Falkirk-Bairn22 42 Report post Posted July 28, 2012 Johnny Flynn looks very solid. Yes I agree, was very impressed with the partnership of him and Dods. Won't get carried away though, could be different against 1st division opposition. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kris. 488 Report post Posted July 28, 2012 Good way to kick off the season. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Back Post Misses 5,967 Report post Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) 1343496193[/url]' post='6475149']Utter nonsense. There was not one good reason for voting yes. Not one. If you don't care that your board have absolutely no respect for the vast majority of your fan base then that's fair enough but I'd be absolutely furious if my board had treated the support as an utter irrelevance on this matter. Too many apologists in our support Edited July 28, 2012 by Back Post Misses 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RobBairn1876 400 Report post Posted July 28, 2012 A certain Chris Mitchell missed out on starting for Queens today because of a broken nose. Anyone on here want to own up? 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
knee jerk reaction 785 Report post Posted July 28, 2012 ^^^ sobbing uncontrollably Pish. Stranraer's response was of course the best route to go: but there is a vast yawning chasm between those who decided to admit Sevco at Third Division level and at First Division. Our club made its position clear that we'd have supported a Sevco admission at SFL3 level - not a stance I can agree with, but not one that would lead to a boycott. As it happens, a combination of little time before the league campaign starts, and the deliberate engineering of the issue voted for, left a new admission procedure by the wayside. None of that is even remotely comparable to swallowing every single lie and delusion from the SPL, in order to get Sevco in SFL1 and your own thirty pieces of silver into the bargain. pick on my whole argument, please explain why it was ok to refuse airdrie their newco original membership (leading to them taking clydebanks) but ok for newco rangers? the sfa/leagues position was perfectly clear, clubs could not form newcos and rejoin the league, therefore walking away from their debt. by allowing newco to join the 3rd every club that voted to let them back in has treated newco rangers different from newco airdrie. sporting integrity would be no newco in the league at all, end of story! i do agree that there is a big difference between putting the newco in the 3rd instead of the 1st but only 1 club can truly claim to still have sporting integrity, every other club has looked and seen more money for them allowing the newco back. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ned Nederlander 3,100 Report post Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) i do agree that there is a big difference between putting the newco in the 3rd instead of the 1st Okay - cool we agree. Edited July 28, 2012 by Ned Nederlander 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RRFC2711 368 Report post Posted July 28, 2012 I don't know how Falkirk voted, and to be honest, I don't really care. There were good arguments for voting either way, depending on what was on offer. It just depended on what bribe you preferred. My breaking point would be Falkirk having anything to do with SPL2. I'm all in favour of acting out of self interest and realpolitik, but that would be a cynical betrayal of everything the club has claimed to stand for. Thankfully it seems Doncaster's sleazy proposal has been dropped. What a load of pish...... 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
special1972 1 Report post Posted July 28, 2012 SACK EVERYONE!! including sfa 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrDust 1,309 Report post Posted July 28, 2012 Utter nonsense. There was not one good reason for voting yes. Not one. If you don't care that your board have absolutely no respect for the vast majority of your fan base then that's fair enough but I'd be absolutely furious if my board had treated the support as an utter irrelevance on this matter. If you read the statement, then it details one....... A need for change......None of us know the ins or outs of the whole scenario regarding the sweetners for votes but play offs and and a bigger SPL were touted. The FFC board statement ploughed through that if in 3 year time we still have one up one down, then perhaps we have missed an opportunity to fast track a change to the structures of the game. I personally dont think play offs in leagues of 10 are right but I cant deny it keeps the two other leagues going till usually the last game of the season.. Ps I hope you got a bridie today..... 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ned Nederlander 3,100 Report post Posted July 28, 2012 The FFC board statement ploughed through that if in 3 year time we still have one up one down, then perhaps we have missed an opportunity to fast track a change to the structures of the game. Well yes ! but the cost would have been a double promotion for Sevco One of the levers used was the contractual settlement agreement ... and the promises came with a "Don't take our word for it" disclaimer Only an idiot would have voted YES 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
