Hughsie Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 3 minutes ago, Cologne said: Am sure those ramblings are being fed by Tony Smith. Guess he's bitter at losing the work. Makes you wonder how much of a dick he's been for the club to ditch him in favour of fifers. I saw him post and immediately assumed that the majority of the claims were absolute lies but good to know for certain if that info is out there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bairn88 Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 Going by the pre season highlights the new main commentator is far better and just more professional than previous efforts. As long as my money isn't going into Dunfermline FC I'm happy with the change 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopeStreetWalker Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 23 minutes ago, Hughsie said: It’s a Fife based provider. Does anyone have the actual story regarding the link to Pars TV and whether any of the subscription money goes there? I think it’s obvious that the guys running it are Pars fans but presumably this company is completely separate from DAFC. There are some of the usual ramblings on the Facebook page suggesting otherwise. Would like to think due diligence by the board would have looked into that aspect and the provider's business background in particular with the Fife rivalry. If it turns out that by some roundabout link, funds end up at the Pars then rightly there will be hell to pay. Can't see the board being that stupid if it has then heads will roll. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairn in Exile Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 4 hours ago, Harry Kinnear said: Surely if they had money in reserve in the bank it would be better to let McGlynn bring in a RB than to keep it to pay him and Smith off. I’m more thinking he has his budget and has spent it and is taking a gamble on Yeats and McKay being adequate cover for RB or is hoping for a loan signing, big risk I know. Maybe they don't have much confidence in McGlynn either? So covering their arses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FK1Bairn Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 2 minutes ago, Bairn in Exile said: Maybe they don't have much confidence in McGlynn either? So covering their arses. Then they would surely have punted him at the end of the season? Seems foolish to not give somebody the tools to do the job you want them to do and keep those back in case you need to sack them for not doing it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FFC1965 Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 13 hours ago, Dunning1874 said: To some extent, this makes sense. Falkirk have a large enough fanbase to sustainably pay higher wages than a few Championship teams even accounting for the considerably smaller prize money in League One, and if you're going to attract players who have Championship offers you need to pay a premium for them to be willing to drop a level. You can debate whether all the players you've done so for have been worth it, but that will certainly be the case with Lang and Spencer as it has been previously for McGinn, Nesbitt and others. Your crowds should make doing this for a select number of players affordable and sustainable. What gets me though is Falkirk seem to spend unnecessary sums on players who don't even have the Championship interest which necessitates an inflated wage. Craig McGuffie was released by a crap Morton team who'd stayed in the Championship via the playoffs. Not only did he have no other Championship or full-time sides interested, but no SPFL offers at all at the time. Falkirk still swept in and gave him an increase on what he (or anyone else) was earning at Morton. That's just colossal stupidity, and is the kind of thing which leads to the claim it's simply impossible to build a team capable of winning promotion from the third tier on crowds of 3500+ without making a £400K loss. That is quite frankly risible bollocks, as proven by every single team who've been promoted in your time in this division. That statement seems to suggest Falkirk have a straight choice between maintaining spending at current levels or going wholly part-time, which is again bollocks. You evidently can't pay the £1K+ weekly wages you've shelled out to Championship players over the years without making that loss, but there's not a binary choice between outspending half the Championship and not being able to afford full-time players at all - this is how Airdrie could and Queen of the South can still attract full-time players in League One. There's a debate to be had about whether a hybrid model would be more effective in that scenario, but the idea that being full-time is impossible without your current level of spending is transparently nonsense. The claim that you would also need to keep making a £400K loss in the event of promotion to the Championship to compete is also utter shite. It is absolutely possible to assemble a competitive Championship squad with a break even budget on crowds of Falkirk's size (even half their size as Morton and Arbroath prove): they just don't want to. Running at a £400K loss is a choice being made by your board because they don't trust any management team to succeed without doing so, even though a break even budget would probably still give you the largest budget in the division and certainly still a larger one than some in the Championship. It's not a necessity forced upon them, which makes it extremely grating that they plead poverty and complain they can't compete with clubs with wealthy backers, so fans simply must put their hands in pockets. That's a board budgeting in the exact same way as those clubs with wealthy backers plugging gaps, not one trying build sustainable fan ownership. They're just expecting the fans to cough up over and over again to cover their inability to budget properly, in the exact same way a club with a sugar daddy will hand managers a fortune in the belief that white knight owner will always cover it. I'd be livid at that statement if I was putting money into FSS. I was going to post my reaction to the recent statement but ^ has saved me the trouble - its pretty much verbatim what I was going