The Falkirk FC Thread

[PedroMoutinho]

5 hours ago, Back Post Misses said:

I really don’t know what part of the dross Holt,  Sheerin and Rennie signed that dragged us to the worst league performance for 40 year some don’t get? They take up 60% of the playing budget and clearly must be on salaries that were:

1. Too expensive to pay off

2.Too rich that because of how shite most of them are no one else wanted them

So what could McGlynn do? He was given support to bring in about the same number he had and he has tried to improve those he had, with a mix of results. McCann is the big improver. Morrison, Nesbitt and McKay have done it in bits. Hetherington and McGuffie are no better. Williamson and Watson haven’t played due to injury. Ross, Wilson, Martin, Malcolm and Sneddon are just not the standard required.

Is it any wonder with half your pool being substandard (and probably a couple of your own signings not working out, which will always happen) you are going to be at best inconsistent?

What is vital IMO is we are able to get a few out now and bring in 3 or 4 in January to dilute the dross. If you could clear out the 5 who have not featured, Hetherington and MCGuffie then you should be able to get some in - even if it is loans. Priority for me are legs in midfield, right full back and a striker to give the two we have support and competition. 

The talk of moving McGlynn on after the hand he was dealt is ludicrous IMO unless we see an absolute collapse like the end of the last two seasons. Some can dismiss it but the damage created by Holt who was given such a free reign has been under estimated even by me. It was never going to be fully fixed, much as we all wanted it to be, in 4 months. The club has gone through hell as have we as supporters. We are still going to have a bit more patience. 

 

I think we can all agree Holt’s disastrous signings have been a massive hindrance. However, Mcglynn has been backed to bring in 12 signings, you also have McCann, Morrison plus Nesbitt (who he has voluntarily played every week). So, for me, you can’t just absolve him of all responsibility and blame Gary Holt.

If the board’s view is that this season is effectively a write off due to Holt’s signings, then I’m struggling to see: 1. What the point of the 12 signings is meant to be, 2. Why additional funds were provided and 3. Why very little attempt seems to have been made to shift any of them.

[Blame Me]

McGlynn and Smith knew the parameters of the job when they were hired. Ergo they believed they could get a tune out of those that were here already. 

Re Holt and even a stopped clock is correct twice-a-day - paraphrasing but he was correct in that if we do the same as before we'll get the same again.

In our case we desperately need stability and only time will tell if the decision to keep the majority was correct. In my view, the squad can easily be classified into distinct groups: Past, present and potential future.

As much as we want to be title contenders, I think at this stage being the best of the rest is about the capability of this squad - in that case McGlynn will have maximised the capabilities of this group and be given the remainder of his contract to exceed that.

 

[Reggie Perrin]

6 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

I think we can all agree Holt’s disastrous signings have been a massive hindrance. However, Mcglynn has been backed to bring in 12 signings, you also have McCann, Morrison plus Nesbitt (who he has voluntarily played every week). So, for me, you can’t just absolve him of all responsibility and blame Gary Holt.

If the board’s view is that this season is effectively a write off due to Holt’s signings, then I’m struggling to see: 1. What the point of the 12 signings is meant to be, 2. Why additional funds were provided and 3. Why very little attempt seems to have been made to shift any of them.

 

9 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

I think we can all agree Holt’s disastrous signings have been a massive hindrance. However, Mcglynn has been backed to bring in 12 signings, you also have McCann, Morrison plus Nesbitt (who he has voluntarily played every week). So, for me, you can’t just absolve him of all responsibility and blame Gary Holt.

If the board’s view is that this season is effectively a write off due to Holt’s signings, then I’m struggling to see: 1. What the point of the 12 signings is meant to be, 2. Why additional funds were provided and 3. Why very little attempt seems to have been made to shift any of them.

Your last point is simply ridiculous.

You can only shift them on if another team want them and are prepared to pay the players the wages that they require.

Hardly surprising that no other teams are as stupid / gullible to take on these overpaid imposters.

The only other alternative is to pay off their contracts which would get them out the door but would use the money that would be needed to fund new signings.

[Proudtobeabairn]

I completely agree that McGlynn should be given time (next season) but I also agree he should be doing better than 8 wins from 17. 

The quality of the squad can be debated all day but its better than most other teams have at their disposal and if McGlynn truly is the best manager in the league he needs to start choosing formations, starting XIs and tactics that don't us beaten by Kelty Hearts every time we play them.  

[falkirktheinvincible]

31 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

 

If the board’s view is that this season is effectively a write off due to Holt’s signings, 

Show your working, I'm intrigued to see how you arrived at this conclusion.

[Guest]

McGlynn is going nowhere anytime soon. He has won The old Second Division once, and has been awarded L1 once in a curtailed season. Those two achievements classify him as having previously achieved the very thing we are trying to do now……get out of L1.

He will have this season and next to do it (unless there is a major meltdown). In his favour is the perception that this season’s failings are down to the players he has inherited, and not the players he has signed (and in the cases of McGuffie, Nesbitt, McKay and Williamson, that’s absolutely fair).

