Jump to content

The Falkirk FC Thread


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bairn Necessities said:

I'll give one specific :-

If you want to sign a player you need to have watched him in person in one competitive match minimum. Even if it's reserve football.

Any exceptions to this have to be agreed with the board with reasons why that player meets our requirements.

The scout was appointed in January. Hartley could have been viewing targets for this season in person from say February or March? 

He might still have signed them after watching them and I agree with you that your can't have non football people saying "Sorry, that Owen Evans is gash" but I wouldn't have sanctioned signings only on Mitchell's say so

The fact is the board appointed both houston and Hartley. Their total failure to add any quality to the great squad / potential that houston inherited speaks volumes. In any business the decisions made around who to choose for senior roles is critical. JACK ROSS was at the club 10  years ago and gave a fantastic speech at the senior bairns event. It was obvious to anyone attending he had the leadership qualities we need. Apparently the board snubbed him in favour of Houston. Spotting and selecting potential leaders  is the Bod role and it is the singularly most important factor that can propel this club forward. It took me about 2 secs to dislike Hartley as a man he doesn't make eye contact and is obviously a bully not a motivator. HOUSTON was a nice guy who could manage people but he had limited desire. There are attributes all Good managers have let's hope the BOD consider outside help this time as in my opinion they keep getting it wrong. If you appoint a useless manager who signs crap players yes you can say its not our role to recruit players, but this doesn't take away from their responsibility to get it right. We are all sick of watching the latest signing turning out to be worse than useless, but at least we had hope from the academy. having no academy is fine but it places real pressure on the alternative player recruitment method. Get it wrong and we're fuc__kd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NewBornBairn said:

Pure speculation - the budget for 2018/19 is gone. The money set aside to bring in another striker was used to pay off Hartley.  There is no money to pay off the backroom staff (and there seems to be a lot of them). As the team can't be changed substantively, the Board will be budgetting for declining crowds in the months ahead so it's likely there will be no extra money in January either.

 

So,  the applicants are being told they can't bring a staff with them, they can't bring players in until at least January and even then it will be one in, one out. 

 

Not good.

And that is a huge risk by the board IMO. If we stick with what we have, we're going down regardless of who the new manager is. Pep would struggle to make a footballer out of guys like Petravicius and TOE.

And relegation would have us in serious financial trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

That’s completely twisting what needed to be done. I could twist it back and say there would be uproar if the BoD said we have told Paul Hartley he can sign players sight unseen provided an agent has told him they fit the bill. By the way, there’s likely to be several of those because as a board, we don’t want to get involved in football matters”.

 

What, everybody happy? No dissent?

Are you really saying on this major project (any major project) this oversight malarky doesn’t apply, and shouldn’t be a key step in the whole thing? If so, how have we ended up with such a horrendous team? How is that possible?

That's a strawman argument Duncan.  Given that we don't know players were signed "sight unseen", given that we don't know RM is an agent for any of those signed and given that you omitted the fact that they were recommended by a club employee, it could be argued that you're the one who's twisting things.

Lets leave that aside for the moment as we're unlikely to agree on it.

My reason for entering this debate is your opinion about "oversight" of football matters. You think more should have been applied. Fair enough. I asked you earlier to provide specific examples and the only one I've seen is:

"Aaaargh! That’s why the board needed a 3rd party to act for them in a project of this scale and breadth".   (Sorry multi-quote doesn't work for me)

Are you advocating the employment of a consultant to advise the board? One who has more football experience than either of the PHs they appointed?

If so, I'm assuming Alex Smith fitted that role. His job title was Football Consultant after all. I'm also guessing that he endorsed PH's appointment and recruitment of RM, though that's obviously speculation on my part. I'm basing the guess on the fact that we didn't hear anything negative from AS about either decision. 

If so, then what else should have been done to give the BOD more oversight? Hire another consultant to oversee AS?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Gary Caldwell have the experience of this situation? I’m not so sure. That doesn’t mean I don’t want him to get it mind you. I think personally we need someone with experience to steady the ship. Hopkin probably my preferred choice if we could get him.

