Raith Against The Machine

The last part of that is almost certainly true, but that doesn't mean the first part is.

Really fucking angry all over again. What kind of fucking abnormal, heartless, moronic, hate-filled, misogynistic c**t do you have to be? It's one thing to think Goodwillie should be allowed to play football at this level, but to make a fucking banner about it? Jesus fucking Christ.

I was considering going to Celtic Park next week, but I'm really not sure I can stand alongside some of the folk who'll be there. I suspect some elements of our away support will be even worse than at home.

Fucking hell. Absolutely shameful. What a fucking hill to die on, too. Pathetic.

At this stage, I don't think that's a bad decision. We saw the fallout from Benedictus being sent out after Tuesday's game. The caveat to that is that there must be more communication from the club in the coming days. It shouldn't be for the players to answer for the actions of the board and, to whatever extent, the manager.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-Karmic-retribution

Yeah, I think that's also fairly likely. I do think, though, that we'd benefit from an update to that effect, even one from "an internal source" to Alan Temple. "The club are currently undertaking legal advice before providing a fuller update." We need more information and communication, not less. The club can't get through this by putting barriers up.

I can only assume that with two home games this week, and much fewer volunteers around than normal, most of the time available has gone into logistics and making sure the games actually go ahead. Tomorrow there really needs to be a proper reckoning. If it was me, I'd be holding an all-staff meeting to get the air cleared internally and set a tone for moving forward, and then be getting as much of that out into the open as possible. This isn't going away, and it shouldn't go away. The board really need to throw themselves to the mercy of the wider community and do whatever it takes to start making amends. We've already covered the kind of things that involves, and it includes resignations. With regards to the Trust and the Forum etc, I think that's at a similar stage in as much as I suspect leading people in each group are still coming together to agree a format for wider discussions and actions. I'm very keen to see what form that takes, and what can be achieved.

It's also a case of stating the obvious. Every single manager who's ever interviewed for a job and then subsequently been given it has, by definition, "interviewed well".

I think you're clutching at straws, mate. I really, really sympathise with you because I think I was in the same place about 12 hours ago, but it's done. McGlynn, for all the good he's done for this club, has crossed the Rubicon, and he's not coming back.

Unless there's an incredibly comprehensive statement or interview coming from McGlynn that's somehow been held up by legal advice or something, that's him done for me. Too much has happened to just "focus on the football". I appreciate that that's his job for now, but he can't continue in it if he's not willing to engage and learn from the grave mistakes of the last few days.

I wouldn't support or encourage any action against Benedictus. He had no say in the decision, and he was hung out to dry by the club when nobody else would comment. He was put into an incredibly difficult situation, and while he handled it badly, he's in nothing like the same realm as those who actually had power over the decisions.

Aye, absolutely. Probably a combination of at least a few. Given we're now nearly at 4pm on Friday it looks like the club plans to get this game out of the way before making any more noises or moves about a road forward.

Cancelled by the club?

I'd thoroughly recommend it, for everyone.

It's not particularly easy to find on the website, but if you use a podcast player that accepts RSS feeds, paste: https://rss.autopod.xyz/show/734.rss into it and you'll get the show each Saturday, usually just after it's finished airing live.

Splitter.

Just to demonstrate how bizarre this gets, "Raith Rovers Football Club Ltd" which is ostensibly 'the club' owns 0% of "Stark's Park Properties Ltd", which is ostensibly 'the stadium'. The stadium owns 76% of the club.

The Rovers' set up isn't borne of clever tax work (that might go on, although I don't think it does), it's a result of years of mismanagement and buyouts and investment vehicles to get other bad actors out of the way. I believe one of the longer term aims that John Sim has committed to is to simplify the structure, but it's nigh on impossible. The 'core' group is composed of Raith Rovers Football Club Ltd, Raith Rovers FC Holdings Ltd, New Raith Rovers Ltd and NRR Investments Ltd. There's also Stark's Park Properties Ltd, which owns the ground. It's all very incestuous with each company owning bits and parts of some of the others. I keep meaning to sit down and try to work out what the effective overall control is, but on the back of a fag packet, John Sim owns about 75% of the club and 85% of the ground.

