Stirling Albion Thread

[WC Boggs]

2 hours ago, WC Boggs said:

You can't win consistently without a solid back four and we never had the back up to cover for more injuries in defence. That's when things seriously began to fall apart.  Apparently KR had an attitude that loan players wouldn't play for the jersey, so the loan system was never used as it desperately needed to be.  The two he did finally bring in were of no help in that area. Law never looking ready for first team football at left back.

KR's obsession with using Mackin as our lead striker with Carrick playing behind him didn't help either. Carrick rarely saw the ball with punt after punt going to a striker who couldn't jump and met most high balls with the top of his head. On the break on the deck, so many times the fullbacks were in the box before Mackin ever got there. It just wasn't working. Bikey added pace and persistence when fit, but was out through injury more than in.  There was also a lack of consistency in midfield that was never resolved.  

I can't say I agree with KR's attitude to loan players. They need to shine, to either show their club they've got something, or get themselves noticed if they are on their way out.  We went for over two months struggling to field a back four, praying none of them took a knock. That's when we lost game after game. 

Not helping were two players who were absolute poison in the dressing room. I'm not going to name them, they're gone, like the man who brought them in. Choose your own pet reasons why it all fell apart. There were plenty of them.

Parents can be ultra protective towards their sons in football. It can lead to them saying the wrong thing if fans are having a go at them. I'm really not ready to start on Mrs McGregor for that. She loves her son. Good on her.

I  have just been informed that the only Law we had was a goalkeeper.  Oops! I thought we'd got someone else to fill in at left back with the same surname. Clearly wrong.  Oh well, somebody was crap filling in there, but it couldn't have been him.

[tamthebam]

14 hours ago, rhliston said:

Agree with a lot of what you said. biggest problem we have is scoring goals. Really need a 15-20 goals a season striker, question is where do you find you. 

 

Blair Henderson's scored 20 for Spartans this season..... 

[BB_Bino]

Blair Henderson's scored 20 for Spartans this season..... :rolleyes:

Blair has shown throughout his footballing career that he is an affective Striker in the lower leagues, he was just an absolute liability at Forthbank and that was probably down to attitude and the fact he didn’t want to be here. A few players that played with him during that time backed that up.

[rhliston]

11 hours ago, tamthebam said:

Blair Henderson's scored 20 for Spartans this season..... 

No thanks one spell at Forthbank was enough, started well scored a hatrick against Elgin I think and from their went down hill. Hope he has another successful season next year at Spartans. 

[++Ammo - Airdrie++]

How's Kurtis Roberts and Dale Carrick been over the season?  Roberts showed in flashes he could be a decent player but he appeared a bit of an enigma, every good performance followed up by a spell on the bench or a niggling injury etc.

[rhliston]

6 hours ago, ++Ammo - Airdrie++ said:

How's Kurtis Roberts and Dale Carrick been over the season?  Roberts showed in flashes he could be a decent player but he appeared a bit of an enigma, every good performance followed up by a spell on the bench or a niggling injury etc.

Both Roberts and Carrick have been good in spells this season for us. Despite the team underperforming this season they are some of the better performers for us. Would give them both another contract for next season. 

[TheVoiceofReason]

Carrick has been ok.  He's had limited opportunities due to injuries and looks like he needs a half decent striker to play off.  He's not had that and has generally been used as a lone striker or wide player.  He works hard and I'd like to see what he can do if utilised properly. 

Kurtis Roberts looked like a world beater early in the season but has been struck with whatever malaise everyone contracted in November.  Again he works hard but I think takes on too much in a midfield that has been rank rotten all year.  You can generally rely on him to beat three players before losing the ball and then running back to retrieve it.  Once he's done that a few times he's knackered and as nobody else in our team follows runners from midfield it generally ends up with the defence making last ditch tackles.  Obviously they can't do that for the whole game...

It's difficult to judge anyone in this team as they all succumbed to some collective nonsense after the first quarter.  Rutkiewicz couldn't put things right - although he walked after a stushie with the self appointed chairman apparently so we'll never know if he could have turned things around - and Darren Young has been equally ineffective in his tenure.  Darren Young is not feeling the heat yet as the siloviki in FBT are waving the not his team, he's got experience getting out of this league card but that will change if he can't get off to a decent start next season.  Doubters are already doubting and knife sharpeners are just biding their time 

[WC Boggs]

2 hours ago, TheVoiceofReason said:

Carrick has been ok.  He's had limited opportunities due to injuries and looks like he needs a half decent striker to play off.  He's not had that and has generally been used as a lone striker or wide player.  He works hard and I'd like to see what he can do if utilised properly. 

