Jump to content

The Falkirk FC Thread


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, DeeBairn said:

We need someone with money to come in and bluff the council. We either play elsewhere or the council sells their share of the stadium for a couple million up front. They've had more than enough of us over the years, time to shoot that particular cash cow. It's a good bluff, if they say no and risk us moving, what are they going to do with the stadium, charge the Shire 300k a year? 

But certain Morton fans on here said the stadium is an expense on the Council tax payers of Falkirk. Are you saying he's talking shite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DeeBairn said:

We could have built a 6000 seat old fashioned stadium with stands tight to the pitch, and likely not even had to involve the council for their share of the cash. 

Is that not hindsight though?

When the stadium was being planned was there not a 10k seat minimum? I agree that the main stand is too big and would probably give us a capacity of 11-12 thousand depending on the size of any east stand which is too many. I assume that the council would have had  a major say on the design of the main and that they would want to include office space etc which possibly contributed to what we have today?

I also quite like the Livingston, St Mirren type models as they're obviously large enough and could maybe be 'personalised' a wee bit easier as well. The Livi ground would be my preferred option in fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DeeBairn said:

Hardly going to describe himself as shite. He'll go straight I to the team either way. 

He was described as a play maker in an article that I read, he wasn't describing himself. I was reacting to a question by Duncan Freemason when he said that he didn't know if he was a creative midfielder (Craig Sibbald), a defensive type (Scott McKenzie) or neither (Paul Paton).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

Is that not hindsight though?

When the stadium was being planned was there not a 10k seat minimum? I agree that the main stand is too big and would probably give us a capacity of 11-12 thousand depending on the size of any east stand which is too many. I assume that the council would have had  a major say on the design of the main and that they would want to include office space etc which possibly contributed to what we have today?

I also quite like the Livingston, St Mirren type models as they're obviously large enough and could maybe be 'personalised' a wee bit easier as well. The Livi ground would be my preferred option in fact.

Interesting you say that, because Livvy don’t own their stadium. It’s owned outright by the council, but Livingston Launderers only pay a peppercorn rent for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harry Kinnear said:
2 hours ago, Gaz said:
It wasn't the BOD's fault that the SPL had a stupid 10,000-seater rule, they planned for a stadium thinking that was the criteria. We're lucky it was changed to 6,000.

The problem was though we spunked the same amount of cash on a stand/pitch as other clubs spent on full stadiums and we are paying fortunes on loans for other stands. Don't get me wrong the main stand is beautiful but a stadium something like Livingston or St Mirren would have done the job without the necessity for the loans.

Oh no I don't disagree with that at all. It would have been far better had we built something along the lines of Livingston's or St Mirren's.

That teams like Clyde and Airdrie are saddled with 10,000-seater white elephants is a damning indictment on that period of Scottish Football's history.

Edited by Gaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

He was described as a play maker in an article that I read, he wasn't describing himself. I was reacting to a question by Duncan Freemason when he said that he didn't know if he was a creative midfielder (Craig Sibbald), a defensive type (Scott McKenzie) or neither (Paul Paton).

Has Rodgers actually been offered a deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

Is that not hindsight though?

When the stadium was being planned was there not a 10k seat minimum? I agree that the main stand is too big and would probably give us a capacity of 11-12 thousand depending on the size of any east stand which is too many. I assume that the council would have had  a major say on the design of the main and that they would want to include office space etc which possibly contributed to what we have today?

I also quite like the Livingston, St Mirren type models as they're obviously large enough and could maybe be 'personalised' a wee bit easier as well. The Livi ground would be my preferred option in fact.

The original plans were for an East Stand with more or less the same design as the current Main Stand. I've got a t-shirt somewhere with a drawing of the design on it. The corners were due to be filled in.

It was only ever going to be a colossal waste of money but I do have a degree of sympathy with the board due to the farcical 10,000-seater rule. But as has been said we could probably have built a 3/3/2/2 with fairly steep stands close tight to the pitch for the same as what we spent on the Main and North stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Harry Kinnear said:

If ever finished that would be beautiful but it's a very big if.

It could join the Wheel and the Kelpies in the "nice looking white elephant" category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, wee_bairn said:

That’s encouraging. A younger, fitter Paul Paton.

The upside is that McKinnon has actually made the arrangements to see the guy play a game. That in itself seems to be a bit of s novelty these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Gaz FFC said:

But certain Morton fans on here said the stadium is an expense on the Council tax payers of Falkirk. Are you saying he's talking shite?

Just a bit. They are known for it. You'd think if it was dragging the council down, they'd do a deal in it. 

42 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

Is that not hindsight though?

When the stadium was being planned was there not a 10k seat minimum? I agree that the main stand is too big and would probably give us a capacity of 11-12 thousand depending on the size of any east stand which is too many. I assume that the council would have had  a major say on the design of the main and that they would want to include office space etc which possibly contributed to what we have today?

I also quite like the Livingston, St Mirren type models as they're obviously large enough and could maybe be 'personalised' a wee bit easier as well. The Livi ground would be my preferred option in fact.

I thought we started planning after the capacity change and we left the other side open in case we needed the seats later? The main stand was built the size it was so we could squeeze council off es in or some such. Was a while ago so I could be miles off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

That’s encouraging. A younger, fitter Paul Paton.

The upside is that McKinnon has actually made the arrangements to see the guy play a game. That in itself seems to be a bit of s novelty these days.

If ever a player was playing football five leagues higher than he should this is it. 

Good old Dad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, wee_bairn said:

That makes desperate reading.

Basically the manager is saying "I know he is shite but all the guys that can actually play football are unavailable so I told him to run around a lot and try to get in the way of the opposition"

Incoming...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DeeBairn said:

I thought we started planning after the capacity change and we left the other side open in case we needed the seats later? The main stand was built the size it was so we could squeeze council off es in or some such. Was a while ago so I could be miles off. 

I remember a public statement from Campbell Christie  after we announced the intention to move to Westfield. He stressed that the new stadium would have MORE than ten thousand seats.

I'm not sure when that announcement was made but I suspect it was during the 2002/03 season when it was obvious from very early on that we were going to win the league. And would probably be denied promotion at the end of it. (while ultimately we were)

We planned the new stadium to comply with the 10,000 seat rule.

A quick google search shows that the SPL started thinking about changing the rules to 6,000 seats just as Westfield was about to open. This article was dated May 2004 and we moved into our new home less than a month  later.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/3719681.stm

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DeeBairn said:

Just a bit. They are known for it. You'd think if it was dragging the council down, they'd do a deal in it. 

I thought we started planning after the capacity change and we left the other side open in case we needed the seats later? The main stand was built the size it was so we could squeeze council off es in or some such. Was a while ago so I could be miles off. 

We moved in to TFS in 2004 which is the same year that the 10k seats rule was changed so the planning & construction would have begun some time before. 

Just our luck; things may have been a whole lot different if the timings were even a wee bit different!

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...