Walking Down The Halbeath Road

[da_no_1]

13 minutes ago, North West said:

I heard Pars top players are on £10k a week. No wonder we've nae tin

Fack aff

Edited July 25 by da_no_1

[Chubbychops]

1 hour ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

So we've went from "the same money" to "similar money" and even that is based on guessing that the range is small, when you have no idea the lower and upper ranges of the bands. You have also said that the players ability has nothing to do with their wages which has never been said by any club with a strict wage structure, let alone ours. Why get your knickers in a twist about something you've basically made up?

What's the point in having a range if there is a huge difference. There only so much of a difference we will be paying between the bottom to top range. There clearly want be anything other than fairly small ranges within the brackets. So Alston would be a Wotherspoon or Kane type outlay based on what Meggle said about experienced players being in the top bracket. It shouldn't go by experience, it should be based on ability. 

You're the one getting you knickers in a twist. I for one have never felt less about the Pars.

Edited July 25 by Chubbychops

[Rob1885]

It's a totally backward way of doing things. Becoming very numb to this pish tbh.

[North West]

1 hour ago, da_no_1 said:

Fack aff

Sorry. It's £12k a week. 

[Wacky]

11 hours ago, Chubbychops said:

It shouldn't go by experience, it should be based on ability. 

Seriously? That’ll work wonders for players morale and help us sign players.
Saying that though, that’s maybe why we are already struggling to bring in players? 
Cook— sorry son, but you’re not that great a footballer,  your ability means we are only offering you X amount 

Footballer— then why the feck do you even want me here then? 
Cook— well we think we can improve your ability, and if that happens we will pay you more. 
footballer— the words “think” and “if” are doing the heavy lifting in that sentence mate, tell you what, ram yer joab up yer arse   
 

 

[Stellaboz]

Not sure whats triggered it suddenly but the situation we find ourselves in has really hit home this morning.

A club that appears to be poorly run by a very well paid CEO.

A structure where signing players is prohibitive, sloe and ultimately costing us rather than any sort of gain.

A manager who has become stubborn and ingrained in his failed tactical approach, putting squares into round holes and has assembled a squad reliant heavily on injury prone players and loans that might come too late. Is also appearing to be frustrated with the board and lack of support from them.

A fanbase that has increasingly felt like its being taken for granted, not being entertained with the slow, ponderous football on show and has a large amount of apathy heading into what could have been a season that sees us challenging. Instead, there is feeling we will struggle to even stay up. 

Total. Fucking. Mess.

[CallumPar]

36 minutes ago, Wacky said:

Seriously? That’ll work wonders for players morale and help us sign players.
Saying that though, that’s maybe why we are already struggling to bring in players? 
Cook— sorry son, but you’re not that great a footballer,  your ability means we are only offering you X amount 

Footballer— then why the feck do you even want me here then? 
Cook— well we think we can improve your ability, and if that happens we will pay you more. 
footballer— the words “think” and “if” are doing the heavy lifting in that sentence mate, tell you what, ram yer joab up yer arse   
 

 

You’ve got to be at it here? Suggesting that paying players based on what they bring to the team is poor for morale?

[Chubbychops]

32 minutes ago, Wacky said:

Seriously? That’ll work wonders for players morale and help us sign players.

Yeah. Why would you pay a 30 year more money than a player who's 22 and twice the player of the 30 year old.

Offers we put out should be based on individal circustances of each case, not pigeonholing people due to age and how many games they have played.

[Well over Par]

53 minutes ago, Stellaboz said:

Not sure whats triggered it suddenly but the situation we find ourselves in has really hit home this morning.

A club that appears to be poorly run by a very well paid CEO.

A structure where signing players is prohibitive, sloe and ultimately costing us rather than any sort of gain.

A manager who has become stubborn and ingrained in his failed tactical approach, putting squares into round holes and has assembled a squad reliant heavily on injury prone players and loans that might come too late. Is also appearing to be frustrated with the board and lack of support from them.

A fanbase that has increasingly felt like its being taken for granted, not being entertained with the slow, ponderous football on show and has a large amount of apathy heading into what could have been a season that sees us challenging. Instead, there is feeling we will struggle to even stay up. 

Total. Fucking. Mess.

Other than that it’s not too bad though 

[Well over Par]

Heard a whisper that losses are very large  again but public won’t know until accounts are done in feb. 
this will be why spending has been cut. Who has been in charge for the last 2 seasons

cook out please 

Edited July 26 by Well over Par

[Islay]

35 minutes ago, Stellaboz said:

Not sure whats triggered it suddenly but the situation we find ourselves in has really hit home this morning.

A club that appears to be poorly run by a very well paid CEO.

