BeardyGuts

Is it just me or is the statement a bit odd? Goes into more detail than normal for these sort of things and the formatting seems weird taking new lines when not necessary..... might be looking for something genuinely gutted if MW goes

When Hyndman was hooked i couldn't believe it, he was the only player that showed any real spark all night. I couldn't for the life of me understand that substitution. I like miller but last night it was clear it just wasnt working with him up front. Halliday and Kiernan were liabilities. Dont know if its just me but apart from Wallace i dont think anyone is in same planet as McKay... he seems to get into dangerous positions consistently but no-one, except for Wallace, seems to make good runs for him. The past few games i can think of at least half a dozen times he gets to the byline but there is never a run to the near post and they expect him to dink the ball over 3 defenders to someone.... probably nit picking due to the crap result but surely they watch the tapes and see where we are missing chances and should make changes. Frustrates the hell out of me we have a guy that can beat players and get them on the back foot only to have zero support when he does it.

Thought i would share this since after seeing Hogan move to Villa for 12m i thought i would check how MW other transfer dealings got in in his time at Brentford. Like a few others i think some of the signings he has made the past 2 windows are a bit suspect... after seeing this eitherMW is incredibly lucky or he is bloody good at picking out a future player. I know it means nothing to us right this minute but should give confidence that he knows what he is doing. Andre Gray - Bought from Luton for 500k - SOld to Burnley 1 year later for 10.5m Moses Odubujo - bought from Leyton Orient for 1m - Sold to Hull 1 year later for 4.25m Scott Hogan - bought for 750k from Rochdale - sold to Villa 2 years later for 12m James Tarkowski - bought from Oldham for 500k - sold to Burnley 2 years later for 3.4m In total MW brought in 13 players in his time at Brentford. 4 were undisclosed fees so i cant see how much he spent on them (McLeod was meant to be 850k) , but 3 of them are still at the club and the 1 that left was sold to Sheffield United after being brought in from Oldham so i think its fairly safe to say they at least broke even. The other players not listed were brought in on a free and still at the club or brought in on a free and left for free. Anyway from a transfer spend of 3.6m he brought in 30m ultimately to Brentford... that is one hell of a return. The money we paid for Garner we could afford all the players that MW brought in at Brentford... so looking in the lower leagues of England there is certainly good finds within our budget.

There has been games where we have dominated the ball and not sat deep but still cant score I think that's why I favour a striker. But the problem with buying strikers I guess is that they don't come with a guaranteed number of goals. My firm second choice is a speedy centre half. When we look at the squad assuming all fit we really do have 2 for most positions. Even at goalie which is something I never understand... why waste wage money on a decent second string goalie... but that's another topic. If we all were to pick our best team right now how many new signings would be in it? Gilks probably... apart from that I think I still pick the same 11 as last years best.

Apart from Sinclair going by what is reported they never spent a fortune on players. Wages is a different story but look at Dembele (free transfer) Toure (Free transfer) both players you can safely say would have improved our squad.

This is absolutely bang on. Also I cant believe I am going to say this but after the start to the season agree with Sutton that we are miles behind them. They were better on the ball, better are pressing, created far more chances and also seemed to simply want it more than we did. Whilst I would never want another 5-1 defeat from that lot I would rather lose 5-1 playing good football than lose 1-0 barely getting a sniff. granted in the first game we didn't play well and lost 5-1 but you know what I mean. After last season I said that the players Warburton brought in were excellent... this year though is the total opposite. I mean ok Hodson played well when I have seen him Gilks too but there hasn't been one player brought in that took us up a level. Windass shows promise to be that player but yesterday he looked like a dear caught in the headlights too much. The squad is quite big now but would be interested to know what you guys thought about Jan signings? Say we had the cash to make one big signing what position would you go for? For me it has to be a centre forward. Simply not enough goals and the defence seems to be getting better.

I dont think his style of play suits the way we play. I recall one or two occasions he actually won a long ball up top and no-one ran in behind. He never made runs in behind that i can remember. Easy for Aberdeen to defend when you only have 1 striker. Kenny Miller had an almost instant impact in the game because he was making runs in behind and stretching the Aberdeen back 4. Garner just doesnt play that way. I see him as a more Boyd or Ally type forward which i struggle to see how that will work for us. I would expect if he was playing to go to a 4-4-2 rather than the 4-2-3-1 we normally play.

