Bainsfordbairn

The problem with papers is when they put their own spin on things. If they include direct quotes, as most of their recent online article does, then their stuff tends to be informative. Their quotes from McKinnon about Rodgers and the trialists / closed-door game are well worth reading. Then they tell us Rodgers played twice in bounce games. Err no, he played in one bounce game, at Ralston against St Mirren. Then they tell us that "two new faces" were with the squad for the game yesterday, which is also wrong. The exact quote from McKinnon was "few". If the manager hasn't told them then why make things up?

The Herald confirmed that we had two on trial last week. It would have been pointless to have had them here had money not been available to sign them if they were good enough. Given that McKinnon has said he's looking to bring in free agents, I'd be surprised if there weren't more signings before January.

Quite a few of the singings we've made in recent years have had option clauses in them, which weren't always publicised on the day they signed. It's possible the same could apply here.

He's only here for a few months. If he's not what we need he can join the probable exodus in January, and if he's any good we keep him to the end of the season or beyond. It seems like a win-win, particularly as he's played at this level before. Things are starting to look a wee bit more positive than they did this time last week.

Wheest you. It's a beautiful day; away oot and take that lab for a walk.

For anyone who missed them, there were a couple of players with a Falkirk connection in the stand yesterday. Once a Bairn, always...

Where are our friends from Inverclyde? They always used to come and visit us on a Saturday night. I'm so looking forward to seeing them this week.

Sheps is a fucking mess on here, and has nothing to say regarding football. Exists purely to slag folk off. Whoever Edibairn is, he's not Scott Shepherd. Scott played his last game for us in a reserve friendly against St Johnstone. EB was making posts when the match was taking place so it could hardly be him.

IIRC, they replaced the Trust Board rep with what they called a fans council. I've no idea if that's still going but if it is there is no communication from the people involved as to what they're being told by the club. I think BG was on it, possibly because he was the last remaining Trust person and so ended up as the default spokesman for those 90,000 shareholders. Apart from BFL there doesn't appear to be any group left who communicate with the wider fanbase. While plenty slaughtered the old Bairnstrust, at least they were visible.

It seems ironic that people are now looking for a fans organisation to buy shares when a few years back one existed to do just that. And that it ultimately folded because of lack of fan support. Or at least I think it did; maybe it still exists legally and those shares are in abeyance somewhere waiting for someone to claim them. Or were they owned by individual fans and the Trust had proxy to use them for voting at things like AGMs? If folk are wanting a new fans shareholding group I'd suggest finding out what the status is with the previous one. I think BPM may have been the last ever Chairman of it. Brian Guthrie would certainly know.

Herald seems to be going out of it's way to get things wrong. They put a picture up of Rodgers captioning that he was sitting beside Cieran Dunne when it was actually Brett Young. Their latest article says we had two trialists in the reserve game against Utd, when in fact only AR travelled to (and played in) the game.

I remember a public statement from Campbell Christie after we announced the intention to move to Westfield. He stressed that the new stadium would have MORE than ten thousand seats. I'm not sure when that announcement was made but I suspect it was during the 2002/03 season when it was obvious from very early on that we were going to win the league. And would probably be denied promotion at the end of it. (while ultimately we were) We planned the new stadium to comply with the 10,000 seat rule. A quick google search shows that the SPL started thinking about changing the rules to 6,000 seats just as Westfield was about to open. This article was dated May 2004 and we moved into our new home less than a month later. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/3719681.stm

Assuming we did sign a large number of these players without PH seeing them, I tend to agree with you. However, Bairnado's point a few posts later probably nails it. Hartley would have had no difficult in persuading the BOD that he was bringing in superstars. They don't have the football knowledge to argue with him. And I suspect EBs point about managers at our level refusing to have their signings veto'd is also correct. Outwith Hearts during the Romanov period, I can't think of many Scottish clubs who've worked that way. You've been around our club long enough to know that the manager is judge, jury, king, and god all rolled into one. Boards will refuse them cash and fire them, but apart from those sanctions they have a great deal of autonomy. Very few managers in business get anything like the latitude a football manager does.

