The Falkirk FC Thread

[Gaz]

12 hours ago, PedroMoutinho said:

I’d take a “not particularly enjoyable” season in the premier league any day over the shite we’ve endured recently. I can’t understand the criticism a manager who repeatedly kept us in the premier league playing largely attractive football gets.

The finances in the premier league make it possible to attract better players which leads to better football and better crowds. We were able to support a football budget of £2.7 million in 2008 (equivalent to over £4.1 million today).

I don't disagree, but that doesn't change what I said being correct.

My opinion of Yogi has mellowed considerably over the years, but I do believe that we achieved what we did mostly in spite of him rather than because of him. When Latapy retired he looked completely lost.

[StuartA]

3 hours ago, Hank von Hell said:

 

I'm sorry I subscribe to the "we shouldn't be in it in the first place pish". I look at clubs like St Mirren and Motherwell , how well they are doing in the Premier and truly believe they are no bigger clubs than us......so why not us (spoiler - see last sentence for the answer) ?

A club of our stature should at the very least be competing in the Champo to win it, not languishing in Div 3 - and I think most of us know this.    

Football is indeed played out on the pitch and we have no divine right to be successful, but the destiny of a club can also be decided in the boardroom and we are where we are due to a catalogue of disasters and mismanagement by successive past Boards (not this current one thankfully.). 

I say it because the whole “stature” thing is an illusion. It isn’t real, pure imagination. Third Lanark had stature. You can only earn stature.

Having a lot of fans or a shiny stadium gives us the “big club” illusion but the fans simply pay the massive overheads for the shiny stadium that we don’t own, and leave us no better off than many clubs with smaller supports, especially with the decreasing returns of relegation. 

You’re right about the boardroom. That’s why it’s utterly critical that we continue to get that right, as the model we have now means that directors will rotate. 

[JinkyBairn]

2015/16 season tops it for me.

Housty .

[Guest]

3 hours ago, StuartA said:

I say it because the whole “stature” thing is an illusion. It isn’t real, pure imagination. Third Lanark had stature. You can only earn stature.

Having a lot of fans or a shiny stadium gives us the “big club” illusion but the fans simply pay the massive overheads for the shiny stadium that we don’t own, and leave us no better off than many clubs with smaller supports, especially with the decreasing returns of relegation. 

You’re right about the boardroom. That’s why it’s utterly critical that we continue to get that right, as the model we have now means that directors will rotate. 

Do you think the model maybe needs reshaped or revised? Reason I ask is If we can’t get any more FSS directors to step forward and the 2 patrons reps were to step down this December then where would that leave us?

Edited September 7, 2023 by Van_damage

[StuartA]

11 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

Do you think the model maybe needs reshaped or revised? Reason I ask is If we can’t get any more FSS directors to step forward and the 2 patrons reps were to step down this December then where would that leave us?

Tough one. We need to keep the democratic element, or at least transparency and fans’ eyes in the boardroom so the erstwhile shenanigans are avoided. The other risk is that someone totally unsuitable steps forward because of a lack of interest, a blazer chaser or worse. 
 

I think it needs calm discussion, and a bit of time and listening. Learn from what has happened so far, then see if it’s sustainable. We need to find good candidates and learn what has put them off. In a couple of cases, I know because I spoke to them, it was facing the wrath Falkirk fans. These people would have been good directors so the argument that they need to be tough enough is self-defeating. 
 

We probably need to move to some kind of blended model, where we can find people to represent the fans orgs, but others with clearly identified skills - and time - the work still needs done and if it falls on far too few shoulders, then we could unravel. 
 

It’s still early though and nothing can ever be set in stone. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, StuartA said:

Tough one. We need to keep the democratic element, or at least transparency and fans’ eyes in the boardroom so the erstwhile shenanigans are avoided. The other risk is that someone totally unsuitable steps forward because of a lack of interest, a blazer chaser or worse. 
 

I think it needs calm discussion, and a bit of time and listening. Learn from what has happened so far, then see if it’s sustainable. We need to find good candidates and learn what has put them off. In a couple of cases, I know because I spoke to them, it was facing the wrath Falkirk fans. These people would have been good directors so the argument that they need to be tough enough is self-defeating. 
 

