Springfield Posted June 3, 2023 Share Posted June 3, 2023 1 minute ago, JulioBairn said: Please tell me you are not suggesting that the board should be deciding who gets a new contract and over ruling the manager? No. Read my post 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC55 FFC Posted June 3, 2023 Share Posted June 3, 2023 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Springfield said: I’ve previously brought this up only to be told it’s McGlynns budget to decide who’s coming in (and going out) and agree to a certain extent. My previous points raised that in any business I’ve managed there’s set approval/sign off for any revenue spend/expenditure. Im flabbergasted that any BOD isn’t involved directly or indirectly with any transactions that may put the club at risk ( and we must be in the top three for that) Nesbitts two year deal is so wrong for me, and if the BOD have sat back without challenging, is a huge concern. The board will sign off the budget & what our wage structure is though mate, not how every pound is allocated. JS, on the podcast last week, confirmed when we asked if either he or the board had any involvement in football decisions and the answer was a strong no. Unless a club has a sporting director or DOF, I’d wager most football clubs don’t interfere. Edited June 3, 2023 by RC55 FFC 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blame Me Posted June 3, 2023 Share Posted June 3, 2023 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Springfield said: No. Read my post Posters have. As I've read it you believe signing Aidan Nesbitt for an additional 2 years "puts the club at risk" and needs director sign-off. Ergo a director must make a football judgement on which players will (or will not) put the club at financial risk based on their own judgement and not the managers. That by it's very definition is the board meddling in the managers remit. Certain posters arguing that signing players on 2 year deals is madness in case a manager is sacked are living in cloud-cuckoo-land! Managers sign players on the basis they will see out a contract and deal lengths provide security for both player and club - the same posters would be up-in-arms if a short-term deal resulted in a player walking away for nothing in a years time having only been offered minimum terms. Edited June 3, 2023 by Blame Me 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairn winner Posted June 3, 2023 Share Posted June 3, 2023 9 minutes ago, RC55 FFC said: The board will sign off the budget & what our wage structure is though mate, not how every pound is allocated. JS, on the podcast last week, confirmed when we asked if either he or the board had any involvement in football decisions and the answer was a strong no. Unless a club has a sporting director or DOF, I’d wager most football clubs don’t interfere. Nor should they. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amarillo Bairn Posted June 3, 2023 Share Posted June 3, 2023 Its no secret I never wanted Mglynn in first place, but he's the manager and time to get behind him.and it surely up to him what he.spends his budget on, not some board member with no football experience Sure Lex Miller trued that and see how that ended up 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted June 3, 2023 Share Posted June 3, 2023 God our fans are an embarrassment sometimes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted June 3, 2023 Share Posted June 3, 2023 Wait, someone's actually e-mailed the board asking if they're interfering in the playing side? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulioBairn Posted June 3, 2023 Share Posted June 3, 2023 Fair fucks to the FSS for giving that nonsense email the time of day. Absolutely mortifying. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL-FFC Posted June 3, 2023 Share Posted June 3, 2023 Has anyone emailed the club to ask if we are scouting the juniors ? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brockvillenomore Posted June 3, 2023 Share Posted June 3, 2023 2 hours ago, Hughsie said: Mortifying that you emailed them that. And equally mortified that the FSS reply has ended up here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairn in Exile Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 5 hours ago, Blame Me said: Posters have. As I've read it you believe signing Aidan Nesbitt for an additional 2 years "puts the club at risk" and needs director sign-off. Ergo a director must make a football judgement on which players will (or will not) put the club at financial risk based on their own judgement and not the managers. That by it's very definition is the board meddling in the managers remit. Certain posters arguing that signing players on 2 year deals is madness in case a manager is sacked are living in cloud-cuckoo-land! Managers sign players on the basis they will see out a contract and deal lengths provide security for both player and club - the same posters would be up-in-arms if a short-term deal resulted in a player walking away for nothing in a years time having only been offered minimum terms. Football players and managers come and go but our club, hopefully, is here for ever. To ensure that it is still around in the future I would say that it is the board's duty to oversee the manager's signings. (one man's oversee is another man's meddling). We have all been extremely concerned at the possibility of the club going part-time or having to operate a hybrid model. If McGlynn signs a pile of duffers on 2 year deals and we don't get promoted next season then those 2 year deals will limit us as to the type of players that we will be signing the following season due to the player budget being used up. That means part-timers. A board not monitoring a manager's signings would be negligent in their duties. Finally for now, in the last 5 years, how many players that we would have loved to keep have walked away for nothing? We've mostly been desperate to see them get tae f*ck. How many of our current signed squad would we be upset about if they left for nothing? Not a single one. That's the pond that we are fishing in now, sadly. