LatapyBairn.
-
Posts
1,554 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Store
Blogs
Posts posted by LatapyBairn.
-
-
23 minutes ago, Sarcastic Bairn said:
I'll be interested to see who people would like as I'm struggling to name atm, I'm surprised at the Johnson shouts as I can only remember negative stuff from QotS etc?
He did win this league with a full time QOTS at a canter to be fair, same at Dunfermline. (something we have came nowhere near doing) His record in the championship however is pretty shit. Don’t know why but even although he struggled to put together a league winining side at Kilmarnock i’d probably go for Tommy Wright from the available options, or Ian Murray if Airdrie don’t go up.
0 -
33 minutes ago, GeordieBairn said:
Surely if the FSS can make a poll on whether to sign a rapist or not, they can make one on whether Rennie should be kept on or not?
I’m actually not sure they should even have done a poll for that, if the members are asked to vote on every decision it just becomes chaotic. The members should elect who we want to make decisions on our behalf and let them get on with it, if we don’t like the job they are doing they won’t get re-elected and will be replaced. I think that’s the simplest and best way forward for the society. Maybe in extenuating circumstances a vote could be held in a similar way government’s occasionally hold referendums but it should be the exception rather than the rule.
3 -
23 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:
Yeah.... I mean there's a money side to this that means football has never been so expensive on the monthly budget, but that aside I honestly dont know why anyone would choose now to jack it. There's a good chance I won't be back this season in all honesty as its a waste of money and time now, and I am unsure what games I'm off work for anyway, but that said, il be back next season for sure.
We as fans worked to finally hunt the last board long after they outstayed their welcome, we GOT the change we wanted, and now I see calls for change again. Of course the football management and squad needs to change, it's not good enough as proven, but what else are folk wanting to change?
We are a competent manager away from having vastly different Saturdays.
Stay the course.Excellent post, we have the fan ownership model and the removal of the previous board we all cried out for. The FSS will hold its first permanent elections at the end of the season so fans can elect who they want running the club and representing us. To demand for everything to be ripped up again after a few months in is madness, I like you might not attend any more games this season but will renew my season ticket and invest and support in every way I can come August. Fan ownership doesn’t work if fans don't put any money in, it’s that simple. We need more members in the FSS and the patrons group also needs to search for further larger investment unless people would prefer a return to the MSG or similar running the club. As you say, we are a decent manager away from the chat on a Saturday being vastly different, staying the course until we get it right on the park is the only way we will ever come out the other side.
2 -
1 hour ago, JulioBairn said:
Does anyone seriously believe that David White left due to work commitments and McGivern has chucked it due to the price of petrol?
I’ve gone on record suggesting I think the new board might succeed but f**k me it’s time to get moving. Im very aware of the shambles left behind but a failed bid to sign the rapist, a terribly handled managerial appointment, a manager out his depth and staff deserting in numbers does little to suggest things have improved much.
A huge few months ahead.
David White 100% stepped down due to workload and not feeling he could commit the time expected/needed for the role on a permanent basis. It made sense all round when this became apparent, previous incumbents sat on our BOD purely for the blazer, David White isn’t one of those people and still remains a patron having not only invested financially in our new ownership model but spent considerable time and effort alongside Kenny Jamison in setting it up. Why you feel the need to suggest otherwise without any basis or evidence is puzzling. Sam Mcgivern has been commuting to and from Ayrshire everyday to a role he has little or no experience in and has probably never been fully comfortable doing, I’ve only met him on a handful of occasions but it doesn’t seem to me beyond the realms of possibility that he perhaps in hindsight might have preferred a return to his previous employment in a job he knows and is local to him where he’s not spending £150 a week on petrol.
3 -
4 hours ago, HopeStreetWalker said:
House hold finances and rightly people are making that their priority. Therefore hospitality and leisure activities are going to be the first to be cut back.
With regard to the mentioned FSS uptake. Are household finances any less tight in Greenock or Motherwell?
