ShaggerG

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!

I think you maybe need a wee catch up. There are plenty of folk who claimed that he didn't target a RB and the 30 miles thing has been reprised. (wee music reference for you there.)

Nail on head.

Aye, I think so, although I wonder if the BOD might think that he could keep us up so may give him another year?

It's clearly a failure of McGlynn's not to have managed to sign one, because he said himself that it was a priority. What annoys me are the folk that come on here claiming that he 'hadn't targeted one' or that 'he'd decided to spend his budget elsewhere' or that 'he only signs players within 30 miles' or any of that other pish, when they have absolutely no idea of what's gone on. Maybe he tried to sign Rowe, or Tumilty, or Hodson but, for whatever reason, was unsuccessful. We just don't know.

Entirely agree. It wouldn't matter what he does, he could win us promotion or the cup but it wouldn't be enough for some. Personally I think he's as good as we could expect under the circumstances and I hope he can get us up, but IMO he won't get us into the Premier, even if the budget was masiively increased.

I think most folk are saying that he's a good squad option, but that won't stop Pedro from taking the chance to twist the knife!

Fuckin knew it! Nesbitt's a pish aerial disruptor, should have been sacked for gross misconduct!

WTF are you on about? You said that McGlynn should have known that Mackie wasn't good enough. I said that he obviously thinks he is or he wouldn't have signed him. You're now saying that there was no need to bring Mackie in. Should we therefore only have 11 signed players, or would it maybe be sensible to have a few back-up options, particularly ones that can play in more than one position and that we can realistically expect to land given our current situation? There are, without a shadow of a doubt, better left backs than Sean Mackie or indeed Leon McCann out there. Maybe we should be signing them? On one year deals only of course! Were you unhappy with McGinn signing in the first place, or were you one of the thousands of Falkirk fans that were delighted to get him? Do you think signing him with an option to stay was a bad idea, when possibly that's the only way we could get him? (Of course you do because we should have been dumping him after his first season no matter how good he had been) McGlynn couldn't possibly have forseen his future injury situation so can't be blamed for that. I can't be arsed looking back to see if you're one of the guys that feels he's failed by not bringing in a RB (which he has), although I suspect you are, so why wouldn't Rowe be a good option for the position? Until his injury his form had been good, possibly our best RB since Duffy, so, bearing in mind that we play in L1, why wouldn't he be good enough? Which RB would you be happy with?

Personally I don't see anything wrong with having Nesbitt as a squad player, definitely worth having him as an option from the bench as I think he's the type of player that can have an influence. Ideally I wouldn't have him as a starter but, if it turned out that he's good enough to be one then that's a win-win. Bearing in mind that we're a L1 club I can't see that we're going to get very much better as a squad filler and I don't think he'll be one of our higher earners either.

Well McGlynn obviously thought that Mackie was good enough or he wouldn't have signed him. What about all the other players that he's signed that aren't good enough? You don't think he should have signed any of them?

So you think that McGlynn knew that those players weren't good enough when he signed them? I remember folk lauding Mackie in the LC games last season, particularly when he wiped out that Hibs player and, to be fair to the guy, we haven't really seen a lot of him since. Do you feel that only one year deals should be given to all players? Edit to say that I can just imagine the amount of whining on here from some if, for example, Alfie was only given a one year deal and he walked away for nothing when we wanted to keep him as he turned out to be a superstar!