The Falkirk FC Thread

[RC_Bairn]

2 hours ago, grahamstonbairn said:

Absolutely the right thing to do in our current financial position.

 

Might have been better not to have outsourced it in the first place?

[RC55 FFC]

29 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

Might have been better not to have outsourced it in the first place?

Club accountants stepped in to support when the last finance person resigned no? 

[grumpyoldman]

1 hour ago, RC_Bairn said:

Might have been better not to have outsourced it in the first place?

You really are one bitter individual 

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

6 minutes ago, grumpyoldman said:

You really are one bitter individual 

The negativity and contortion of events to suit a particular agenda is definitely tiresome and sadly all too predictable. 

[RC_Bairn]

6 minutes ago, Brockvillenomore said:

The negativity and contortion of events to suit a particular agenda is definitely tiresome and sadly all too predictable. 

And what would that agenda be?  There is no contortion.   The previous finance person left and rather than replace them the club decided to outsource the finance function.  They've now realised that was an expensive mistake and  brought the role back in house.

[Sarcastic Bairn]

27 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

And what would that agenda be?  There is no contortion.   The previous finance person left and rather than replace them the club decided to outsource the finance function.  They've now realised that was an expensive mistake and  brought the role back in house.

Might have been better to have not closed the Academy?

Might have been better to not appoint Hartley?

Might have been better to not have screwed up over McKinnon?

Might have been better to not lose a connection with the fans with false racism claims, copyrights over badges....

Do you want me to go on?

Move on, you are not getting back in.

 

[Grangemouth Bairn]

No idea who they are signing. More convinced than ever though that their boss was in the TV show The Scheme.

[RC_Bairn]

9 hours ago, Sarcastic Bairn said:

Might have been better to have not closed the Academy?

Might have been better to not appoint Hartley?

Might have been better to not have screwed up over McKinnon?

Might have been better to not lose a connection with the fans with false racism claims, copyrights over badges....

Do you want me to go on?

Move on, you are not getting back in.

 

Ah that old classic.  Dare to remotely question the actions of the current BOD and you must automatically be a member of an old regime.  As brockvillenomore would say - tiresome and sadly all too predictable.

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

10 hours ago, RC_Bairn said:

And what would that agenda be?  There is no contortion.   The previous finance person left and rather than replace them the club decided to outsource the finance function.  They've now realised that was an expensive mistake and  brought the role back in house.

My agenda is facts, I kind of like them. Opinions without them are essentially bias or idiocy.

I gave you the benefit your posts are the former, not the latter, but I see you deny any bias in your reply to @Sarcastic Bairn, so perhaps it's the latter of the two after all.

You say there's no contortion then you go into another contortion "They've now realised that was an expensive mistake and  brought the role back in house" .........where does it say that? Do you know that for a fact? How do you know? A few days ago @Dawson Park Boy was praising the idea as the exact opposite of an expansive mistake saying it was said at the fans meetings in May / June last year.

The facts are we do not know, so let's ask the question at the AGM and see what they say.

 

Edited February 4, 2023 by Brockvillenomore

[Bairnardo]

What we REALLY need then, us a board who either refuse to acknowledge mistakes, double down on mistakes, or both.

This "fixing things that aren't working" approach from the new folk running the show is a poor model that will never work. 

[RC_Bairn]

18 minutes ago, Brockvillenomore said:

My agenda is facts, I kind of like them. Opinions without them are essentially bias or idiocy.

I gave you the benefit your posts are the former, not the latter, but I see you deny any bias in your reply to @Sarcastic Bairn, so perhaps it's the latter of the two after all.

You say there's no contortion then you go into another contortion "They've now realised that was an expensive mistake and  brought the role back in house" .........where does it say that? Do you know that for a fact? How do you know? A few days ago @Dawson Park Boy was praising the idea as the exact opposite of an expansive mistake saying it was said at the fans meetings in May / June last year.

The facts are we do not know, so let's ask the question at the AGM and see what they say.

 

There is an in-built logic that if they are bringing the finance function back in-house it is because it either doesn't work or it is more expensive than hiring someone to do the job at TFS.  If it was working well and was a cheaper option then why would they bring it back in house?  Surely we can agree on that?

But indeed, lets wait and see at the AGM.  See you there  

[Rugster]

16 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

There is an in-built logic that if they are bringing the finance function back in-house it is because it either doesn't work or it is more expensive than hiring someone to do the job at TFS.  If it was working well and was a cheaper option then why would they bring it back in house?  Surely we can agree on that?

