The New Raith Rovers Thread

[Broken Algorithms]

31 minutes ago, CALDERON said:

I thought the defence were fantastic second half yesterday, in part due to the tireless work up front forcing Dumbarton to be direct which was dealt with very well. Benedictus was superb winning everything in the air, and I thought he looked off it in the first half so fair play. 

That was the type of performance I thought we were going to see much more of when McGlynn came in. Not spectacular at all, but disciplined, organised and with a very high work rate. 

The young guys Smith and Bowie are still raw, but unlike a lot of previous young players, certainly look capable at this level and will have parts to play this season. 

Early days, (it can't be ignored that Dumbarton are a poor side) but enough to look forward to next week with a wee bit of enthusiasm at least. 

 

Its obviously far too early to tell, but Bowie genuinely looks like he'll be an incredible prospect. His frame is ridiculous for someone who is only 16, and he seems really confident at the moment. Even in terms of his general play, he did superb in the first half yesterday to out-muscle two Dumbarton players, before turning with the ball and spraying a 25 yard pass over into space for Anderson (who was unfortunately offside) . He's shown against Peterhead he's happy to shoot from distance and on another day he might have seen the shot in the first half beat the keeper. 

Jack Smith also did really well as you say.  It's good to see McGlynn send a clear message that these lads aren't there to make up the numbers, and that alone should be a confidence boost for them. Once Smith gets a goal, I think we'll see him relax a bit and improve. 

[HoBNob]

13 hours ago, Enigma said:

The more goals Nisbet scorers the more money we should be getting. 

That's not how it works. 

[Stellaboz]

Tribunal

[emoji38]

[Ebanda's Handyman Services]

9 hours ago, Grant228 said:

That's not how it works. 

How does it work? 

I'd have thought that the eventual compensation would be decided on the calibre of the player that we've lost. If Nissy is banging them in and standing out in the league above then surely that would strengthen our case? 

[JAR]

If the pars can't pay then let's have him back.

[Sweaty Morph]

No fee agreed between the clubs and matter expected to be resolved by tribunal, according to the report on the official site.

[CallumPar]

How does it work? 
I'd have thought that the eventual compensation would be decided on the calibre of the player that we've lost. If Nissy is banging them in and standing out in the league above then surely that would strengthen our case? 

No. It’s not a transfer fee, based on the perceived value of the player.

It’s a development contribution you’re due. Nisbet activated a clause that terminated his contract. If he had been a year older, you’d have been due nothing. It’s the equivalent of a 22 year old running his contract down and refusing to sign a new one.

The tribunal is supposed to decide a fair compensation amount, for the training/development during his time at your club. Level of football is taken into account and the player’s past. The fact he had top flight and championship experience before and dropped down to the third tier at the age of 21 will be taken into account. As will the number of games he played etc.

The SPFL guidelines only go up to the age of 19, but suggest a year in the lower leagues for a 19 year old would be roughly £9k. Due to his performances with Raith, I’d imagine this may be higher than that, but not anywhere near the £30k Raith wanted.

[HoBNob]

2 hours ago, Ebanda's Handyman Services said:

How does it work? 

I'd have thought that the eventual compensation would be decided on the calibre of the player that we've lost. If Nissy is banging them in and standing out in the league above then surely that would strengthen our case? 

Nope. 

There's not a chance you're going to get the money you wanted, otherwise we would've paid it, like we did with Murray, Turner, Edwards and McGill. Will turn out to be quite the blunder by your board I'd imagine, in this instance you don't get a sell on fee either. 

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

I was impressed with the lad Bowie on Saturday. He probably should've scored in the first half but that aside I thought he done well and caused our defence a lot of problems. It's hard to believe he's only 16.

How long do you have him tied down for?

[Rovers1992/1993]

I was impressed with the lad Bowie on Saturday. He probably should've scored in the first half but that aside I thought he done well and caused our defence a lot of problems. It's hard to believe he's only 16.

