Blame Me

Isn't that what Jamie Swinney has been brought in to do?

No. It's really just an opinion piece as it doesn't contain any personally sensitive data about the individuals.

Irritatingly, this is the stuff that I do get really annoyed about! This is an organisational failing from the back office to whomever left the report in the stand. It's careless and easily rectified by having proper document classification and processes in place to avoid this. Although in mitigation, perhaps scouting reports aren't as sensitive documents as we fans think they are and this isn't the big deal it would appear to be. My view is It's just another example of football masquerading as "business" and I shake my head

I agree that would improve the process and should be fed in if it doesn't happen already. I would think for all the reasons mentioned those deals fell thru and some formal review could identify trends. Two you can probably take as given are wages offered (McManus) and division (Robinson). As said earlier, the fan questions were pretty poor and at the next one we'll hopefully see some more insightful questions and answers.

I get that but who are the "right" people. Again, like the players argument, it's subjective and you won't please everyone. I used to call for Yogi to return whenever we changed managers but others in our support can't stand him, even now so the BOD can't win. Go back to Hartley and his scout - That wasn't right. McKinnon and his Morton speed dial - That wasn't right. M&M/Lex Millar player bingo - That wasn't right. Who knows if Holt's approach is right - not me but it seems the most thought out it's been for a long while.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt." You'd suspect the board had wished they'd followed that advice but enough damage was done on Tuesday that a period of radio silence from them is probably best. I seem to be in the minority - of one maybe! - that thinks emptying the entire management infrastructure would set us back. Some of the plans discussed on Tuesday should be allowed to come to fruition and a period of stability is required. I'm seeing too many advocating that when it doesn't go right we bin them and start over - under any regime i.e. existing BOD, NB, FSS etc or set of personalities they might choose to lead. It is unsustainable P.S. Willing to see the irony of my opening statement and other posters view on it!

It wasn't overlooked but quickly brushed aside. Without direct examples of it, it gave GD an easy out. As I mentioned elsewhere, for me the quality of questions presented afforded too much wriggle room.

I almost have sympathy for our board with replies like this. Cut through the personalities and what they're saying makes sense. We can't keep binning board members, playing and non-playing staff and expect this to turn. That is totally subjective again and not based on any facts. Call it the Lex Miller/M & M approach as we discovered. What is "the right standard" exactly? I don't know if it will work but it needs time to bear fruit and the squad turnover is unacceptable. As for where these strikers were in terms of preference it makes no odds - Many factors mean you won't always get your top target so his job is to have multiple options. I'm no BOD apologist but the sack anyone and everyone mentality will get us nowhere.

Now that the dust has settled and I've managed to watch the Q&A in it's entirety a few times I'll put down my thoughts . Apologies it's a long one - Setup Easy to say it in hindsight but too many MC's. FTV Lewis, Dave Mac and GD. Good delaying tactic to introduce the table when it was only necessary for the less well known members. The chair (DM) in overall charge of the running should have set out the house rules, format and time keeping off the bat but as it was it became very charged and disorganised. Opening Statements Apparent that GD and GC in particular misread the room (and wider support's feelings) and began on the wrong tack. Too much levity from GD and GC straight on the defensive with a straw man argument about the fans responsibilities. At that point the meeting descended into a rabble and set the tone for the evening. Admission that GC was drawn short straw also gave impression that GD was hiding rather than truer statement that we've heard from him more than others and the new BOD is a collective. TFS Atmosphere GD attempt to refocus the meeting seems to have been the point where he muddled young fans/players and was confusing. My take is he meant why would parents want to bring their kids to watch Falkirk with the present atmosphere and he may be arguing some players might not want to come and be subjected to it. Can only assume fan "behaviours" was the incident with PS at the end of East Fife and any personal abuse. Questions As mentioned, 1st question was well researched stats but was subjective. Tend to agree with GD to an extent that it was a statement which ended on a question. However, GD calling it out antagonised the room when he should have moved onto answering why he thinks he is the correct person to lead the club through this period. GD speaking style appears confrontational (see opening statements) 2nd (online) question was meant to be "hard hitting" but fluffed it's punch for me - Gave GD an easy-out calling it for what it was - a plea to sack someone. May have been better to address Holt signing his son directly and Ian Fergus's joining the youth setup and why those appointments were made. 3rd question I thought was handled reasonably well and addressed concerns mentioned. 4th (email) I thought was answered pretty honestly and was most measured GD had been at this point. The question about finance and the answer it led to were probably most revealing. It's evident that the BOD are worried. Although they didn't say it outright part-time next year is a genuine possibility. SPFL review is another headache on the horizon and we'll probably fall foul if that comes to fruition. 60+ submitted and in reality only really dealt with 5 all amongst the same vein - Who's walking and why are we so poor! Recruitment GM telling us what we already knew. Due to the hostility created at the beginning his attempt to placate the room failed. Also too many subjective comparisons which came back to haunt the execs all night. GH for all his criticisms knows how to play these. Knew he was in for a tough stint and came across as prepared but I thought, like GM, he fell into trap of making comparisons which he'd never win. Interruptions from the floor didn't help at this stage as his point re Wilson got lost - seems to me Wilson wasn't signed as immediate starter but one with potential. Goodwillie comment said much about how he's viewed rather than his ability. Good player but inference was we, as a club, wouldn't want to be associated with him - Fair Sheerin On a hiding-to-nothing after the last few weeks. He's under a lot of scrutiny for what is a L1 club and why he probably looks shell-shocked in all honesty. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt at the moment as he's had one window which they admit didn't have his full input. January recruitment is key and all he can do is work on training and his style. For what it's worth, Yogi said same when we were in Prem about expansive football and trying to be more defensive. It's an age old problem. Phil Rawlins Took the meeting by the scruff-of-the-neck and laid out what the meeting probably needed at the outset IMO. Conclusions The BOD were in a no-win situation and didn't help themselves. From a distance the fan "questions" left a lot to be desired. Too many subjective criticisms and I don't think anyone actually learned anything they didn't know beforehand or changed opinions. Easy after the fact but questions for next time - GD defended the BOD against claims of nepotism and Holt suggested he doesn't sign players alone so what oversight was put into signing his son? GH said he is involved in contracts. Did the board think there was a potential conflict of interest? Which areas of the team does PS think need strengthening in transfer window X? How far along is GH in identifying those targets and confidence in securing them? Sam McGivern was appointed in sales role. How has that appointment worked out so far?

