The Falkirk FC Thread

[BPM]

3 minutes ago, Blame Me said:

FFS  

"Stick to the football" summed up in a nutshell. 

It's not a wild opinion to suggest that the combined contribution of Shanley and/or McKenna off-the-bench - from what I've seen - couldn't have been performed by one or more of our apprentices and afforded them minutes in aid of their development.

As it is, McGlynn didn't.

Just like he won't always start or sub [insert favourite/unused player here] etc but don't discuss it is your argument.

So if McGlynn thought these lads were better than Shanley and McKenna why would he not play them? 

Edited October 10 by BPM

[Blame Me]

1 hour ago, BPM said:

So if McGlynn thought these lads were better than Shanley and McKenna why would he not play them? 

That's not my point. 

I could suggest, as others have, that Ageyman plays centrally but clearly JMG doesn't think that's effective. 

So in that case there is no debate. As you said, he works with them and knows them ALL better than you or I. 

Any and all discussion is dead if taken to it's logical conclusion.

[Bigbrbairn]

McGlynn has been a great manager for us over the last 2 years. FACT.

To say he is infallible is taking it a bit far as even he would accept. Bringing young apprentices on is a risk game. The upside of giving young players game time is that parents see this and are more likely to get better youth recruitment through it. We had a brilliant image for giving players a chance a few years ago and started to get better kids because of it.

The downside is that playing young lads too quickly can severely effect their confidence. The young lad Watret from Ayr has been getting brilliant reviews this season. He played a stinker against us which even Broonie agreed and it remains to be seen the effect on his confidence.

A very delicate balancing act.

[AL-FFC]

4 minutes ago, Bigbrbairn said:

McGlynn has been a great manager for us over the last 2 years. FACT.

To say he is infallible is taking it a bit far as even he would accept. Bringing young apprentices on is a risk game. The upside of giving young players game time is that parents see this and are more likely to get better youth recruitment through it. We had a brilliant image for giving players a chance a few years ago and started to get better kids because of it.

The downside is that playing young lads too quickly can severely effect their confidence. The young lad Watret from Ayr has been getting brilliant reviews this season. He played a stinker against us which even Broonie agreed and it remains to be seen the effect on his confidence.

A very delicate balancing act.

I would use Tony Gallagher as an example there, he was good going forward but i always thought he was quite poor defensively and never really got the hype with him.

[Bigbrbairn]

Even bigger teams get it wrong.  Ruben Sammut was a star of Chelsea youth and came to us with a big reputation at that level and had played for Scotland youth teams. He flunked with us and only played a few games as a pro footballer after. At the age of 27 he is now a senior scout at Chelsea.

Too much too young

[PedroMoutinho]

The key point for me is that there is much more benefit in young players going out and playing regularly than sitting on our bench or in the stand. Honeyman and Walker will be in a much better position to challenge for a place having done that than if they had stayed and maybe got 10 minutes in cup games.

Equally, I think players should only be in the first team if they are ready and good enough. We shouldn’t be weakening the team purely because someone is an academy graduate. I think that’s something that went slightly astray under previous regimes.

I actually think a benefit of the current academy set up is that there’s less pressure to throw in players who aren’t ready to justify the huge sums of money being spent and try to recover it through selling players.

[Hampden Roar]

13 hours ago, Bainsfordbairn said:

 

Both have a lot of customers and friends amongst the wider support so I assume they'll explain to their clients when they say goodbye. No doubt some of those will be posters on here and can report back on what was said at the farewells. 

The problem with losing 2 of your sales team is clients could leave with them, it’s one of those jobs where many of the deals are done on the 1 -2-1 trust between client and salesperson. Fingers crossed it’s not the case.

[ChrispPancake]

my only criticism of McGlynn is that he makes the same substitutions at the same time week in and week out. It doesn't seem to matter what's happening in the game and unless there is an injury it's the same changes to the same personnel.

Ross had a quiet 1st half in Tuesday but was really going at them in the second, he still gets hooked off, Miller was having a good game, again coming into the match more as Livingston tired, hooked. 

And Oliver was a far better option to leave on than being replaced by Shanley.

All just my opinion of course

[Reggie Perrin]

3 minutes ago, ChrispPancake said:

my only criticism of McGlynn is that he makes the same substitutions at the same time week in and week out. It doesn't seem to matter what's happening in the game and unless there is an injury it's the same changes to the same personnel.

Ross had a quiet 1st half in Tuesday but was really going at them in the second, he still gets hooked off, Miller was having a good game, again coming into the match more as Livingston tired, hooked. 

And Oliver was a far better option to leave on than being replaced by Shanley.

All just my opinion of course

Yeats for Tait was the only substitution that worked on Tuesday for me.

Good to see Morrison obviously but a mile off the pace as was to be expected.

[Springfield]

38 minutes ago, Hampden Roar said:

The problem with losing 2 of your sales team is clients could leave with them, it’s one of those jobs where many of the deals are done on the 1 -2-1 trust between client and salesperson. Fingers crossed it’s not the case.

Spot on. Often it’s these relationships that outweigh the actual “business” tie up. Let’s hope that we don’t suffer to much. 

[Bairn in Exile]

4 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Spot on. Often it’s these relationships that outweigh the actual “business” tie up. Let’s hope that we don’t suffer to much. 

I think with many businesses they have something in the contract which means that the employee leaving can't approach any of their old clients for a period of time, say 6 months or so, so that the new employee in that role has time to meet with the clients to try and get their own relationship established. Not saying that it works all the time mind. I had a clause like this in my contract for a previous role but I was working abroad so maybe this wouldn't be allowed in the UK.

