Guest Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Sibbald and Alston were our academy players... We'd be more accurate saying Ross Wilson who I assume actually brought them to the club. Elvis played these guys as he had NO choice, don't make him out some kind of genius. What I will accept is that Elvis got a lot out his teams. But they weren't as good to watch as Holts team, and lost frequently to sides we should have been beating. Houston is getting much more out our players than Stubbs is getting from his. Houstie has proven he's a far better manager than Pressley IMO It would not have been Ross Wilson either. The Academy scouting team headed up by Ian Campbell do all the spade work. I am not saying Ross was not involved once they were there but finding the lads, identifying him? Nope. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Third person? "The job he is doing now suits George Craig's skill sets" or along those lines 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 "The job he is doing now suits George Craig's skill sets" or along those lines What an absolute dick of a man. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grass Is Greener. Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 I was speaking to someone today who ran into him and a few of the Hibs players including Farid in a bar in Puerto Banus yesterday. Still speaking GC speak apparently. Clearly Hibs preparing professionally for the final. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Three years ago today Steven Pressley left Falkirk. The improvement year on year is no coincidence. Holt took us a step back IMO. Should have been sacked for not getting us above Dundee and Hamilton. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) It is a true story much to your disappointment.You'll be more of a Blackpool illuminations kind of lad I guess though. Edited March 8, 2016 by Back Post Misses 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 I wasn't a total Pressley hater but this is nonsense. He was forced to work with the younger players, it wasn't his choice. We have since sold players since he's left as well so not sure what your point with that one is. He wasn't forced to it was his choice. There is a difference. He could easily have told Ritchie and his band of clowns to ram their job. He didn't and however those who slaughter SP his legacy is the turn around in Falkirk's fortune. He was clearly involved in putting together the plan to blood the kids young, get them up to 100 games for the club to cash in. Much as I hated it at the time the plan has worked out and along with 3 good cup runs the clubs financial performance is what it is now. We are benefiting from that now. Anyone saying we haven't either does not know what his brief was or are choosing to ignore it for their own agenda. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latapythelegend Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 See Houstie has another manager of the month award. Warburton yet to be offended. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gav-ffc Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Holt took us a step back IMO. Should have been sacked for not getting us above Dundee and Hamilton. 100% Sibbald regressed big time under Holt, Houstie really bringing the best out of him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BountyBairn Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 He wasn't forced to it was his choice. There is a difference. He could easily have told Ritchie and his band of clowns to ram their job. He didn't and however those who slaughter SP his legacy is the turn around in Falkirk's fortune. He was clearly involved in putting together the plan to blood the kids young, get them up to 100 games for the club to cash in. Much as I hated it at the time the plan has worked out and along with 3 good cup runs the clubs financial performance is what it is now. We are benefiting from that now. Anyone saying we haven't either does not know what his brief was or are choosing to ignore it for their own agenda. Not everyone is in the prawn sandwich brigade like yourself. So what was his brief? Entertain us, it hardly matters now. I don't doubt that he done reasonably with us. But he was forced to work with the youngsters. Remember he thought when taking the job on that we'd be staying in the spl. What happened from that point forward was him trying to save face and maintain his ego. If he or the board had enough gumption to admit they got it wrong he'd a been on his was much sooner. IIRC we got money when he left. Outstanding deal considering he polarised the support and achieved nothing really. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Fitzgerald Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 He wasn't forced to it was his choice. There is a difference. He could easily have told Ritchie and his band of clowns to ram their job. He didn't and however those who slaughter SP his legacy is the turn around in Falkirk's fortune. He was clearly involved in putting together the plan to blood the kids young, get them up to 100 games for the club to cash in. Much as I hated it at the time the plan has worked out and along with 3 good cup runs the clubs financial performance is what it is now. We are benefiting from that now. Anyone saying we haven't either does not know what his brief was or are choosing to ignore it for their own agenda. A rookie manager in his first job would not have challenged the board. If he had his selection of playing young inexperienced players, or playing experienced more qualified players, he would have picked the latter. It was his choice in the sense that he chose to stay as Falkirk manager. Not disputing his role in helping players get a market value and getting them sold. However, the point raised was that it was only Pressley who was able to do this. And since then ever managed to sell players for reasonable fees as well. Houston must have an excellent record of that with McGrandles, Biabi and Blair. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 100% Sibbald regressed big time under Holt, Houstie really bringing the best out of him. 100% COYB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Not everyone is in the prawn sandwich brigade like yourself. So what was his brief? Entertain us, it hardly matters now. I don't doubt that he done reasonably with us. But he was forced to work with the youngsters. Remember he thought when taking the job on that we'd be staying in the spl. What happened from that point forward was him trying to save face and maintain his ego. If he or the board had enough gumption to admit they got it wrong he'd a been on his was much sooner. IIRC we got money when he left. Outstanding deal considering he polarised the support and achieved nothing really. He as forced but could have told them to ram it. That is a choice. Were you actually following Falkirk then? What was his brief? He and Ritchie told everyone in the press his brief that it was to reduce the wage bill, blood young players to sell them on to keep the club afloat. FFS prawn sandwich brigade. That's a laugh. Like it or not the cash raised, and I hated the plan like most, has helped get us sound financially. In football terms we are however still in this division which alone shows progress steady not spectacular. COYB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 If Pressley was "forced" to play youngsters perhaps you can tell me why he signed Dods, McGovern, Flynn, Haworth Smith, Compton, McManus, Farid, Gibson, Weatherston, Higgins and Neilson? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Stubbs Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 TGIG has always been reliable with info in the past. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 If Pressley was "forced" to play youngsters perhaps you can tell me why he signed Dods, McGovern, Flynn, Haworth Smith, Compton, McManus, Farid, Gibson, Weatherston, Higgins and Neilson? What are you going on about? Look at the team that played in the semi finals. Take one or two of the older heads you mention out we would have had an average age of about 20. He needed one or two to balance the mix of the squad. As I have said before it sticks in the throat of some that SP's record developing these young players has got us in an excellent financial position. People forget we went from a 1st team budget of £1.3m to about 400k in 2 seasons. Houston has benefited now and he has still developed and sold players since taking over. To say SP has nothing to do with the changes in fortune at the club is both unfair and frankly untrue. It's not all down to him, I am not saying that, but he had a significant influence whether he chose to blood those players or was forced to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadwell Dog Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 My main issue with Pressley was his recruitment of players. Unfortunately for every decent signing he made he also made some real shockers which were the real reason we never really challenged for promotion in any single year under him. His attempts at keeping us in the top flight were also woeful with us failing to win a game in the last 5 matches against the dregs of the league. Yes he brought the young players through well but I really cant say I was sad to see him go when he did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 What do you mean then if you're saying he was "forced" to play youngsters? How many was he forced to play at any given time? How many "older heads" was he allowed to buy a season? If his remit was solely to get the club on sound financial footing why was he allowed to bring in, for example, Tam McManus, David Weatherston and Sean Higgins? Do you think a different manager would have meant Sibbald/Alston/Kingsley/Wallace/McGrandles would a) not have been in the first team and b) wouldn't have developed to the same extent if we had a different manager instead of Pressley? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Missed the budget reduction chat - can you let me know the reason why our budget dropped by that amount? Why did the revenue decrease so substantially? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believe The Hype Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 It was Pressley's choice not to just leave, fair enough, but that then meant if he was staying he was then going to have to play the youngsters whether he liked it or not. This would have been the same scenario any other manager taking control at that time would have also faced, therefore the manager's hand was forced to 'blood' these players in. 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.