Kurtis Roberts looked like a world beater early in the season but has been struck with whatever malaise everyone contracted in November.  Again he works hard but I think takes on too much in a midfield that has been rank rotten all year.  You can generally rely on him to beat three players before losing the ball and then running back to retrieve it.  Once he's done that a few times he's knackered and as nobody else in our team follows runners from midfield it generally ends up with the defence making last ditch tackles.  Obviously they can't do that for the whole game...

It's difficult to judge anyone in this team as they all succumbed to some collective nonsense after the first quarter.  Rutkiewicz couldn't put things right - although he walked after a stushie with the self appointed chairman apparently so we'll never know if he could have turned things around - and Darren Young has been equally ineffective in his tenure.  Darren Young is not feeling the heat yet as the siloviki in FBT are waving the not his team, he's got experience getting out of this league card but that will change if he can't get off to a decent start next season.  Doubters are already doubting and knife sharpeners are just biding their time 

The so called "self appointed" chairman has survived two attempts to remove him.  He remains chairman because that's what the membership voted for.  If he survives the latest attempt, it will again be because the membership voted for it.  Is it an assassin's creed thing with you?  Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

[King Crownest]

22 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

The so called "self appointed" chairman has survived two attempts to remove him.  He remains chairman because that's what the membership voted for.  If he survives the latest attempt, it will again be because the membership voted for it.  Is it an assassin's creed thing with you?  Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

The Trust board has the power to replace club directors without a vote of Trust members.

That's the rules.

The members have voted once, at the Mayfield - and they voted by a clear majority for Brown to go.

Yet he's still there.

But the longer this goes on, the less it's about people who haven't got a clue about football being stubborn and running a famous club into the ground and more about a cowardly Trust board that hasn't got the guts to use the powers their members have handed them.

Robert Liston's resolution is filling the vacuum where decisive action should have been. Whether you agree with him or not, at least he's trying to shake things up and get things done.

Neither board comes out this looking good.

Meantime, Stirling Albion's dying a slow death.

[TheVoiceofReason]

56 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

 It will again be because the membership voted for it.  Is it an assassin's creed thing with you?  Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

I don't remember getting one vote on this let alone two (or more).

Maybe I missed the emails right enough 

[WC Boggs]

I'm sure the other trust members who attended the votes remember them well.  Where were you?

[King Crownest]

Were you at the Mayfield in 2017 where the members voted for the Trust board to remove Stuart Brown as a director of the club?

 

[WC Boggs]

40 minutes ago, King Crownest said:

The Trust board has the power to replace club directors without a vote of Trust members.

That's the rules.

The members have voted once, at the Mayfield - and they voted by a clear majority for Brown to go.

Yet he's still there.

But the longer this goes on, the less it's about people who haven't got a clue about football being stubborn and running a famous club into the ground and more about a cowardly Trust board that hasn't got the guts to use the powers their members have handed them.

Robert Liston's resolution is filling the vacuum where decisive action should have been. Whether you agree with him or not, at least he's trying to shake things up and get things done.

Neither board comes out this looking good.

Meantime, Stirling Albion's dying a slow death.

The only votes held to remove Stuart Brown were won by Stuart Brown.

The Trust board doesn't have the power to remove a director without a vote of Trust members.

It didn't even have the power to  suspend a director without the approval of the membership. It tried it anyway though and Stuart just unsuspended himself.  

Because it repeatedly took action without the consent of the membership, that Trust board ending up with a no confidence vote in it's face.  One it ran away from.

I'm not too happy about this present Trust board either. It's not because they aren't stupid enough to try and use powers they don't have though.

Mr Liston has every right to put a resolution forward if he chooses to. That doesn't make his resolution fair, smart, or any contribution to stability.  

 

 

[WC Boggs]

4 minutes ago, King Crownest said:

Were you at the Mayfield in 2017 where the members voted for the Trust board to remove Stuart Brown as a director of the club?

 

I can remember being at a vote at the Mayfield centre. I do not remember when. I do not remember Stuart losing such a vote either. 

[King Crownest]

2 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

The only votes held to remove Stuart Brown were won by Stuart Brown.

The Trust board doesn't have the power to remove a director without a vote of Trust members.

It didn't even have the power to  suspend a director without the approval of the membership. It tried it anyway though and Stuart just unsuspended himself.  

Because it repeatedly took action without the consent of the membership, that Trust board ending up with a no confidence vote in it's face.  One it ran away from.

I'm not too happy about this present Trust board either. It's not because they aren't stupid enough to try and use powers they don't have though.

Mr Liston has every right to put a resolution forward if he chooses to. That doesn't make his resolution fair, smart, or any contribution to stability.  

 

 

I'm sorry to break this to you but you are fundamentally wrong on all the above.

