Jump to content

JinkyBairn

Gold Members
  • Posts

    1,276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by JinkyBairn

  1. 4 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

    There's been plenty of chat about him over the last week or two coming back to Falkirk next season.  County fans have already told you they won't punt him down to the Seaside Leagues.

    Think that’s more down to folk wishing he’d stay, since he was comfortably one of our best players.

    Think most Bairns are well aware the chances of him returning are virtually zero.

    Although, DKD does love a crowdwank, so you never know.:rolleyes:

  2. 5 minutes ago, Gollum said:

    I think that is harsh to be honest. If McKinnon is the reason he is enjoying his football and all the people above helped facilitate that, there is no reason for him to be negative towards the board.

    The main criticism towards the board is closing the academy (pretty much unforgivable at this point in its own right) and allowing Hartley too much freedom. Clubs that go the other route are often criticised for not putting "football people" in the relevant positions. Feel like thats a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation and the feedback solely depends on the results you get, which in terms of the day-to-day football activities are outwith the boards control. Ultimately the responibility lies with them, I get that, but I don't think you can blame Dixon for not shoving the blame onto them.

    He doesn’t need to comment on it tho. To say our reaction was “harsh” was just stupidity. Just been relegated to the seasides ffs.

  3. 52 minutes ago, Bainsfordbairn said:

    I might be wrong, but I doubt there will be any statements any time soon. Nothing other than "we all resign immediately" will be accepted by the support so they've nothing to gain  by making public statements.

    Saturdays events may have hastened the desire of some folk to get out. It might be a catalyst for speeding up the transfer of power to a new board / set of owners, in which case I don't think we'll hear anything until that transfer is complete.

    Or until the season tickets go on sale. I suspect they'll be put on hold for the time being though. 

     

     

    The fact they’ve not made a single statement yet is a complete and utter disgrace.

  4. 4 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:

    Morten fans giving it big licks when it’s becoming clear how much financial shit they are in. Be passing them next year.
    Looking forward to trouncing everyone next season on our way back up...

    Nae need for patter like this just now. We’re doon. Just take it on the chin for the time being son.

  5. 22 minutes ago, Steven Mill Out said:

    Just seen some balloon on that Facebook page suggesting that we boycott purchasing season tickets if the current board members are still in place at the start of next season no matter the division. What's everyone's thoughts on that?

    That’s what i’ll be doing.

  6. 3 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

    Oh goody. That sounds more thorough than a clear out. Had a look at my garage today thinking it needed a bit of a clear out, but in truth, it needs an unsentimental purge. Once the smoke clears, I imagine a sooty faced Tommy Robson as the only thing still standing within the walls of FFC.

    Tommy Robson League 1 captain let's gooooo.

  7. 27 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

    Anyone assuming this meant no compensation was due was taking one line from the SPFL tribunal’s summary, misinterpreting it and diving in with two feet in repeating that misunderstanding over and over again.

    The contract had no clause for compensation in it, in that it didn’t have a clause specifying an amount with words to the effect of ‘if this contract is broken prior to the expiry date then £XXX is due.’ It’s a complete fallacy to argue that no amount being specified = no compensation being due. You’re effectively arguing that any contract which doesn’t specify an amount in a release clause allows either party to break it instantly for £0.

    As the tribunal’s findings stated, it was fixed term contract until May 2019. Therefore both parties were bound to it until May 2019 unless they could mutually agree to terminate it, which naturally would involve the side breaking it compensating the other for the value of the contract or some part of it.

    Flipping this round the other way to demonstrate the point, let’s say for argument’s sake Morton were the ones terminating it because they wanted to sack McKinnon for whatever reason. Are you saying that because there was no monetary amount for compensation specified in the contract, Morton could sack him in August 2018, with 9 months to run on the contract, and not have to pay him anything for terminating it early?

    If you can see why that argument is obviously ridiculous, you can see why the argument that no specified compensation clause existed means no compensation is due to Morton is also ridiculous.

    Fair play to anyone that bothers to read this.

×
×
  • Create New...