The Falkirk FC Thread

[FFC 1876]

Could be it only counts his assists from open play? Which is why it would only be 4.

Edited August 2, 2023 by FFC 1876

[ShaggerG]

4 hours 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. 

WTF are you on about? 

You said that McGlynn should have known that Mackie wasn't good enough. I said that he obviously thinks he is or he wouldn't have signed him. You're now saying that there was no need to bring Mackie in. Should we therefore only have 11 signed players, or would it maybe be sensible to have a few back-up options, particularly ones that can play in more than one position and that we can realistically expect to land given our current situation? There are, without a shadow of a doubt, better left backs than Sean Mackie or indeed Leon McCann out there. Maybe we should be signing them? On one year deals only of course!

Were you unhappy with McGinn signing in the first place, or were you one of the thousands of Falkirk fans that were delighted to get him? Do you think signing him with an option to stay was a bad idea, when possibly that's the only way we could get him? (Of course you do because we should have been dumping him after his first season no matter how good he had been) McGlynn couldn't possibly have forseen his future injury situation so can't be blamed for that.

I can't be arsed looking back to see if you're one of the guys that feels he's failed by not bringing in a RB (which he has), although I suspect you are, so why wouldn't Rowe be a good option for the position? Until his injury his form had been good, possibly our best RB since Duffy, so, bearing in mind that we play in L1, why wouldn't he be good enough? Which RB would you be happy with?

 

[LatapyBairn.]

31 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

So the previous year, we did budget for an actual in the red loss as we didn’t quite make the income they hoped with FSS sign ups etc? 

Think that was the case, it was not just a gamble based on FSS numbers although I think that was a big chunk of it. Existing patrons investing more and new patrons being attracted didn’t materialise to the levels hoped for either and McGlynn wasn’t able to move on some of the dead wood through pre season as the club had expected. Having asked a few of the directors these questions at various fan events they are as open as they legally can be and accept last season was a calculated gamble but felt had they not invested in the playing budget we’d never have been able to grow the commercial side of things to the levels we now have, fans may also have fell away if we hadn’t made signings pre season and put a competitive team on the park. This years budget seems much more conservatively planned, , there are no calculated gambles. The appetite to be mid season trying to raise funds again isn’t there and the plan seemed to be whatever cash reserves, season ticket figures and FSS numbers we had by the end of June was going to be how we outlined our playing budget. I’ve no reason to believe that has changed. 

Edited August 2, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[RandomGuy.]

26 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Well.... Nesbitts stats certainly show him up to be a very good option compared to his peers....

Only 4 assists is surely wrong? Thought he was over 10

 

19 minutes ago, falkirkbairn23 said:

Aye for sure had more than 4, was near 9 last time I looked no?

Blame WyScout, just checked and its missing a few Falkirk games (including all of January), so that would account for it I guess?

Their League One stuff is really, really annoyingly bad at being updated. Over the Covid season they didn't bother doing anything until the season was done.

[PedroMoutinho]

21 minutes ago, falkirkbairn23 said:

Aye for sure had more than 4, was near 9 last time I looked no?

I believe most of his assists were from corner kicks 

[PedroMoutinho]

Nesbitt is another player who gets better the longer he’s not playing for some fans to be added to the likes of Tommy Robson and Kevin O’Hara. He wasn’t the answer last season and anyone who thinks he will be next season is deluding themselves.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Think that was the case, it was not just a gamble based on FSS numbers although I think that was a big chunk of it. Existing patrons investing more and new patrons being attracted didn’t materialise to the levels hoped for and McGlynn wasn’t able to move on some of the dead wood through pre season as the club had expected. Having asked a few of the directors these questions at various fan events they are as open as they legally can be and accept last season a calculated gamble but felt had they not invested in the playing budget we’d never have been able to grow the commercial side of things to the levels we now have, fans may also have fell away if we hadn’t made signings pres season and put a competitive team on the park. This years budget seems much more conservative, there are no calculated gambles, nobody has the appetite to be scrambling around mid season trying to raise funds again and the plan seemed to be whatever cash reserves, season ticket figures and FSS numbers we had by the end of June was going to be how we outlined our playing budget. I’ve no reason to believe that has changed. 

That all sounds fair but judging by what’s been said I still think we have a lot of money to come in to reach commercial income targets before we can rest easy.

Undoubtedly whatever is left from the FSS loan(after pitch and lights) and whatever small profit we made from the previous season will relieve some pressure but it doesn’t appear the football budget looks any less and our overheads still appear to be the same. 

