Jimmy1876

I don't know, never spoken to the man. Don't think it would be easy to get people out though, anyone might want to chance staying and getting game time before realising they won't and deciding its fair to go out on loan. In fact didn't McGlynn say as much about Paddy Martin? Not sure what relevance this really has though to what I was saying which is that simply saying he was able to bring in 17 players and they should therefore be his number 1 team ignores a lot of context. If your point is about him trying to keep a good feeling around the camp by not kicking people out then I will say I don't see the issue with that. Last season this club was rotting to the core, you could sense the absolute disdain and defeat on the park from a mile away, no one is going to perform well in that mindset. If McGlynn wanted to prioritise a change of mindset that has inevitably contributed to the improvement in players like Nesbit, Morrison, McCann and even McKay I think that's reasonable. It means it was not as crucial to then replace every single player but could make an attempt to use what he had, again given the budget restraints he had.

You say this a lot without any context and as if he had free reign on anyone for those 17 players. He had 14 players signed taking a large part of the budget. He had to make do with the remaining budget to replace as many of those 14 as possible while improving them. Bringing in 17 new players on less money than the 14 already signed is a BIG ask. To get better players you have to spend more for fewer players. Then you have to try and get your players out on loan, this is hard both to convince the player to go and also to find a club to take them, but he did it at least by January. He then made good use of the loan markets while improving the remaining players from our worst season. So your argument that he got 17 players as if he was backed to just buy whoever he wanted and its therefore his ideal team is just not considering the restraints that were there to bring those in. Despite that this team is an improvement and we are starting from that improved baseline now. If he can do the same again, stepping up our baseline then we should be improving further. A lot to criticise with McGlynn but don't think this is one of them. More to do with the use of those players, shifting teams, tactics and what exactly happened the last quarter.

Isn't it embarrassing when you try to patronise someone about a definition without using it correctly? To compare two clubs relatively to each other you have to compare overall resource and potential to impact. So responding with info about fan base, size of town, funding and achievements to assess overall impact is perfectly reasonable. That's exactly what was done from a Falkirk perspective. Again I really cringe at the billy big baws attitude at times but the irony of accusing a club of that attitude and then in the same breath discussing relative impact/performance. That is exactly why Falkirk fans are so mad. Because the resources, size and achievement of the club, RELATIVE to "smaller" clubs that perform better, means we should be doing better and the club are failing at every attempt for the last several years.

Normally might agree with you on this kind of thing but when someone comes in trying to say Falkirk has given nothing to Scottish football and Peterhead have given way more think its completely fair to then argue Falkirks achievements versus Peterheads and as a result what kind of achievements we might have in the future.

When I see other fans come on here complaining about the Billy Big baws attitude we have I always think they are talking rubbish.... then something like that appears and realise it's fair criticism.

I vaguely remember this being said on here as a potential reason but don't remember seeing it directly from McGlynn or anyone at the club but it's possible this was a reason

That is what was reported many times by the board so just going by that. What was said was 60% of the playing budget was used on the players that were already signed up. You are right he brought in many but several of those 18 were on loan deals and several didn't come in until January after sending out other players on loan. Players that came in during summer were McGinn, Oliver, Burrel, Lawal, Henderson, Donaldson, Yeats, Mackie, PJ Morrison (am I missing anyone?). The others were loans which are then offset by sending other players out on loan meaning potentially getting to a net zero cost. So I reckon that could work out as the 60% to 40% as was stated. Especially if reports that our previous players were quite overpaid are true. Anyway tbh the point still stands: he had to do A LOT of work to get those 18 players in (loan or not) with a limited budget because of what we did have contracted. We are now starting from a position where the players we have are of a significantly higher standard than last year so the rest of the budget can (and better) be spent on further improvement.

I actually think there is a plan B and C, but he doesn't train it so when he suddenly tries to change formation it just goes down like a tonne of bricks because none of the players know what they are supposed to be doing. Then he can say his initial formation was better

I also agree with a lot of this, I'm a bit more hopeful that this won't be the case though. I think the board are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Getting rid of him has the risk of continuing the cycle, getting another manager who fails and then uses the same excuses of "its not my squad." Having him stay has the risk of what you have said, trying to restructure mid season which is even more difficult... Either way it is bad. I am more inclined to try what we have not done truly for a good ten years now... stick with the manager and give more time but that could prove to be the wrong plan as well.

I'm sure he will but this is exactly what I mean. If he is staying, being given a second year, being given (likely) the largest budget and backing from the board then even Brad McKay cannot be used as an excuse by that point. Saying that while Brad had a nightmare the last few weeks, I'd still say even he is improved on last season.... not that it took much

No doubt the season ended in the worst way possible but the more I think about it the less I think we need to start from scratch. Last season 60% of the budget was taken up by our literal worst ever squad in Falkirk history. With 40% of the budget McGlynn was able to get a team on the park that finished second. This summer he has more than 40% to play with and the ones that are signed are no where near the likes of what we had to start with last season. Even those that were here I would argue are improved. We are starting from a better baseline and he has more to play with. Saying that, absolutely NO EXCUSES this coming season.

Wouldn't be opposed to seeing McGinn move to a more managerial apprenticeship type position, assistant coach or something. Think he has a good head on him and will be good as a future manager after a bit of experience and think his time as a player is approaching its end

Well, have calmed since yesterday but that was a kick in the teeth to end the season. What a fall off a cliff McGlynn has had (and the team - some of the fault is in individually poor performances from players who were flying earlier in the season). In anger I think sack them all. Logically, I really don't know what the answer is. The options are keep him: hope he recruits better this summer and hope we start well enough to win title even if performance does fall off at the end as per McGlynns apparent reputation. If we don't start well though we have ruined a potential opportunity for better recruitment availability over summer for a new manager and have recruited a full McGlynn team who a new manager will have to bed in and use the same excuses of "not my team, not my plan". Attendances at matches would drop off and we lose money, not to forget a potential drop off in season ticket money and FSS membership drop which at the moment is actually a pretty large contribution. Alternatively, we sack mcglynn and hire someone else. We continue on the merry-go-round of management, with the main spine of a team that does not belong to them. We start with the standard, a "give them time to settle" rhetoric, potentially seeing an initial new manager jump with a good start but does that begin to fall off? Who do we recruit? Is there someone that much better that is likely to join? Do we have money to get rid of McGlynn? Is it more or less risky than sticking? There is a lot to be said for stability and I think its something we have all been waiting for and wanting... but does that stability come with McGlynn? I just don't know. A lot of questions to be answered, don't envy the board on this one at all.

This will be even more for ICT fans who will have far more expensive travel with some potentially having to stay the night.

That's absolutely outrageous, I get it's a great payday for the club but what a shame now for the people who won't be able to make it. Say a family of 4, 2 adults and 2 kids getting the train from falkirk and likely will need to get some food. Tickets would be £112 for North stand and £82 for West. Train tickets from Falkirk to Glasgow for 4 on that date if bought today total £47. Plus food for a family of 4, say £50 roughly. That's £180 for a family of 4 for one day West stand or £210 for North.