I think in the players and fans mind if we are not first then the pressure is on. Slightly less so in second position but 3rd down brings with it the same amount of pressure/scrutiny imo. For us i think if we're not first or second we're last in a lot of peoples eyes and even second will feel like that to a lot of people even this season. The Aberdeen game is going to be tough. Not the sort of game we want to go into needing a result. Plus I always feel that Pittodrie has a really narrow pitch which i dont think helps our style of play. However if we do get a comfortable win then it can be a huge boost to everyone and i think most importantly get some confidence in the fans towards the team/manager.

Krancjar for me just doenst have the pace ... looks like he is running in treacle. Especially in the role he was expected to play against Celtic he just couldnt get up and down the pitch quick enough to be effective. In games where we truly dominate the football yes he can be an asset but it comes at the loss of protecting our fragile back 4. And in games against decent opposition that is a big risk. Just to add i thought he was a damn good signing at first.

Agree with the defender comment however you would be hard pressed to find someone who didn't think before the season started that Barton was a quality addition. Also it was clear at the end of last year we suffered from some serious lack of squad depth... i mean look at the SC SF when we didnt even have a full bench. In hindsight its easy to criticize but in reality the vast majority of us were v.happy with Barton signing.

If you look at the game on Saturday where as you say we weren't pressing them at all and giving them an age on the ball... but in reality the first two goals came from a corner and Kiernan's bloody awful distribution.... so the plan was working going by the score up until half time. My biggest concern is that everybody always talks about the core of the team: Goalie, Centre Halfs, Centre mid. This needs to be strong but for us this is our weakest combination,. I have yet to see Barton play a decent game. Centre Halfs are not good enough in any combination that I have seen so far. But all the players have the ability of that i am sure maybe it is just taking longer than anticipated. I didnt expect us to romp to wins in all of our games at the start of the season I was half expecting this to be honest. The first match against them definitely came too early and i still think we weren't 5-1 bad. Lots of new players to get settled into our way of playing. Using Barton as an example going from a counter attacking Burnley side to a team where you have all the possession most of the time is a big change. For me the manager & team deserves our support until the end of the season then we see where we are at.

I'm interested to know what would Sky's push for this be based on? I had a look at the figures... the last time i can find a weekend to compare w/e 27 Dec 2015. Both matches were on SS1 Hearts v Celtic got 250k viewers where as the Super Saturday match in the EPL got 1.5m viewers on the same weekend. In terms of ROI... the SPFL costs around £500k a match assuming the printed numbers are correct so £2 per viewer. The EPFL matches cost Sky £11m per game so that is just over £7 per viewer. So in terms of value for money the SPFL is a much better investment for Sky as it stands now. I had a check on BT viewing figures it works out the same... 6 to 1 ratio in favor of the EPL game. So what would adding Rangers and/or Celtic to the EPFL do for Sky? i mean in the UK anyone willing to pay for Sky to watch Ranger or Celtic now will already be doing so you would think... surely it wouldn't add that many subscribers if we were in the English setup. If anything it would be worse for Sky, the cash cow of Rangers viewers will now be lumped into the EPL deal and will just drive that price up for Sky.. not down.

That lot on a trip to the US 3/4's through the season, just before the split... surely a good thing for us?? I'm not an expert but surely this would have an effect on them this late on in the season. At the very minimum it would be a mental distraction in the couple of weeks leading up to it. But also agree with GS and others who said that you shouldnt just be allowed to select an away game to play at a neutral venue...

As someone who is a regular contributor to RF and now C1872 have to say this is worrying to read.... think i may have to cancel my contribution until the truth of the story is uncovered. Fucking brings me to despair the thought that after all the crap our club has been through some apparent fans are using a vehicle which is meant to protect the club for the long term future for short term gain (if that is the case).

Agree with this. I mean what we seen last season is the current squad isnt far away from competing for the title. What we are missing is experience and some depth and I would also add in a striker. So from what i have seen so far the only thing we havent done is signed a striker but i'm sure i read MW has said there maybe one more to come. Can't wait for this season, i think Windass, Crooks and Rossiter are ones for the future already at a good standard. and Barton will be great in the SPL imo.

To be honest when I read this i just thought whats the point? If anything it just stirs a reaction from both sides... or maybe that was the point.. Media have a lot to answer for, they stoke the fire on both sides by publishing inflammatory articles and then are own hand with their pen and paper to report the fallout.

Maybe there is someone who does not want to maintain shareholding... Easdale for example but the likelihood is I would assume the vast majority will maintain. And can you just offer those that are not taken up to whoever you want?

