The New Raith Rovers Thread

[Rovers_Lad]

5 minutes ago, Raithie said:

I'm talking about loaning a season to someone in general going for forward. For cup games the e-ticket has your name on it as well. Suppose if you can't prove your the person on the ticket you could be refused entry. Different entertainment sector but this happens at gigs a lot. 

Fair enough but I was talking about this Saturday as per club statement

[Frank conner]

39 minutes ago, Rovers_Lad said:

Am I missing something(apart from grey cells)

This game isn,t on the season so no need to show season card

And what if somebody doesn,t happen to have photo ID on them?

 

Maybe they are worried the Taliban are trying to infiltrate Stark's. Tbh after the last couple of weeks you have to wonder whats next.

[Are we there yet?]

1 hour ago, Scary Bear said:

From memory right enough, but did we not get a couple of hundred grand for Brewster?

He didnt sign his contract...I think he went for a 'free transfer'...https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/craig-brewster/transfers/spieler/12619

[Are we there yet?]

3 hours ago, Been going too long said:

Hi John hi pal

Wouldnt mind his money and an apartment in Singapore....but I'm not. 

[pantene proV]

2 hours ago, SirJimmyofNic said:

Only its no up to the manager , in part today he was flung under a bus by the Ceo / Sim

I'm not blaming JM, but the interview makes it look like we are open for easy business. 

[piebob]

From what I understand, it more likely to be concession tickets that flag up the need to prove who you are. There is nothing stopping anyone buying a concession ticket online and gaining entry with it, if no-one is checking. Previously the club only sold these from the ticket office windows - so they were able to perform this check. Seems a fairly reasonable step to me. 

On the pay at the gate bit - I don't think this will ever come back. You can literally stand outside the ground and purchase a ticket online then show the barcode - so no need for cash to exchange hands etc. at the gate. 

[Hercy]

7 hours ago, Are we there yet? said:

He didnt sign his contract...I think he went for a 'free transfer'...https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/craig-brewster/transfers/spieler/12619

It was before Bosman ruling so he couldn't have walked at end of contract. Not sure on him refusing to sign a new deal but the transfer fee was reported as 250k. 

[L. Brilliant]

1 hour ago, Hercy said:

It was before Bosman ruling so he couldn't have walked at end of contract. Not sure on him refusing to sign a new deal but the transfer fee was reported as 250k. 

That's how I remembered it as well.

Hetherston to Aberdeen went to tribunal and we got 90k (they had offered about 10k)

[Raith_Raver]

8 hours ago, pantene proV said:

I'm not blaming JM, but the interview makes it look like we are open for easy business. 

McGlynn wont publicly criticise his employers but I'd bet he's unhappy privately. Yes, he made it clear that all players are available, and the board will accept a nominal fee.

[Raithie]

2 hours ago, piebob said:

From what I understand, it more likely to be concession tickets that flag up the need to prove who you are. There is nothing stopping anyone buying a concession ticket online and gaining entry with it, if no-one is checking. Previously the club only sold these from the ticket office windows - so they were able to perform this check. Seems a fairly reasonable step to me. 

Suppose all people have to say is they weren't aware the need to bring photo ID as it wasn't made apparent at the time the ticket was bought. The article also only asks for photo ID not photo ID that includes DOB as proof you're a concession. 

[Rover the Moon]

Silence is deafening from Sim and Macartney on this. If your business was being slaughtered right, left and centre from its customer base then you’d want to nip it in the bud pretty quickly.

What’s their corporate buzzword acronym for AWOL?

[Double Jack D]

I've enjoyed large parts of the discussion on the Tait transfer and I can feel myself shifting opinion on it. McGlynn's interview was a bit strange and he appeared quite defensive. However I think he was genuinely pleased with the situation and wants us to be a club where youth gets its chance and if the opportunity to move is provided then we will accommodate that. I suppose if he's happy with it then who am I to complain.

I suppose the bigger picture is that we become a place where the best 16/17 year olds can see they will get opportunity and coaching to progress them to a bigger opportunity then more could be willing to come to us rather than sit on the bench at a bigger club or sign for one of our rivals. If we make £100,000+ off selling one of them 2 out of every 3 seasons with significant sell on clauses then that can only be good for the longer term prospects of the club and secure the resources to keep feeding that from the bottom.

If McGlynn is confident that the deal secures us enough time to scout and replace or develop some of the other guys there into a replacement then that does for me. I'll keep my development subs going for now

[Raith Against The Machine]

11 minutes ago, Raith_Raver said:

McGlynn wont publicly criticise his employers but I'd bet he's unhappy privately. Yes, he made it clear that all players are available, and the board will accept a nominal fee.

I get the opposite impression. I think McGlynn's being quite genuine there, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear an interview with John Sim further down the line where he says something about the manager's comments not being particularly helpful in driving up future bids. 

