The Falkirk FC Thread

[EdiBairn]

It's a difficult position for the Board. They want to give us as much chance as possible of staying up. However, if we go and spend 250k in January and go down, we'll be in a difficult position. You've also got to remember that pay-off/ termination costs may well be incurred over and above the £100k in order to move players on.

[Guest]

It's a difficult position for the Board. They want to give us as much chance as possible of staying up. However, if we go and spend 250k in January and go down, we'll be in a difficult position. You've also got to remember that pay-off/ termination costs may well be incurred over and above the £100k in order to move players on.

 

They were offered significant investment 8 weeks ago. Well the MSG were and said they didn’t need the money.

[roman_bairn]

By that logic you would never speculate a little or teams with the biggest budget never win leagues. We know that is not true.
]

Even the bigger sides that spent big to gain success took a few seasons to get there. The current English champions are a prime example....

[Marshmallo]

15 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

 In his opinion Falkirk have 3/4 players tops up to to this level.

 

Work it out it is about 9 players at c1k/week. If is not as way out as it sounds. Remember at the fans forum McKinnon was talking about 8-10 to come in.

 

you also have NIC c10%, bonuses and maybe accommodation to pay

 

 

There's not 28 weeks of the season left, which is what 9k a week would equate to.

I would agree that we only have 3-4 players good enough to play Championship football at this moment in time.

[Guest]

There's not 28 weeks of the season left, which is what 9k a week would equate to.
I would agree that we only have 3-4 players good enough to play Championship football at this moment in time.

As i said it is not that far off if you need to bring in 10+

[EdiBairn]

From what I understand, Ray hasn't actually been given a fixed 'budget' as such. How much is spent will depend on what is available in January and what their demands are . The BOD will certainly be flexible if necessary I believe.

[Bainsfordbairn]

49 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

The number that was quoted to me that Falkirk required (by an agent) was 250k to guarantee safety.

I'm making a whole pile of assumptions here, but I think that figure is well off.

 

Lets assume we sign players in the first week in January and have to pay them until the end of May (worse-case scenario for expenditure). That's 22 weeks.

Let's also assume that the number of players McKinnon said he wanted at the fans forum was correct. He said up to eight. 

So 8 x 22 gives you a figure of 176 weekly salaries which have to be paid.

If you assume that the 100K quoted at the forum is also the money being made available to RM, then that equates to an average salary for incoming players of £568 per week. 

I'd speculate that's not far off the average going rate for FFC at the moment, though obviously I'm willing to be corrected if you know otherwise.

If your agent is right then instead of making 100K available we need to multiply that figure by 2.5. Meaning we need to spend an average of £1420/week on every incoming player to guarantee safety. 

So not only do we need to pay a player more than Rory Loy got with help from the Business Club, but we need to do it for seven of his teammates as well. 

Sorry BPM, but that just doesn't add up.  What am I missing?

[Guest]

I'm making a whole pile of assumptions here, but I think that figure is well off.

 

Lets assume we sign players in the first week in January and have to pay them until the end of May (worse-case scenario for expenditure). That's 22 weeks.

Let's also assume that the number of players McKinnon said he wanted at the fans forum was correct. He said up to eight. 

So 8 x 22 gives you a figure of 176 weekly salaries which have to be paid.

If you assume that the 100K quoted at the forum is also the money being made available to RM, then that equates to an average salary for incoming players of £568 per week. 

I'd speculate that's not far off the average going rate for FFC at the moment, though obviously I'm willing to be corrected if you know otherwise.

If your agent is right then instead of making 100K available we need to multiply that figure by 2.5. Meaning we need to spend an average of £1420/week on every incoming player to guarantee safety. 

So not only do we need to pay a player more than Rory Loy got with help from the Business Club, but we need to do it for seven of his teammates as well. 

Sorry BPM, but that just doesn't add up.  What am I missing?

 

I am only passing on what a professional in the game said. It was his opinion not mine.

 

He thought rightly our team was/is horrific and needed significant investment to keep us up and that was the number he gave me.

 

He was talking bringing in 12+

[EdiBairn]

Not a chance on this earth will we be staying in this league if we're only offering £568 a week to new signings.

[Bainsfordbairn]

2 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

I am only passing on what a professional in the game said. It was his opinion not mine.

He thought rightly our team was/is horrific and needed significant investment to keep us up and that was the number he gave me.

 

Fair enough. I agree with his opinion and I can't imagine anyone would argue otherwise. We've been dominated by every team we've played and something drastic has to change if we're to survive. 

 

[EdiBairn]

Not a chance on this earth will we be staying in this league if we're only offering £568 a week to new signings.

That also seems to be underestimating our average wage as £568*20*52 would only give us a total wage bill of just over £10,000 a week or £590,000 a year. In reality, I think it will be close to double that.

Edited December 27, 2018 by EdiBairn

[Guest]

Worth pointing out that he is an agent and is likely overstating the money required.

Or he knows what he is talking about.

Anyway we are in for 100k. Let’s see what happens

[Rocco]

Or he knows what he is talking about.

Anyway we are in for 100k. Let’s see what happens

Was it Mitch?

[Guest]

Was it Mitch?

[emoji23]

[Reggie Perrin]

2 hours ago, Back Post Misses said:

 

What utter shite.

This is footballers your are talking about. Everyone of them, especially at lower level salaries, would move to us if we are paying more than the going rate.

They are all complete mercenaries.
 

 

Agree with this but would qualify it by saying that most footballers at this level are making a fairly modest living from their equally modest abilities therefor harsh calling them mercenaries when a small wage rise is significant to them.

Edited December 27, 2018 by Reggie Perrin

[Senor Bairn]

This forum gives me the utter fear x

[gav-ffc]

1 hour ago, HopeStreetPieStall said:

Nah, mitch can get you 16 players for that money. 

Buy 16 get Dan Turner free.

[muppetshow]

good job theres 250k coming from sunderland, between 7 and 10 will be oot the door , between 5 and 8 will be in. one will be an eye opener

[Cheeringmango]

12 minutes ago, muppetshow said:

good job theres 250k coming from sunderland, between 7 and 10 will be oot the door , between 5 and 8 will be in. one will be an eye opener

Itk? If so elaborat on the eye opener please?

Or just teasing... 

[Stainrod]

It's a difficult position for the Board. They want to give us as much chance as possible of staying up. However, if we go and spend 250k in January and go down, we'll be in a difficult position. You've also got to remember that pay-off/ termination costs may well be incurred over and above the £100k in order to move players on.