A structure where signing players is prohibitive, sloe and ultimately costing us rather than any sort of gain.

A manager who has become stubborn and ingrained in his failed tactical approach, putting squares into round holes and has assembled a squad reliant heavily on injury prone players and loans that might come too late. Is also appearing to be frustrated with the board and lack of support from them.

A fanbase that has increasingly felt like its being taken for granted, not being entertained with the slow, ponderous football on show and has a large amount of apathy heading into what could have been a season that sees us challenging. Instead, there is feeling we will struggle to even stay up. 

Total. Fucking. Mess.

I cancelled my season ticket on Wednesday and requested a refund. Chris Addison (Marketing Manager) asked for feedback which I was more than happy to provide. I said the following:

"I'm more than happy to provide feedback. I've been a season ticket holder consistently since 1995, however to be honest the build up to this season has left me feeling unenthused for the season ahead. The league is there for anyone to win as there isn't an outright favourite like a Dundee Utd, however from the outside it appears that we are set for another season of consolidation. I bought the season ticket out of habit and if the price is going to increase then the level of ambition has to match.

I'm all for the development of youth, I believe it's something that all teams in Scotland should be focussed on as it benefits everyone. Although it should be a supplement to the first team and not a detriment, at the moment it appears that the focus is on youth to the detriment of the first team. After the recent debacle with Kai McLean's registration we are currently going into this season with one goalkeeper, we have known for a considerable amount of time that Max Little was never going to challenge Deniz Mehmet so I'm unsure why it has taken this long to find a replacement. The League Cup campaign is almost over, which we have been incredibly poor in, and the League campaign starts in just over a week - it's not good enough for a professional football club.  Competition for first team places is extremely important, from my perspective the squad is slightly weaker than last season and the results so far are verifying that for me.

Football for me should also be entertaining, and I recognise there is a fine balance between entertainment and achieving results. Watching Dunfermline last season was a bit like watching Scotland at the Euros, it was a chore. I was on board when we were relegated to League 1 that we had to get back to winning games (which we did), and consolidation last season was fine for a first season back however the entertainment value on the pitch was extremely lacking. I was hopeful for this season that we would build a bit more given the openness of the league, so I'm hoping this is a misquote from Thomas Meggle. I've taken this from the summary of the fans group meeting:

"They then have a target of 44 points, they want the team to get to 50 goals, and keep goals scored to 30 or below. They then break that down into where the goals come from - Kane capable of 15, the likes of Matty 12-15  if possible, defenders 3-4 from set peices, then 7-10 through the rest of the team. I want to stress I got the impression this is more TM's thoughts than solid targets for these players but the 50 goals is a team target."

44 points is two above the relegation play-off place from last season, and 1 less than we actually achieved as we finished on 45. 50 goals is only 7 more than we scored in the league last season. For comparison Dundee Utd scored 73, Raith 58, Partick 63 and Ayr 53 (who finished below us). 30 goals conceded is an admirable target, but only Dundee Utd achieved that last season with 23 whereas every other team was on 40+ so while it's admirable I don't think it's realistic. Even if they are minimal targets, they are very conservative which is why I hope at the very least the 44 points is a misquote.

I'll still be attending EEP, I'll just be a bit more selective with the games I choose to go to. Are we still doing half-season tickets as they are an excellent idea for someone like me who may wish to return in the latter half of the season?"

He responded in a way in which I would have expected a Marketing Manager to respond, which isn't a criticism as that is his job. At least he was asking for feedback and willing to engage which is why I'm happy to share this on here. I'm going to suggest that if we do hold a fans groups meeting in the future then the minutes are recorded and distributed through official channels so there is no ambiguity from various people summarising what has been said. He said that Meggle's comments were that 44 points was an initial target and once met new ones would be set, although I would argue that a 44 point initial target really isn't good enough and we should be aiming far higher than that.

[AuldReekie]

19 minutes ago, Chubbychops said:

Yeah. Why would you pay a 30 year more money than a player who's 22 and twice the player of the 30 year old.

Offers we put out should be based on individal circustances of each case, not pigeonholing people due to age and how many games they have played.

I don't think we are pigeon holing players based on age though, are we? Yes, there's a salary band for youth players breaking through but the key bands we're based around whether you were expected to be a core player or starting most weeks, or part of a leadership group? And it's perfectly possibly that a younger player in the middle band who is absolutely a key player is paid as good a salary as some on the senior group - bands can overlap. 

I don't see what the big deal is - players are offered a salary that reflects their expected contribution to the first team and their experience - and both are derived from their skill level. Just because we have formalised the wage structure doesn't mean it's not flexible or that it is bound to someone's age. 

It's perfectly reasonable to question whether our salary bands generally are below market rate (for the level we're trying to reach), but I think folk are over-thinking the actual structure itself.

