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.

That's discriminating against single parents.

not at all.

single parents are even better as mum can come with her new partner to watch the kid, and dad can come with his new partner to watch the kid too, so we get 4 adults through door for letting one kid take part in parade. It should be a criteria we check when kids ask to take part.

Precisely.

One thing is also abundantly clear from the study of any high quality enterprise, that without doing something different you will remain stagnant at best. Impactful, quality marketing doesn't have a cost on the simple premise of the revenues it generates, short and long term. Marketing is only ever expensive when it fails. People assume it has an initial cost. Does it? When an organisation has a PR Manager in place, he/she is already salaried. It is said persons job to generate information and deliver it to the masses no matter how trivial it may be. A smart PR person creates daily stories about every element of the organisation, it's services, interacts with it's customer base and critically, takes that consumer on a journey, effectively the ongoing story of the brand - and indeed that they are a key part of that. But that relies on a high quality individual being in place. Not a desk attender. Nike, Apple, Virgin etc didn't achieve greatness by shrinking, thinking small or plodding along. Their initial marketing strategy was around being smart, different and causing a stir.

However, what tends to happen is poor marketing strategies are implemented, everyone points the finger at the concept being ineffective and the word is never mentioned again. The very same people who if they were to split up from a boyfriend or girlfriend wouldnt bat an eyelid and would move on to the next. Because something doesn't work once, doesn't mean it's ineffective, it was just badly delivered.

The club needs PR and marketing people to do things differently, in a resourceful, fun, engaging way, daily about every element of the organisation. Tescos don't just sell Mars Bars. The Bulls of "old" were smart because they didn't rely on one core product (the game). Some may flag wave about the subsequent financial losses, this wasn't the result of marketing (since that generates revenue done correctly) but instead the excessive costs exiting the business. So the marketing strategy was labelled as a frivolous expense. Genius.

The club is very quick to invest in it's junior talent. Rightly. How about it invests in the fans of today and tomorrow. Now wouldn't that be revolutionary.

Why not let everyone in for a tenner on Sunday Stuart?

Give the stay away supporters the chance to come back and see the change.

You won't get change from a tenner.

same point applies. can still be a gay single parent and have a new partner