H_B 1,715 Report post Posted July 28, 2012 I think this matter is pretty much dead. There's only one thing left to determine, via the Bairntrust guy. 1) Did the club tell you how they voted, but instruct you not to tell the fans? 2) Did the club refuse to tell you how they voted, despite you being a board member? In terms of the future, this is probably the only question of interest left for Falkirk fans. It's a toss up really which of the two is better. Were it to be me, if White or Ritchie had hit me with either, I would have resigned my position on the board. If it's 1) above, that's marginally better than 2). 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vikingTON 12,380 Report post Posted July 28, 2012 pick on my whole argument, please explain why it was ok to refuse airdrie their newco original membership (leading to them taking clydebanks) but ok for newco rangers? What on earth are you talking about now? I've made it quite fucking clear already that Stranraer's vote was definitely the best act in terms of sporting integrity and any semblance of justice. Yes? Well it's about time you started justifying Faikirk's Quisling vote: leaving entirely to one side the decision of 25/30 members to reject Sevco entering the First Division. In your own time. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vikingTON 12,380 Report post Posted July 28, 2012 If you read the statement, then it details one....... A need for change......None of us know the ins or outs of the whole scenario regarding the sweetners for votes but play offs and and a bigger SPL were touted. The FFC board statement ploughed through If this is all correct then why did 25 of your peers reject this need for change? Morton, for example, have been shameless cheerleaders for league expansion, SPL2, the whole shebang when it came to the mix of threats and bribes on offer at the vote. We voted no. 24 others voted no. So... are Falkirk the only side committed to genuine change? Or one of the five sell-outs when it came down to the crunch? Hmm, it's a toughie this one... 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gav-ffc 3,200 Report post Posted July 28, 2012 Real fans today We are Falkirk 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Back Post Misses 5,967 Report post Posted July 29, 2012 I think this matter is pretty much dead. There's only one thing left to determine, via the Bairntrust guy. 1) Did the club tell you how they voted, but instruct you not to tell the fans? 2) Did the club refuse to tell you how they voted, despite you being a board member? In terms of the future, this is probably the only question of interest left for Falkirk fans. It's a toss up really which of the two is better. Were it to be me, if White or Ritchie had hit me with either, I would have resigned my position on the board. If it's 1) above, that's marginally better than 2). I agree the line should be drawn under it when they speak. I would guess there are legal issues that he will have to abide to. I think he is in an impossible position. I fail to see what else the Trust could actually have done bearing in mind their shareholding is around 3.5%. They can shout, bawl and lobby but if the rest decide on one route then they are never going to win. The whole principle of this is that the Club, however it voted, see the football authorities as more important than their own fans. They were scared to say anything that might piss them off, but were prepared to divide the support for two weeks and still have. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrDust 1,309 Report post Posted July 29, 2012 If this is all correct then why did 25 of your peers reject this need for change? Morton, for example, have been shameless cheerleaders for league expansion, SPL2, the whole shebang when it came to the mix of threats and bribes on offer at the vote. We voted no. 24 others voted no. So... are Falkirk the only side committed to genuine change? Or one of the five sell-outs when it came down to the crunch? Hmm, it's a toughie this one... In traditional SPL style the changes to structure and promotional places were somewhat not fully above board but lets be honest that the extra promotion place(s) to the top league wont really effect 20+ off the 30 clubs in Scotland in the SFL Also its interesting that 2 or 3 of the yes votes came from previous SPL members....... 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrispPancake 16 Report post Posted July 29, 2012 Thought Falkirk looked rather good in spells yesterday. Helped by a compete collapse of the Beano defense and goalkeeper in the last 20 mins. Still, movement and passing were good and I do like the look of our new signings. mo'n the Bairns. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BairnsOnline 7 Report post Posted July 29, 2012 As per the story on the official website, The Falkirk Football Programme and match highlights of yesterday's match are now available on Falkirk TV. A preview of the Falkirk Football Programme is available to view here - http://www.falkirkfc.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6041&Itemid=320 Not a subscriber? Sign up for only £4.99 a month @ www.falkirkfc.tv 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Falkirk-Bairn22 42 Report post Posted July 29, 2012 I imagine many of you have now recieved the email about the survey. I feel it would be a good idea to perhaps re-survey the part about Club communication due to recent...rumblings...around the fans. Good idea? or am I just being grumpy? 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ned Nederlander 3,100 Report post Posted July 29, 2012 I imagine many of you have now recieved the email about the survey. I feel it would be a good idea to perhaps re-survey the part about Club communication due to recent...rumblings...around the fans. Good idea? or am I just being grumpy? They do mention it .... "The club must also ensure that recent criticism, by some fans, about its communication regarding the SFL vote on newco Rangers, does not signal a return to ‘old ways’ nor the start of a regression in the relationship between club and fans." Too f'kin late !! 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
