ShaggerG

I liked the 3 legged stool model. TBH, for various reasons, I wouldn't want the club to be owned entirely by the FSS, but I most certainly want us to get to the 25%+ bit to ensure that we can stop unwanted external interference, which is the whole point of the organisation. We can't keep issuing shares and we do need to encourage outside investment from the right people. For example, if I won the Euromillions I'd be wanting to buy into the club in a big way (wouldn't be easy as I don't so it!) So we need to be flexible in considering such a possibility. I too would continue my contributions knowing that the money is basically a donation to the club once the shares have been bought, but it's got to be on the FSS's terms, i.e. we decide how and when the money is spent because we don't want the club to depend on this money as part of normal income. Once the financial problems are sorted (if ever) I would want the club to run on it's own merits without having to rely on donations to survive. Rather than the club inviting suggestions from the FSS on how the cash is spent, it should be the other way round IMO.

Well, if you can't see the issue there's not much more I can say to you.

I really resent that mate. I signed up and will not cancel (at least not until the two parties are given a chance to clarify things) simply because I do care. And I knew that your greenie came from Agenda Man without having to look!

The main reason for me in joining the FSS was to achieve fan ownership to the point that we could stop the Mark Campbells of this world from running the club into the ground. That means getting 25%+1 of shares into FSS ownership (our ownership). Having said that we obviously can't simply keep buying shares so the cash raised beyond this will need to be donated to the club at some point and I'm happy to continue paying my cash to achieve this. However, like most, I'm not very impressed by these latest revelations but I will not be cancelling my subscription and I would urge all members to continue to pay until we can get some clarification on the situation. If you stop, it may be forever, and we don't want that! I would rather that no more monies are paid to the club until this is sorted out. Hopefully this can be sorted before the meeting in September but, if not, both the FSS and the BOD better have some big answers for us when the meeting comes around!

Alex Bryce

Well earned win in the end. Annan looked pretty knackered toward the end of the game and I felt that their heads dropped when we scored our first. I thought that the goalie and defence were all good as were Spencer and Hendo in midfield. The others were a bit hot and cold I felt. Alfie was poor so he'll be good next week, Morrison didn't look particularly interested to me until maybe 5 minutes before his goal, he then started to turn it on and I felt that he should have stayed on with Agyeman going off. Big McIver will be important to us I think. Also Nesbitt did exactly what I think he'll be good at, coming off the bench to influence things. It'll be a different challenge next week of course, but we're well capable of winning it.

I think the time to judge is after we've either won or can't win the league. Nothing that's coming would surprise me now TBH.

f**k me! And a nice wee greenie from Pedro too!

I don't remember him ever actually playing 1st time round.

Nah. I would argue that Mackie actually makes the squad more balanced because he can play in two positions on the left. We have two right sided CBs, two left sided CBs and a LB (not including McKay who I don't think is in his long term plans). What we need is a RB. Don't know if anyone's noticed that though.

None of the players that you mentioned make the squad imbalanced.

McGlynn has built a good squad, there are a lot of good players at Falkirk, almost all of them well capable of playing and succeeding at L1 level. The problem for me is that he's not using them properly. The players look like they're unsure of their roles sometimes and very nervous with the playing out from the back stuff. With all due respect to Annan, we should be putting out an attacking side tomorrow but he'll most likely play McGinn and Spencer (if available) as defensive mids and hoping that Morrison and Agyeman can profit from McIver's hold up and knock downs. I'd play Henderson as an attacking mid with Spencer behind and Agyeman and McIver up front together. Not likely to happen though.

Wouldn't say he's been getting plaudits as such, but, as you say, given his age and the fact that he's getting played out of position, he's been doing fine IMO.

So, you'd have spent the budget on 'better' players. Squad's small enough IMO.

Aye, me too. I thought he was a bit more upbeat than recent interviews would suggest. He did say that the injuries that have been picked up were toward the end of the week too, so hopefully it's not down to Lang's knock from Saturday. He did say they were key players though which is worrying.

I didn't mean he would take a wage cut, I meant that possibly he would have taken the two year deal on the same money for security rather than try his luck elsewhere. V sorry if I confused you.

I've no idea, I don't know how much players earn, how do you? We're a wee bit short in squad numbers as it stands so I'm happy enough to have Nesbitt as an option and it may just be possible that he saw the 2 year deal on lower wages as a good choice because he wanted the security. Maybe he likes working for McGlynn, maybe he feels that he has a contribution to make here based on his stats from last season, maybe he likes looking at the kelpies every day when he drives to work?

Well said, and all I needed to say really, rather than rambling on and on and on!

Thank fuk you know so much about player's wages, makes things so much easier.

We definitely need a RB, although young Finn has been fine so far, however, if we had done we would still have needed to sign someone for the Miller role, someone who presumably would be cheaper and not as good. Don't see your point re Allan really. You're saying that he shouldn't have signed Allan, who he wanted to sign but should have waited to sign another striker that he wanted to sign?? Also 'some' of Nesbitt's wages would have been unlikely to sign anyone that we could see as a starter. He's a squad player and we need a squad. I believe contract extensions are normally triggered on number of games played. Oliver is a decent squad player at this level IMO and most of us were happy to offer McGinn any kind of extension that he wanted when he signed. As things stand the lack of a natural RB hasn't cost us anything in terms of goals lost I don't think with the blunders coming from Lang and Long so, as you say, time will tell if it costs us or not and, hopefully we can still get a RB on loan.

Let me understand this correctly then; you think we shouldn't have signed the two keepers but just one, more experienced one? That would have left us with one keeper and an academy laddie, yes? Presumably the experienced keeper would have cost more than Hogarth as well? From Lang, Spencer and Miller, who would you not have signed in order to sign a RB and would you not look to replace that player or would you bring in a cheaper option that's not as good? You wouldn't have re-signed Nesbitt, which is fair enough, but, again, would you not replace him or would you bring in an inferior player? You think the transfer fee for Allan was a waste, which I'm inlcined to agree with (can't have been much though), but would you have gone into the season without that striker option or would you have been looking to bring in someone else (which would have cost a wage)?

I hadn't worked it out, I just knew that the minimum payment was £10 monthly and that some folk would be paying more so assumed that's where the £3 figure came from.

I'd go with the same personnel but I'd have Spencer as the defensive CM with Morrison and Miller wide of Henderson who I'd have in a more advanced role behind Agyeman and McIver. Quite like the idea of Hendo ploughing through their midfield!

Surely the average sub is £3 per week currently given that the minimum figure is £10 monthly and some folk will obviously be paying more?

Of course, I sincerely hope that I'm wrong, but I think he would need to be renamed Nostradamus Swinney to answer that one!