year and he just shrugged.

So, all in all we are in a poor situation. But TS is not making it any better and is only damaging the brand. If this display from PD is nothing more than a controlled press statement then, you are right, it wont help. What is needed is some good old honesty - good or bad, and then people can decide.

They have no obligations at all. People can (and often will) decide if they should, if it's correct, but they have no obligations. Customers will rationalise going/not going, spending/not spending based on results, who the manager is, who is playing regularly, what division we're in, and even (apparently) if payment methods are restricted to cash. There is no way to run any football club which leaves all fans happy, and most decisions will irk at least a good number, no matter what they do. For reasons like these, it's barely worth the effort to communicate knowing it leads to further criticism whatever is said. There is also a good amount they need to keep in-house. If we're utterly broke, that's leverage for others to buy our players cheaply, and if we broadcast that we've strengthened our finances, we're suddenly paying more for players. We'd be playing a zero sum game alone.

The brand is largely meaningless too. I don't think of TS as being part of the brand, nor anything other than the current name on the deeds. Many owners (ergo, would-be buyers) think they are the brand or at least control it, but the brand is a 148 year old club in a mid-sized northern town, supported by largely blue collar fans local to the area - aside from the age, that will remain the same irrespective of who owns it in 98% of cases.

Don't get me wrong, many of us want honesty or (maybe more likely) transparency, but it comes with risks to the club and although we may feel a little better about the flow of information, it's just more to pick fault at and there are no real benefits.

[ragingpup]

They have no obligations at all. People can (and often will) decide if they should, if it's correct, but they have no obligations. Customers will rationalise going/not going, spending/not spending based on results, who the manager is, who is playing regularly, what division we're in, and even (apparently) if payment methods are restricted to cash. There is no way to run any football club which leaves all fans happy, and most decisions will irk at least a good number, no matter what they do. For reasons like these, it's barely worth the effort to communicate knowing it leads to further criticism whatever is said. There is also a good amount they need to keep in-house. If we're utterly broke, that's leverage for others to buy our players cheaply, and if we broadcast that we've strengthened our finances, we're suddenly paying more for players. We'd be playing a zero sum game alone.

The brand is largely meaningless too. I don't think of TS as being part of the brand, nor anything other than the current name on the deeds. Many owners (ergo, would-be buyers) think they are the brand or at least control it, but the brand is a 148 year old club in a mid-sized northern town, supported by largely blue collar fans local to the area - aside from the age, that will remain the same irrespective of who owns it in 98% of cases.

Don't get me wrong, many of us want honesty or (maybe more likely) transparency, but it comes with risks to the club and although we may feel a little better about the flow of information, it's just more to pick fault at and there are no real benefits.

Great post

[Timbertop]

But if you?re an entertainment business you shouldn?t operate like a secret society.

[mellowmiller]

They have no obligations at all. People can (and often will) decide if they should, if it's correct, but they have no obligations. Customers will rationalise going/not going, spending/not spending based on results, who the manager is, who is playing regularly, what division we're in, and even (apparently) if payment methods are restricted to cash. There is no way to run any football club which leaves all fans happy, and most decisions will irk at least a good number, no matter what they do. For reasons like these, it's barely worth the effort to communicate knowing it leads to further criticism whatever is said. There is also a good amount they need to keep in-house. If we're utterly broke, that's leverage for others to buy our players cheaply, and if we broadcast that we've strengthened our finances, we're suddenly paying more for players. We'd be playing a zero sum game alone.

The brand is largely meaningless too. I don't think of TS as being part of the brand, nor anything other than the current name on the deeds. Many owners (ergo, would-be buyers) think they are the brand or at least control it, but the brand is a 148 year old club in a mid-sized northern town, supported by largely blue collar fans local to the area - aside from the age, that will remain the same irrespective of who owns it in 98% of cases.

Don't get me wrong, many of us want honesty or (maybe more likely) transparency, but it comes with risks to the club and although we may feel a little better about the flow of information, it's just more to pick fault at and there are no real benefits.

........and yet when the team is doing well you can't keep Tony Stewart out of the media.

[mellowmiller]

Paul Davis has posted that he's done an hour's interview with Paul Douglas. He says there are some interesting stories (we'll see) but apparently there is an embargo until 5pm.
Radio Sheffield next up, Football Heaven tomorrow.

[Townerslovechild]

Really?

Yes,and maybe another midfielder,pretty important if you ask me.

[Wiltsmiller]

They have no obligations at all. People can (and often will) decide if they should, if it's correct, but they have no obligations. Customers will rationalise going/not going, spending/not spending based on results, who the manager is, who is playing regularly, what division we're in, and even (apparently) if payment methods are restricted to cash. There is no way to run any football club which leaves all fans happy, and most decisions will irk at least a good number, no matter what they do. For reasons like these, it's barely worth the effort to communicate knowing it leads to further criticism whatever is said. There is also a good amount they need to keep in-house. If we're utterly broke, that's leverage for others to buy our players cheaply, and if we broadcast that we've strengthened our finances, we're suddenly paying more for players. We'd be playing a zero sum game alone.

The brand is largely meaningless too. I don't think of TS as being part of the brand, nor anything other than the current name on the deeds. Many owners (ergo, would-be buyers) think they are the brand or at least control it, but the brand is a 148 year old club in a mid-sized northern town, supported by largely blue collar fans local to the area - aside from the age, that will remain the same irrespective of who owns it in 98% of cases.

Don't get me wrong, many of us want honesty or (maybe more likely) transparency, but it comes with risks to the club and although we may feel a little better about the flow of information, it's just more to pick fault at and there are no real benefits.

Absolutely right.

[mellowmiller]

Conflicting messages on social media but it may be that the Paul Douglas interview with Radio Sheffield is on at 6pm this evening.

[MillerBill]

Just listened to the interview with RobStaton,I am absolutely disgusted with this bumbling idiot Douglas.He should be in a lie detector chair.Staton asked him questions that needed answers but the Chairman's puppet answered none.This club is collapsing with these clueless idiots.I like many many more will not renew my season ticket if Tony Stewart is still in charge.I just feel like throwing up and TS is taking us all for mugs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This could have been a platform to give the fans enthusiasm.IT'S DONE THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!