0 -
1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:
The fan ownership model is in its absolute infancy, with nowhere near the amount of shares it set out to get. What impact did folk expect from it weeks after it began exactly?
I’m actually a little disappointed in the uptake with FSS, I know it’s still growing but I honestly felt by now we’d have closer to the 1000 who pledged to join the initial scheme, that in itself would not only be providing massive additional income but would get the group that much closer quicker to its 26% target shareholding. Clubs like Morton who run similar fan models have more than double our numbers.
1 -
7 minutes ago, champions said:
Has there been a vote on whether the manager should he retained beyond the 6 months? And if so what was the outcome?
The BOD or the FSS committee can’t and shouldnt be asking the fans or the FSS membership to vote in decisions like that surely! We elect officials to run the club on our behalf those officials then stand or fall by the decisions they take, do people not know how democracy works?
4 -
28 minutes ago, Bairn in Exile said:
What you said. People found it strange that the Rawlins' were able to wield so much power for such a small cash investment, not because of their ties to Gary Deans.
I never had any issue with the Rawlins, 2 BOD seats and a 26% shareholding seemed fair considering the level of investment and they’re skill set, hopefully they can still play some part in moving the club forward be it further investment or otherwise. I did however have issue with Deans and his band stubbornly and arrogantly clinging onto the remaining BOD positions and in turn blocking further fan led investment ultimately damaging the club, all this while having failed miserably while in situ on the BOD themselves!
0 -
1 minute ago, SteveB1961 said:
Why would you have an issue with somebody from both groups standing for election? -I don't believe this is the biggest overall issue and there will be overlap. The organisations for all intensive purposes, as far as I'm aware are separate. If they aren't, then this not clear and should be made so. Of course, you can be a patron and be FSS member. And indeed, Patron FSS members have to be represented as well. I worry that it is impossible to be truly impartial when there are specific Patron board positions, but also "FSS" positions. Clearly, this is not an issue and will in all probablity, may not be, but should there ever be any opposing views, one organisation would be unequally represented. That's all hypothetical and so far I'm very impressed with everything the FSS and patrons have acheievd. I don't think this is the main issue although is something to bear in mind.
Surely it’s up to the FSS members to elect whoever they want? I don’t think we should exclude anybody from putting themselves forward to ensure we have the best possible candidates to vote for - You're absolutely right, people should rightly vote for whoever the want and indeed anyone should be able to volunteer themselves. As I've said repeatedly, people should be able to vote with all of the relevant information. In my opnion, being a patron is pretty relevant and this was not disclosed. This is my main issue.
Think I’ve misunderstood, so provided a potential candidate makes clear they have invested in both groups(it was never a secret in this instance, the information is out there for public consumption) you have no issue with them standing for election? I think that’s fair enough in that case and will most likely be taken on board come the permanent elections at the end of the season.
0 -
22 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:
I agree- from a governance perspective, it’s totally inappropriate imo to have directors who are technically representing one organisation while those same directors are themselves members of another organisation which also has board representation.
It’s not a balanced structure at all and there is huge potential for conflict of interest. Even with the best of intentions, how on earth can an FSS director be considered an independent representative of of one ‘stool’ of the ownership structure when they’ve paid minimum £10k to be a member of another?
We were sold the new structure as a ‘three legged stool’ approach with no one group having overall control, but this can’t be the case if members of one group have total control of the board of directors.
Again, I don’t see the issue here. It’s making something out of nothing, if fans and members for some reason don’t want a person/candidate investing in both groups(personally I have no issue) they don’t have to vote for that candidate. It’s pretty simple, the fans will get the representation they democratically vote for. The model the club now has is something that’s been needed for a long long time.
0 -
15 minutes ago, SteveB1961 said:
TBF there is no reason to not disclose it. You should not have to go to an archived page on the Falkirk FC website to find a patrons post for a FSS election.
