The Falkirk FC Thread

[ShaggerG]

6 minutes ago, Proudtobeabairn said:

Since he had him at Raith I'd say yes, he should have known Mackie wouldn't be good enough. 

As for Nesbitt, the point is as much the 2 year deal as it is the player. Sure, we won't pay for the 2nd year now but it'll reduce our options next summer. Just as still having the likes of Donaldson, Mackie, Oliver, McGinn and McKay used up budget this summer we could have spent elsewhere. 

I'd far rather give 1 year deals and if they're so good we miss out on a potential fee then at least they've positively contributed and we're hopefully going up at that stage. We've been burnt much more in the last few years by 2 &3 year deals than we have by losing amazing players we only had for a year. 

Apart from the odd unbelievable signing (which we haven't had for years) or promising young players we're bringing through, no-one should be worth a 2 year deal. I don't believe we had to offer McKay, Oliver etc longer deals (or guaranteed extension triggers) to fend off other clubs. Very few sniffing about these bottom of the full time bucket type pros. 

Well McGlynn obviously thought that Mackie was good enough or he wouldn't have signed him.

What about all the other players that he's signed that aren't good enough? You don't think he should have signed any of them?

[FFC 1876]

I know how to settle this, @RandomGuy. can you give us Aidan Nesbitt against the rest of league 1 last season in centre midfield?

[ShaggerG]

4 minutes ago, Chinatoon Bairn said:

Heard recently, and fair warning that this could be absolute shit as it came from another players family member, that the reason for Nesbitt being offered the two year contract at that time was due to other clubs sniffing about and him being potentially open to moving on.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with having Nesbitt as a squad player, definitely worth having him as an option from the bench as I think he's the type of player that can have an influence. Ideally I wouldn't have him as a starter but, if it turned out that he's good enough to be one then that's a win-win. Bearing in mind that we're a L1 club I can't see that we're going to get very much better as a squad filler and I don't think he'll be one of our higher earners either.

[Chinatoon Bairn]

There's a reason that Nesbitt appears in the majority of players' TOTY votes. Would also like to see Morrison's stats with and without Nesbitt in the side. (If someone wants to look this up for me feel free, I can't be arsed.)

That's all I'll say on it.

[Disco Duck]

I like Nesbitt.  There’s lots of complaints on here about a static one-paced sideways passing team.  For all his flaws (and everyone at this level has them), he provides movement and will try to create things up the pitch.

He lost form towards the end of the season, but so Did everyone.  At the time when we renewed his contract, I thought it was the right thing to do.  2 years v 1 year doesn’t bother me for a player who has shown he can play well.

[Bairnardo]

Without speculating on his wage levels compared to others, Nesbitt is OK on a squad level. 

There's a player in there. We know this because we seen it in a spell last season where most of us were forced to eat some humble pie. 

That said, he only makes "ok for the squad" status for me because of the games where he just outright disappears, of which there have been too many. That is why I'd have said thanks and best of luck. 

If we can financially afford to have guys like him as back up/squad rotation players, then yeah he's a good option. That's as fair as I can be to him. He is not good enough to start every week as he does put in performances that are deserving of dropping out the team. So if he's seen as a nap to start every week, well that's where he becomes poor use of money. 

[LatapyBairn.]

54 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

So, no chance whatsoever of us running out of cash this season. No more soft loans to keep things going. We are entirely funded for the rest of the season with or without a windfall if Jay Fulton gets transferred. Correct?

Yes. Correct.

[Proudtobeabairn]

10 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

Well McGlynn obviously thought that Mackie was good enough or he wouldn't have signed him.

What about all the other players that he's signed that aren't good enough? You don't think he should have signed any of them?

Not sure what you're getting at here. Of course McGlynn shouldn't be signing players he knows aren't good enough. Far less giving them 2 year deals. 

As others have pointed out, McCann is better than Mackie, there was no need to bring him in and less need to give him a 2 year deal. 

Resigning the likes of Nesbitt, Oliver, McGinn etc won't improve us, it just keeps us at the same level as last year which we all saw was miles short in the end. Also why calls for Blain Rowe are ridiculous, he also wasn't good enough so why get him back? 

We need the new signings to be better to improve us and being tied to long term contracts and rewarding failure reduces our options on that front as we're seeing now, going into the first league game without a right back. 

[Bairnardo]

6 minutes ago, Proudtobeabairn said:

Not sure what you're getting at here. Of course McGlynn shouldn't be signing players he knows aren't good enough. Far less giving them 2 year deals. 

As others have pointed out, McCann is better than Mackie, there was no need to bring him in and less need to give him a 2 year deal. 

Resigning the likes of Nesbitt, Oliver, McGinn etc won't improve us, it just keeps us at the same level as last year which we all saw was miles short in the end. Also why calls for Blain Rowe are ridiculous, he also wasn't good enough so why get him back? 

We need the new signings to be better to improve us and being tied to long term contracts and rewarding failure reduces our options on that front as we're seeing now, going into the first league game without a right back. 

IIRC McGinn and Oliver triggered options. 

By what metric was Blaine Rowe not good enough? I'm not saying he was or he wasn't, but what is the measure you are using to say that so definitively? 

