Jump to content

The Falkirk FC Thread


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Caractacus Potts said:

Yes and no. I think the Board at all times must protect the clubs reputation so regardless of who the manager wants, if it’s someone like Goodwillie then they must draw the line for the sake of the club. Managers will only be concerned with putting a winning team on the park. 

Griffiths is more on the manager however with the money we were allegedly paying him then I think there’s a big question on whether the club can afford to take the risk on paying so much for a player. I said the same regarding Yogi spending fortunes on old players. At some point the board has to consider if it’s value for money. 

I didn’t think it was worthwhile at the time but had it came good then it would be justified. Point is it didn’t work out so was a bad decision. Regardless of whether it was BFL money, it has been wasted when finances are going to be more crucial than ever. 

Do we know that the signing of Griffiths was pushed by the management by the way? 

 

The bfl handed over money to be used in the transfer window to sign a player. The manager signed the wrong player. Said manager is now moving on.  The money was wasted in this case but by the manager if you ask me not the bod. If the money hadn't been used I'm sure someone would've got it tight for that.  I said myself I think the cash would've been better spent on a centreback or midfielder but it's the manager who decides what he does with his budget at the end of the day. The goodwillie case is different. As I said who knows the full extent of that. I'm sure the guys on the bod will have learned from that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AJ77 said:

Just weighing in on the Ian Murray speculation these are quotes from himself whilst being questioned about the Hibs job - 

“I’m very, very happy where I am. I’ve enjoyed tremendous backing from my own board and I’ve really enjoyed getting to know Airdrie as a football club.

“I’ve been given time to build the football club and I’ve absolutely loved it.

 

“I love the group of players that I’ve got and my relationship with the board and chairman."

I'd like to think there'll be a new contract waiting for him at the end of the season regardless if we go up or not.

Everything you'd expect a manager to say if he's still doing a job for Airdrie. If Hibs were  in for him do you really think he'd hang about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, AJ77 said:

Just weighing in on the Ian Murray speculation these are quotes from himself whilst being questioned about the Hibs job - 

“I’m very, very happy where I am. I’ve enjoyed tremendous backing from my own board and I’ve really enjoyed getting to know Airdrie as a football club.

“I’ve been given time to build the football club and I’ve absolutely loved it.

 

“I love the group of players that I’ve got and my relationship with the board and chairman."

I'd like to think there'll be a new contract waiting for him at the end of the season regardless if we go up or not.

Gerrard said the same when he was linked with Newcastle and a few weeks later he was at Villa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Bairn in Exile said:

No, but they would have to sanction and fund the signing.

I refer you to the club statement of January 5th 2022.

"None of this will happen overnight, and we fully expect it will take the entire duration of our three-year directorships to come to fruition. Our short-term priority is, of course, to support Martin and Kenny and give them the resources they need to put a winning team on the pitch. To do that, we’ll always make decisions we believe to be in the best interests of the club, whether those decisions are popular with all fans or unpopular with some. Longer-term our goal is to rebuild the whole club on and off the pitch and to restore, in full, its former status as one of Scotland’s best run football clubs. We thank you all for your warm welcome and support so far, and commit to always working hard in the best interests of Falkirk Football Club. Our club belongs to all of us, and we all have a part to play in getting us back to the Premiership. We look forward to working with you over the coming months and years"

Exactly so board supplies budget and manager spends it how he sees according so I’d say the Griffiths experiment falls under appointing Rennie. As would have signing Goodwillie but that chat went very quiet after the FSS vote and Clyde actually offered Goodwillie out after the original speculation and the subsequent FSS vote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Nearly Sane said:

Less than Lee Griffiths?

So less than 30k . We'd need what 15 players minimum at least. A mixture of your 3 under 18s and some experience. I presume they are all expected to play for nothing?  First team squad will be tight this season so can't see many of them being involved.  Coaches I presume would want expenses at least but wouldnt have salaries.  All seems quite cheap if we can get a proper b team together for that kind of money.  Plus the it's a recurring cost not just a one off like Griffiths and that money was given to the club on the condition it would be spent on signing a first team player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

This is exactly how I feel about Griffiths and Goodwillie.

Griffiths has been a disaster which (IMO) you could've seen coming a mile off, but he was signed by the manager as far as I can see and that's on him. If a load of fan reps are dictating how the manager spends his budget then that's a shambolic situation to be in.

Goodwillie was a unique case where his signing would've caused significant damage to the club as a whole and I think the BoD should've been stepping in to have that as a complete red line. If Rennie or any other manager wanted to make signing Goodwillie an ultimatum then I'd bid them farewell. Ultimately Goodwillie didn't sign for us so Ito me we should forget about it and move on. As you say if there was an intention of signing him then the BoD will be breathing a sigh of relief and hopefully they don't entertain anything similar in future, although I can't see many comparable scenarios presenting themselves.

 

The new board have moved Holt on which is obviously a positive. Rennie was a poor appointment but it was a perfectly reasonable choice at the time and the short term deal is a mitigating factor which has limited damage it could have caused if they'd given him three years, for example. The next big decision is our next manager. I'd not take Kenny Miller but it's not like they've offered him the manager's role straight away or rushed into anything more generally. Things have been shambolic on the park since the BoD took over but I'm not holding that against them too much.

 

On a slight tangent I agree with the guy earlier in the thread who said his views aren't any less valid by not joining FSS. I've signed up for FSS and completely believe in a fan ownership model for a club like ours, but I know plenty others who haven't signed up and it doesn't mean they're part of a problem, not big enough fans or anything like that. Your common or garden Falkirk fan wants to go along on a Saturday with their kids or mates, maybe have a couple of beers pre and post match, and watch us winning games in entertaining fashion. The boardroom stuff makes everything run but 90% of people don't give a shiny shite, and that's perfectly OK.

