The Falkirk FC Thread

[Newbornbairn]

Whoosh

[Monkey Tennis]

6 minutes ago, NewBornBairn said:

Whoosh

Sometimes even that word just seems inadequate.

[The Grass Is Greener.]

Double woosh.

[ShaggerG]

The Shepherd signing suggests to me that Houstie's preparing for life in the Championship next season!

Anyone know if McHugh's deal's up in the summer? This maybe points to him being released as we've too many strikers as it is. I'd be unhappy if that's the case as I like him as a player.

[ANEWHOPE]

I think that's why the game is being restructured. Kids will play at Under 18 level to begin with and then they progress to the Reserve League. In that league they'll be up against teams composed of experienced pros, albeit ones who're not good enough to play for the first team. It will give the youths a gentler introduction to senior football. If they can prosper there, then the final jump to the first team will be much less. Shepherd is a good example of the type of guy who ought to benefit from this, in that at the moment he's too good for U20s and not good enough for the first team. Or at least if he is good enough, then he hasn't shown it consistently enough when given the chance. 
I like the idea, other than the drawback that it will cost more money because clubs will need bigger squads as they'll be running three teams rather than two.

Is it being restructured for next season?

[Bainsfordbairn]

7 minutes ago, ANEWHOPE said:

Is it being restructured for next season?

 

 

The season after next I understand, though there's still a fair bit of work to be done to bring it to fruition. Plenty of stuff on the internet about the thing. Here's a recent example:-

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/sfas-project-brave-faces-backlash-10143231

 

 

[Bainsfordbairn]

20 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

Anyone know if McHugh's deal's up in the summer? This maybe points to him being released as we've too many strikers as it is. I'd be unhappy if that's the case as I like him as a player.

Contract is up. The announcement here was made in July 2015.

http://www.falkirkfc.co.uk/bob-mchugh-signs-on/

[ShaggerG]

3 minutes ago, Bainsfordbairn said:

Contract is up. The announcement here was made in July 2015.

http://www.falkirkfc.co.uk/bob-mchugh-signs-on/

Cheers. Am I right in thinking too that Baird was given a year's extension last season do you know? I'd keep McHugh ahead of him TBH.

[Bainsfordbairn]

6 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

Cheers. Am I right in thinking too that Baird was given a year's extension last season do you know? I'd keep McHugh ahead of him TBH.

The club gave him an extension last season but didn't announce the duration. I know how long it's for because I asked John, but I can't comment as it's never been officially publicised. If an unpaid volunteer - which is what I am - went around giving out what may be confidential information I'd get my arse kicked.

FFC went through a period of not publicising contract durations. The person responsible for that decision is no longer there and we now seem to quite open with contract info, as shown by the two extensions this week and recent signings such as McKee, Aird & Thomson. I hope we continue in this vein.

[ebobsboy]

Think Baird had a years option that was exercised.

[Guest]

I'm pleased for Scott. I've seen virtually all his games for the U20s this season and IMO he's done well enough to get one last chance of making it as a first team player.

The kiddies games are a mile from the Championship far less if we manage to somehow get up. Without argument he has failed to make an impression in 99% of the 61, yes 61, first team outings. (I assume that number includes the times he has been on the bench but failed to get on) He will be cheap though.

[Guest]

The problem with the falkirk stadium is they build the 3 stands too big instead of 4 smaller stands. A 4th terraced stand would be a good addition though.

The fucking council (who previously owned 2/7th of the Land at Brockville) insisted on the iconic stand if they were to be involved. The club dropped its drawers to these c***s and have regretted it to this day.

[Guest]

Think Baird had a years option that was exercised.

Baird I believe had a similar deal to the one McCraken had. He has already passed the amount of games required

[Anthony Fitzgerald]

Why are we offering contracts where we include clauses like this? Seems ludicrous.

[Bainsfordbairn]

15 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

in 99% of the 61, yes 61, first team outings. (I assume that number includes the times he has been on the bench but failed to get on)

 

Re the bit in brackets, it doesn't.

He's made six starts (not counting Stirlingshire Cup) and 55 sub appearances. I don't have stats for the sub appearances, but I reckon in the majority he would have barely been on for ten minutes. So it's perhaps a little unfair to judge him on the total number.

[gav-ffc]

Why are we offering contracts where we include clauses like this? Seems ludicrous.

McCracken was Gary Holts doing.

Baird can still do a job for us.

[Guest]

That makes it worse. Let's not forget he has been out on loan twice and been sent back after doing nothing with the men at a lower level

[ShaggerG]

1 hour ago, Bainsfordbairn said:

The club gave him an extension last season but didn't announce the duration. I know how long it's for because I asked John, but I can't comment as it's never been officially publicised. If an unpaid volunteer - which is what I am - went around giving out what may be confidential information I'd get my arse kicked.

FFC went through a period of not publicising contract durations. The person responsible for that decision is no longer there and we now seem to quite open with contract info, as shown by the two extensions this week and recent signings such as McKee, Aird & Thomson. I hope we continue in this vein.

Sorry, wasn't trying to put you on the spot. I had no idea that you were involved with the club in any capacity.

[Bainsfordbairn]

18 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

The fucking council (who previously owned 2/7th of the Land at Brockville) insisted on the iconic stand if they were to be involved. The club dropped its drawers to these c***s and have regretted it to this day.

 

I always thought the idea of working with the council was fine, IF (and that's a massive if) you could guarantee they would treat us as an equal partner and then shower us with the love and affection that you might expect from your partner after you got engaged. 

Nobody seems to have considered what would happen if Labour - who were always opposed to the Stadium - got back into power.

[Believe The Hype]

5 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Well no, it isn't silly, because what we're discussing here isn't what we'd all like to see sitting along the 4th side of Falkirk pitch (because the pitch DOES have four sides despite your daft foray into suggesting I implied otherwise in the previous post) but what's a feasible option. The Falkirk fans have already made it perfectly clear their club are not going to fund any build on the 4th side as they don't need it and that any such build will need to therefore be commercially viable for an external funder. It therefore isn't going to be old style terracing no matter how much you'd like it to be. If it happens it will be commercial accommodation with either a seated stand or potentially safe standing on top.

Musing about old style terracing is equivalent to you saying you'd like to be Cristiano Ronaldo in a discussion about your next realistic career move. It's a nice dream but utterly pointless in the context of the discussion.

 

5 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

The silly bit was suggesting I'd need to pay for it - a line you used before when I moaned about our own failure to open Terregles Street for a Cup tie.

We fundamentally disagree on the number of sides a ground should ideally aim to house people in.  I think that having an entirely blank length of the pitch is regrettable and that all avenues should be explored to change that.  The fact that seating is no longer needed in Scotland might present new opportunities in that regard.

You appear to have unilaterally decided otherwise though.

 

5 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

No we don't. You just choose to see it that way due to your stubborn refusal to accept the commercial realities of life. I've absolutely no wish to limit people to less than four sides of a ground. However, pointless pipe dreams suggesting a commercially suicidal approach just aren't going to happen and I'll continue to throw that line at you as long as you continue to put them out there. I make no apology for it.

Your last line is another "silly bit".