[BPM]

2 hours ago, Blame Me said:

That's not my point. 

I could suggest, as others have, that Ageyman plays centrally but clearly JMG doesn't think that's effective. 

So in that case there is no debate. As you said, he works with them and knows them ALL better than you or I. 

Any and all discussion is dead if taken to it's logical conclusion.

But that is my point to the original poster about these two kids. If they were good enough at this point, bearing in mind MCGlynn’s record in recruitment, why would he not play them? Why has he sent out on loan? If you believe in the manger’s judgement you wouldn’t even raise the subject in the first place. 

[BPM]

1 hour ago, Hampden Roar said:

The problem with losing 2 of your sales team is clients could leave with them, it’s one of those jobs where many of the deals are done on the 1 -2-1 trust between client and salesperson. Fingers crossed it’s not the case.

Same in any type of company/client relationship. As long as the replacement is as good or better then issues will be kept to a minimum 

[Bairnardo]

10 minutes ago, BPM said:

But that is my point to the original poster about these two kids. If they were good enough at this point, bearing in mind MCGlynn’s record in recruitment, why would he not play them? Why has he sent out on loan? If you believe in the manger’s judgement you wouldn’t even raise the subject in the first place. 

One of the decisions to be made as a football manager, and actually, even higher at club level, is how much appetite you have to give game time to players who aren't currently good enough but you think have potential to be. Or you think have potential to make money and need exposure (Gallagher). Or as part of cloth cutting (Pressley). 

 

That's also to be balanced against what can be gained by putting them out on loan, versus the possibility of leaving yourself thin on numbers. 

The whole thing has many different facets and it's a perfectly viable position from a Falkirk FC fan to say I want to see them get minutes in the first team for various reasons and I am prepared to accept X Y or Z consequence as a result. 

Loads to discuss re the development strategy for young players. On a wider scale, the development strategy for young players is absolute key to the Scottish game. Refusal to accept anything but fully ready players into first team squads is why we got the ludicrous B teams idea, and why our game is riddled eith foreigners and promising youngsters stuck on thr Bigots Brothers subs benches

[Springfield]

20 minutes ago, Bairn in Exile said:

I think with many businesses they have something in the contract which means that the employee leaving can't approach any of their old clients for a period of time, say 6 months or so, so that the new employee in that role has time to meet with the clients to try and get their own relationship established. Not saying that it works all the time mind. I had a clause like this in my contract for a previous role but I was working abroad so maybe this wouldn't be allowed in the UK.

Most companies do have this as a standard covenant, however it most cases it’s just a delay for the individual approaching previous contacts. As posted it’s all about getting in someone equally as good or better than those departed.

[Rugster]

28 minutes ago, Bairn in Exile said:

I think with many businesses they have something in the contract which means that the employee leaving can't approach any of their old clients for a period of time, say 6 months or so, so that the new employee in that role has time to meet with the clients to try and get their own relationship established. Not saying that it works all the time mind. I had a clause like this in my contract for a previous role but I was working abroad so maybe this wouldn't be allowed in the UK.

It is allowed. I have a years non compete in mine. Can’t work for a competitor, solicit current customers or staff from my place for 12 months after leaving. 

[FK1Bairn]

Just on the subject of young players and loans:

Scott Honeyman, Rhys Walker, Logan Sinclair and Owen Hayward were all put out on loan last season to East Stirlingshire, Camelon, Tynecastle and Penicuik respectively. 

This season they are at Alloa, Cowdenbeath, Gala while Hayward is involved with the first team due to Sneddon's injury issue. Each of them is playing at a club higher in the pyramid than they were last season. I'm sure Hayward would be away on loan to a club higher than Penicuik as well if it wasn't for Sneddon's injury.

I think we just need to trust John McGlynn's judgement on these boys development. He will see them in training every day and I'm sure somebody at the club is speaking to their loan clubs about their performances and development. 

[FFC 1876]

Got to remember what age these players are, much more beneficial for their development getting them out on loan playing games than 5/10 minute cameo's with us here and there. 

If they're good enough they're old enough but that means they've got to be better than what we've got infront of them which is some going given the quality in our starting 11. 

Goalkeepers
Owen Hayward(A) - June 2025 - 19 years old

Defenders
Logan Sinclair(A) - June 2025 - loaned out to Gala Fairydean - 18 in December

Midfielders
Scott Honeyman(A) - June 2025 - loaned out to Alloa - 19 in November
Rhys Walker(A) - June 2025 - loaned out to Cowdenbeath - 18 years old
Caelan Mccrone(A) - June 2026 - 16 years old
Flynn Mccafferty(A) - June 2026 - 16 years old

Edited October 10 by FFC 1876

[Blame Me]

9 minutes ago, FFC 1876 said:

Got to remember what age these players are, much more beneficial for their development getting them out on loan playing games than 5/10 minute cameo's with us here and there. 

...

Wasn't that the thrust of the OP argument re bringing in Bobby Wales?

He's the similar age to Honeyman and Walker and yet expected to compete with MacIver when fit but the guys we have are still developing .

Appreciate their positions are different in this scenario but my counter, unfortunately using Shanley and McKenna as examples, is I don't see what at least one of these young lads can't do that they have offered in the senior players cameos. 

[Blame Me]

1 hour ago, BPM said:

If you believe in the manger’s judgement you wouldn’t even raise the subject in the first place.

Then what would we write about