[Well over Par]

7 minutes ago, Islay said:

I cancelled my season ticket on Wednesday and requested a refund. Chris Addison (Marketing Manager) asked for feedback which I was more than happy to provide. I said the following:

"I'm more than happy to provide feedback. I've been a season ticket holder consistently since 1995, however to be honest the build up to this season has left me feeling unenthused for the season ahead. The league is there for anyone to win as there isn't an outright favourite like a Dundee Utd, however from the outside it appears that we are set for another season of consolidation. I bought the season ticket out of habit and if the price is going to increase then the level of ambition has to match.

I'm all for the development of youth, I believe it's something that all teams in Scotland should be focussed on as it benefits everyone. Although it should be a supplement to the first team and not a detriment, at the moment it appears that the focus is on youth to the detriment of the first team. After the recent debacle with Kai McLean's registration we are currently going into this season with one goalkeeper, we have known for a considerable amount of time that Max Little was never going to challenge Deniz Mehmet so I'm unsure why it has taken this long to find a replacement. The League Cup campaign is almost over, which we have been incredibly poor in, and the League campaign starts in just over a week - it's not good enough for a professional football club.  Competition for first team places is extremely important, from my perspective the squad is slightly weaker than last season and the results so far are verifying that for me.

Football for me should also be entertaining, and I recognise there is a fine balance between entertainment and achieving results. Watching Dunfermline last season was a bit like watching Scotland at the Euros, it was a chore. I was on board when we were relegated to League 1 that we had to get back to winning games (which we did), and consolidation last season was fine for a first season back however the entertainment value on the pitch was extremely lacking. I was hopeful for this season that we would build a bit more given the openness of the league, so I'm hoping this is a misquote from Thomas Meggle. I've taken this from the summary of the fans group meeting:

"They then have a target of 44 points, they want the team to get to 50 goals, and keep goals scored to 30 or below. They then break that down into where the goals come from - Kane capable of 15, the likes of Matty 12-15  if possible, defenders 3-4 from set peices, then 7-10 through the rest of the team. I want to stress I got the impression this is more TM's thoughts than solid targets for these players but the 50 goals is a team target."

44 points is two above the relegation play-off place from last season, and 1 less than we actually achieved as we finished on 45. 50 goals is only 7 more than we scored in the league last season. For comparison Dundee Utd scored 73, Raith 58, Partick 63 and Ayr 53 (who finished below us). 30 goals conceded is an admirable target, but only Dundee Utd achieved that last season with 23 whereas every other team was on 40+ so while it's admirable I don't think it's realistic. Even if they are minimal targets, they are very conservative which is why I hope at the very least the 44 points is a misquote.

I'll still be attending EEP, I'll just be a bit more selective with the games I choose to go to. Are we still doing half-season tickets as they are an excellent idea for someone like me who may wish to return in the latter half of the season?"

He responded in a way in which I would have expected a Marketing Manager to respond, which isn't a criticism as that is his job. At least he was asking for feedback and willing to engage which is why I'm happy to share this on here. I'm going to suggest that if we do hold a fans groups meeting in the future then the minutes are recorded and distributed through official channels so there is no ambiguity from various people summarising what has been said. He said that Meggle's comments were that 44 points was an initial target and once met new ones would be set, although I would argue that a 44 point initial target really isn't good enough and we should be aiming far higher than that.

A good letter bud. Well thought out and polite. 
im going tomorrow and hoping to see the young lads all start before the same mundane pish the following week 

[Bairn in Exile]

36 minutes ago, Chubbychops said:

Yeah. Why would you pay a 30 year more money than a player who's 22 and twice the player of the 30 year old.

Offers we put out should be based on individal circustances of each case, not pigeonholing people due to age and how many games they have played.

Surely there comes a tipping point in every player’s career where, no matter how brilliant you have been in the past, you are no longer the player that you once were and should be prepared to accept a lower wage offer? For some players that might happen when they are 30, for others maybe when they are 35, you can’t impose a rigid, “one size fits all” wage structure depending on a player’s age. Indeed the chances are that an older player isn’t going to be able to play as many games a season as he once did so again should be realistic and accept reduced terms, not expect enhanced terms.

I’ve been Googling to get some actual examples to quote but to no avail. From memory, and I’m going back a rake of years here, I remember Gordon Strachan at one time being offered something like half of what he had been earning under his immediately previous contract to re-sign.

[Salvo Montalbano]

6 minutes ago, AuldReekie said:

I don't think we are pigeon holing players based on age though, are we? Yes, there's a salary band for youth players breaking through but the key bands we're based around whether you were expected to be a core player or starting most weeks, or part of a leadership group? And it's perfectly possibly that a younger player in the middle band who is absolutely a key player is paid as good a salary as some on the senior group - bands can overlap. 