Whoever it is won’t please everyone but we all must get behind him, whoever he may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CC52 FFC said:

Does Gary Caldwell have the experience of this situation? I’m not so sure. That doesn’t mean I don’t want him to get it mind you. I think personally we need someone with experience to steady the ship. Hopkin probably my preferred choice if we could get him.

Whoever it is won’t please everyone but we all must get behind him, whoever he may be.

Hes had experience of relegation battles. Unfortunately there bad experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE FROM CHESTERFIELD CHAIR.MAN. HE TOOK OVER BAD AND MADE IT WORSE.

."We find ourselves in a lowly position after providing him with substantial backing in the transfer market," said director Ashley Carson.

"After making a very poor start to the season, we feel now is the time to appoint a new manager to bring about a change in fortunes."

How can any of you hope he gets the job 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, NewBornBairn said:

Pure speculation - the budget for 2018/19 is gone. The money set aside to bring in another striker was used to pay off Hartley.  There is no money to pay off the backroom staff (and there seems to be a lot of them). As the team can't be changed substantively, the Board will be budgetting for declining crowds in the months ahead so it's likely there will be no extra money in January either.

 

So,  the applicants are being told they can't bring a staff with them, they can't bring players in until at least January and even then it will be one in, one out. 

 

Not good.

 

 

In truth if the one in one out methodology is as positively robust as the negative fall out from the summer clear out then we will be quids-in.......................says the eternal optimist in me!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bainsfordbairn said:

That's a strawman argument Duncan.  Given that we don't know players were signed "sight unseen", given that we don't know RM is an agent for any of those signed and given that you omitted the fact that they were recommended by a club employee, it could be argued that you're the one who's twisting things.

Lets leave that aside for the moment as we're unlikely to agree on it.

My reason for entering this debate is your opinion about "oversight" of football matters. You think more should have been applied. Fair enough. I asked you earlier to provide specific examples and the only one I've seen is:

"Aaaargh! That’s why the board needed a 3rd party to act for them in a project of this scale and breadth".   (Sorry multi-quote doesn't work for me)

Are you advocating the employment of a consultant to advise the board? One who has more football experience than either of the PHs they appointed?

If so, I'm assuming Alex Smith fitted that role. His job title was Football Consultant after all. I'm also guessing that he endorsed PH's appointment and recruitment of RM, though that's obviously speculation on my part. I'm basing the guess on the fact that we didn't hear anything negative from AS about either decision. 

If so, then what else should have been done to give the BOD more oversight? Hire another consultant to oversee AS?

 

Your claiming straw man argument and offering up the straw man argument of presuming what AS’s part in it was. I know and assume you know that AS wasn’t performing any role at all in the project, as he felt his leaving for a new life would have made that completely inappropriate. So, your consultant to check the consultant is completely and utterly bogus.

I will say it again. As part of a project as broad based as this, an independent ad hoc hire answerable to the board verifying he and Hartley were in agreement on signings would be no bad thing. Also, IF signings were being made sight unseen on the recommendation of an agent (you mentioned the player’s agent, I didn’t) then the independent person would be expected to make any concerns clear and known.

I ask again....no twisting. If oversight and assurance such as this has no part to play, then why did we get into this mess. We got into this mess because there was no-one voicing any concerns either to Hartley or the board that this was perhaps not the way to go, or not the way to go there, or not the pace at which to move. It’s frustrating that a view that more or less says “nothing could be done better” should have any foundation here. If there is seen to be no room for improvement in the process, and it only failed because Hartley was useless as it, then straight away that’s saying there absolutely is room for improvement,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, CC52 FFC said:

Does Gary Caldwell have the experience of this situation? I’m not so sure. That doesn’t mean I don’t want him to get it mind you. I think personally we need someone with experience to steady the ship. Hopkin probably my preferred choice if we could get him.

Whoever it is won’t please everyone but we all must get behind him, whoever he may be.

Were Wigan not in a similar predicement when he took over there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...