Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
One of the scary realisations is that I truly don’t believe SISU are bothered about the idea of relegation to League One. Not now. Of course, there was a time when they’d have considered it abhorrent, but I think they are well past that stage now. Since they’ve been involved with the club, the average gate has been reducing season-by-season, from over 18K to circa. 14K this term, and still dropping. Outside of the Premier League, there’s little broadcast revenue and their income is derived from two places, match-day receipt and the sale of players. I think they would consider that gates won’t drop too far below were they currently are, and that were we to perform well in League One, then we might actually see an improving gate in the same way Charlton and the two Sheffield clubs have a season-long average of 17 to 20K gates, and even Huddersfield Town are close to 13,500. Preston’s 12.4K average is almost exactly what they were getting in the Championship.
Our wage bill has dropped below the £7m annual wage level – placing in already within the bottom three in this division - and with further departures of Cranie, Eastwood and Clingon atop Jutkewitz; we shall be exactly in-line with where we need to be as a League One club.
As such, I believe SISU are treading water; and have been since last summer. They realise the whole gamble in CCFC has proven a massive mistake, and have already cashed in on next year’s season tick sales, remortgaged Ryton and sold Prozone. They now are of the mind-set, I believe, that even in the face of relegation, their financial exposure can’t get any worse. In fact it could get better – with senior players leaving and a glut of players from a well-performing academy forming the nucleus of a new, youthful team. Of course, they’ll sell one or two of these nuggets to balance the books every season, but nevertheless, that’s the plan. If an investor, or consortium comes along, then great – but they’re planning for the worst without such and sticking hard to that plan.
In amongst all this sits Andy Thorn. He inherited a position last year that he did reasonably well with, and as such gave SISU a great card to play. Appoint Thorn – a man hopelessly unqualified for the role – and they look like they’ve bent their knee to the wishes of the fans. Whereas in practise, they like him because he’s dirt cheap. If he performs, it looks like a genius appointment. If his ineptness leads to failure, then he’ll catch much of the flack. Win-win. He’s also liable to be so gratified by the opportunity he’s been given, bearing in mind he took the role driving a Vauxhall Omega, that he’ll be more accommodating of their selling of players and meddling than a more vocal and experienced manager like Davies would be.
As such, what’s Thorn? Well, the sad sight of a man with great ideas and aspirations, but without the experience, or raw materials at his disposal to deliver. Given his inexperience, he needs more assets at his disposal than his more experienced peers; whereas in practise he has less. Not. A. Chance.
Yes, he appears stilted and without reason in post-match analysis. Yes, he makes strange substitutions, often late in games, or at strange times in games. Yes, upon occasion his formation can be over-run by teams who can use their benches better.
But if he still had the likes of King, Gunnarsson, Westwood and Turner still in a squad, conditioned properly by a proper fitness team; many of his failings would be unseen. Other managers make mistakes – let’s be clear – but Thorn doesn’t have the quality he needs for his better players to cover his arse.
Accordingly, I see him as being hung out to dry. That’s why I – like many – offer our support for what he’s trying to do, if not necessarily every element of its execution. No-one pretends he’s a great manager, or even a good manager, because he’s not. He’s not even a manager. He’s just a good quality scout, thrown in to a position well beyond his skills, and struggling in the face of adversity; in a landscape prepared by owners who won’t give him, or us, any candid explanation of their long term plan
Our wage bill has dropped below the £7m annual wage level – placing in already within the bottom three in this division - and with further departures of Cranie, Eastwood and Clingon atop Jutkewitz; we shall be exactly in-line with where we need to be as a League One club.
As such, I believe SISU are treading water; and have been since last summer. They realise the whole gamble in CCFC has proven a massive mistake, and have already cashed in on next year’s season tick sales, remortgaged Ryton and sold Prozone. They now are of the mind-set, I believe, that even in the face of relegation, their financial exposure can’t get any worse. In fact it could get better – with senior players leaving and a glut of players from a well-performing academy forming the nucleus of a new, youthful team. Of course, they’ll sell one or two of these nuggets to balance the books every season, but nevertheless, that’s the plan. If an investor, or consortium comes along, then great – but they’re planning for the worst without such and sticking hard to that plan.
In amongst all this sits Andy Thorn. He inherited a position last year that he did reasonably well with, and as such gave SISU a great card to play. Appoint Thorn – a man hopelessly unqualified for the role – and they look like they’ve bent their knee to the wishes of the fans. Whereas in practise, they like him because he’s dirt cheap. If he performs, it looks like a genius appointment. If his ineptness leads to failure, then he’ll catch much of the flack. Win-win. He’s also liable to be so gratified by the opportunity he’s been given, bearing in mind he took the role driving a Vauxhall Omega, that he’ll be more accommodating of their selling of players and meddling than a more vocal and experienced manager like Davies would be.
As such, what’s Thorn? Well, the sad sight of a man with great ideas and aspirations, but without the experience, or raw materials at his disposal to deliver. Given his inexperience, he needs more assets at his disposal than his more experienced peers; whereas in practise he has less. Not. A. Chance.
Yes, he appears stilted and without reason in post-match analysis. Yes, he makes strange substitutions, often late in games, or at strange times in games. Yes, upon occasion his formation can be over-run by teams who can use their benches better.
But if he still had the likes of King, Gunnarsson, Westwood and Turner still in a squad, conditioned properly by a proper fitness team; many of his failings would be unseen. Other managers make mistakes – let’s be clear – but Thorn doesn’t have the quality he needs for his better players to cover his arse.
Accordingly, I see him as being hung out to dry. That’s why I – like many – offer our support for what he’s trying to do, if not necessarily every element of its execution. No-one pretends he’s a great manager, or even a good manager, because he’s not. He’s not even a manager. He’s just a good quality scout, thrown in to a position well beyond his skills, and struggling in the face of adversity; in a landscape prepared by owners who won’t give him, or us, any candid explanation of their long term plan
