The New Raith Rovers Thread

[Guest JBJ]

2 minutes ago, Highlandmagyar Tier 3 said:

Comments ranging from £1000 to £1400 per week.

Guesses then. 

[Guest JBJ]

8 minutes ago, Brashy's Boots said:

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

Whereas other reports have it at  65k plus a fee per goal....and even an add on if RR achieved promotion.

Those are pretty standard bonuses, for any player, in any squad.

Yes but it takes the transfer fee higher than the widely accepted 50k

[Highlandmagar]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

Guesses then. 

I have seen Clyde fans quote he was on £1000 per week there. If true, then it wouldn't be far off those figures.

[Guest JBJ]

5 minutes ago, Highlandmagyar Tier 3 said:

I have seen Clyde fans quote he was on £1000 per week there. If true, then it wouldn't be far off those figures.

He’d move for the same wage? So we could assume the wage offered by RR nearer the £1,400 you mention. 

[Highlandmagar]

Just now, JBJ said:

He’d move for the same wage? So we could assume the wage offered by RR nearer the £1,400 you mention. 

You would think so. But if its the same wage, he may have got a signing on fee, better bonuses etc.

[Guest JBJ]

1 minute ago, Highlandmagyar Tier 3 said:

You would think so. But if its the same wage, he may have got a signing on fee, better bonuses etc.

Possible..... I’d say the RR win bonus would be a lot higher than Clyde. No guarantee of that income as the RR squad will currently know.

 

[ribzanelli]

10 hours ago, flood said:

Do Raith fans actually think McGlyn would allow the board to identify and sign players without his say so?

Seems a bit off deflection going on…

So the party line seems to be that McGlynn identified the player in Dec as a potential signing but the fan outrage saw it kicked in to touch. Then Clyde approached the board at the 11th hour who voted 4-2 to go ahead. Not clear if they briefed McGlynn or not. There is probably a degree of people wanting this to be true due to a previous love of McGlynn and it very well might not be true, but it isn’t an outrageous scenario and nobody on the inside has put forward an alternative so it seems reasonable to think it may well be an accurate reflection of how things went down.

[Guest JBJ]

4 minutes ago, ribzanelli said:

So the party line seems to be that McGlynn identified the player in Dec as a potential signing but the fan outrage saw it kicked in to touch. Then Clyde approached the board at the 11th hour who voted 4-2 to go ahead. Not clear if they briefed McGlynn or not. There is probably a degree of people wanting this to be true due to a previous love of McGlynn and it very well might not be true, but it isn’t an outrageous scenario and nobody on the inside has put forward an alternative so it seems reasonable to think it may well be an accurate reflection of how things went down.

I’d disagree. 

I wouldn’t think for one minute the Clyde board made an approach to RR.

[ribzanelli]

6 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I’d disagree. 

I wouldn’t think for one minute the Clyde board made an approach to RR.

Which is your right. I’m not massively bothered so this is my last comment on it but I can’t really get my head round Bill Clark’s motivation for lying about this.

[Scottydog]

Clyde or someone contacted Raith and Falkirk to offload DG, were they desperate to get him off the books for some reason or another? Two years ago when he signed his last deal at Clyde in 2020 his agent made it clear he was available to anyone that would meet his £1,000/week and 2 year deal request. some Clyde fans on here insisted that was bullshit at the time, but I knew from someone involved in talks at the time that it was 100% true. Same way I know it to be true that in December his agent was all but hawking him to anyone that would have him. What changed at Clyde? Was it DG getting greedy or were Clyde were suddenly unable to pay the wages? Did someone new come in who dictated he must go (is oor Val coming to Cumbernauld?). He was on £1k/week at Clyde the deal at Raith would only have been an improved deal with us, as for the sale I'm now far more prepared to believe it was a lot closer to £60k than £50k.