If it is how I’ve read then I would just much rather not put any more money in the footballing budget till we know targets will be met. McGlynn has been given enough and if it doesn’t work out it may mean that we will also require money to pay him out his contract should we get off to a slow start. 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Van_damage

[Bairnardo]

2 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

Nesbitt is another player who gets better the longer he’s not playing for some fans to be added to the likes of Tommy Robson and Kevin O’Hara. He wasn’t the answer last season and anyone who thinks he will be next season is deluding themselves.

Not one single person has said he's the answer. 

I personally have said his stats are good. I have also given him credit where its due, but I doubt many on here have launched more criticism his way than I have in his time with us. 

Again, no one has said or is saying he is "the answer" whatever that actually means

[ShaggerG]

42 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Fuckin knew it! Nesbitt's a pish aerial disruptor, should have been sacked for gross misconduct!

[LatapyBairn.]

20 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

That all sounds fair but judging by what’s been said I still think we have a lot of money to reach commercial income targets before we can rest easy.

Undoubtedly whatever is left from the FSS loan(after pitch and lights) and whatever small profit we made from the previous season will relieve some pressure but it doesn’t appear the football budget looks any less and our overheads still appear to be the same. 

If it is how I’ve read then I would just much rather not put any more money in the footballing budget till we know targets will be met. McGlynn has been given enough and if it doesn’t work out it may mean that we will also require money to pay him out his contract should we get off to a slow start. 

We wouldn’t actually have to pay Mcglynn off I suppose, his contract runs out in 9 months time. Putting him on gardening leave would suffice and I still don’t get where your are correlating the playing budget being linked to any stretched commercial targets? At no point have I heard or read anything stating that, having ambitious commercial targets is a good thing it does not mean the playing budget is directly linked to meeting those targets. We are running with a slightly smaller playing budget this year as well, I think we only have 20 or so senior players supplemented by the apprentices. We had to carry (and pay) a number of senior players last year the manager hadn’t signed with a squad of about 25 in total (14 of whom were already under contract) so efforts were made to allow him more flexibility in the transfer market, that’s not the case this season. 

Edited August 2, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[ShaggerG]

7 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Not one single person has said he's the answer. 

I personally have said his stats are good. I have also given him credit where its due, but I doubt many on here have launched more criticism his way than I have in his time with us. 

Again, no one has said or is saying he is "the answer" whatever that actually means

I think most folk are saying that he's a good squad option, but that won't stop Pedro from taking the chance to twist the knife!

[GeordieBairn]

Needs to shave that tache off pronto though

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

We wouldn’t actually have to pay Mcglynn off I suppose, his contract runs out in 9 months time. Putting him on gardening leave would suffice and I still don’t get where your are correlating the playing budget being linked to any stretched commercial targets?! At no point have I heard or read anything stating that, having ambitious commercial targets is a good thing it does not mean the playing budget is directly linked to meeting those targets. We are running with a slightly smaller playing budget this year as well, I think we only have 20 or so senior players supplemented by the apprentices. We had to carry (and pay) a number of senior players last year the manager hadn’t signed with a squad of about 25 in total (14 of whom were already under contract) so efforts were made to allow him more flexibility in the transfer market, that’s not the case this season. 

Wouldn’t have to pay him off but would presumably need to pay for a new manager so works out much the same. 

I’m not correlating anything other than overall budget and perceived deficit. There’s no harm in stretched targets but I’m only presuming that those targets have to be met to ensure there isn’t a loss. Could be completely wrong that it will produce a surplus but last year there was a £600k targeted increase commercially that still resulted in a £400k operational loss. 

[Bairnardo]

19 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

I think most folk are saying that he's a good squad option, but that won't stop Pedro from taking the chance to twist the knife!

Thing is, if you wanted McGlynn out after Airdrie, that's fine. I think a lot of people did. If you think McGlynn will preside over another failure and that's why you want him out, again, fine. 

There's just so much logic gymnastics and people bending things to suit in order to continually hound McGlynn and there's no need for it. Me pulling folk up for saying shit that makes no sense doesn't make me a fan of or a backer of McGlynn specifically, but I am a fan of Falkirk. I will first and foremost hope we succeed and back the team as best I can this season. Then hope I enjoy my Saturdays. 

Some seem so unable to let go of their disdain for McGlynn that it's poisoning their minds to post takes that barely make a shred of sense.

