The Falkirk FC Thread

[Shadwell Dog]

43 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

You have just spoiled a beautiful hat trick. Shad was just about to deliver a “hoof it up the park, and you wrecked it for him. Shameful stuff.

Saved me making an ass of myself I suppose.

[sick boy]

unpopular opinion but if blair alston plays next to someone who isnt 36 year old and can run about he would be a lot more effective, presume this will be realised by Killie.

[Dunning1874]

27 minutes ago, Peter LaFleur said:

I’ve always quite liked McGuffie, admittedly having only watched in a few games against us. I would hope both players are good enough to kick on in the seaside leagues. You seen first hand how poor the standard of the league in the playoff matches. Who is the better player out of the two? 

I think Nesbitt's got a higher ceiling, in that if he ever delivers on his potential he could be a very good Championship player whereas I don't see McGuffie ever being more than average there, but I'd also say McGuffie's just had a better season than Nesbitt. Nesbitt's someone I thought might respond well to Nicky Cadden leaving and havong to take on the responsibility of being our main creative outlet but ultimately he failed to deal with that and he's possibly hitting the last chance saloon for his reputation now.

While McGuffie scored a screamer against Montrose in the second leg, the thing that turned the tie in our favour was dropping them both after chronic first leg performances in favour of two big fairly talentless lumps in Muirhead and Salkeld to try to batter them physically, which we continued against Airdrie.

[Bainsfordbairn]

42 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

As Marsh said, thank God we have a Sporting Director identifying these guys. No manager could ever have discovered McGuffie working alone. 

Just under three years ago, you and I had a long debate on here about "oversight". 

Hartley had rebuilt the team in the summer and screwed it up. 

You posted regularly about how incompetent the board were for allowing him to recruit so much dross so quickly. You wanted more board oversight and vetting of his decisions. I disagreed because I didn’t think the likes of a plumber whose football pinnacle was playing for Sauchie had the knowledge necessary to question someone who’ld played at the highest level. Besides which, giving the manager a budget and letting him spend it how he wanted, without interference from above, was pretty standard for Scottish football.

So I’d have thought the appointment of a Sporting Director would have met with your approval. It created a level of football knowledge between the accountants/consultants on the board and the manager (or head coach as he is now).

What specifically is your objection to it? Do you like the idea but don’t think we can afford it in L1? Or do you have issues with the selection of Holt? Or do you just oppose everything the club does as a point of principle?

Personally, I’m not fussed either way. We’ve tried just about every other f’king idea going and none of them have worked. Maybe we’ll finally hit the jackpot this time.

[Shadwell Dog]

4 minutes ago, Bainsfordbairn said:

Just under three years ago, you and I had a long debate on here about "oversight". 

Hartley had rebuilt the team in the summer and screwed it up. 

You posted regularly about how incompetent the board were for allowing him to recruit so much dross so quickly. You wanted more board oversight and vetting of his decisions. I disagreed because I didn’t think the likes of a plumber whose football pinnacle was playing for Sauchie had the knowledge necessary to question someone who’ld played at the highest level. Besides which, giving the manager a budget and letting him spend it how he wanted, without interference from above, was pretty standard for Scottish football.

So I’d have thought the appointment of a Sporting Director would have met with your approval. It created a level of football knowledge between the accountants/consultants on the board and the manager (or head coach as he is now).

What specifically is your objection to it? Do you like the idea but don’t think we can afford it in L1? Or do you have issues with the selection of Holt? Or do you just oppose everything the club does as a point of principle?

Personally, I’m not fussed either way. We’ve tried just about every other f’king idea going and none of them have worked. Maybe we’ll finally hit the jackpot this time.

There is a serious question over whether a club in league one can afford to spend 45k.a year on a sporting director. Unfortunately it would appear that deans does not have the contacts or wherewithal to be able to bring someone on to the actual board with enough football experience and knowledge to be able to carry out this oversight. That is the problem when you have a board full of people with the same skills. The patrons for example had amongst their investors someone with the experience to.carry out this role for nothing which saves the club a large amount of money annually and is the preferred way of doing this at  a seaside league club I would say.

[FalkirkLad]

21 minutes ago, sick boy said:

unpopular opinion but if blair alston plays next to someone who isnt 36 year old and can run about he would be a lot more effective, presume this will be realised by Killie.

normally like your takes mate but no convinced on this one, legs looked gone and didn't have that spark anymore, can't put that down to having Gomis around him. Hope he proves me wrong as he seems like one of the good guys but I think he's done. 

[Guest Caractacus Potts]

15 minutes ago, Bainsfordbairn said:

Just under three years ago, you and I had a long debate on here about "oversight". 

Hartley had rebuilt the team in the summer and screwed it up. 