But indeed, lets wait and see at the AGM.  See you there  

Or maybe it was outsourced temporarily whilst they were focusing on other things, or assessing options? It’s not necessarily a failure. 

[Rizzo]

If anyone is looking for a ticket to the Kelty game today, I have one (possibly two) adult tickets that I can no longer use. 

EDIT - Ticket now has a home.

Edited February 4, 2023 by Rizzo

[Bairnardo]

22 minutes ago, Rizzo said:

If anyone is looking for a ticket to the Kelty game today, I have one (possibly two) adult tickets that I can no longer use. 

Was just about to buy one, can easy take one off your hands, gets you half your cash back at least 

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

1 hour ago, RC_Bairn said:

There is an in-built logic that if they are bringing the finance function back in-house it is because it either doesn't work or it is more expensive than hiring someone to do the job at TFS.  If it was working well and was a cheaper option then why would they bring it back in house?  Surely we can agree on that?

But indeed, lets wait and see at the AGM.  See you there  

If your assumption is correct, then I would agree actually.

But assumptions aren't facts, or even in-built logic. My point remains you should never judge by jumping to conclusions, which is something you seem to do a lot, interpreting things negatively. I'm not alone in thinking this.  It isn't about me being pro or anti board, they are accountable for their decisions to the shareholders and the AGM in particular. Not on here.

[Springfield]

Crucial fortnight which I believe will have an enormous bearing on how our season pans out.  Staring today with our “bogey” team which we need every player committed over the 96ish minutes, and in Keltys faces from kick off. Good luck  

[roman_bairn]

28 minutes ago, Brockvillenomore said:

If your assumption is correct, then I would agree actually.

But assumptions aren't facts, or even in-built logic. My point remains you should never judge by jumping to conclusions, which is something you seem to do a lot, interpreting things negatively. I'm not alone in thinking this.  It isn't about me being pro or anti board, they are accountable for their decisions to the shareholders and the AGM in particular. Not on here.

I’m not taking any sides here but for a bit of balance let’s just remember that what we do on here is speculate much of the time. 
It’s what we did with previous boards and they - usually rightly -took pelters on here. Therefore it’s no more wrong to speculate and question the current board. In fact it’s healthy in my opinion and stops complacency. I’m genuinely a wee bit concerned that we are all just a we bit too pro the current board and in time this stagnates into complacency.

No doubt some have agendas but let’s not criticise anyone who has an alternative viewpoint and debate the issues rather than try to chase them away……

Edited February 4, 2023 by roman_bairn

[grumpyoldman]

42 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:

I’m not taking any sides here but for a bit of balance let’s just remember that what we do on here is speculate much of the time. 
It’s what we did with previous boards and they - usually rightly -took pelters on here. Therefore it’s no more wrong to speculate and question the current board. In fact it’s healthy in my opinion and stops complacency. I’m genuinely a wee bit concerned that we are all just a we bit too pro the current board and in time this stagnates into complacency.

No doubt some have agendas but let’s not criticise anyone who has an alternative viewpoint and debate the issues rather than try to chase them away……

It wouldn’t be a problem if just occasionally some posters were glass half full instead of all the negativity about the club.

We are in the middle of a good run , we are closing the gap on Dunfermline, yet some still want to find fault at the drop of a hat.

It’s very tedious and these individuals come across as if they have an agenda and very bitter?

I wonder sometimes if they really are Falkirk fans.

Edited February 4, 2023 by grumpyoldman

[Bigbri Bairn]

I do not know any of the old board or any of the new board but I do know I want to see Falkirk Football Club to be successful on and off the park starting with a resounding victory today. 

[Jimmy1876]

I can only agree with the sentiment that any board can and should be criticised and questioned when things are going wrong here or elsewhere. But I think the way things come across is what the issue is. If it's clear concern about the club that is one thing. But when it's so obviously not really to do with the state of the club but more about trying to pretend there is mismanagement on issues which are pretty normal in business.

Take this accountancy issue, the last board member was an accountant and I assume doing the accounts for free as a result. He then resigned and on the short term there needs to be an immediate move to go elsewhere for accounts - can't just leave accounts unattended. In the long term, as with any business of course you would want the finances done within the club and so when the time has arrived the club are looking to this longer term goal. Don't think this is any sort of mistake but just different circumstances all being dealt with as they come. So then it seems just silly and petty to try and spin a relatively normal business situation into some grave error by the board. 

Saying that some people are equally over defensive of the board and the way it comes across is that you can't question anything ever which is just the same thing on the other side. Especially when people are quite rudely shut down for just asking questions with no explanation or answer.