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDust Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 I'd like to think signing players on a 3yr contract would have our board interest to say yeah or no.....other than that I'd guess most clubs let managers do their job on a basis they will be there for minimum of two or more year before a ball is kicked. A 2yr contract for the majority of our contracts to new players will be minimum at our level and status. The players we have signed on one year deals probably had either PT contracts or one year full time options elsewhere on less money. I am very concerned about us next season, if we don't go up or get that cup run we are in the shit. We will be very much in Airdrie territory if we don't go up next season, hybrid and hoping we get management and recruitment within that model to go up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 (edited) The Board set a budget. The manager works within that budget. if he needs/ wants more money then he goes to the Board and they say yes or no. If he signs bad players and loses games he loses his job. Edited June 4, 2023 by Back Post Misses 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blame Me Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 5 hours ago, Bairn in Exile said: ... If McGlynn signs a pile of duffers on 2 year deals and we don't get promoted next season then those 2 year deals will limit us as to the type of players that we will be signing the following season ... I'm actually speechless You must have a crystal ball to know, today, the composition and effectiveness of the squad that will finish next season. That you most certainly don't means that what you've written is complete bunkum! Added to that your last point has to be contextualised in that we have been a bonfire at board level for a sustained period which probably has not helped in player retention or strategy. Your ideal model it seems is management by committee and players on zero-hours contracts and popularity contests to decide the teamsheet! Crazy 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cb_diamond Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 Enjoy L1 S5 Galacticos -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairn in Exile Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 1 hour ago, Blame Me said: I'm actually speechless Well, obviously not. Of course I have no idea what the squad will look like at the end of next season but his signings in the season just gone weren’t up to the job of getting us out of league 1, were they? Sure, they were better than a lot of those that he inherited but ultimately they still weren’t good enough. His giving 2 year deals to Nesbitt and MacIver doesn’t bode well for the future either. How does a board overseeing a manager’s signings constitute a committee? If he wants to sign 6 players and he brings this list to the board and they are perfectly happy with 5 of them but are a little concerned about the 6th (see his previous form with David Goodwillie), then surely they are entitled to ask him to reconsider? One year contracts with one year options and maybe including caveats such as promotions, number of games played, number of goals scored etc. is hardly zero-hour contracts or Dickensian. In any job if you aren’t up to scratch then out the door you go. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroMoutinho Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 5 hours ago, Back Post Misses said: The Board set a budget. The manager works within that budget. if he needs/ wants more money then he goes to the Board and they say yes or no. If he signs bad players and loses games he loses his job. So if McGlynn offered Brad McKay a 3 year extension tomorrow, you wouldn’t expect the board to bat an eyelid as long as it was within budget? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Kinnear Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 Folks it GTF day and yet again we are left behind. Last year was definitely a bit of an improvement on the previous season. We are pretty much split on the management team but it is what it is and they are who we are going into next season with. We have new signings to look forward too and our cracking new strips will be out soon things have been a bit negative on here recently which I suppose has been understandable given the debacle of the last few months of the season. I am optimistic for next season, don’t ask me why but I just am. Let’s give whoever we sign a chance and get behind the management team, until mid September anyway. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brockvillenomore Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 50 minutes ago, Bairn in Exile said: Well, obviously not. Of course I have no idea what the squad will look like at the end of next season but his signings in the season just gone weren’t up to the job of getting us out of league 1, were they? Sure, they were better than a lot of those that he inherited but ultimately they still weren’t good enough. His giving 2 year deals to Nesbitt and MacIver doesn’t bode well for the future either. How does a board overseeing a manager’s signings constitute a committee? If he wants to sign 6 players and he brings this list to the board and they are perfectly happy with 5 of them but are a little concerned about the 6th (see his previous form with David Goodwillie), then surely they are entitled to ask him to reconsider? One year contracts with one year options and maybe including caveats such as promotions, number of games played, number of goals scored etc. is hardly zero-hour contracts or Dickensian. In any job if you aren’t up to scratch then out the door you go. I really think we should all ignore any advice offered up by somebody who thinks its a good idea to share on a public forum a private email. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie Perrin Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 40 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said: So if McGlynn offered Brad McKay a 3 year extension tomorrow, you wouldn’t expect the board to bat an eyelid as long as it was within budget? At the end of the day that is the managers call as long as it is within his agreed budget. The board may not be too happy but they back him or sack him based on his performance in the job. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.