to say. I'm finding the unremitting guilt tripping bollocks from the club more than a little irksome. Anyhow bring on beer and actual competitive football tonight 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 14 hours ago, Bainsfordbairn said: From a brief conversation I had with someone on Saturday, I think there was some sort of technical issue with moving subscriptions. One of the guys was doing manual changeovers whereas in an ideal world it would all have been done with a click of a button. I'd suggest you contact the new site with your details and ask them to sort it. Cheers for that, I’ve been in touch and they’re looking into it. Very speedy responses too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodwall cat Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 Is this statement not just the usual one you expect at this time of year to try and drum up more money coming into the club? You won't get many people rushing out to invest if the picture is painted too Rosey so emphasise the negatives to try and drive up fss, season tickets etc. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatapyBairn. Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, Hughsie said: So be it, then. The club has been wasting money (fans, investors, patrons) for over 10 years now with the product getting continuously worse. It can’t continue and if we fail to get promoted again this year then we’ll need to start operating as the League One club we are. Bearing in mind those fans/investors and patrons are the very people now either running the club or elected the people now running the club, that’s not a dig as I’ve actually been very impressed with the new people and with the job they’ve done turning around a sinking ship. The reality is however we are either as a collective fan base be prepared to invest a little more on a regular consistent basis than we have done historically to allow the luxury of being a properly fan owned football club or we consider outside investors taking a controlling shareholding in the club that may be prepared to invest on an ongoing basis. I have my doubts such an investor exists to be honest. There of course is a halfway house where our model and level of ambition with regard to what type of playing squad and what level of the football tier we expect to compete at may have to be reduced, I just hope when/if that was to happen our fans continue to back the club in current numbers and the club does not spiral as we have seen happen with other clubs who at one point probably considered themselves a “bigger club” My own opinion is in the short term the club needs to try and safely speculate to accumulate until we can get up the leagues again where we have a better platform to get the club into that not only sustainable but competitive place and none of that is going to happen overnight. Edited July 18, 2023 by LatapyBairn. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah67 Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 3 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said: Bearing in mind those fans/investors and patrons are the very people now either running the club or elected the people now running the club, that’s not a dig as I’ve actually been very impressed with the new people and with the job they’ve done turning around a sinking ship. The reality is however we are either as a collective fan base be prepared to invest a little more on a regular consistent basis than we have done historically to allow the luxury of being a properly fan owned football club or we consider outside investors taking a controlling shareholding in the club that may be prepared to invest. I have my doubts such an investor exists to be honest. Outside investors now seem a certain necessity to safeguard the future of the club. It’s that or go part-time/massively reduce the playing budget. Those are the only two real choices left. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughsie Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 5 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said: Is this statement not just the usual one you expect at this time of year to try and drum up more money coming into the club? You won't get many people rushing out to invest if the picture is painted too Rosey so emphasise the negatives to try and drive up fss, season tickets etc. By the same token, it surely does nobody any good to paint an overly negative picture which I feel the statement certainly does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falkirktv Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 (edited) 58 minutes ago, HopeStreetWalker said: Would like to think due diligence by the board would have looked into that aspect and the provider's business background in particular with the Fife rivalry. If it turns out that by some roundabout link, funds end up at the Pars then rightly there will be hell to pay. Can't see the board being that stupid if it has then heads will roll. 100 percent Run by the same person. Club not stupid enough to say it’s not and if they are the person saying it needs to consider standing down from the club. Was always going to look bad picking that supplier, even though Brian is a gent of guy he’s still pars tv. Am sure he’s on here, be good to hear from him (and not abuse him for being a fifer). End of the day everyone just wants the club to do better and get promoted. Hopefully this will happen and the new guys doing the tv will have some special life long memories from it. I’ve got plenty from my time. They’ve made a choice, good luck to them. Time will tell if it’s better or worse, be a shame with that new broadband line if we can’t get 4K at the home games tony Edited July 18, 2023 by falkirktv 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodwall cat Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 1 minute ago, Hughsie said: By the same token, it surely does nobody any good to paint an overly negative picture which I feel the statement certainly does. The last few statements have all followed this line basically. I'd just like to know what happened to the cash that the money from the FSS replaced. Certainly the statements on the FSS cash injection seemed to point to that allowing for more cash to be used in the managers budget but then the budget appears to be less than last season. Not sure how that works out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatapyBairn. Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 17 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said: Is this statement not just the usual one you expect at this time of year to try and drum up more money coming into the club? You won't get many people rushing out to invest if the picture is painted too Rosey so emphasise the negatives to try and drive up fss, season tickets etc. I think you’ve probably nailed it to be honest. Mountains being made from mole hills as usual on here! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blame Me Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 15 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said: Is this statement not just the usual one you expect at this time of year to try and drum up more money coming into the club? You won't get many people rushing out to invest if the picture is painted too Rosey so emphasise the negatives to try and drive up fss, season tickets etc. Totally different tone. This read like it was written by Bob Geldof! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeodhasXD Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 22 minutes ago, falkirktv said: 100 percent Run by the same person. Club not stupid enough to say it’s not and if they are the person saying it needs to consider standing down from the club. Was always going to look bad picking that supplier, even though Brian is a gent of guy he’s still pars tv. Am sure he’s on here, be good to here from him (and not abuse him for being a fifer). End of the day everyone just wants the club to do better and get promoted. Hopefully this will happen and the new guys doing the tv will have some special life long memories from it. I’ve got plenty from my time. They’ve made a choice, good luck to them. Time will tell if it’s better or worse, be a shame with that new broadband line if we can’t get 4K at the home games tony It won't be 4k for sure. Not sure my laptop can reliably encode 4k without thermal throttling - my desktop can but it's harder to carry around. Besides 4k capture devices is expensive and there's a lot more fun equipment for HD I'd rather have. Anyway... We used their system for about 6 months and one of the problems I felt was the punitive cost of higher bitrates. Fairly sure they were running about 2000 kbps bit rate. See youtube's recommended bitrate below but the bottom line and I've heard this from Dunfermline's fans is that it runs with blocky video because it's not been encoded with enough information to show you details. Also the CMS he uses to log in etc is an absolute relic - I hated it. We stream at the same bitrate as the BBC do now which is 5166kbps give or take. There's no extra cost for this better picture quality too. Your CEO said he was impressed when he watched our stream so I'm surprised he never asked about what we do. I think I'm paying slightly more than what Brian's setup costs him but I pay a lot less by not having to pay Brian's cut. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FFC 1876 Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 6 minutes ago, LeodhasXD said: It won't be 4k for sure. Not sure my laptop can reliably encode 4k without thermal throttling - my desktop can but it's harder to carry around. Besides 4k capture devices is expensive and there's a lot more fun equipment for HD I'd rather have. Anyway... We used their system for about 6 months and one of the problems I felt was the punitive cost of higher bitrates. Fairly sure they were running about 2000 kbps bit rate. See youtube's recommended bitrate below but the bottom line and I've heard this from Dunfermline's fans is that it runs with blocky video because it's not been encoded with enough information to show you details. Also the CMS he uses to log in etc is an absolute relic - I hated it. We stream at the same bitrate as the BBC do now which is 5166kbps give or take. There's no extra cost for this better picture quality too. Your CEO said he was impressed when he watched our stream so I'm surprised he never asked about what we do. I think I'm paying slightly more than what Brian's setup costs him but I pay a lot less by not having to pay Brian's cut. Can't argue with that, just a shame your commentators aren't up to par... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blame Me Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 8 minutes ago, LeodhasXD said: ... Also the CMS he uses to log in etc is an absolute relic - I hated it ... In my view, the club don't use the platforms and tools they provide to us from a fans perspective so won't have given that much thought. The "robust tender" criteria I'll guess mainly involved reducing the cost of operating. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeodhasXD Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 10 minutes ago, FFC 1876 said: Can't argue with that, just a shame your commentators aren't up to par... Kieren's good - sure he works with your new commentator or at least down the hallway in the SFA/SPFL office. I'll retire when I get another. I'm honestly juggling too many plates to keep up nowadays with controlling everything so when there's nothing obvious to say especially about the opposition I'm struggIing and of course I just like to cause a diplomatic incident every so often 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 54 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said: The last few statements have all followed this line basically. I'd just like to know what happened to the cash that the money from the FSS replaced. Certainly the statements on the FSS cash injection seemed to point to that allowing for more cash to be used in the managers budget but then the budget appears to be less than last season. Not sure how that works out. No idea. Given the timing of the Lang and Spencer signings, they may have only happened due to an increase in budget after the £350k FSS money hit the bank account. Once the club has the money, then it really is just one pot where it’s impossible to say which money funded x, y, or z. 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.