How long do you have him tied down for?

2021 I’m sure.

[R.R.FC]

2 minutes ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

I was impressed with the lad Bowie on Saturday. He probably should've scored in the first half but that aside I thought he done well and caused our defence a lot of problems. It's hard to believe he's only 16.

How long do you have him tied down for?

Yeah it’s very early days but he looks an exciting prospect. Some size for 16 which is obviously helping his transition into first team football.

He recently signed a new contract to tie him down till 2022, so we might finally make some decent money from one of our youngsters if he continues to develop as we hope.

[CALDERON]

58 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

Nope. 

There's not a chance you're going to get the money you wanted, otherwise we would've paid it, like we did with Murray, Turner, Edwards and McGill. Will turn out to be quite the blunder by your board I'd imagine, in this instance you don't get a sell on fee either. 

Not really a blunder, he wouldn't have signed an extension without the clause regarding promotion. Worth the gamble, just one of those things. 

[Hank Scorpio]

Buzzing.

[renton]

6 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Buzzing.

Surely won't see him for a couple of weeks yet? Still though, be properly good to have him back. I think Bowie is a great prospect, and Allan will be useful (allowing for his howler on Saturday, was he injured at half time or was McGlynn just being uncharacteristically ruthless?) but Vaughan's hopefully going to be the guy who makes it all work.

Anyone got any idea why Mendy wasn't even on the bench on Saturday?

[CALDERON]

11 minutes ago, renton said:

Surely won't see him for a couple of weeks yet? Still though, be properly good to have him back. I think Bowie is a great prospect, and Allan will be useful (allowing for his howler on Saturday, was he injured at half time or was McGlynn just being uncharacteristically ruthless?) but Vaughan's hopefully going to be the guy who makes it all work.

Anyone got any idea why Mendy wasn't even on the bench on Saturday?

Paul Smiths interview implies the change was tactical, which is quite interesting. 

[Ebanda's Handyman Services]

Mendy was down watching the Live the Dream game yesterday. 

Certainly didn't appear to be carrying an injury but it may be something underlying. 

[WSDR 88]

I actually thought we missed Allan a lot the 2nd half, nothing was sticking up top like the first half. But also you can see why McGlynn opted for Smith to run in behind.

MacDonald was excellent again down the left.

[CALDERON]

9 minutes ago, WSDR 88 said:

I actually thought we missed Allan a lot the 2nd half, nothing was sticking up top like the first half. But also you can see why McGlynn opted for Smith to run in behind.

MacDonald was excellent again down the left.

I actually thought the opposite, I preferred the set up in the second half as Smith and Bowie were forcing Dumbarton to play it long or knock it out of play. It wasn't in any way pretty, but forced much more of the play in Dumbartons half. Vaughan would have had an absolute field day. 

[Stevo Fife]

3 hours ago, renton said:

Anyone got any idea why Mendy wasn't even on the bench on Saturday?

Because he's pish? 

[renton]

17 minutes ago, WSDR 88 said:

I actually thought we missed Allan a lot the 2nd half, nothing was sticking up top like the first half. But also you can see why McGlynn opted for Smith to run in behind.

MacDonald was excellent again down the left.

 

6 minutes ago, CALDERON said:

I actually thought the opposite, I preferred the set up in the second half as Smith and Bowie were forcing Dumbarton to play it long or knock it out of play. It wasn't in any way pretty, but forced much more of the play in Dumbartons half. Vaughan would have had an absolute field day. 

I'm kind of in between these. I think the additional runner in behind was probably a better setup, at the same time Smith's impact faded a bit quickly, he's young, not a lot of game time etc. Same with Bowie who looked leggy by the end. We looked really quite light up top the whole game. 

McDonald did well defensively, and got some good runs down the space on the left, particularly in the second half but thought his crossing was a bit too floaty and too close to the keeper a lot of the time.