Jump to content

The Falkirk FC Thread


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

Sammon gets a hard time because folk, including M&M it seems, want him to do things that he's not very good at. He's not good in the air and his hold up play's not good either yet these are the qualities that are expected from him.

His games all about running the channels and balls over the top for him to chase. IMO he should be used off the bench to bring that type of thing into play when plan A isn't working. Personally I think a combination of McManus & Longridge up front would work best however, McManus needs to work more as a team player. He tries to do too much himself which isn't helping to get any sort of partnership going up there.

The balls over the top rarely happen for us due to teams packing defence and mid for Sammon, he does have a decent engine and I wonder if we could factor a modern day 4-3-3 with him one side and someone the other side. 

Ideally I'd have liked another striker in as from day one I've never rated any of our combinations that highly. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BooBairn said:

Get a decent strike partner for McManus and I’d be confident of winning the league.

Neither Sammon or McMillan are good enough and the constant swapping between them in the starting XI doesn’t help.

Question: Are Falkirk at a disadvantage in securing loans due to M & M? We know that connections and relationships play large in loan agreements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TxRover said:

Question: Are Falkirk at a disadvantage in securing loans due to M & M? We know that connections and relationships play large in loan agreements.

Why would they be a disadvantage? They've both played for many teams both up here and down south.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grangemouth Bairn said:

Why ?

 

1 hour ago, Shadwell Dog said:

Why would they be a disadvantage? They've both played for many teams both up here and down south.

We understand that loan agreements are tailored to serve two purposes; that of the loaning club, to see a player get playing time, and that if the receiving club, to get an otherwise unavailable player to assist them.

Longer term coaches and managers tend to have a wider web of contacts and a better reputation for how they deal with loans. An inexperienced coach/management team lacks some of those contacts and isn’t a known commodity. This might result in teams being less willing to loan a player, as they don’t know how the loan might go.

As an example, a team with a young player they wish to see getting playing time will send the player to a team where they feel confident that will happen. The two ways this might work would be moving the player to a team short on players at the position being loaned, or to a team whose coach privately assured the team the loanee will be a starter.

A more experienced coach/manager will have a track record of dealing with loanees, and the loaning team will be willing to trust how things will be done. A less experienced coach/manager might be a tougher sell, so the loaning team might be less inclined to loan a prized prospect than a journeyman.

Edit: How were any loans handled after McKinnon got canned? We’re they still getting time, or were they moved out of the starting lineup?

Edited by TxRover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bairn in Exile said:

TxRover, Enigma, just accept the inevitable, you want to be Falkirk fans, We will assimilate you, resistance is futile.star trek borg GIF

Nope, the good news is the time you have spent this year deriding the other teams in League One may serve you well in readiness for the arrival of Partick and their deluded fans next year, or perhaps not, but we’ll see. Now, back to regular programming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TxRover said:

Nope, the good news is the time you have spent this year deriding the other teams in League One may serve you well in readiness for the arrival of Partick and their deluded fans next year, or perhaps not, but we’ll see. Now, back to regular programming.

Do you mean me in particular or Falkirk fans in general? If me, please give examples. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless my calendar is wrong October isn't 6 months ago


He is done. 6 months 4 months however long it is he is done. If he wasn't he would play in front of the two who are in and out of the team more often than we have hot dinners.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We understand that loan agreements are tailored to serve two purposes; that of the loaning club, to see a player get playing time, and that if the receiving club, to get an otherwise unavailable player to assist them.
Longer term coaches and managers tend to have a wider web of contacts and a better reputation for how they deal with loans. An inexperienced coach/management team lacks some of those contacts and isn’t a known commodity. This might result in teams being less willing to loan a player, as they don’t know how the loan might go.
As an example, a team with a young player they wish to see getting playing time will send the player to a team where they feel confident that will happen. The two ways this might work would be moving the player to a team short on players at the position being loaned, or to a team whose coach privately assured the team the loanee will be a starter.
A more experienced coach/manager will have a track record of dealing with loanees, and the loaning team will be willing to trust how things will be done. A less experienced coach/manager might be a tougher sell, so the loaning team might be less inclined to loan a prized prospect than a journeyman.
Edit: How were any loans handled after McKinnon got canned? We’re they still getting time, or were they moved out of the starting lineup?


The vast majority of loans are purely done for a financial agenda in the lower leagues. They can get a better quality of player for much less and the lending club can clear out some cost of dead wood. Unless the player is under 21 player development is f**k all to do with it
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TxRover said:

 

We understand that loan agreements are tailored to serve two purposes; that of the loaning club, to see a player get playing time, and that if the receiving club, to get an otherwise unavailable player to assist them.