Which is not to say that there's some massive internal turmoil going on at the club. I'm sure there isn't. I think there's probably an element of wondering where all this reaction has come from, but that's because it's primarily a PR failure. 

The facts are these: the club received a bid that was acceptable under the circumstances, and the player was sold. Everything else is window dressing. But window dressing matters. 

As I said yesterday, it's really not difficult to control this situation. Ideally you'd want to get out ahead of it, but due to the nature of deadline day and last minute business, that wasn't possible. So you've got twelve hours or so of empty space that was filled with immediate reaction. You saw that with St Johnstone too. But then you can respond. And it's easy! Football fans are easy! You know what they want to hear! Just pander! 

[Wildrover]

I think we all understand that we are a selling club, but the it's the nature of the deal that sticks in my craw we have basically sold one of our most promising players with years left on his contract to the first bidder that came along, weakening our team, we did not have to accept this bid, why could we not have knocked it back and wait until January or next summer to see if other bids would have come in, it smacks of a gutless board with no forward vision for the club on the football front, as for JMc's interview it was car crash stuff.

On the ticket front I don't understand why we would need photo ID for a ticket that can only be scanned once and not re-used?, as usual at the moment it's been requested totally out of the blue, what is the reasoning behind this, the club don't trust there "customers" methinks.  

[Raith_Raver]

The bottom line is that McGlynn was succeeding in building a decent team and the board is knocking the feet from under him.

[pantene proV]

2 hours ago, Double Jack D said:

 

I suppose the bigger picture is that we become a place where the best 16/17 year olds can see they will get opportunity and coaching to progress them to a bigger opportunity then more could be willing to come to us rather than sit on the bench at a bigger club or sign for one of our rivals. If we make £100,000+ off selling one of them 2 out of every 3 seasons with significant sell on clauses then that can only be good for the longer term prospects of the club and secure the resources to keep feeding that from the bottom.

 

Is there a significant sell on clause? 

I'm not disputing getting money in is good, and selling players on as they develop is good, just that we should at the very least think about the club's interest as much as the player's. They move on, we don't.

We won't play hardball because if we do, the player might get injured and we'd lose in the long run?! What kind of argument is that? 

If we didn't need to sell then we don't sell, then January comes  and we may get double what we got for a player with another few months in the shop window. It's more than 50/50 odds that happening than being injured long term like Andrew Driver and losing out on a fee (who JM brought up as an example to sell, for anyone who never watched the interview) .

[Double Jack D]

1 hour ago, pantene proV said:

Is there a significant sell on clause? 

I'm not disputing getting money in is good, and selling players on as they develop is good, just that we should at the very least think about the club's interest as much as the player's. They move on, we don't.

We won't play hardball because if we do, the player might get injured and we'd lose in the long run?! What kind of argument is that? 

If we didn't need to sell then we don't sell, then January comes  and we may get double what we got for a player with another few months in the shop window. It's more than 50/50 odds that happening than being injured long term like Andrew Driver and losing out on a fee (who JM brought up as an example to sell, for anyone who never watched the interview) .

No idea mate, suppose we may find out in time.

I dont disagree with anything else you say either. However, the gaffer, appeared to genuinely approve of the deal... in fact more so, he was quite enthusiastic about it. He saw it as success that he took someone from being rejected by Partick Thistle and in 2 years made £100k plus whatever future clauses are triggered for the club whilst giving a player an opportunity to develop their career and progress to the top level in Scotland. It was a very candid, and selfless assessment.

There's a lot of rights on both sides of the argument here. Dylan Tait is a good young player and he has the potential to have a great future in the game. Ultimately our timing/ valuation may not be the best but as long as the gaffer is happy and the board aren't selling behind his back then I still have faith that we are moving in the right direction. If the 100k gives us the chance to sign and develop 3 or 4 more Dylan Taits then the future doesn't have to be doom and gloom.

However, don't get me wrong.... I'm still very much of the view we should've rejected, publicised what we rejected and waited to see what happened in January.

[Broken Algorithms]

Use the Tait money to bring home Ethan Ross. All will be forgiven.

Running a football club is that easy, right?

[Ro Sham Bo]

4 minutes ago, Broken Algorithms said:

Use the Tait money to bring home Ethan Ross. All will be forgiven.

Running a football club is that easy, right?

Is Ross still unattached? Development fee must be putting clubs off.

Edited September 3, 2021 by Ro Sham Bo

[Broken Algorithms]

Is Ross still unattached? Development fee must be putting clubs off.

He was initially linked to Blackburn and Sunderland but more recently its upped to Southampton. Can't blame the lad for biding his time. Wouldn't surprise me if he's signed then immediately out on loan.