We probably need to move to some kind of blended model, where we can find people to represent the fans orgs, but others with clearly identified skills - and time - the work still needs done and if it falls on far too few shoulders, then we could unravel. 
 

It’s still early though and nothing can ever be set in stone. 

The 3 ways I can see it personally are.

1. As is is now, which does have issues of suitability, sustainability and continuity. We’ve had 4 directors that have had to step down in less than 2 years and struggling to find a 4th FSS candidate to step in the vacant role. The large shareholders only have 1 representative too and don’t know if there would be anyone to succeed the patrons reps were they to step down. 

2. The board elect a chairman(or woman) from either within the current BoD or an independent. The chairperson would have the casting vote and be ultimately accountable for the decisions made and the direction they take the club. Would help manage any potential disputes and allow the reps to add what skills they can but with less onus to run the club. The chair can also bring in other non execs as advisors or to fill any skill shortages with the patrons and FSS reps able to veto anything they feel may be harmful to the clubs future. 
 

3. Do similar to SMISA and allow the FSS and Patrons committee to elect the board reps. Members vote for the committees but allow them the freedom to pick the representatives whom they think are best suited to run the club, be it from the membership or further afield. 

Not sure if all of those ideas are workable and no doubt there will be other setups that are worth considering. Just think as we approach the end of this year we need to start thinking about adding more stability to the club. All the reps that have served have done a great job so far but we need some succession planning to mitigate what could be a worse case scenario if both decide to step down and there are no other candidates willing to replace them. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Van_damage

[StuartA]

We’ll need a healthy dose of pragmatism no matter what happens. We need the right people to want to do the job before we worry about changing systems. I hope that more might show interest if we get promoted, success having many fathers etc. 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, StuartA said:

We’ll need a healthy dose of pragmatism no matter what happens. We need the right people to want to do the job before we worry about changing systems. I hope that more might show interest if we get promoted, success having many fathers etc. 

Very true but there in lies another issue in the candidacy department as anyone who only wants to step forward while the club is successful and take credence for it is in the same category as a blazer chaser IMO. We need people who will stand by the club through thick and thin. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Van_damage

[Big chungus]

I do wonder if we had managed to stay in the premiership when hearts, Hibs and rangers were all in the championship what we could have achieved. Definitely consistent top 6 finishes and probably a shot at European football. I also wonder if we could have won a Scottish cup or even a cup double like St Johnstone did. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Big chungus

[StuartA]

Ideally, yes, but I think the club needs to shed its toxicity before more of the right people are prepared to step forward. We’re a long way towards achieving that - fan ownership is progressing, stability and improvement on the park, competence off the park, fans less murderous and directors who aren’t seen as arrogant hee-haws or dodgy nest featherers.* We need to get away from the times where anyone involved with the club ended up leaving with the smell of torches and sound of pitchforks clattering behind them. 
 

(*Nb definitely NOT applying that description to each of the dozens of directors who have served the club in the previous decade or two) 

Edited September 7, 2023 by StuartA

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Big chungus said:

I do wonder if we had managed to stay in the premiership when hearts, Hibs and rangers were all in the championship what we could have achieved. Definitely consistent top 6 finishes and probably a shot at European football. I also wonder if we could have won a Scottish cup of even a cup double like St Johnstone did. 

The sliding doors of football! 

Not putting any blame on Ryan Flynn as there were many, many things that were equal to getting us relegated but had he scored vs Killie then where would we be now or if the SPL allowed groundsharing in 2003/04.

Guess we could also argue the same about had Airdrie not went bust too.

Many moments that could have changed our history for better or worse.

[MrDust]

16 hours ago, FalkirkBairn2021 said:

Most annoying thing about our Premier spell is that it's really difficult to get relegated. Much much easier to stay up than win the Championship. 

Still infuriates me how asleep at the wheel our board were to allow us to go down. It was completely avoidable.

