The New Raith Rovers Thread

[Michael W]

5 minutes ago, CALDERON said:

It may be that the budget for AN other is different to that proposed to Mcglynn? I can't help but wonder if the board were put off by the amount spent last season.

I've heard from a number of different sources what McGlynn was supposedly offered in terms of budget. I'll just say this: if true, no wonder he left. 

If he hasn't been lowballed and that's all we can offer, any half-decent candidate will laugh at us and we'll be lucky not to be relegated. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Michael W

[Rover1990]

2 minutes ago, Michael W said:

I've heard from a number of different sources what McGlynn was supposedly offered in terms of budget. I'll just say this: if true, no wonder he left. 

And if he hasn't been lowballed and that's all can offer, any half-decent candidate will laugh at us and we'll be lucky not ti he relegated. 

What sort of offer was made? 

[SirJimmyofNic]

6 minutes ago, Michael W said:

I've heard from a number of different sources what McGlynn was supposedly offered in terms of budget. I'll just say this: if true, no wonder he left. 

And if he hasn't been lowballed and that's all can offer, any half-decent candidate will laugh at us and we'll be lucky not ti he relegated. 

Heres hoping he was lowballed, DG is their problem not the supporters or indeed the teams

Edited May 4, 2022 by SirJimmyofNic

[RRFC_Liam]

If it was budget reason why McGlynn left, and the board cut it he is partly to blame is he not? Because what I’ve told is that most of the budget could be going towards paying DG off if that’s true then the board is shambles it should be coming out of there own money and not the clubs…… so sim probably lied when he said we were better financially but can’t give the gaffer a decent enough budget 

[CALDERON]

9 minutes ago, Michael W said:

I've heard from a number of different sources what McGlynn was supposedly offered in terms of budget. I'll just say this: if true, no wonder he left. 

If he hasn't been lowballed and that's all we can offer, any half-decent candidate will laugh at us and we'll be lucky not to be relegated. 

I think Mcglynn has to carry the can partly for that.  Even if you ignore the obvious bad signing, there was 2 year deal to Keatings, 3 year deal to Ross (plus development fee that put every other interested party off) and 2 year deal to Gullan.  With not a huge amount to show for it.  Not to mention the catastrophic form and loss of prize money from dropping a couple of places, as well as any lost gate revenue from you know what.

I'm not saying the board are at all in the right, but Mcglynn spent a fair chunk of cash for a side that finished mid table.

I'm a tiny bit dissapointed in him actually, say what you want but the club and board were loyal to him last year.  I can't think of many managers who would have overseen a run like that and not find a P45 on their desk.

Of course it also may be that he felt he took us as far as he could.

Edited May 4, 2022 by CALDERON

[Michael W]

1 minute ago, Rover1990 said:

What sort of offer was made? 

He was offered enough funds for 3 or 4 players. Note: players, not new signings; these funds were ro.be used on keeping our out of contract players (if any) and any new signings. 

We have 6 out of contract. So, for each player retained, we would lose a possible new singing. Ultimately the squad would be 2 or 3 permanent players lighter than what we've just finished the season with. It was also suggested there would be no budget for loans. 

Of course, that could all be bollocks. However I am suspecting that it is more likely true than false. 

[SirJimmyofNic]

2 minutes ago, Michael W said:

He was offered enough funds for 3 or 4 players. Note: players, not new signings; these funds were ro.be used on keeping our out of contract players (if any) and any new signings. 

We have 6 out of contract. So, for each player retained, we would lose a possible new singing. Ultimately the squad would be 2 or 3 permanent players lighter than what we've just finished the season with. It was also suggested there would be no budget for loans. 

Of course, that could all be bollocks. However I am suspecting that it is more likely true than false. 

Well f**k em, I for one wont be contributing anymore to fund their f**k up

[RRFC_Liam]

1 minute ago, Michael W said:

He was offered enough funds for 3 or 4 players. Note: players, not new signings; these funds were ro.be used on keeping our out of contract players (if any) and any new signings. 

We have 6 out of contract. So, for each player retained, we would lose a possible new singing. Ultimately the squad would be 2 or 3 permanent players lighter than what we've just finished the season with. It was also suggested there would be no budget for loans. 

Of course, that could all be bollocks. However I am suspecting that it is more likely true than false. 

I got told the exact same thing Michael it wasn’t the contract offer as people think, he was offered a 2 year deal and a similar wage as at Falkirk, it was budgeted reasons, he wanted a bigger squad to try cope with injuries but as you said we sign 3/4 players max 

[Michael W]

3 minutes ago, CALDERON said:

I think Mcglynn has to carry the can partly for that.  Even if you ignore the obvious bad signing, there was 2 year deal to Keatings, 3 year deal to Ross (plus development fee that put every other interested party off) and 2 year deal to Gullan.  With not a huge amount to show for it.  Not to mention the catastrophic form and loss of prize money from dropping a couple of places, as well as any lost gate revenue from you know what.

I'm not saying the board are at all in the right, but Mcglynn spent a fair chunk of cash for a side that finished mid table.

I'm a tiny bit dissapointed in him actually, say what you want but the club and board were loyal to him last year.  I can't think of many managers who would have overseen a run like that and not find a P45 on their desk.

Of course it also may be that he felt he took us as far as he could.