I don't see what the big deal is - players are offered a salary that reflects their expected contribution to the first team and their experience - and both are derived from their skill level. Just because we have formalised the wage structure doesn't mean it's not flexible or that it is bound to someone's age. 

It's perfectly reasonable to question whether our salary bands generally are below market rate (for the level we're trying to reach), but I think folk are over-thinking the actual structure itself.

Aye, it's totally baffling why folk are getting weirded out by the wage structure. It's not new, it's not unique to us (I'd imagine almost every club will have something similar, even if they haven't explicity stated it somewhere) and it clearly relates to their Importance to the team rather than age, ability, marketability, etc. It's like the old Champ Man game where you could offer different wages based on whether you wanted the player to be "Indispensable", an "Important first team player", "used in a squad rotation system", a "hot prospect for the future" or a "promising youngster". Having such a structure in place isn't unusual and won't have any impact on whether a player signs or not. Just seems to be used as another stick to beat the board with tbh.

[Andriy_Parmolenko]

Yeah I don't really know why the existence of a wage structure is such a big deal tbh. Sure you can have reservations about how its applied, especially if you've got reservations about how the club is being run, but most of us here don't actually have a clue how much the playing staff get paid and how that structure is defined. 
Plenty enough other things with far more substance to be concerned about imo.

Edited July 26 by Andriy_Parmolenko

[cb_diamond]

1 hour ago, Stellaboz said:

Not sure whats triggered it suddenly but the situation we find ourselves in has really hit home this morning.

A club that appears to be poorly run by a very well paid CEO.

A structure where signing players is prohibitive, sloe and ultimately costing us rather than any sort of gain.

A manager who has become stubborn and ingrained in his failed tactical approach, putting squares into round holes and has assembled a squad reliant heavily on injury prone players and loans that might come too late. Is also appearing to be frustrated with the board and lack of support from them.

A fanbase that has increasingly felt like its being taken for granted, not being entertained with the slow, ponderous football on show and has a large amount of apathy heading into what could have been a season that sees us challenging. Instead, there is feeling we will struggle to even stay up. 

Total. Fucking. Mess.

From the outside looking in you guys do seem in a bit of a state. The highlighted points are really important and interestingly are where our paths diverged after we both came up season before last. McPake, while I don't really rate him hasn't really been supported as he should have been by the hierarchy and that will absolutely chip away at what can be done.

I've been critical of our chairman for lack of communication in the past, which I still stand by, but he was brave appointing McCabe and has backed him and his philosophy at every stage as much as he can within our fairly limited finances. The result of that is a club who are all pulling in the same direction.

I hope that the losses for you lads aren't too eye watering.

[Enigma]

Your club is a just a wee experiment for your owners, day to day they probably don’t give much of a f**k. I don’t think I’ve ever seen them at Stark’s for a derby game for example.

[HoBNob]

1 hour ago, Well over Par said:

Heard a whisper that losses are very large  again but public won’t know until accounts are done in feb. 
this will be why spending has been cut. Who has been in charge for the last 2 seasons

cook out please 

Been hearing for months that we were projected for a large set of losses. 

[AuldReekie]

39 minutes ago, cb_diamond said:

From the outside looking in you guys do seem in a bit of a state. The highlighted points are really important and interestingly are where our paths diverged after we both came up season before last. McPake, while I don't really rate him hasn't really been supported as he should have been by the hierarchy and that will absolutely chip away at what can be done.

I've been critical of our chairman for lack of communication in the past, which I still stand by, but he was brave appointing McCabe and has backed him and his philosophy at every stage as much as he can within our fairly limited finances. The result of that is a club who are all pulling in the same direction.

I hope that the losses for you lads aren't too eye watering.

Losses are going to be pretty severe I think but it's worth remembering that while there are questions about the board backing the manager and first team, it's not like they're doing absolutely nothing and spending nothing. They are spending money in other places which are contributing to the losses and that spending is aimed at building the club and it's infrastructure for the medium to longer term. It's absolutely fair for people to question that as a strategy and whether they're executing as well as they should (I like the strategy but feel they have the balance wrong), but there are fundamental differences in what we're trying to do at least in the short term.

I would also say another fundamental difference is in the coaching/management team. McCabe looks to have serious potential and upside, and has his teams playing a really good brand of attacking football. I think it's clear the jury is out on McPake, and I wouldn't say McPake is working with less resources than McCabe. I really want McPake to succeed but from what I've seen, McCabe is the better of the two and would actually be a great fit for us.  I hope McPake proves me wrong but the whole mess at board level might be a convenient cover for him.