Outwith L1 (and I mean higher), then McGlynn wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the FFC gig purely because his record higher up isn’t exactly great.

For now though, it’s no surprise that we have turned to someone who has run the L1/Second Division obstacle race before and succeeded (more or less).

Beyond next season, I think there will probably be a parting of the ways, but until then, I think he will be given the opportunity to do things his way. I don’t think we can complain too much on that front.

Edited December 14, 2022 by Duncan Freemason

[ShaggerG]

22 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

McGlynn is going nowhere anytime soon. He has won The old Second Division once, and has been awarded L1 once in a curtailed season. Those two achievements classify him as having previously achieved the very thing we are trying to do now……get out of L1.

He will have this season and next to do it (unless there is a major meltdown). In his favour is the perception that this season’s failings are down to the players he has inherited, and not the players he has signed (and in the cases of McGuffie, Nesbitt, McKay and Williamson, that’s absolutely fair).

Outwith L1 (and I mean higher), then McGlynn wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the FFC gig purely because his record higher up isn’t exactly great.

For now though, it’s no surprise that we have turned to someone who has run the L1/Second Division obstacle race before and succeeded (more or less).

Beyond next season, I think there will probably be a parting of the ways, but until then, I think he will be given the opportunity to do things his way. I don’t think we can complain too much on that front.

I don't think it's anything to do with McGlynn as far as the naysayers are concerned. Strikes me more as folk with big axes and all day to grind them.

[Ranaldo Bairn]

2 hours ago, PedroMoutinho said:

I think we can all agree Holt’s disastrous signings have been a massive hindrance. However, Mcglynn has been backed to bring in 12 signings, you also have McCann, Morrison plus Nesbitt (who he has voluntarily played every week). So, for me, you can’t just absolve him of all responsibility and blame Gary Holt.

If the board’s view is that this season is effectively a write off due to Holt’s signings, then I’m struggling to see: 1. What the point of the 12 signings is meant to be, 2. Why additional funds were provided and 3. Why very little attempt seems to have been made to shift any of them.

Jumped the shark here imo.

[Bairn in Exile]

1 hour ago, Duncan Freemason said:

McGlynn is going nowhere anytime soon. He has won The old Second Division once, and has been awarded L1 once in a curtailed season. Those two achievements classify him as having previously achieved the very thing we are trying to do now……get out of L1.

 

Beyond next season, I think there will probably be a parting of the ways, but until then, I think he will be given the opportunity to do things his way. I don’t think we can complain too much on that front.

 

42 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

I don't think it's anything to do with McGlynn as far as the naysayers are concerned. Strikes me more as folk with big axes and all day to grind them.

Our points total so far and the lack of consistency in our performances would suggest that we are not going to get promoted this season as champions. That leaves us with the play-offs as our only route for promotion. If McGlynn then fails to get us promoted via the play-offs and is retained for next season and we then have a similar season and performances to this one, when would be it be right and proper for the board to jettison McGlynn? After the first quarter? At the halfway point in the season? Or keep him on until the bitter end so that we don’t have to give him a pay-off?

 And then it starts all over again and we give another manager 2 years to get us out of League 1?

No axe to grind, just a worried fan.

[Springfield]

3 minutes ago, Bairn in Exile said:

 

Our points total so far and the lack of consistency in our performances would suggest that we are not going to get promoted this season as champions. That leaves us with the play-offs as our only route for promotion. If McGlynn then fails to get us promoted via the play-offs and is retained for next season and we then have a similar season and performances to this one, when would be it be right and proper for the board to jettison McGlynn? After the first quarter? At the halfway point in the season? Or keep him on until the bitter end so that we don’t have to give him a pay-off?

 And then it starts all over again and we give another manager 2 years to get us out of League 1?

No axe to grind, just a worried fan.

Fair point 

[ShaggerG]

32 minutes ago, Bairn in Exile said:

 

Our points total so far and the lack of consistency in our performances would suggest that we are not going to get promoted this season as champions. That leaves us with the play-offs as our only route for promotion. If McGlynn then fails to get us promoted via the play-offs and is retained for next season and we then have a similar season and performances to this one, when would be it be right and proper for the board to jettison McGlynn? After the first quarter? At the halfway point in the season? Or keep him on until the bitter end so that we don’t have to give him a pay-off?

 And then it starts all over again and we give another manager 2 years to get us out of League 1?

No axe to grind, just a worried fan.

So do you think we should get rid just now then or at the end of the season? Spend thousands on a pay off then start all over again. How long do you feel we should give the new guy? Should it be 'right mate, 6 months and if we're not top of the league, you're out' or maybe a full season instead? Remember that he would have to bring in his own squad and they would need to hit the ground running.

The only type of manager we could hope to attract under those conditions would either be a Sheerin type punt or a Yogi type who nobody else would want IMO.

[Bairn in Exile]

9 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

So do you think we should get rid just now then or at the end of the season? Spend thousands on a pay off then start all over again. How long do you feel we should give the new guy? Should it be 'right mate, 6 months and if we're not top of the league, you're out' or maybe a full season instead? Remember that he would have to bring in his own squad and they would need to hit the ground running.