I agree. Obviously we had good income last year (Aberdeen at home in the cup, 2 x Celtic at Parkhead and selling Tait for £100k), but we have dropped a fair bit of prize money with guff form and did also spend on signings. 

Goodwillie has cost us a good £200k and James Keatings has cost a lot for nothing as well, subject to whatever we managed to settle with him. These players would not have signed for the club if McGlynn hadn't suggested them and, quite frankly, the blame lies mainly with McGlynn. 

However...our esteemed shareholder with the controling interest stated in his interview/rant with Alan Temple that the club was benefitting from increased commercial revenues and that supporter worries the David Goodwillie saga will adversely affect the club's finances and next season's playing budget were "fake news". What I've heard is in direct contradiction of that unless they are prepared to provide more backing to another candidate. But for now, it is a real concern. 

[RRFC_Liam]

7 minutes ago, SirJimmyofNic said:

Well f**k em, I for one wont be contributing anymore to fund their f**k up

Well it looks like Bene is off to Falkirk with John, rumour is so is Brad Spencer, Musonda could be going back down south, Tumilty supposedly off to St Mirren, 1 senior striker at the club, 4 midfielders 2 youngsters, 1 CB with McKay possibly leaving No RB 2 LBs 1 youngster……. We need at least 3 CBs, Right Back, 2 strikers, another Central Midfielder all on this rumoured tight budget  

[pub car king]

I am surprised Spencer would go to Falkirk but perhaps he feels he owes/trusts McGlynn. 

[Hank Scorpio]

22 minutes ago, RRFC_Liam said:

If it was budget reason why McGlynn left, and the board cut it he is partly to blame is he not? Because what I’ve told is that most of the budget could be going towards paying DG off if that’s true then the board is shambles it should be coming out of there own money and not the clubs…… so sim probably lied when he said we were better financially but can’t give the gaffer a decent enough budget 

Whoever is telling you things is wrong about literally everything. I’d stop listening to them if I were you. 

[ATLIS]

3 hours ago, Been going too long said:

Not keen mate tbh, had a sheltered start to his managerial career given the resources they have compared to the rest of league 2

Apparently he was close to getting the Livi job at the time Kenny Miller did. He was also the second choice if Gary Holt said no to us at the time too. He'd be a very good appointment for Raith IMO but he's one I can see that likes to job hop when he gets the chance to move upwards

[Starkiplier]

Some of the nonsense that gets posted on here is unbelievable. The only people who will know what John McGlynn was offered in terms of budget for next season are John McGlynn, and members of the board.

“I’ve heard from multiple sources” - one person has made something up and it’s been shared and repeated by others.

We’ve got enough reasons to be annoyed with the club without inventing new ones ourselves. Let’s wait and see who we appoint as manager and how the summer recruitment goes before the usual bed wetting begins.

[Ro Sham Bo]

I suppose we can only hope that the board were a bit ticked off at the return we got from the backing they gave McGlynn last season, which seems to have been very good to be fair to them, and they specifically didn't trust him with any decent amount of funds this year. 

If that's not the case and we are telling any prospective manager that they've got the existing squad plus 3 or 4 additions, we'll be stuck with a Gus MacPherson type who is just happy to get back into the game.

 

[Ro Sham Bo]

20 minutes ago, SirJimmyofNic said:

Well f**k em, I for one wont be contributing anymore to fund their f**k up

It's a bit of a catch 22, because a reduced budget may be partly because of the drop off in the player fund contributions. 

It's up to the club to rebuild that bridge though.

[Michael W]

14 minutes ago, SirJimmyofNic said:

Well f**k em, I for one wont be contributing anymore to fund their f**k up

Going back to that infamous John Sim rant, it's clear that there's a self-fulfilling prophecy at play. "There are 41 other teams to support" is the sort of thing Gerald Ratner might have come out with were he in charge of a Scottish football team. Football fans are very loyal, but pissing off even a minority of them at our level can carry huge consequences. We seem to be well in the business of pissing off out support the last few months as well. 

The Supporter's fund is seemingly £2k a month down on where it was. That's probably worth a squad player or a loaned from a higher league for some of the season.  

It also seems attendances are down. We have been garbage the second half of the season, but are season ticket sales likely to be at risk? Sales were strong last year and with everything that's gone on I suspect they will also be down. Again, even a 10% drop can have a significant impact. 

Losing a popular manager under borderline comical circumstances has also pissed people off. I am comfortable that we are moving on from McGlynn, but the lack of planning from the club has been a disgrace. 

[vikingTON]

3 minutes ago, Ro Sham Bo said:

 we'll be stuck with a Gus MacPherson type who is just happy to get back into the game.

 

Best thing you can possibly read in another team's thread on the Championship forum. 

[pub car king]

Thing is as well as all the players we need to replace any new managers will look at the existing squad.  The likes of say zanatta for example might not be their cup of tea and they want to replace him as well so this us going to cost the board club either transfer fees or paying wages for a player that won't play. 

[Paco]

It's a bit of a catch 22, because a reduced budget may be partly because of the drop off in the player fund contributions. 
It's up to the club to rebuild that bridge though.

Yep. Thus far the club have done literally nothing to bring people back.

You’d expect a charm offensive over the summer - the players fund after all is essentially a charity donation from the club’s most loyal supporters - but do we really think that’ll happen?