Falkirk v Queens

[QOS5Ayr4]

10 minutes ago, Frankie S said:

I was a Bartley supporter at first. I thought he was a refreshing appointment. I thought he’d do well. I’m now resigned to the fact that we’re going nowhere under his stewardship. His eye for a player (even taking into account the limited budget at his disposal) is at best questionable, and the brand of football he has us playing is stiflingly negative and hard to watch. It’s increasingly difficult to make much of a case for his retention. I suspect he has this transfer window to turn things round, and if we miss out on the play-offs, he’ll be gone by the end of the season.

That sums it all up pretty well. I too found his appointment 'refreshing' and had high hopes, as I'm sure the Board did.  But for the first time in 50-odd years I've stopped going to matches. And that includes the dreadful seasons in the '80s and early 90s. Sad really.

However, I was back today for the Dobbie Testimonial. Great to see some of our past high-quality players on display, and although I enjoyed the occasion it did make me realise how far we've fallen.

 

[Balde Bairn]

On 06/01/2024 at 18:45, qos_75 said:

I am pissed off about the situation. I mean, in normal circumstances we should be giving Falkirk not only a good game home and away, but challenging them for the title too. 

However, I am getting to the stage now where I am caring less, because this is the norm now. 

We ‘don’t do’ protests against the board like Falkirk fans would. Instead, Queens fans just drift away never  to return. 

 

See this is where I get confused by what standard some teams in Scotland think they should be competing at. No doubt Queens are way off where they should be. However, Queens should not be competing with Falkirk and should never be at the same standard as us. We have a crowd size 4X that of Queens; that means 4X as much money on transfers and wages. This fact seems to bypass too many of the fans at the other clubs in Scotland, hence why Falkirk fans get called self-entitled. 

[Senor Bairn]

24 minutes ago, Balde Bairn said:

See this is where I get confused by what standard some teams in Scotland think they should be competing at. No doubt Queens are way off where they should be. However, Queens should not be competing with Falkirk and should never be at the same standard as us. We have a crowd size 4X that of Queens; that means 4X as much money on transfers and wages. This fact seems to bypass too many of the fans at the other clubs in Scotland, hence why Falkirk fans get called self-entitled. 

That does sound quite entitled. Queens in my head have always been a championship side who are mid table, sometimes going for playoffs.

 

To say that we should never be competing with them is a bit off. 

[Monkey Tennis]

The fact is that we're currently punching below our weight.

Falkirk, however, have been punching wildly below their weight in recent seasons.

 

That's all.

Edited January 7 by Monkey Tennis

[Tea and Busquets]

28 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

The fact is that we're currently punching below our weight.

Falkirk, however, have been punching wildly below their weight in recent seasons.

 

That's all.

Entirely down to poor leadership of the club who hire people who clearly aren’t good enough (Paul Sheerin, Martin Rennie both who we said were ‘refreshing’ similarly to what some of your supporters said about Bartley). We finally appointed someone with experience and know how rather than someone who may or may not work out. Seems like your board and now doing the same. First Willie Gibson and then Marvin Bartley. 

[Monkey Tennis]

47 minutes ago, Tea and Busquets said:

Entirely down to poor leadership of the club who hire people who clearly aren’t good enough (Paul Sheerin, Martin Rennie both who we said were ‘refreshing’ similarly to what some of your supporters said about Bartley). We finally appointed someone with experience and know how rather than someone who may or may not work out. Seems like your board and now doing the same. First Willie Gibson and then Marvin Bartley. 

It's a thoroughly inexact science though.

We employed Allan Johnston as a rookie a decade back and had tremendous success.   Before that, we had Gus MacPherson who had decent pedigree by then and was hopeless.

Your big mistake with Hartley was to go so wholeheartedly down an experimental recruitment path. 

 

Edited January 7 by Monkey Tennis

[Disco Duck]

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

 

Your big mistake was Hartley

 

 

[Monkey Tennis]

22 minutes ago, Disco Duck said:

 

Well maybe.

But if that's the case, it still doesn't support the theory that going with new untried managers is the way to go wrong.  Hartley had managed in a few places before he arrived with you, and had had some success.

PS. When I tried to write 'Hartley' it autocorrected to 'Bartley'.  Maybe it's not about experience, and instead there's some problem attached to managers whose surnames rhyme.  It's definitely a theory I'll run with. 

[kiddy]