Why would you have an issue with somebody from both groups standing for election? Remember these people aren’t just handed the position, they need to be democratically elected by the fans. (as I said previously I actually see it as a plus point as it shows a level of commitment from the candidate investing in both fans groups) Surely it’s up to the FSS members to elect whoever they want? I don’t think we should exclude anybody from putting themselves forward helping ensure we have the best possible candidates to vote for, it would appear it’s hard enough to find suitable people as it is with only two putting themselves forward.
1 -
10 minutes ago, bairn88 said:
I do wonder if, in the future, we will implement a rule that no one who wants to represent FSS is also a patron. Obvious pro and con to this is -
Pro - Balance. Far cleaner having 2 pure FSS members than 2 guys who could be accused of being unbiased, given they’re patrons and potentially know the other 2 patron board members fairly closely
Con - Potentially missing out on 2 guys who would’ve done a good job as FSS board representatives. Maybe they’re a better fit than 2 guys who FSS have put forward that year who aren’t patrons.
I have absolutely no issue with a fan being a paid up member of both groups and standing for election, in fact I’d actually see it as a bonus somebody is prepared to stump up and pay into both the FSS while also contributing a minimum 10k to the club via the patrons group. I think it shows a level of commitment , as long as the elections are democratic then members of the FSS (myself included) should be allowed to vote for which ever candidate they want, patron or non patron. Please remember any member can put themselves forward for these positions and it appears we only had two willing to do so in this case, I don’t think we should be excluding any well meaning fan prepared to both invest cash and also put themselves forward for potential election. We could miss out on a potentially talented and willing candidate not being able to stand if we start to narrow the pool we can chose from.
4 -
7 minutes ago, HopeStreetWalker said:
Of course it costs us the lease has to be paid for and knowing the morons that agreed it would not surprise me that we get well screwed for it.
What a farce we own some seats and the pitch but lease what they are on therefore FFC have zero physical assets
Have you ever heard of such a bizarre arrangement.
No, the seats, ground story and pitch doesn’t cost the club a penny. It’s the facilities on the internal of the main stand the club pay to use. Over and above this we pay SA rent for the south stand.
0 -
52 minutes ago, HopeStreetWalker said:
FFC dont need much office space. All we need is a High Street location with a club shop and offices above.
The council relocate to TFS and they are welcome to it.
Hire the pitch and the stands required per crowd expected for 25 odd matchdays then have nothing more to do with the place.
Massive cost saving for the club
We already own/have a 125 year lease which doesn’t cost us anything on the pitch, seating area of the main stand and ground floor. It’s the catering facilities and internals of the main stand the club has to pay for.
0 -
1 hour ago, John MacLean said:
Find your comments about your stadium quite interesting.
It's no Brockville obviously but as an away fan I quite like it. Clinching a league title there probably helps but I've always found it decent atmosphere wise. I'm used to an empty side of a ground too so the lack of a stand alongside the far touchline doesn't bother me.
It's not perfect but it is a million times better than Clyde, Hamilton and especially Airdrie. I reckon even the very best grounds would feel a bit soulless and bleak when you are kicking about below your natural level.
Agree with most of this, playing at this level with next to zero away fans really doesn’t help. Also comparing the stadium atmosphere wise to brockville it’s always going to come up poor by comparison but as you’ve pointed out a lot off modern out of town stadiums tend to be like that, it’s not just TFS. When the stadium has had bigger crowds we have had a handful of really good atmospheres in there, the Hibs play off win, the Kilmarnock play off 1st leg win, the most recent 3-2 win against Rangers ect spring to mind. A structure or safe standing terrace on the east side would certainly help massively but I think the biggest factor in getting some atmosphere into the place is going to be football related. Playing at a higher level with more riding on each game against bigger teams with large away supports is the solution, we just need to get it right on the park and the fans will respond!
5 -
27 minutes ago, Hank von Hell said:
What ever happened to the Rawlins? Genuine question as I don't know - did they leave with Deans?