[bairn88]

We can argue until the cows come home about the merits of Nesbitt Mcginn etc and the length of deals but the argument is effectively over for Mcglynn supporters when you note we paid for money and gave a 3 year contract to a guy who doesn’t play and who won’t play because he doesn’t fit the one system Mcglynn likes to play. A complete shocker. 

[Blame Me]

8 minutes ago, Proudtobeabairn said:

Not sure what you're getting at here. Of course McGlynn shouldn't be signing players he knows aren't good enough. Far less giving them 2 year deals. 

As others have pointed out, McCann is better than Mackie, there was no need to bring him in and less need to give him a 2 year deal. 

...

Not even sure where to start with this!

McGlynn having managed Mackie and rated him should know he wasn't better than a player he hadn't managed - at that stage - who had also spent the previous season sporadically sat on the bench under Sheerin, Rennie and Kenny Miller who all fancied a done Paul Dixon!

Can we give McGlynn credit for getting McCann the competition to step up his game perhaps. 

It's never dull on here at least  

[Proudtobeabairn]

4 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

IIRC McGinn and Oliver triggered options. 

By what metric was Blaine Rowe not good enough? I'm not saying he was or he wasn't, but what is the measure you are using to say that so definitively? 

My opinion based on watching him week in week out. He wasn't solid defensively and he offered nothing going forward to the extent he eventually lost his place to a perenially injured ghost. 

[Bairnardo]

1 minute ago, Proudtobeabairn said:

My opinion based on watching him week in week out. He wasn't solid defensively and he offered nothing going forward to the extent he eventually lost his place to a perenially injured ghost. 

He got injured to lose his place didn't he? 

I'd say he actually was fairly solid defensively. We'd have had a much better crack at ICT if Rowe had been there. 

I'd be happy enough with Rowe back. I'd love to get better, but he'd be a net improvement to the squad. 

[FFC 1876]

5 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

He got injured to lose his place didn't he? 

I'd say he actually was fairly solid defensively. We'd have had a much better crack at ICT if Rowe had been there. 

I'd be happy enough with Rowe back. I'd love to get better, but he'd be a net improvement to the squad. 

Add to that the fact Rowe's only 21 so plenty of development in him yet. 

[Bairnardo]

4 minutes ago, FFC 1876 said:

Add to that the fact Rowe's only 21 so plenty of development in him yet. 

Aye. 2 years development before he turns 23 and is no longer able to learn

[Blame Me]

Just now, Bairnardo said:

Aye. 2 years development before he turns 23 and is no longer able to learn

... but wouldn't be our problem after that as we'd only give him a one year deal 

[fuzzydunlop]

12 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

He got injured to lose his place didn't he? 

I'd say he actually was fairly solid defensively. We'd have had a much better crack at ICT if Rowe had been there. 

I'd be happy enough with Rowe back. I'd love to get better, but he'd be a net improvement to the squad. 

I thought he was injured too.

From what i saw of him he was decent. Some of his final balls weren't great but Im sure he was pretty young so room for improving his game.

From memory(and Im trying to forget) was his first game out injured not that awful loss to Edinburgh City?  Think we did win a couple of games without him after that think Alloa and already relegated Peterhead but certainly seemed 'relatively' stronger when he was involved. 

Not saying he needs to come back -just think he was a decent player.

[Proudtobeabairn]

Was it ever confirmed he was injured all that time. There was also chat on here that he had a fall out with McGlynn and/or Morrison. 

Either way, I personally think we should be able to do better (had we not already used up our budget of course). 

[Reggie Perrin]

1 hour ago, Proudtobeabairn said:

Not sure what you're getting at here. Of course McGlynn shouldn't be signing players he knows aren't good enough. Far less giving them 2 year deals. 

As others have pointed out, McCann is better than Mackie, there was no need to bring him in and less need to give him a 2 year deal. 

Resigning the likes of Nesbitt, Oliver, McGinn etc won't improve us, it just keeps us at the same level as last year which we all saw was miles short in the end. Also why calls for Blain Rowe are ridiculous, he also wasn't good enough so why get him back? 

We need the new signings to be better to improve us and being tied to long term contracts and rewarding failure reduces our options on that front as we're seeing now, going into the first league game without a right back. 

Wild shout to say Blaine Rowe wasn’t good enough.

Outstanding until his form dropped off like everyone else towards the end of the season.

Would take him back in an instant.

[fuzzydunlop]

24 minutes ago, Proudtobeabairn said:

Was it ever confirmed he was injured all that time. There was also chat on here that he had a fall out with McGlynn and/or Morrison. 

Either way, I personally think we should be able to do better (had we not already used up our budget of course). 

I had heard the rumours of a fall out.  However I'd be (even more) raging with McGlynn if he dropped Rowe in favour of Williamson in the Semi, arguably our biggest game in years due a personal falling out.   I get managers need respect but its not as if we had great options(as it was proved on the day).   

I don't think Rowe was outstanding and like a lot of players, their formed dipped in the final quarter but at same time I don't remember him making any major f*ck-ups to give goals away like others did...though my memory isn't great!