Seems apparent that McGlynn is being hung out to dry and though if not exactly set up to fail I don't think Sim and his cohorts will mind greatly if he does, he'll see the season and the remainder of his contract out then be replaced in the summer. Who will be the new man? Sim never was a McGlynn fan and I seem to remember a certain former player being Sim's rumoured favoured choice before on 2 previous occasions.

We took Lang for free and paid a kings ransom (and then some!) for Goodwillie, what sort of contract is Danny Lennon on? It's just a thought.

Having done such great work to drag the club back up towards a position of decent stature and reputation, in the space of one day the 4 members of the board have undone 6 or 7 years work and subsequently set the club on a downwards spiral they have absolutely no clue about how to fix. I hear they in communication with various groups and individuals and are asking what they can do to rebuild trust, many have told them but they just don't like the common answers they're getting.

I was all for mending bridges and just getting on with it, making the best of a bad lot and hopefully taking the club back forward but the more that comes out about the stupidity and sheer pig headedness of those involved in this deal the more I'm leaning back towards them ALL going. Sending John McGlynn and Bene out to be mauled by the press while continuing (still) to hide behind nameless empty (yes empty) apologies earmarks them all as spineless wasters. I say empty apologies because knowing they still haven't reached out to the womans team show that their apologies are just that, empty!  The colossal ego's of those involved suggest that they are entrenched and still don't genuinely think they are wrong and that most of the rest of us are right.

Sim to step down (and back), the other 3 and the CEO to go is what's required, however if they wont appear publicly to admit complacency and apologise then there is absolutely no chance of them walking away, they mean to ride out the storm and the longer they can keep this going as is then the better their chances of survival. And it's looks increasingly like survival at any cost, vast (by our standards) sums thrown away at DG & Clyde, sponsors lost, volunteers and staff gone and the players fund that had been built up to £5k/month decimated. 

Goodwilliegate has set the club back massively, how much, only time will tell. Goodwillie will never play for Rovers but it's clearly not over, as long as the egomaniacs remain at large at SP.

Edited twice for improved accuracy and all the other times because I cant spell worth a fuch!

Edited February 22, 2022 by Scottydog

[Guest JBJ]

7 minutes ago, Scottydog said:

Clyde contacted Raith and Falkirk to offload DG, they were desperate to get him off the books for some reason or another. Two years ago when he signed his last deal at Clyde in 2020 his agent made it clear he was available to anyone that would meet his £1,000/week and 2 year deal request. some Clyde fans on here insisted that was bullshit to me at the time, but I knew from someone involved in talks at the time that it was 100% true. Same way I know it to be true that in December his agent was hawking him to anyone that would have him. What changed at Clyde? Were they were suddenly unable to pay the wages? Did someone new come in who dictated he must go (is oor Val coming to Cumbernauld?). He was on £1k/week at Clyde the deal at Raith would only have been an improved deal with us, as for the sale I'm now far more prepared to believe it was a lot closer to £60k than £50k.

Seems apparent that McGlynn is being hung out to dry and though if not exactly set up to fail I don't think Sim and his cohorts will mind greatly if he does, he'll see the season and the remainder of his contract out then be replaced in the summer. Who will be the new man? I seem to remember a certain former player being Sim's rumoured favoured choice before on 2 previous occasions.

We took Lang for free and paid a kings ransom (and then some!) for Goodwillie, what sort of contract is Danny Lennon on? It's just a thought.

Having done such great work to drag the club back up towards a position of decent stature and reputation, in the space of one day the 4 members of the board have undone 6 or 7 years work and subsequently set the club on a downwards spiral they have absolutely no clue about how to fix. I hear they in communication with various groups and individuals and are asking what they can do to rebuild trust, many have told them but they just don't like the common answers they're getting.

I was all for mending bridges and just getting on with it, making the best of a bad lot and hopefully taking the club back forward but the more that comes out about the stupidity and sheer pig headedness of those involved in this deal the more I'm leaning back towards them ALL going. Sending John McGlynn and Bene out to be mauled by the press while continuing (still) to hide behind nameless empty (yes empty) apologies earmarks them all as wasters. I say empty apologies because knowing they still haven't reached out to the womans team show that they are just that, empty!  The colossal ego's of this involved suggest that they are entrenched and still don't genuinely think they are wrong and that most of the rest of us are right.