[Grangemouth Bairn]

Reading the last few pages, is there any posters who don’t think we should have signed a right back ? My opinion is that it’s a mistake not to have signed one.

[LatapyBairn.]

29 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

Wouldn’t have to pay him off but would presumably need to pay for a new manager so works out much the same. 

I’m not correlating anything other than overall budget and perceived deficit. There’s no harm in stretched targets but I’m only presuming that those targets have to be met to ensure there isn’t a loss. Could be completely wrong that it will produce a surplus but last year there was a £600k targeted increase commercially that still resulted in a £400k operational loss. 

Depends who the manager is, an Ian McCall type who is out of work would not cost a penny.

Two different years and football seasons with completely different sets of circumstances, budgets and starting bases which are incomparable for multiple reasons. Think you’re adding 2+2 together and getting 5 here, the club setting commercial targets means nothing when budgets are based on the previous years income. My advice is maybe stop thinking about this, if you want to scrutinise the club finances shareholders will probably receive papers around November / December time, I’m sure you’ll then see the club is not in any immediate trouble or in danger of of running out of money. At the moment having looked at all the available information I am more than content the club has a solid and conservatively put together plan going through this current year which does not involving having to meet any excessive or overly ambitions targets as you keep suggesting. Perhaps you should quiz the BOD at the upcoming AGM or I’m pretty certain if you wanted to fire over an email you’d get a response as in full as could be allowed legally. 

Edited August 2, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[ShaggerG]

6 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Thing is, if you wanted McGlynn out after Airdrie, that's fine. I think a lot of people did. If you think McGlynn will preside over another failure and that's why you want him out, again, fine. 

There's just so much logic gymnastics and people bending things to suit in order to continually hound McGlynn and there's no need for it. Me pulling folk up for saying shit that makes no sense doesn't make me a fan of or a backer of McGlynn specifically, but I am a fan of Falkirk. I will first and foremost hope we succeed and back the team as best I can this season. Then hope I enjoy my Saturdays. 

Some seem so unable to let go of their disdain for McGlynn that it's poisoning their minds to post takes that barely make a shred of sense.

Entirely agree.

It wouldn't matter what he does, he could win us promotion or the cup but it wouldn't be enough for some. Personally I think he's as good as we could expect under the circumstances and I hope he can get us up, but IMO he won't get us into the Premier, even if the budget was masiively increased.

[Bairnardo]

3 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

Entirely agree.

It wouldn't matter what he does, he could win us promotion or the cup but it wouldn't be enough for some. Personally I think he's as good as we could expect under the circumstances and I hope he can get us up, but IMO he won't get us into the Premier, even if the budget was masiively increased.

Yep. One way or another we part company next May at the latest IMO. Ideally it's advertising for a job in the Championship

 

[Grangemouth Bairn]

12 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Thing is, if you wanted McGlynn out after Airdrie, that's fine. I think a lot of people did. If you think McGlynn will preside over another failure and that's why you want him out, again, fine. 

There's just so much logic gymnastics and people bending things to suit in order to continually hound McGlynn and there's no need for it. Me pulling folk up for saying shit that makes no sense doesn't make me a fan of or a backer of McGlynn specifically, but I am a fan of Falkirk. I will first and foremost hope we succeed and back the team as best I can this season. Then hope I enjoy my Saturdays. 

Some seem so unable to let go of their disdain for McGlynn that it's poisoning their minds to post takes that barely make a shred of sense.

I’ve highlighted what I think, to me anyway, is your key point here.

Firstly, I’m not a fan of McGlynn as I find his tactics poor and his team selections baffling however I 100% want him to succeed as that means my team are doing well, however I do get the impression that some posters want McGlynn to fail just so as they can say ‘I told you so’.

[ShaggerG]

7 minutes ago, Grangemouth Bairn said:

Reading the last few pages, is there any posters who don’t think we should have signed a right back ? My opinion is that it’s a mistake not to have signed one.

It's clearly a failure of McGlynn's not to have managed to sign one, because he said himself that it was a priority. What annoys me are the folk that come on here claiming that he 'hadn't targeted one' or that 'he'd decided to spend his budget elsewhere' or that 'he only signs players within 30 miles' or any of that other pish, when they have absolutely no idea of what's gone on. 

Maybe he tried to sign Rowe, or Tumilty, or Hodson but, for whatever reason, was unsuccessful. We just don't know.