King Kebab Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Could be East Fife in the play offs, just as we make it 30 years since they last beat us. Perfect Storm Only if we have a drop in form and end up 4th!!!We'll keep you for the final!!![emoji6] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers_Lad Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Blame is with Locke and the board.Locke for actually thinking that some of the players he was wanting to bring in and did bring in were actually any good and the board for actually sanctioning it.Hughes is now left with somehow trying to muster a team thats has enough in it to get us out of the hole were in. If we go down it's a fukin long way back 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 8 hours ago, Rovers_Lad said: Blame is with Locke and the board.Locke for actually thinking that some of the players he was wanting to bring in and did bring in were actually any good and the board for actually sanctioning it.Hughes is now left with somehow trying to muster a team thats has enough in it to get us out of the hole were in. If we go down it's a fukin long way back Spot on. It's really fucking depressing because we're just waiting for the other shoe to drop at the minute. That 8th spot is just a dangling thread of probably misplaced hope. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 8 hours ago, Rovers_Lad said: Blame is with Locke and the board.Locke for actually thinking that some of the players he was wanting to bring in and did bring in were actually any good and the board for actually sanctioning it.Hughes is now left with somehow trying to muster a team thats has enough in it to get us out of the hole were in. If we go down it's a fukin long way back Not saying your board aren't at fault for appointing Locke in the first place, but once they've appointed Locke they need to back him. Refusing to "sanction" certain deals against the wish of the manager would not only have seen Locke most likely resign but it doesn't send out a great message to any incoming manager - the board will over-rule your judgement of a player if they deem it necessary. Do you think Yogi or any other half decent gaffer would agree to terms like that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 17 minutes ago, renton said: Spot on. It's really fucking depressing because we're just waiting for the other shoe to drop at the minute. That 8th spot is just a dangling thread of probably misplaced hope. Agreed. It was great to get the monkey off our back on Wednesday, but current record is nine points gained from the last 51 available. The only slight saving grace is Ayr have mustered 11 points in that same term so haven't really gained too much ground. We're definitely within striking distance though, and at this stage I'd also be pretty confident of St Mirren gaining eight more points than us over the final eight matches (they have nine to play). We need to pick up a couple of wins from somewhere - we play St Mirren away and Ayr at home in our final two, and to be honest on paper I think they're about our only realistic hope of three points. We need an unexpected result from somewhere. Our next two are free-falling Dundee United, and Queen of the South with little to play for, both at home - we can ease relegation fears or put ourselves into the favourites to go down category. Money at this stage would have to be on the latter... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers1992/1993 Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Refusing to "sanction" certain deals against the wish of the manager would not only have seen Locke most likely resign Don't really see a problem here tbh Although what you're saying is had we stopped the Bates deal from going through. Or the Vaughan for Stevo deal, we could have seen Locke resign a month before he eventually got sacked? For fucks sake Drysdale. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 1 minute ago, Rovers1992/1993 said: Don't really see a problem here tbh Haha, true. But the problem comes in trying to replace him with someone who's happy to be told what players they can and cannot sign with the budget they were given. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers_Lad Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) 53 minutes ago, The Moonster said: Not saying your board aren't at fault for appointing Locke in the first place, but once they've appointed Locke they need to back him. Refusing to "sanction" certain deals against the wish of the manager would not only have seen Locke most likely resign but it doesn't send out a great message to any incoming manager - the board will over-rule your judgement of a player if they deem it necessary. Do you think Yogi or any other half decent gaffer would agree to terms like that? Know what your saying but there comes a point irrespective of which club it is or board to say no we can't or won't sanction anymore players coming in otherwise a manager would continually be banging the boardroom door.In our case more so with the actual standard of players he was allowed to bring in.It akined to quantity over quality Edited March 13, 2017 by Rovers_Lad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 56 minutes ago, The Moonster said: Not saying your board aren't at fault for appointing Locke in the first place, but once they've appointed Locke they need to back him. Refusing to "sanction" certain deals against the wish of the manager would not only have seen Locke most likely resign but it doesn't send out a great message to any incoming manager - the board will over-rule your judgement of a player if they deem it necessary. Do you think Yogi or any other half decent gaffer would agree to terms like that? They certainly did back him - he brought in some amount of players. Shame all of the "forward thinking" ones he brought in are useless and we have no cover at full back, right enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 I just had a count of the players who have physically appeared for us this season - so Locke superstars like Robbie Crawford and David Syme don't count. We've used 26 different players on the pitch, with at least another seven or eight (Crawford/Syme/Bates/youth players) who have sat on the bench but not made it on. Would be interesting to see how that compares with the rest of the league, because it seems like far too much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 16 minutes ago, Rovers_Lad said: Know what your saying but there comes a point irrespective of which club it is or board to say no we can't or won't sanction anymore players coming in otherwise a manager would continually be banging the boardroom door.In our case more so with the actual standard of players he was allowed to bring in.It akined to quantity over quality I assume that point would be when his budget is gone, if he still has a budget to work with then you can't really stop him bringing in players even if you doubt their quality. It's a really dangerous thing for a board to get into in my opinion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 10 minutes ago, Paco said: I just had a count of the players who have physically appeared for us this season - so Locke superstars like Robbie Crawford and David Syme don't count. We've used 26 different players on the pitch, with at least another seven or eight (Crawford/Syme/Bates/youth players) who have sat on the bench but not made it on. Would be interesting to see how that compares with the rest of the league, because it seems like far too much. We've fielded 28 separate players at some point this season and that only includes one goalkeeper rather than your five. Another 5, including three different goalkeepers, have been on the bench without making it onto the pitch, the latest being Ayrton Sonkur who was on the bench for the first time on Saturday. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers_Lad Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 3 hours ago, The Moonster said: I assume that point would be when his budget is gone, if he still has a budget to work with then you can't really stop him bringing in players even if you doubt their quality. It's a really dangerous thing for a board to get into in my opinion. TM Not really.I don't think it's a dangerous thing for a board to do regards where any finances are spent.Thats there job Besides,we were forever being told our budget was burst only for another player to appear Be interesting to see our next financial report 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CALDERON Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Thats the problem with clubs our size. There is nobody in between the manager and the board. Manager says we need player x, seems like the board say "Cool, how much do you need for him?" It wouldnt be unreasonable to ask for justification for a number of the signings we have made this season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.R.FC Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 With the size of squad and paying off around 18 months of Locke's contract, I can't imagine we've run at a profit this season. Serious questions should(and will) be asked of the board at the end of the season, regardless of where we end up. Looking at the table, I think we need 10-12 points to guarantee safety. Looking at our fixtures I'm struggling to see where we'll get them. We really need 4-6 points from our next 2 home games which is a big ask. But with 4 of our last 6 games away from home with our awful away form we need to give ourselves a good cushion. Hughes hasn't had the impact any of us hoped and he has already made many decisions that would have seen Locke slaughtered (Triple sub vs Hibs, playing Bene and Thomson out of position at QOS when McHattie was available, no goalkeeper vs Ayr, subs against Dumbarton) but I still feel his hands are tied by the guff he has inherited whether it be through lack of talent or confidence. Someone suggested trying a back 5 but I think that's part of our recent problem. We are changing personal and formation on a weekly basis which doesn't help anyone. Understandable given our terrible form but it doesn't help. Hughes needs to pick a formation and his preferred 11 to fit within that and give them a decent run together to develop some consistency. I think his lack of knowledge of the squad is part of the reason for the changes too, he's still trying to find out who he can trust but that's where Craig Easton should help out. The team I'd for (and this will get hounded) would be: Whoever is fit Thomson Bene M'Voto McHattie Davo C.Barr B. Barr Callachan Coustrain Hardie I realise C.Barr and Davo in there would be eye bleeding but I thought Davo did a pretty good job shielding the back 4 against St Mirren(distribution aside). Also playing the 2 of them would give more defensive security to free up our attacking players to express themselves. It also frees up Callachan who I feel is much better when he's playing on the front foot. It wouldn't be pretty to watch but I'd be more than happy to see us shitfest ourselves to a few 0-0's and 1-0's to get us over the line. TL; DR version = Sack the board, stop tinkering Yogi and lets shitfest our way to safety. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 1 hour ago, CALDERON said: Thats the problem with clubs our size. There is nobody in between the manager and the board. Manager says we need player x, seems like the board say "Cool, how much do you need for him?" It wouldnt be unreasonable to ask for justification for a number of the signings we have made this season. Well in about 2008 we did have that exact scenario. The utterly inept George Craig was the man between the board and Yogi. So well did that model work, that we almost got relegated in 08/09 while spending a fortune, then got relegated in 09/10 while spending a fortune, then failed to get back up in 10/11 while saddled with some huge contracts for Twaddle, Scobbie, O'Brien etc. Then we almost went to the wall, and we've not got back up yet! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 2 hours ago, R.R.FC said: With the size of squad and paying off around 18 months of Locke's contract, I can't imagine we've run at a profit this season. You will have made a £150k or so windfall out of the Hearts Scottish Cup tie presumably which will mitigate results considerably. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bambino7 Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Ranaldo Bairn said: Well in about 2008 we did have that exact scenario. The utterly inept George Craig was the man between the board and Yogi. So well did that model work, that we almost got relegated in 08/09 while spending a fortune, then got relegated in 09/10 while spending a fortune, then failed to get back up in 10/11 while saddled with some huge contracts for Twaddle, Scobbie, O'Brien etc. Then we almost went to the wall, and we've not got back up yet! George Craig is doing a fine job at a club our size. Falkirks issue was they tried to play with the big boys and got burnt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Thats the problem with clubs our size. There is nobody in between the manager and the board. Manager says we need player x, seems like the board say "Cool, how much do you need for him?" It wouldnt be unreasonable to ask for justification for a number of the signings we have made this season. The Chief Executive (Eric) is the person between the manager and the Board. Isn't he? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 3 hours ago, Jordan Rode said: George Craig is doing a fine job at a club our size. Falkirks issue was they tried to play with the big boys and got burnt. Yes, that's exactly what happened. We showed reckless "ambition" under JH and GC's watch, encouraged by a weak board. As I said, he was incompetent. I hope, for your sake, he hasn't started hiding the VAT demands from his superiors... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.