You know Duncan, every time I read one of your posts I'm reminded of a business consultant who charges boards thousands for their services and comes up with waffle to justify it. Phrases like "transformational project", "management of change", and "risk analysis" have my eyelids drooping. I don't agree with you. Edibairn doesn't agree with you. From some of posts made by others, I don't think we're the only ones. To me it's simple. The BOD hires the manager, sets the budget, and trusts him to spend it wisely. If they don't trust him then they have him work with or under a Director Of Football - type person. Or better still, fire him and get someone in that they do trust. That's all there is to it. Nothing you say will change my opinion on that. Just as nothing I say will change your opinion. That's cool. We're entitled to disagree. I respect your opinion, as I hope you respect mine. I'd just like to hear it a little bit less. You've been banging on about "oversight" for weeks now and it's almost as tedious as Branchton and his compensation hobby-horse. Gonna gie it a rest? Let's just agree to disagree and move on eh?

Haven't read FB yet but from Edibairns post below yours I'm guessing Will Flood is being mentioned? If so, put your mind at rest. It's not him.

This gets posted a lot but never with a source or any sort of backup. Did someone who ought to be know make a public statement, such as Houston re Dobbie's wages at a fans forum? Or is just one of these stories which begins down the pub and takes root from there?

You shouldn't have admitted that. You'll be getting cold-called every week now to see if you're paying up to come back.

The CEO was at the game yesterday. I had a look up at the Directors Box and was surprised to see BPM sitting about two or three seats away from him. I couldn't help wondering if they'd exchanged a warm friendly handshake and a hug.

Hartley just froze him out without explanation or any fallout, then when asked about it said he would have to wait and then play well when he got a chance. He did play well - against Rangers Colts - and then was dropped for the following game. Tommy pretty much confirmed that in a press interview so I'm not given away secrets by posting it. I don't think anyone really knew what PH was thinking. There was a reserve friendly earlier in the week. We weren't great and none of the players who featured made it into the starting eleven yesterday. I'm hoping Robsons exclusion had something to do with that. I rate the guy and want to see him in the team. Hopefully if he puts in a good performance at St Andrews tomorrow we'll see him back on Saturday.

I wouldn't want to upset Branchton by telling him that four of his players pulled sickies this morning in order to try and get a deal with us.

I don't think there's been a single week since the start of pre-season when there hasn't been trialists at the club. The fact that someone's noticed one of those players doesn't mean anything is about to happen imminently.

What, so it doesn't "make sense" to trust a qualified, successful lawyer with decades of experience in legal matters unless she had "clandestine contact" about something as basic as the termination clause in a contract of employment? I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Never mind. As I said to you a few weeks back and reiterated yesterday, time will tell who's in the right. If it proves to be you, feel free to post again afterwards and milk your victory. If not, you might just end up looking a bit silly.

There must be a blue moon in the sky EB because you and I are agreeing again. I wasn't happy with the decision to bin the Academy but I was willing to be persuaded if someone would make a business case for it. The statement appears to do just that. Of course, it may just be a PR exercise. However, from the wording it appears that ML has promised to respond to any emails she receives on the subject. Those responses will either vindicate or damn her before she has to face the fans at the AGM. I'd hope that some of her critics will take that opportunity, rather than simply moaning online, and then repost the responses on here. That may give us a better indication of how sincere the statement was.

I worded it carefully enough to confirm nothing. I made a suggestion as to your possible reasoning and gave an opinion which could have been based on nothing more than a trust in our Chair not to screw up a legal issue. Winding up Branchton is a perfectly valid reason too though. Carry on.

I'd guess he spoke to someone at Falkirk who knows the details of McKinnon's former contract with Morton. Not that hard to do, given that some of our board members have a reputation for talking freely about things they maybe shouldn't. That's not evidence of course. It's only knowledge, which can't be substantiated on an internet forum. History will ultimately provide your evidence. If there is a statement on the Morton website along the lines of "we thank Falkirk for the 100K they gave us for Ray McKinnon" then you'll have been proven right. Personally, I think your grandchildren will be drawing their old age pensions before such a statement appears. How long will you wait before accepting that the absence of such a statement proves you wrong? A month? Three months? A year?