Longer term coaches and managers tend to have a wider web of contacts and a better reputation for how they deal with loans. An inexperienced coach/management team lacks some of those contacts and isn’t a known commodity. This might result in teams being less willing to loan a player, as they don’t know how the loan might go.

As an example, a team with a young player they wish to see getting playing time will send the player to a team where they feel confident that will happen. The two ways this might work would be moving the player to a team short on players at the position being loaned, or to a team whose coach privately assured the team the loanee will be a starter.

A more experienced coach/manager will have a track record of dealing with loanees, and the loaning team will be willing to trust how things will be done. A less experienced coach/manager might be a tougher sell, so the loaning team might be less inclined to loan a prized prospect than a journeyman.

Edit: How were any loans handled after McKinnon got canned? We’re they still getting time, or were they moved out of the starting lineup?

It's gotten to ridiculous levels in England.

You have delegations going to loaning clubs to do hour long presentations to the club, the player and his agent. The pitch will include info on the manager,& staff,  playing style , development opportunities, training facilities, training methods , playing time, TV exposure etc etc.

Big multimillion loan fees are paid out and if the loaning club chooses to recall half way though the season you don't get that fee back.     

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TxRover said:

 

We understand that loan agreements are tailored to serve two purposes; that of the loaning club, to see a player get playing time, and that if the receiving club, to get an otherwise unavailable player to assist them.

Longer term coaches and managers tend to have a wider web of contacts and a better reputation for how they deal with loans. An inexperienced coach/management team lacks some of those contacts and isn’t a known commodity. This might result in teams being less willing to loan a player, as they don’t know how the loan might go.

As an example, a team with a young player they wish to see getting playing time will send the player to a team where they feel confident that will happen. The two ways this might work would be moving the player to a team short on players at the position being loaned, or to a team whose coach privately assured the team the loanee will be a starter.

A more experienced coach/manager will have a track record of dealing with loanees, and the loaning team will be willing to trust how things will be done. A less experienced coach/manager might be a tougher sell, so the loaning team might be less inclined to loan a prized prospect than a journeyman.

Edit: How were any loans handled after McKinnon got canned? We’re they still getting time, or were they moved out of the starting lineup?

Not sure that really adds up as when we had hughes as a very inexperienced manager we were getting loan deals from here there and everywhere including the epl.  These guys will have as many contacts as most in the game  and players like mcmanus have thrived at us this season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Back Post Misses said:

 


He is done. 6 months 4 months however long it is he is done. If he wasn't he would play in front of the two who are in and out of the team more often than we have hot dinners.

 

Well it's certainly not for me to comment until I actually see him try and play but he's 1 year younger than the guy upfront for Raith and I watched him come on for Livi against the current Scottish champions just prior to taking our job.

Certainly Livi and Holt don't agree with your assessment of Lee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gaz FFC said:

Well it's certainly not for me to comment until I actually see him try and play but he's 1 year younger than the guy upfront for Raith and I watched him come on for Livi against the current Scottish champions just prior to taking our job.

Certainly Livi and Holt don't agree with your assessment of Lee.

I think as a manager you dont really want to play unless you have to for a number of reasons. The fact he is having to put his name on the bench is a complete shambles yhat should be lain at the feet of the clowns on the bod again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the number of players in the Falkirk squad is not set as a budget - that would be saying you can only have 18 players but spend as much as you want on them?

I would suggest that it's much more likely that an amount of money has been set out and McKinnon and now Miller/McCracken have decided how to spend that - and more expensive players (and paying them off) means less in the squad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, true_rover said:

Surely the number of players in the Falkirk squad is not set as a budget - that would be saying you can only have 18 players but spend as much as you want on them?

I would suggest that it's much more likely that an amount of money has been set out and McKinnon and now Miller/McCracken have decided how to spend that - and more expensive players (and paying them off) means less in the squad.

There was a budget in place but McKinnon decided to piss that up against the wall on signing Cammy Bell (Prob a high earner due to experience), Tidser (pushed the boat out to get him and if you were to believe any Morton supporter we were paying him thousands, Offering the likes ot Durnan a 2 year deal (that in itself was madness). Dixon again another whats prob a high earner and said he could go with an 18 man team then it got squeeky bum time again so we panicked and signed Leitch (no complaints) Longridge and Miller (again no complaints on any of them).

Bell was having pain killing injections and been deposed by Mutch, Tidser i would imagine was let go mainly if it was true having McKinnon up by the throat and i dare say the board would be wrong to keep him if thats his attitude, Denny Johnstone another one offered a years deal when he has spent more time injured than playing .

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...
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...