Came in with some big talk and a long list of plans.
They still have they’re shareholding but have removed themselves from the BOD and returned to America , strange one with them. Doesn’t seem to be any further investment forthcoming nor any active involvement in running the club. Not sure why they bothered buying in to begin with, all now seems a bit pointless.
0 -
15 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said:
It shouldn't be a 3 year job at our club though. We've got the biggest budget in the league. Any half decent manager should be able to use that budget to put a side out that will be challenging for the title .
I’m not so sure we will have the largest playing budget next season with Dunfermline and Kelty potentially entering the league and us having a financial black hole we need external cash to fill(cash that is yet to be sourced).Queen of the south will also still have a big chunk of they’re 500k gift and Queens Park still being funded by the Hamden/Willie Hauchey money. Could potentially be 4 or 5 full time clubs trying to win this division next season.
0 -
Wouldn’t be a glamour appointment but Alan Johnstone took both Queen of the South and Dunfermline up out of this division as champions at the first time of asking. In both cases he won the league at a canter and I’m told playing decent football. Still clinging on to the hope Rennie/Miller will show something between now and June to warrant a new contract but just throwing Johnstone out there as possibility to see what kinda reaction it gets. Realistically that’s the level of manager we are now looking at unless there is somebody out there I’ve not thought of.
0 -
Could also be sticking to his 3-5-2 with Miller playing at the back. Would leave our midfield pretty lightweight but that has been the norm, I’m not really sure how this teams going to line up.
0 -
1 hour ago, Springfield said:
Martin Ritchie on finding the correct business model, if I recall we were needing to bring in additional revenue of 300K just to break even each season.
Not much has changed then, unless we sell a player, get a decent cup run or do one of these concerts the club still has a similar black hole to fill each year. Was one of the reasons Campbell & Lang used for closing the academy as a cost saving measure which ironically then hindered our ability to produce said player sales to fill that financial hole.
1 -
5 minutes ago, TedCrilly said:
That’s absolutely wild if true.
I don’t think it is true
1 -
6 hours ago, PedroMoutinho said:
Very disappointing if that’s the case. It would be grossly premature to renew his contract at this stage.
It does look like that is what’s being set up with the talk of ‘significantly improved’ results.
I do think the implication in the statement of ‘give us your money or we’ll be part time next season’ is laying it on a bit thick.
There are significant cash reserves as of the last accounts and the claim that even a hybrid model would be unaffordable is odd when we have teams like QoS, Morton and Raith full time with a fraction of our support base.
Agree mostly but the Morton / QOTS comparisons aren’t totally relevant when you take into account the 500k gift they were handed and also the circa 200k more in SPFL prize money they receive by playing in the championship in comparison to our league one moneys. The extra thousand or so fans we have doesn’t really compensate for that I don’t think. ( I’m told Morton also have 900 members paying into a supporters society similar to ours, our fans haven’t yet bought into the FSS to that level)
0 -
32 minutes ago, Bigbri Bairn said:
Hetherington with Jacobs will be interesting. I wondered if this would happen as it gives us a bit of experience in midfield. Hope it works
Hopefully will also allow Telfer to play forward in the final third where he is most effective. He can become a passenger when he’s sitting deep sometimes
0 -
1 minute ago, brokeville said:
No you can’t.But you can fill it out anonymously if you wish so the end result is the same
0
The Falkirk FC Thread
in Scottish Championship General Chatter
Posted · Edited by LatapyBairn.
Agree with this, I was also excited by the appointment at the time as I had the fear a Jim Duffy type jobber would get the gig looking at the slim pickings that were realistically available. Rennie’s CV was far better than any of the other candidates mentioned at the time despite most his achievements being gained managing in the American MLS. Hindsight is a great thing and it obviously hasn’t worked out but any managerial appointment is a gamble I guess, I’m just happy they had the foresight to make it a 6 month deal which at least saves us another large payout for sacking yet another manager.