ST comparison is not relevant at all... i know what i am getting for my money... i buy a ST and I see the games. I give a contribution to C1872 and they buy up shares.... I dont want to argue back and forth all day because we clearly have a difference of opinion on this one. We obviously both want what is best for the club i feel the best way to achieve that is to get a significant fan shareholding to protect the club long term rather than giving money or not doing anything which will achieve short term goals but do nothing to protect the club for generations. Our club shouldnt be relying on the fans to donate money to improve infrastructure, this should be budgeted for. We have had a number of years where the previous regimes left our stadium to go to ruin but now with the current board we should start seeing this gradually improve. If we dont then maybe we have the wrong people at the helm.

I'm not a financial expert by any strecth of the imagination but in any share issue, the shareholders (as far as i understand) need to be given the opportunity to maintain there same shareholding level. So assuming I am right on that, then after a share issue nothing changes C1872 will maintain there 6% shareholding and money has gone into the club. Which is great but it still doesnt get C1872 closer to the goal of being a big shareholder.

Sorry spotted Bluedell's reply before yours. The bulk of my reply there applies in this case too. The first point is moot, they didnt buy 750k of shares, they bought 75k so the point remains. What would the club do with 75k if handed over? Who decides? Who has control over it? This is my issue here, sure if the disabled facilities need upgraded i would happily give money to a vehicle that was setup to collect money for such an improvement... but this isnt the point of C1872. Its fair enough that you dont like that the 75k was given to a third party... and i agree that ideally we want this money in the club. But again this is not the point of C1872. I want the supporters to have a big say in the future of the club and as history has shown us that simply being supporters means little. In the future when that position is secured sure use the money for various initiatives and set up something that allows at least some control on where the money goes but for now, at least for me which appears to be the minority, i would like to see a big fan position on the board.

Have to admit to being ignorant to the problems with the disabled facilities. And i cant really disagree with anything you say, you are bang on about 75k being more useful to the club than some unknown entity that sold 300k shares. But having seen what has happened the past few years i like taking this defensive approach by building up a decent shareholding that should prevent these things happening again in the future. To be honest if C1872 decided to change tact and start giving the money to the club then i for one would stop my contribution. I cant really explain it well with words to rightly defend myself for this decision. Like i said this is a long term game for me and I like the idea in the future of having a significant portion of the club fan owned.

Disagree with this - the value of this purchase of shares is approx 75k... the club couldn't do much with that if it was handed over... to be frank that is a drop in the ocean compared to buying players or doing anything with a football club really. The way i look at is this is a long term game now. Build up a decent shareholding, get into the position to be a real influence (i dont know what % that is... say 20%+ or something) then we can start to use the money that is hopefully still being given to 1872 on a monthly basis to fund various initiatives be that players or facilities or coaches... whatever. Whatever the number is a nice addition to the budget every year for the manager and keep some aside for a rainy day. As much as i trust D. King and co I would rather not hand a penny over to them for a number of years so we can get C1872 into a place of being a big influential member of the board.

Despite the fact one of the main perpetrators behind all the hate and agenda would be tagging along for the ride? Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Yes that is a fair point but even if they fill two planes that's still around 200 people (depending on the plane size ). Plus it would be no fun to travel anywhere via plane for a day trip with the hassle of securitym trasnfers etc then if you stay over the costs will multiply big time. I'm sure there will be fans that will do it but i just cant see it on any sort of scale when its a week in/week out business unlike the Euro cup games.

Personally i feel we are a Scottish club and therefore thats where we should play. Dont get me wrong playing the likes you mention would be more appealing in the short term but really think about the long term. You will literally have no way support for one. Cant imagine many fans could afford away trips like that to make a decent turn out Think about the away trips we have all had over the years in Scotland... that will be effectively gone for the vast majority of our support. Second how long would it be before these games became a chore and we are dreaming about playing Barca, Man Utd, Bayern etc? Because that is what will happen eventually. Maybe not in 5 years but 10-15 years time the next generation will become just as jaded with those games as some of us do with the current fixture list. Personally that feeling when you are walking up to the ground on match day, it doesnt really matter who you are playing... but you feel the excitement the anticipation of whatever is about to happen on the pitch. For your armchair supporter, something i have become more of over the years unfortunately, for sure it will be nicer to watch Gers v Porto than Gers v Livi but really thats not who we should cater for anyway. Just my two cents but really we should focus on becoming a club built for the scottish league and setup.