You posted regularly about how incompetent the board were for allowing him to recruit so much dross so quickly. You wanted more board oversight and vetting of his decisions. I disagreed because I didn’t think the likes of a plumber whose football pinnacle was playing for Sauchie had the knowledge necessary to question someone who’ld played at the highest level. Besides which, giving the manager a budget and letting him spend it how he wanted, without interference from above, was pretty standard for Scottish football.

So I’d have thought the appointment of a Sporting Director would have met with your approval. It created a level of football knowledge between the accountants/consultants on the board and the manager (or head coach as he is now).

What specifically is your objection to it? Do you like the idea but don’t think we can afford it in L1? Or do you have issues with the selection of Holt? Or do you just oppose everything the club does as a point of principle?

Personally, I’m not fussed either way. We’ve tried just about every other f’king idea going and none of them have worked. Maybe we’ll finally hit the jackpot this time.

Does the same problem not exist though but if Holt buys duff players then who is to blame? 
 

Just feel like we’ve added an extra wage and layer of accountability. If the players perform poorly, Sheerin gets the sack. If the players perform poorly for the next coach then they also get the sack. Maybe third time round Holt gets the sack?

I just not convinced it’s something a club or size should be doing. Even if we do well is it because of Holt or in spite of Holt? 

[Bainsfordbairn]

3 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said:

There is a serious question over whether a club in league one can afford to spend 45k.a year on a sporting director. Unfortunately it would appear that deans does not have the contacts or wherewithal to be able to bring someone on to the actual board with enough football experience and knowledge to be able to carry out this oversight. That is the problem when you have a board full of people with the same skills. The patrons for example had amongst their investors someone with the experience to.carry out this role for nothing which saves the club a large amount of money annually and is the preferred way of doing this at  a seaside league club I would say.

Fair answer, and FWIW I'd have been in favour of the patrons bid just as I would have with the previous one. 

Re the 45K. I obviously have no idea of our current budget, but a couple of years back when we first got relegated I think it was around 1.5 million. Let's say around a million just for the sake of debate. 

That's less a twentieth of our income. Maybe the value or one or two players? 

The DOF is probably one of the two most important people at the club, the other obviously being the manager. If we're confident he'll deliver success then it is not a salary worth paying? 

It's a bit like a salesman. Not matter how much they cost, a good one will always earn you several times more than you pay out.  

 

 

[gav-ffc]

Brad McKay confirmed.

 

[Marshmallo]

1 minute ago, gav-ffc said:

Brad McKay confirmed.

 

A three year deal seems nuts to me but hope he does well.

[Bainsfordbairn]

11 minutes ago, Caractacus Potts said:

Does the same problem not exist though but if Holt buys duff players then who is to blame? 
 

Just feel like we’ve added an extra wage and layer of accountability. If the players perform poorly, Sheerin gets the sack. If the players perform poorly for the next coach then they also get the sack. Maybe third time round Holt gets the sack?

I just not convinced it’s something a club or size should be doing. Even if we do well is it because of Holt or in spite of Holt? 

Re the first part, the responsibility would lie with Sheerin if he has a veto and doesn't use it. 

We need clarity on exactly where the dividing lines lie between their roles. That may emerge in time, though I'm a bit disappointed we haven't heard anything about the fans forum that was meant to be happening. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Bainsfordbairn
spelling

[ilostmyself]

3 years! Who was the last player who got that long?

[Rocco]

A three year deal seems nuts to me but hope he does well.

I was thinking the same. Can only hope it works out.

Him and Dixon as centre half pairing at the moment

[latapythelegend]

Just now, Marshmallo said:

A three year deal seems nuts to me but hope he does well.

That is mental. Actually fucking mental. 

 

[Mevilc Bairn]

My word. Three year deal for McKay. Shock

[gav-ffc]

2 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

A three year deal seems nuts to me but hope he does well.

Hopefully we can do the same with McCann from Airdrie, probably the best way of getting a player who would be championship bound.

[Ranaldo Bairn]

Maybe these guys are getting similar offers in terms of moolah from the league above, so this is the cherry we use to snare them.

[Anthony Fitzgerald]

3 year deal is wild considering the amount of players we cut short half way through a 2 year contract

[kiddy]

A three year deal seems nuts to me but hope he does well.

3 years! Who was the last player who got that long?

That is mental. Actually fucking mental. 
 

My word. Three year deal for McKay. Shock

Ooft! That'll be some payoff by the time it comes round.[emoji87]

[Guest Ecosse83]

1 minute ago, Bantabairn said:

Many ways of looking at the three years, for the player security and  at 28 it’s probably the best deal he could ever of imagined. For  the club a player committed sends a good sign to others maybe pondering to come here. Don’t be fooled by the length of contract, means very little nowadays. 

So if it means very little then how is it security for the player?