EdiBairn
-
Posts
1,059 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by EdiBairn
-
-
3 hours ago, tubbybairn said:3 hours ago, Back Post Misses said:
Dixon is going to play LCH sure of it with McKenna beside him, that gives us balance. Robson or Brough will play LB. He has 3 RB options and I don’t think he could make a decent one out of the 3 but of them it will be McGhee.
This is the way I see it going as well. Kind of makes Muirhead surplus to requirements in my mind.
He's not surplus to requirements because you can't have a squad of 11 players. We will pick up injuries and suspensions between now and the end of the season and I'd much rather have Muirhead available for when that happens than complete carthorses like Harrison and Brough.
-1 -
21 minutes ago, Russ said:
Just thinking about how much we’ve struggled at right back the last few years. From the top of my head the following have all played at least 1 game for us there since relegation.
Jason Marr
Kieran Duffie
Ross Perry
Blair Alston
David Weatherston
Will Vaulks
Jonny Flynn
Liam Rowan
Alan Maybury
Paul Watson
Luca Gasporotto
Aaron Muirhead
Kevin McCann
Ryan Sinnamon
Lewis Kidd
Jordan McGhee
Now Vaulks and Duffie apart this list is fucking stinking.Missed Joe Shaughnessy
-1 -
6 minutes ago, Fitbafollower said:
McKenna may well be the right back we need on a back 4
Not a chance. Kidd is a good right back at this level and deserves to keep his place.
-6 -
4 minutes ago, GMBairn said:
I don't think Robson reminds me a bit of Leahy, he will be exposed defensively but does offer a good option going forward with overlapping and crossing.
On the other side Kidds defending is probably worse than Robsons and his attacking threat is non-existent as he can barely keep a cross in the park, the one he skewed causing the thistle keeper to tip it over the bar yesterday sums it up, we had 3 players in the box, one unmarked on the pen spot and he couldn't pick out any of them from about 10 feet away.
He's similar to Leahy in that he's better going forward than defending. Having said that, Leahy was far better in an attacking sense and could actually defend.
0 -
10 minutes ago, glasgow_bairn said:
What is it with the love in for Robson. Mediocre at the back and not much better going forward. Playing a blinder once every 10-15 games isn’t enough.
I think a lot of the young lads in our support appear to adore the guy, seems to give him a pass when he plays badly.Fully agree. He can't defend and is average at best going forward. Beyond me why he seems to have become the star of the team. I think the bench is where he'll end up very soon.
0 -
I think the criticism of Kidd is over the top. He'll never be amazing but was fairly solid defensively yesterday and actually tried to get forward as well. Robson on the other hand has shown on several occasions now that he just cannot defend, which you can't have playing a back 4.
Hopefully we'll move to a back 4 with Dixon at left back. We definitely need strikers before a right back.
-3 -
4 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:
It was a joke of a plan 10 days ago according to himI think the idea of fan ownership is good. Whether this version is the best option I still have doubts with regards to the block vote and reliance on patrons.
-1 -
I'm supportive of the overall idea of fan ownership but for me there are still a few issues needing ironed out. I think the whole thing has been premised on the belief that there are hundreds of people both ready and willing to contribute large 4 or 5 figure sums. While there will be many Falkirk supporters with that kind of money to invest, the numbers willing to do so will not be very large IMO, especially given we don't have a fully formed proposal yet.
I'm also curious as to how the organisers could have the faintest idea who to speak to privately regarding this. Beyond a few obvious individuals, I doubt anyone has a clue of who amongst the support would be able to invest these sums.
-1 -
12 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:
Someone liked EdiBairns post 2 above this. I cant bear to check who.
What part of it do you disagree with? Or is this just more inane pish. Really quite impressive how you've managed to make more than 18000 posts without saying anything sensible or original about the topic of this forum.
-1 -
The league is very poor in quality this season and we haven't played a good team yet IMO. Our team of 3 or even 2 seasons ago would've walked the title.
If Ray can get his other 3 targets in and the new guys can click, there's no reason we can't start climbing the table. The playoffs might even be a (remote) possibility.
0 -
Billy King would be an excellent signing. Another striker and goalkeeper on top of that and we're laughing.
-1 -
2 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:
Even in 1992, was that really appropriate language?
I think the fact they even mentioned his skin colour like that shows you how far times have changed. You would never see 'black striker x has signed for Falkirk' now.
-1 -
2 minutes ago, Poet of the Macabre said:
An *interesting* choice of a 1992 flashback from the Falkirk Herald today
I know they're just printing the story as it was from 27 years ago but why on Earth would you choose this?