I was for Presley getting the job probably more to the fact May was rancid as our manager and I'd probably been happy with Jim Leishman(perhaps not)

A decent appointment at the start of that season or instead of Presley could've seen a different outcome.

The job at the start of that season wasn't for a rookie manager, yogi left us in a real mess player wise and a rebuild was needed.

6 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

Agree with most of what you are saying tbh, but I will take this season for what it is and enjoy it if we succeed. Life's to short not to. Its all relative. Success is success at the end of the day. 

 

Secondly, I demand an immediate apology for "champo" 

I think he's just picked his local vocabulary, thankfully he's not used soccer

I think it's hard to pick a favourite season, the McCall and yogi seasons were two you knew from very early on we would get promoted and were joyful to watch. I'd say any season with McAllister, Stainrod and Latapy were a absolute joy.

In regard to this season, I'm all for praise so far but our next few games are the ones that will see real praise. The league won't be lost or won in the next few games but it would be a statement if we opened up a gap after them...not a question 

[scottsdad]

Mental to think we haven't been promoted since 2005. If we manage it this year, it'll be absolutely like celebrating a cup final. 

I'd prefer to be champions (ie to win something) but in any case, going to other grounds, with more/better players, more coverage, would be brilliant. 

Crazy to think that a bit of optimism is creeping in after how last season ended. Hope it carries on. 

[Bigbrbairn]

17 hours ago, HonestAl said:

I immediately thought the OP meant Scottish League Div 2 in 1969-70 with Fergie & co.

I was 11 at that time and a" lift me over mister " boy  I remember it very well. Pity i canny remember what i had for my tea last night !!!

Edited September 7, 2023 by Bigbrbairn

[Guest]

Hamilton game now on Alba with 5:30pm KO. Not surprising to be honest. 

[Harry Kinnear]

7 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

Hamilton game now on Alba with 5:30pm KO. Not surprising to be honest. 

I’m actually quite happy with that, in hospitality so means I won’t be nuggets as early

[Bigbrbairn]

I think paying people to do some of the behind the scenes stuff and allowing reps/directors time to concentrate on development of the club not the humdrum day to day stuff would be an idea

[Roboccop]

4 hours ago, Van_damage said:

Do you think the model maybe needs reshaped or revised? Reason I ask is If we can’t get any more FSS directors to step forward and the 2 patrons reps were to step down this December then where would that leave us?

The Board has to stop telling people that they can only go on if they can work 20 hrs plus for nothing. That stops anyone but moderately wealthy or retired older people to stand. FSS needs indépendant voices on the Board who represent the fans. That is crucial forst and foremost. 

[Bainsfordbairn]

9 minutes ago, Roboccop said:

The Board has to stop telling people that they can only go on if they can work 20 hrs plus for nothing. That stops anyone but moderately wealthy or retired older people to stand. FSS needs indépendant voices on the Board who represent the fans. That is crucial forst and foremost. 

Not sure I agree. Being there only to represent the fans is fine when it was just one FSS rep and the rest of the BOD was made up of MSG appointees. (historical example, albeit in those days it was Bairnstrust rather than FSS). 

That's no longer the case. The fans ARE the board and the FSS is almost half of it. (or 2/5 to be precise) Every single board member bar one is a fan rep and should be taking the wishes of the fanbase  into account when making decisions. Ironically, the only "independent" guy is the one who represents nobody but presumably has skills which are valued. 

I can think of a few people over the years who promoted themselves as "the voice of the fans". They criticised everything but offered nothing. We don't need those type of people now. We need ones with skills who're willing to roll their sleeves up for the betterment of the club. 

I have no idea what the board members do on a daily / weekly basis. Perhaps with the improvements that have been made in the running of the club, the 20+ hrs requirement could be reduced to 15 or 10. That might be a conversation worth having if it resulted in more people becoming involved. 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Harry Kinnear said:

I’m actually quite happy with that, in hospitality so means I won’t be nuggets as early

You say that now but just wait till someone in your party suggests going to the pub to watch Luton vs Tottenham a couple of hours before you’re due for hospitality!