I don't think there's any way of knowing. Until this week there was no indication whatsoever that any kind of succession plan was in place or would be required any time soon. His stated aim was to get the club to a point of sustainability, and he was investing in the infrastructure to try and make that possible. There are too many permutations now to really get a handle on how things will go, ranging from liquidating the club to him paying the Goodwillie money out of his own pocket and then stepping away from the board while continuing to underwrite the club. It'll probably be somewhere inbetween, but it's too soon to tell.

If you open the link in Incognito mode you should be able to read it, although it doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know. "The club" as an umbrella term for a nebulous collection of five or six companies all owned by a tangled mess of stakeholders, owes John Sim (and associates) about a million quid. The balance sheet shows a fair amount of fixed assets, but a significant amount of those were only accrued by money straight from Sim's pocket. Quite simply, there is no realistic prospect of 'ousting' John Sim. Not unless someone finds £3m minimum in a Samsonite briefcase that's washed up on the Prom. What makes the events of the last week even more maddening is that John Sim has, on the face of it, actually been doing really good work for the longevity and sustainability of Raith Rovers. Stark's Park is arguably in a better condition than it has ever been. From improved maintenance, to new floodlights and the pitch, to the new hospitality building and the upcoming "Hub", all underwritten by Sim, the club has been doing everything right in becoming an actual cornerstone of the community. There's also been no indication that John Sim is looking to turn a quick buck or pull some other sort of nefarious moves. People have, to a lesser or greater degree, turned a blind eye to his stranglehold on the ownership and leadership because he's been making these long-term investments for the good of the club. The total sabotage of all those efforts, by the same man is just utterly bizarre. He seems to have some sort of blindspot when it comes to the first team, like it exists in a bubble that's insulated from the rest of the organisation. That's the only way that I can see how he's managing these utterly conflicting actions. Fundamentally, he's shown that he's not a suitable person to be chairman. As the majority shareholder in both the club and the ground he shouldn't be chairman anyway, and that's been brought into an incredibly bright light this week. If John Sim wanted to, he could pull the shutters down on Raith Rovers Football Club tomorrow. I hope, and believe, that he won't. He needs to step away from the Chairmanship and the board. He only became Chairman after Bill Clark stepped down previously (if I remember rightly), so it's not a situation that's unprecedented. I'd also like to see a proto-Foundation of Hearts style situation where a conglomerate of fans' groups can buy back at least some of his stake in the club and the ground, over time, to get back to a position where we're no longer beholden to one individual.

It's an odd situation, actually. I'm not sure I realised McGlynn's contract expired at the end of this season, before all this happened. As you say, you'd think it was a foregone conclusion that he'd have been offered and agreed an extension, and maybe it was one of those where it was so locked in they just hadn't gotten around to actually completing the formalities, but there can't be many managers of McGlynn's (prior) standing with a club like the Rovers who enter the last five months of a contract. There was some discussion last night that this season is the end of John Sim's "five year plan" that targeted ending up in the Premiership and that McGlynn's contract depended on the success or failure of that, but I'd find that hard to believe. Or, at least I would have done, six or seven days ago.

I think it'd have to be signalled now that he's standing down at the end of the year, with no ambiguity. I don't think he can be allowed to just continue to the end of the season with the intention of not renewing without it being addressed now.

Has anyone given McGlynn "full backing"? I've not seen that.

I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the Rovers fans in this thread - most of whom have gone to some length to try and spell out their position - hope to find a way through this for John McGlynn because he's a good football manager. Now, obviously he is a good football manager and that's the reason why he's been here so long, but this isn't about keeping John McGlynn so we can win 2-0 next week, or put this behind us and get promoted next season. Someone asked if it would be the same if it was Gary Locke. And it wouldn't. Gary Locke would be hounded out the door immediately. As would any other Rovers manager of the last 20 years. Maybe that's hypocritical, if so, so be it. I think there's maybe two or three other managers in the country who could potentially make such a serious misjudgement and be offered some sliver of consideration. Dick Campbell, certainly. Maybe Jim McInally and Stewart Petrie? When it comes to John McGlynn, there's a huge cache of history that can be taken into account when judging his position. And that should be taken into account. Again, this is by no means letting John McGlynn off the hook. As of right now I'm still firmly in the camp that he should go. I won't be at Stark's on Saturday. I think the best course of action for everyone is probably that he announces he'll be stepping down at the end of the season. But if he's genuinely and sincerely sorry, if he can recognise the hurt that he's caused, and if he actually wants to stay, I think he's earned the right to be considered a part of the rebuild.