Because the whole point of that feature is to look back at how society and Falkirk has changed over the decades. Sanitising history would defeat the purpose.
1 -
9 minutes ago, HopeStreetPieStall said:
So if we were to tell the council to ram the SS due to the rent we pay, what would they be likely to do with it?
The south stand is nothing to do with the council. The rent is paid to Sandy Alexander, who funded it.
-1 -
4 minutes ago, sick boy said:
you claimed bairnardo said he wasn't good enough, move they goalposts further craig x
He said 'borderline good enough', same thing. Anyone who thinks a striker who's scored 1 in 2 in the league with no service is 'borderline good enough for the championship' hasn't a clue about football.
-1 -
On 12/28/2018 at 11:36, Bairnardo said:
Rudden is only borderline good enough for the Championship IMO although there is good potential there.
I would like to see him stay on but if he is first pick every week I will have more serious questions on my mind than anythong about Paul Dixon.-1 -
29 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:30 minutes ago, EdiBairn said:Presumably you won't be wanting him back though since he isn't good enough for the championship?
Quote me bro
-1 -
5 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:8 minutes ago, Rugster said:As a last fond farewell we should send Muirhead to Somerset via Ibrox to *** punch Gerrard in the dick for taking Rudden back.
Rudden will be back to us imo
Presumably you won't be wanting him back though since he isn't good enough for the championship?
-1 -
12 minutes ago, Believe The Hype said:
Over 250 pledged already less than 24 hours in.
I'm pretty sure there was someone on here said we'd be lucky to get 100 in total. Wonder who that could have been.
It's a very impressive effort so far. Having said that, no money has actually been committed yet.
-2 -
7 minutes ago, Sons FC said:
Any thoughts on Tom Dallison signing for Crawley in League Two?
Can't see him making it at that level tbh.
-1 -
10 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:
As I said get a hold of Kenny. Let us know what he says. The block vote is for a sound reason in terms of protection.What is the reason for the block vote out of interest? Not having a go at the scheme, genuine question.
-1 -
1 minute ago, falkirkzombie said:
wouldn't he/you just automatically become a patron? therefore be able to vote like any other patron. Patrons will still vote individually, it's the £10pm fans that would vote as a block
No, because he has less than 20k shares.
This will derail this scheme IMO. All the block voting will do is empower a few people and create conflict. Why they don't just allow fans to exercise voting rights individually while still having a fans representation system is beyond me.
0 -
5 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:
Okay. So I have shares in the club. I currently have less than 20k. My shares are currently the same as everyone elses as I bought them the same way as anyone else. Am I right in saying that my shares are now going to be different from anyone that has bought over 20k even though I bought them in exactly the same way basically as they did?
Yes, you'll no longer have the right to personally exercise your rights as a shareholder. Instead you'll elect someone to do it on your behalf.
-1 -
13 minutes ago, Bainsfordbairn said:
From the information given tonight anyone who participates will be buying shares at 33p each and will thus become a shareholder. With all the rights to attend AGMs this entails.
The only difference is that their voting rights won't be exercised individually on the night of the AGM.
The fans shareholding will be a "block" vote. There will probably need to be a fans group, made up of payees into the scheme. where individuals will be asked how the entire group should vote on AGM night. I presume the voting power of individuals in this group will depend on how much they've contributed. The group will be represented by whoever they choose to nominate.
At least that was my take on the presentation. I may be completely wrong as those details may not have been worked out yet and my assumptions could be inaccurate.
I don't think that was what tonight was about though. It was simply to introduce the proposed scheme to us ordinary fans and see if there was enough "buyin" to make it viable.
It seems that you're picking faults with details which may not have been agreed yet. Particularly as you can contact the people who will provide those details at any time.
If you're so interested I suggest you speak to them rather than posting on P&B. Will you make that contact, as you evidently failed to do after your comments on the consortium were rebuffed?
Or will you hide behind an internet username and use it to criticise the work of others from anonymity?
I can see that a lot of work has gone into this proposal and I'm not trying to be critical for the sake of it. I just don't see the point of issuing 'shares' which don't come with the rights normally associated with owning shares in a company i.e. the right to a say in how it is run.
The block voting idea just seems like a way for a few high-profile individuals to take seats in the boardroom. If that aspect of the scheme was removed and these shares came with normal voting rights, I'd be fully behind it.
-1
The Falkirk FC Thread
in Scottish League 1 General Chatter
Posted · Edited by EdiBairn
McKenna is an absolutely outstanding find from what we've seen so far. Probably the centre back most confident with the ball at his feet we've had since Aafjes.