The only type of manager we could hope to attract under those conditions would either be a Sheerin type punt or a Yogi type who nobody else would want IMO.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question Shagger.

[bennett]

10 minutes ago, Bairn in Exile said:

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question Shagger.

 

Give the guy some time and learn some patience. 

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by bennett

[PedroMoutinho]

45 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

So do you think we should get rid just now then or at the end of the season? Spend thousands on a pay off then start all over again. How long do you feel we should give the new guy? Should it be 'right mate, 6 months and if we're not top of the league, you're out' or maybe a full season instead? Remember that he would have to bring in his own squad and they would need to hit the ground running.

The only type of manager we could hope to attract under those conditions would either be a Sheerin type punt or a Yogi type who nobody else would want IMO.

I don’t think anyone is proposing either that we should sack him now or that he should be punted if we don’t win the league.

My view is that if there is no improvement in the win percentage and number of points gained in the new year, we should look at other options for next season.

Would you support him being retained if we were to finish outside the playoffs?

[Guest Back Post Misses]

6 hours ago, RC_Bairn said:

Free reign? Weren't you the guy saying the Board should have no say in the players being signed?  Suited your argument when it came to Goodwillie but now you seem to be suggesting that the board should have put a reign on Holt.

I was and I agree with giving the CORRECT people that. Not Gary F’in Holt 

[AGPar]

2 hours ago, ShaggerG said:

I don't think it's anything to do with McGlynn as far as the naysayers are concerned. Strikes me more as folk with big axes and all day to grind them.

Why? Why does someone making what seem fairly reasoned comments - whether you happen to agree with them or not -  about the performance of the manager to date mean they must have an axe to grind? Or "an agenda"? Or any of the other accusations that are routinely thrown in the direction of anyone who is not relentlessly pro-club/manager/board in every post they make on here. Bizarre.

[Guest Back Post Misses]

4 hours ago, PedroMoutinho said:

I think we can all agree Holt’s disastrous signings have been a massive hindrance. However, Mcglynn has been backed to bring in 12 signings, you also have McCann, Morrison plus Nesbitt (who he has voluntarily played every week). So, for me, you can’t just absolve him of all responsibility and blame Gary Holt.

If the board’s view is that this season is effectively a write off due to Holt’s signings, then I’m struggling to see: 1. What the point of the 12 signings is meant to be, 2. Why additional funds were provided and 3. Why very little attempt seems to have been made to shift any of them.

I don’t think I have read so much codswallop in a long time. 
Where have you heard anyone on the Board say this season was a write off? In fact they have said on numerous occasions we want to get up. 

 

[Tea and Busquets]

I think we need to have a look at this 8 wins from 16 or 17 whatever it is. Not all are down to McGlynn. Was it McGlynn’s fault that Henderson dived in away at Dunfermline that would have saw us win? Was it McGlynn’s fault that McGinn gave the ball away in a dangerous area against Airdrie or Oliver’s miss that would have saw us win? Was it McGlynn’s fault that we couldn’t defend one Clyde attack in the second half that would have saw us win? Was it McGlynn’s fault that we conceded Kelty’s only shot of the second half that would have got us a draw? No. He can’t be accountable for situations within games. This is on the players and players alone. By god, the last two season’s teams would have crumbled at 2-0 down to Kelty or 2-1 then 3-2 down to Clyde away. Of course he can be blamed for certain defeats, particularly last Thursday night for example, but this McGlynn should be doing better than 8 wins from x amount of games without context is ludicrous IMO.

[PedroMoutinho]

3 minutes ago, Tea and Busquets said:

I think we need to have a look at this 8 wins from 16 or 17 whatever it is. Not all are down to McGlynn. Was it McGlynn’s fault that Henderson dived in away at Dunfermline that would have saw us win? Was it McGlynn’s fault that McGinn gave the ball away in a dangerous area against Airdrie or Oliver’s miss that would have saw us win? Was it McGlynn’s fault that we couldn’t defend one Clyde attack in the second half that would have saw us win? Was it McGlynn’s fault that we conceded Kelty’s only shot of the second half that would have got us a draw? No. He can’t be accountable for situations within games. This is on the players and players alone. By god, the last two season’s teams would have crumbled at 2-0 down to Kelty or 2-1 then 3-2 down to Clyde away. Of course he can be blamed for certain defeats, particularly last Thursday night for example, but this McGlynn should be doing better than 8 wins from x amount of games without context is ludicrous IMO.

Mcglynn is the manager and he is responsible for results. Simple.

[ShaggerG]

41 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

I don’t think anyone is proposing either that we should sack him now or that he should be punted if we don’t win the league.

My view is that if there is no improvement in the win percentage and number of points gained in the new year, we should look at other options for next season.

Would you support him being retained if we were to finish outside the playoffs?

Yes because a) we can't afford to pay him off and b) because I think there's been improvement. Caveat being that if we finish way off due to some kind of collapse we would obviously need to re-think things.