Jump to content

The Falkirk FC Thread


Recommended Posts

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

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

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

19 minutes ago, kiddy said:
26 minutes ago, LowerLeagueFC said:
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.

Where are you getting the 'over inflated opinion' bit? Have you spoken to him face to face? I think he comes over as quite a humble laddie any time he speaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Caractacus Potts said:

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

He (Hartley) recommended Richard “Mitch” Mitchell as our down south scout but the idea of signing players from down south came from Mr Campbell.

Bar that one summer Hartley hasn’t done anything like it before or since 2018 and it was right to part ways imo as Mitch wasn’t up to much and Hartley didn’t exactly get his Scottish based signings right either (Mackin, Fasan, Froxylious, Haber etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shadwell Dog said:

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.

I asked at the time if it was the B4L money and was given some lovely response about it being a combination of B4L, Patrons and FSS as we are all in this together.

Now that is been proven to be a disaster the fingers are being pointed elsewhere 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shadwell Dog said:

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.

A B Team combining a mixture of first team players who need game time/recovering from injury, limited number of promising young players on pro contracts who are on the verge of first team squad (it'll be league 1 after all!), promising young players on amateur contracts/looking to earn contracts, trialists and U18s promoted on a game by game basis. Coaches could be senior first team players doing their badges (common practice at other clubs). I believe the old FV Academy used to part fund young players wages through apprenticeship schemes. Add in sponsors and if need be fundraising - where there's a will...............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Proudtobeabairn said:

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.  

 

So who told you the DGW story? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Proudtobeabairn said:

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.  

 

That’s 100% spot on, straight from the horses mouth as they say! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JulioBairn said:

I asked at the time if it was the B4L money and was given some lovely response about it being a combination of B4L, Patrons and FSS as we are all in this together.

Now that is been proven to be a disaster the fingers are being pointed elsewhere 🤔

How are fingers being pointed. It's not the fault of either of those 3 groups its the fault of the bloody manager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Nearly Sane said:

A B Team combining a mixture of first team players who need game time/recovering from injury, limited number of promising young players on pro contracts who are on the verge of first team squad (it'll be league 1 after all!), promising young players on amateur contracts/looking to earn contracts, trialists and U18s promoted on a game by game basis. Coaches could be senior first team players doing their badges (common practice at other clubs). I believe the old FV Academy used to part fund young players wages through apprenticeship schemes. Add in sponsors and if need be fundraising - where there's a will...............

Talk of us having a first team squad of 18 so can't see many being available for a b team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PedroMoutinho said:

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.

On the back of the manager saying that's how he wants to spend the money. If Rennie had said I'd rather spend it on two players the bod aren't going to say no.

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...