Did Jamie Swinney have much input into last nights affairs? Have read a lot about the main players but his name has been absent and I thought he was involved in the Q&A.

Falkirk website down tomorrow under the strain of everyone hitting it for the recording to gauge how outrageous it sounds so far

Agreed. They can't talk about implementing a football model and then bin it after 4 months. Whether the assembled staff are correct for the model is where most questions should be concentrated. Had it been someone other than Holt would there be such an issue. His Falkirk signings previously were unspectacular (Durojayie, Roberts) when we were a bigger draw and hadn't Martindale, now manager, been the main recruiter at Livi.

Common theme here is the constant emptying of squads. How many of our rivals recruit new defensive pairings, midfields and strikers every season. Since Hartley/McKinnon, we've had constant churn whereas before we had fairly static squads with the odd addition - who usually had to wait to dislodge a player. Our rivals make fewer changes gradually and they seem to supplant the team with younger players. We seem to "clean house" on a pretty regular basis recently. That said, what our management (playing/non-playing) have to appreciate is there are expectations on Falkirk that mean you have to compete, win and do all of the above pretty quickly. What's frustrating from the outside is it's unclear if our performance is a result of the BOD strategy, Holt influence or problems of Sheerin's own making or more likely a combination of all three.

The sense that they have played many more games than Ompreon or Ruth have in Scottish L1. As I mentioned in my original post - putting anyone's opinion of the two I mentioned aside - I don't think there is an argument that had they been given a greater chance we'd be any worse off than now.

I meant Wilson and Dowds. Regardless of the costs for those two replacements they have not evidently bettered the returns that either of the two they replaced could have achieved. Ruth's 2 goals in as many games is not stellar considering he's been afforded, as sole striker, much more time than Wilson and Dowds were.

A lot of supposition ahead of the Q&A about Holts role in all of this, Sheerin's management style and motives of the chairmen. However, the established facts are that we are 5th in L1 and the weakest of those 5. Despite having a glut of attacking options - Wilson, Keena, Ompreon, Ruth, (early Dowds), McDaid, Morrison, Nesbitt and Telfer the goal return from those the manager favours is dismal. Morrison's goals often put gloss on frustrating games where the breakthrough seemed unlikely. It's wholly correct to ask how Sheerin was afforded budget to sign Ompreon and Ruth when he had two proven operators - regardless of our opinion - whilst neglecting the obvious problem at RB. In addition, Krasniqi is the elephant in the room, Keena a sideshow and we now have the recent ostracism of Dixon and Mutch. It would seem to an outsider there is definitely an issue with the managers approach and senior players.

Yet we also had Alex Smith at the same time Totts was there so that implies there was another reason he wasn't involved. As for management speak and 5-year plans it all makes sense when you realise what Gary Deans background is.

The argument this board will likely make - and it's predecessor made - was there wasn't enough football knowledge after Alex Smith left and DoF is meant to advise and be the buffer between them and Sheerin at board level. However, Holt is not that man IMO. Holt doesn't want to manage anymore and his role effectively guarantees his financial stability by not putting himself in the firing line. M & M appointed Dec '19 and Holt Jan '21 - Ask when and why did the briefing against them begin as alluded to by McCracken. While Holt enjoys the ear of our board we're unlikely to see his departure.