+1

TBF, I have said similar for a while now. Mind the OTT carry on when it was suggested we buy Luke Burgess? My point was basically if his surname was not Burgess he would not be considered anything special at all.

Which he isn't.

For the record I dont hate Steve Mac, I dont know the man.

Should have gone two years ago imo but so glad he's gone he's England's problem now.

I am relieved he`s gone, hopefully we can kick on and finish the season and then start afresh next season with a new coach.

Whilst I have great respect for SM he was not the man for Bradford, the Board should take a fair amount of the blame for the position we still find ourselves in at the moment.

ONWARDS AND UPWARDS

I'm not sure if there is that much blind hatred towards McNamara, with maybe a notable exception or two.

I do think people on this forum are less inclined to give McNamara credit for what he has done because of how often excuses were wheeled out for him when it came to discussing the things he hadn't.

Personally I felt the stage had been reached a long time ago where no-one was going to budge on their feelings toward him so I stopped getting involved in going round in circles.

The Academy going part time was in fact Gareth Davies doing at the end of 2003 a decision Noble was totally against.

Interesting point. That being the case, was a reason given? I presume it was cost, given that at the time the accounts were showing losses of over £600k p.a?

If that be so, we surely get back once again to the root problem - the club was spending way beyond its means? This suggests the cost reduction programme kicked in earlier than we assumed? I'd always assumed Davies had a fall-out with the CC, Nobby et al because it was he who had to tell them they had to cut costs very dramatically or face hitting the financial wall in the medium term (speculation - I do not know that). I guess its easy to say that it was all very well Nobby being totally against it, but someone had to plug the billowing well of costs?

Can a link be shown here? Academy goes part-time from 2004, supply of quality players generated by the Academy reduces alarmingly 2006 onwards, Academy pipeline has to be rebuilt on affordable basis from then, producing first real results 2009-2010...?

I would venture that's pretty accurate Adey.

However I still find it baffling that despite, necessarily, reducing the excessive overheads and costs, the club significantly neglected to increase revenue streams at the same time. Simple economics. The simple fact is, staff were still in place to do so, whether they were ones of quality remains the key issue. It's all too easy to play wounded soldier and simply plunge costs and blame Iestyn Harris, Nobby or Caisley. And tiresome. That the club failed to address the need to increase income in different ways (and I don't mean merely acknowledging it, any Luddite can do that) and actively do so, is a key element that some choose to pass by.

Its interesting that those of us on here who have engaged with more senior non-playing/coaching staff at the club have tended, in the main, not to have had much contact with those charged specifically with marketing and revenue generation. I certainly have not.

Its also interesting that I have seen some others who profess to have some first-hand knowledge of the situation, usually it has to be said in the occasional pools of lucidity on the T&A Rantaforum, say precisely what you have said. And be quite critical. And some of those comments came across (to me, at least) as being more than just people firing off.

It seems to me that, whereas in the early days you got the impression the club was driven primarily by marketing, it is now driven almost entirely by the FD saying what the club can and cannot spend money on. And, speaking as an accountant myself, in my opinion the last thing you want is to have a business, especially one where marketing is so important, in the hands of just the accountants. You need a balance. In the years up to 2006 we probably saw too little influence of the accountants; the consequences of that is we now see almost certainly (and, sadly, unavoidably) too much.

OK, generating increased revenue is of course not the easiest of objectives, and the more you have cut costs the harder it is to then provide the resources to get out and do that. But I suspect you make a fair point. And yes one that has not necessarily enjoyed the profile in debates as it should have.

We have a recently-appointed Marketing Director. It is to be hoped that we see some of your concerns - indeed, all our concerns - addressed as a result?

But the new marketing guy has been in place since pre-season and if anything the marketing this year has got worse imo.

You're bang on there. Of course, display marketing is costly but there's so much that can be done without it costing too much.

Schools are a great place to start with a regular rota of player/mascot visits. Do the club have an educational programme that they can take to schools tied into fitness/ healthy eating? Get the kids free entry to the games and then make sure there's more happening for them inside.

The pre-match entertainment desperately needs updating. Bullman's parade needs to be brought back. Why don't the club use it as an opportunity to let younger supporters take part (a bit like being a mascot?)

It might be recycling a few old ideas but it seems that the simple things have slipped over the last few years.

You're right, of course, hatred perhaps, wasn't the right word. Going round in circles is about right too, It's also even more pointless now, given the turn of events. Lets hope for a change in fortunes, then we can all argue about whether it's due to Macca leaving!

Actually I'd be pretty happy with that.

That is a great idea and if the child is going to be in the parade with Bullman, mum and dad are going to come to watch.