The Mayfield Centre, 29/8/17.

The motion was "that the Trust Board call an Extra Ordinary Meeting of the Shareholders of Stirling Albion FC with a proposal to remove the Club Chairman as a Director of Stirling Albion FC, due to irreconcilable breakdown in relationships between the Trust (representing the majority shareholders of the Club) and the Chairman of the Club".

The result was 58 per cent in favour and 42 per cent against.

This vote was advisory. Why was it advisory?

Because the Trust constitution's Rule 24 gives members the right to give direction to the Trust board as long as those directions do not cut across the Trust board's powers under Rule 26.

Rule 26 states that the Trust board "shall appoint and dismiss the Chief Executive and other members of the [Club] board".

In short, the Trust board hires and fires the Club board without a vote by the members. 

However, on the one occasion the members were asked for their opinion on whether Stuart Brown should stay or go, the clear message was GO!!

So please stop rewriting history and inventing rules and passing them off as real. It's time this debate was informed by facts.

 

[WC Boggs]

28 minutes ago, King Crownest said:

I'm sorry to break this to you but you are fundamentally wrong on all the above.

The Mayfield Centre, 29/8/17.

The motion was "that the Trust Board call an Extra Ordinary Meeting of the Shareholders of Stirling Albion FC with a proposal to remove the Club Chairman as a Director of Stirling Albion FC, due to irreconcilable breakdown in relationships between the Trust (representing the majority shareholders of the Club) and the Chairman of the Club".

The result was 58 per cent in favour and 42 per cent against.

This vote was advisory. Why was it advisory?

Because the Trust constitution's Rule 24 gives members the right to give direction to the Trust board as long as those directions do not cut across the Trust board's powers under Rule 26.

Rule 26 states that the Trust board "shall appoint and dismiss the Chief Executive and other members of the [Club] board".

In short, the Trust board hires and fires the Club board without a vote by the members. 

However, on the one occasion the members were asked for their opinion on whether Stuart Brown should stay or go, the clear message was GO!!

So please stop rewriting history and inventing rules and passing them off as real. It's time this debate was informed by facts.

 

I'll check back on it. If I'm entirely wrong, I'll come back here when I get the answers and admit to it. Though you don't give the result of the EGM shareholders vote. Why is that?

[King Crownest]

32 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

I'll check back on it. If I'm entirely wrong, I'll come back here when I get the answers and admit to it. Though you don't give the result of the EGM shareholders vote. Why is that?

Only found out recently - years later - that the EGM of club shareholders in 2018 actually took place.

My understanding is that nobody from the Trust board turned up - so the wishes of the majority shareholder and the opinion of the members, as expressed at the Mayfield, were not given a voice. 

If that was indeed the case, it would be yet another example of the chaos at this club.

Edited April 20, 2022 by King Crownest

[TheVoiceofReason]

12 minutes ago, King Crownest said:

Only found out recently - years later - that the EGM of club shareholders in 2018 actually took place.

My understanding is that nobody from the Trust board turned up - so the wishes of the majority shareholder and the opinion of the members, as expressed at the Mayfield, were not given a voice. 

If that was indeed the case, it would be yet another example of the chaos at this club.

Maybe the trust board had all resigned by that point?  It's more difficult to follow than River City

[WC Boggs]

34 minutes ago, King Crownest said:

Only found out recently - years later - that the EGM of club shareholders in 2018 actually took place.

My understanding is that nobody from the Trust board turned up - so the wishes of the majority shareholder and the opinion of the members, as expressed at the Mayfield, were not given a voice. 

If that was indeed the case, it would be yet another example of the chaos at this club.

It's going to take me time to check back on this.  Even so, it's possible that I have forgotten the events at the Mayfield and confused a membership vote with an EGM shareholders vote. You seem to be of the opinion that no vote was taken. That's one more thing I'll have to check up on.  It won't be this evening though.

I am now more concerned with something I have just found out about.  A drink fuelled Trust board member, who last Saturday started shouting aggressively at my daughter in the stadium.  One who I personally witnessed challenge another Trust member to fight some weeks ago in the stadium.  Family first. 

[TheVoiceofReason]

48 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:

It's going to take me time to check back on this.  Even so, it's possible that I have forgotten the events at the Mayfield and confused a membership vote with an EGM shareholders vote. You seem to be of the opinion that no vote was taken. That's one more thing I'll have to check up on.  It won't be this evening though.

I am now more concerned with something I have just found out about.  A drink fuelled Trust board member, who last Saturday started shouting aggressively at my daughter in the stadium.  One who I personally witnessed challenge another Trust member to fight some weeks ago in the stadium.  Family first. 

Hope she's ok.  Intimidation is unacceptable at any level