Sim to step down (and back), the other 3 and the CEO to go is what's required, however if they wont appear publicly to admit complacency and apologise then there is absolutely no chance of them walking away, they mean to ride out the storm and the longer they can keep this going as is then the better their chances of survival. And it's looks increasingly like survival at any cost, vast (by our standards) sums thrown away at DG & Clyde, sponsors lost, volunteers and staff gone and the players fund that had been built up to £5k/month decimated. 

Goodwilliegate has set the club back massively, how much, only time will tell. Goodwillie will never play for Rovers but it's clearly not over, as long as the egomaniacs remain at large at SP.

 

Loads on here that I can’t/won’t comment on. However your first paragraph is factually incorrect. The player did not have an agent in 2020 and to my knowledge that remains the case today.

It’s such a shame the way things have turned out. 
A lot of Clyde supporters were very interested in RR this season as Tom Lang was very popular during his 3 spells at Clyde and people were following his progress.

Even if it was true that Clyde actively tried to convince (or in your words “offload”) RR to buy the player, (and I can think of no reason they would, either financial or otherwise) the final decision was taken by RR Board.

I hope eventually things settle down for all concerned.
 

 

[Scottydog]

17 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Loads on here that I can’t/won’t comment on. However your first paragraph is factually incorrect. The player did not have an agent in 2020 and to my knowledge that remains the case today.

It’s such a shame the way things have turned out. 
A lot of Clyde supporters were very interested in RR this season as Tom Lang was very popular during his 3 spells at Clyde and people were following his progress.

Even if it was true that Clyde actively tried to convince (or in your words “offload”) RR to buy the player, (and I can think of no reason they would, either financial or otherwise) the final decision was taken by RR Board.

I hope eventually things settle down for all concerned.
 

 

When you hear the term "representative on behalf of" then you automatically assume that it's an agent that is being dealt with, no?

If that's not the case then it's the club or/and the player directly. As for the initial approach in 2020 that did not come from RRFC, the new approach in December 2021 certainly may have been initiated by someone at SP (I'm told it wasn't but if it did then likely John McGlynn?) but either way the deal was dead in the water around 6pm on the 31st until allegedly someone (and again I think they did) made a later call to someone at Raith Rovers to renegotiate and get it back on. As far as all the directors at RRFC were concerned the deal was dead prior to that call. Who really knows though? But I suppose equally perhaps Sim called from Thailand to tell his CEO to up the offer to Clyde or DG. I don't trust any of them, I don't think they could lie straight in bed.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Scottydog

[ribzanelli]

Don’t think it was as late as 6pm on deadline day, Bill Clark claimed the approach came in on the weekend which resulted in a board meeting to vote on it on the Monday morning. Think some ITK Clyde fans were claiming it was happening all day Monday, with Rovers fans praying they were WUMs.

Edit to add: unless it was on as per Bill Clark, then off due to disagreement over terms, then back on again in the evening if Clyde came back with a more acceptable deal in which case I guess we are both right.

Edited February 22, 2022 by ribzanelli

[Scottydog]

8 minutes ago, ribzanelli said:

Don’t think it was as late as 6pm on deadline day, Bill Clark claimed the approach came in on the weekend which resulted in a board meeting to vote on it on the Monday morning. Think some ITK Clyde fans were claiming it was happening all day Monday, with Rovers fans praying they were WUMs.

I believe the deal was voted through at the board meeting only to fall through later (after teatime). It was on and off before on again. 

[HoBNob]

1 hour ago, ribzanelli said:

. Not clear if they briefed McGlynn or not. There is probably a degree of people wanting this to be true due to a previous love of McGlynn and it very well might not be true, but it isn’t an outrageous scenario and nobody on the inside has put forward an alternative so it seems reasonable to think it may well be an accurate reflection of how things went down.