If you want people to buy in who aren't online losers like myself then I think a more positive image needs to be presented. People can ask questions online and should expect better than "go to this specific pub at this specific time on a Monday and you might find out if you ask them face to face". It's been a thoroughly unpleasant experience being a Falkirk fan for about 4 or 5 years now and people will complain or look to the new board to change everything overnight. That obviously isn't feasible but having an understanding of people's frustration wouldn't go amiss. I think we'll get a lot further presenting a plan of next steps for the future.

Brilliant post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that managers are responsible for signing players (as they should be) but surely the bod would’ve had to approve the wage he was offered.

£1500 a week (at minimum) will be well above what we’ve offered players probably since we were in the premier league. I remember Peter Houston saying he couldn’t offer signings £1000 a week.

So the decision to pay that wage to Griffiths will have been a board one.

Edited by PedroMoutinho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, gav-ffc said:

Exactly so board supplies budget and manager spends it how he sees according so I’d say the Griffiths experiment falls under appointing Rennie. As would have signing Goodwillie but that chat went very quiet after the FSS vote and Clyde actually offered Goodwillie out after the original speculation and the subsequent FSS vote. 

For the record, at tea time on 31st January (well after the FSS vote) we had agreed terms with Goodwillie and he was set to sign.  We were paying Clyde £40k but they wanted £50k which we wouldn't pay.  Clyde called Raith to say they can have him if they pay £50k and the rest is history.  Extremely lucky on our part. 

Griffiths a strange one.  We clearly had the money for DGW agreed and so when we were let off the hook it suddenly would have felt like we could pay similar wages for a replacement.  Now I very much doubt Rennie randomly came up with Griffiths as a signing he wanted without a discussion that suggested we now had the DGW money ready to invest in someone on similar terms.  There was also a misguided belief that LG would excite the fans and bring hundreds of extra fans through the gates for the run in.   Nobody in that decision making process (board or Rennie) had clearly paid attention to the state of LG this season.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that managers are responsible for signing players (as they should be) but surely the bod would’ve had to approve the wage he was offered.
£1500 a week (at minimum) will be well above what we’ve offered players probably since we were in the premier league. I remember Peter Houston saying he couldn’t offer signings £1000 a week.
So the decision to pay that wage to Griffiths will have been a board one.
This is how I see it. The bod will have to forgive me if I have this wrong but....The board are new. They haven't ran a football club before. They had a wedge of patron cash in their mitt for a player. Rennie and maybe moreso Miller went to them and told them that for X amount of that wedge per week they could convince Leigh Griffiths to come and play for Falkirk.

Combined excitement/naivety/desire to make a mark and give the fans marquee signing resulted in the signing being sanctioned.

None of that is a criticism of the board it's just how I imagine it to have gone. Much the same as the statement we all assume to mean signing Goodwillie, struck me as when someone gets made up to gaffer at your work and are a bit over zealous for the first wee while.

I'm sure the board are clever guys and will have learned their lessons as they went along. Rennie and Miller however, are football guys and they called Griffiths wrong.

Theres collective blame there, but Rennie and Miller take the bulk.

It was a nonsense signing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Caractacus Potts
21 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

 

Griffiths has been a disaster which (IMO) you could've seen coming a mile off, but he was signed by the manager as far as I can see and that's on him. If a load of fan reps are dictating how the manager spends his budget then that's a shambolic situation to be in.

 

I agree to a large extent but I think in principle there still has to be oversight from the board. For instance, when Yogi was touting himself for all jobs I think there had to be a bit more scrutiny about signing old players on good wages for 2 year deals. 

Also when Paul Hartley suddenly wanted to spend the full budget on nobodies from down South there should have been questions raised.

At the end of the day these managers will come and go but it’s the club and the fans that get lumped with them as is happening with a lot of the squad we have kept on for next season. There has to be some scrutiny when sanctioning these signings. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Caractacus Potts said:

I agree to a large extent but I think in principle there still has to be oversight from the board. For instance, when Yogi was touting himself for all jobs I think there had to be a bit more scrutiny about signing old players on good wages for 2 year deals. 

Also when Paul Hartley suddenly wanted to spend the full budget on nobodies from down South there should have been questions raised.

At the end of the day these managers will come and go but it’s the club and the fans that get lumped with them as is happening with a lot of the squad we have kept on for next season. There has to be some scrutiny when sanctioning these signings. 

 

Hartley didn’t want to spend money on players from down south it was all part of the “brentford model” put in place by Mr Craig Campbell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LowerLeagueFC said:

charlie telfer wouldnt get a game at cowdenbeath. thinks he is way better than he is

5 goals and 8 assists for our shit mob this season from centre midfield begs to differ. That's with him playing in a deeper role than he should be for 90% of the season.

Edited by FFC 1876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is only one real possible signing the board should have any say in - DGW. As seen by the reaction at Raith, they called it so wrong, and people (like myself and many good posters on here) said, it may have been a club ending disaster.

Any other signing, including LG, is purely the manager’s role (unless we reinstate a DOF). Board should have absolutely no say in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

charlie telfer wouldnt get a game at cowdenbeath. thinks he is way better than he is
Oh I think he'd get a game. Just he'd have precious little influence over it. I'd agree in an over inflated opinion on himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Caractacus Potts
23 minutes ago, gav-ffc said:

Hartley didn’t want to spend money on players from down south it was all part of the “brentford model” put in place by Mr Craig Campbell.

Didn’t know that but then why did we get rid of Hartley when he was left with a bunch of diddies? 

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...