The board not briefing McGlynn that they're in talks to sign someone who would be taking up a significant portion of his wage budget isn't an outrageous scenario? Mothering f**k. 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Scottydog said:

I believe the deal was voted through at the board meeting only to fall through later (after teatime). It was on and off before on again. 

There was a wild rumour going around that Raith had all but signed him, then the Greenwood incident occurred and it put a spanner in the works as some Raith board members were concerned it would make the situation even worse. 

[AlanCamelonfan]

3 hours ago, roverthemoon said:

Still the most unbelievable part of all of this to me. That we actually PAID for the privilege of fucking over our club. 

The most unbelievable thing about it is your own fans are continuing the fucking over by keeping it going. 

 

You need to move on it can't be changed it happened. What is going on about it a month down the line achieving? Other than potentially blowing your promotion chances 

[Scottydog]

4 minutes ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

The most unbelievable thing about it is your own fans are continuing the fucking over by keeping it going. 

You need to move on it can't be changed it happened. What is going on about it a month down the line achieving? Other than potentially blowing your promotion chances 

That's your view as an impartial insider and of course that's up to you. However as someone with a vested interest in the club I see it very differently. In 24 hours we have watched 4 or 5 people destroy what took a hell of a lot of dedicated people  (players, coaches, fans, volunteers and directors) years and years to build up. As far as I'm concerned the trust isn't there to allow those that screwed us up so severely to continue. I don't trust them to get it right next time, I don't trust they are sorry in any way or even that they actually believe they have done made a wrong choice, I still think they believe they are being castigated unfairly and that they will prevail over time. 

Just to be clear, it sounds a lot like if this was your club's board that had done this you'd be happy to sweep it all under the rug and carry on as if nothing happened?

[AlanCamelonfan]

14 minutes ago, Scottydog said:

That's your view as an impartial insider and of course that's up to you. However as someone with a vested interest in the club I see it very differently. In 24 hours we have watched 4 or 5 people destroy what took a hell of a lot of dedicated people  (players, coaches, fans, volunteers and directors) years and years to build up. As far as I'm concerned the trust isn't there to allow those that screwed us up so severely to continue. I don't trust them to get it right next time, I don't trust they are sorry in any way or even that they actually believe they have done made a wrong choice, I still think they believe they are being castigated unfairly and that they will prevail over time. 

Just to be clear, it sounds a lot like if this was your club's board that had done this you'd be happy to sweep it all under the rug and carry on as if nothing happened?

Not at all as I've said to others we had a financial scandal in the summer that was what it was someone did something they shouldn't have done. It didn't need all the crap that happened and the people who were giving it large were no where to be seen. 

The person who made the mistake had to return otherwise we wouldn't have had a club.

[AlanCamelonfan]

22 minutes ago, Scottydog said:

That's your view as an impartial insider and of course that's up to you. However as someone with a vested interest in the club I see it very differently. In 24 hours we have watched 4 or 5 people destroy what took a hell of a lot of dedicated people  (players, coaches, fans, volunteers and directors) years and years to build up. As far as I'm concerned the trust isn't there to allow those that screwed us up so severely to continue. I don't trust them to get it right next time, I don't trust they are sorry in any way or even that they actually believe they have done made a wrong choice, I still think they believe they are being castigated unfairly and that they will prevail over time. 

Just to be clear, it sounds a lot like if this was your club's board that had done this you'd be happy to sweep it all under the rug and carry on as if nothing happened?

So I've actually saw it wreck the club we will be back and if we survive relegation then we will get their quicker 

[Double Jack D]

4 hours ago, ribzanelli said:

Which is your right. I’m not massively bothered so this is my last comment on it but I can’t really get my head round Bill Clark’s motivation for lying about this.

Maybe he was lied to?

His account was that he was told by the other board members that Clyde had been in touch over the weekend to say DG was available.