Thistle v Morton

[lady-isobel-barnett]

3 hours ago, Garscube Road End 2 said:

Personally, I don't see why Archibald was brought back. He is tainted bt his ultimate failure as Thistle boss. We do know that McCall and Archibald are good pals. Nothing wrong withvthat, but he took Scally with him from Ayr. Why do we need another coach? Unnecessarily expense in my eyes.

No problem with Archie as assistant, especially in this league. And I've no problem with McCall as manager, especially in this league.  Doubts over the management will likely only arise if/when we get promoted. Even then the value of that pairing could be argued either way.

McCall could be described as out of his depth with his man-management skills perhaps more designed for getting the best out of players not at the time considered top tier quality. Archie of course was the manager who failed latterly during his tenure.

On the other hand if/when promoted a McCall/lArchibald partnership could work. McCall in charge of the overall football management (an upstairs job) and Archibald as head coach (in the dugout). McCall has a decent eye for a player and his man-management is generally considered to be excellent. Archie's biggest failures in my mind were his recruitment coupled with over loyalty to certain players. Take recruitment and the level of loyalty to show players out of his remit and it could be easily argued that he'd make a more than decent team manager.

Personally I'm far from convinced either way. Besides we're not looking like a team that's got the nucleus of an outfit that could survive in the top tier, so premiership management set up is largely academic.

I've not mentioned Neil Scally above and like others I'm a bit confused about the need for two assistants. I'm sure most clubs our size have a manager, an assistant manager and a third coach so in that alone we're certainly not unique. But the third coach in most instances will be senior player doubling as player/coach. A sort of reserve coach. Kinda like Archie was to McNamara & Donnelly. Tho' I realise with the likes of Graham & Foster occupied elsewhere we maybe don't have a natural third coach it's more the joint assistant manager thing I don't understand. 

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by lady-isobel-barnett

[Garscube Road End 2]

12 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

No problem with Archie as assistant, especially in this league. And I've no problem with McCall as manager, especially in this league.  Doubts over the management will likely only arise if/when we get promoted. Even then the value of that pairing could be argued either way.

McCall could be described as out of his depth with his man-management skills perhaps more designed for getting the best out of players not at the time considered top tier quality. Archie of course was the manager who failed latterly during his tenure.

On the other hand if/when promoted a McCall/lArchibald partnership could work. McCall in charge of the overall football management (an upstairs job) and Archibald as head coach (in the dugout). McCall has a decent eye for a player and his man-management is generally considered to be excellent. Archie's biggest failures in my mind were his recruitment coupled with over loyalty to certain players. Take recruitment and the level of loyalty to show players out of his remit and it could be easily argued that he'd make a more than decent team manager.

Personally I'm far from convinced either way. Besides we're not looking like a team that's got the nucleus of an outfit that could survive in the top tier, so premiership management set up is largely academic.

I've not mentioned Neil Scally above and like others I'm a bit confused about the need for two assistants. I'm sure most clubs our size have a manager, an assistant manager and a third coach so in that alone we're certainly not unique. But the third coach in most instances will be senior player doubling as player/coach. A sort of reserve coach. Kinda like Archie was to McNamara & Donnelly. Tho' I realise with the likes of Graham & Foster occupied elsewhere we maybe don't have a natural third coach it's more the joint assistant manager thing I don't understand. 

 

I can understand Scally following McCall from Ayr, but the Archibald appointment just seems like an old pals act.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

4 minutes ago, Garscube Road End 2 said:

I can understand Scally following McCall from Ayr, but the Archibald appointment just seems like an old pals act.

Turning that around I can see why McCall wanted Archie back at Firhill but brought Neil Scally along thru loyalty. We're not going to agree, besides it's only subjective thinking on our parts. What we probably both agree about is if there's need for joint assistant managers.  

[laukat]

I don't see much wrong with the coaching team, the playing style they are trying to play or the playing squad (bar a lack of a striker). If anyone should be considered for a P45 then it must surely be the person(s) responsible for agreeing the groundshare.

If its true that we are only getting £40k from Queens Park for the pleasure of playing on mud and messing up our promotion chances then that looks an extraordinarily bad piece of business. I could understand it if Queen's were paying £100-150k as they would then be funding 3 or 4 players and a promotion push that we normally struggle to finance  but at £40k that's really just one player less.

Gerry Britton was a brilliant player but he doesn't appear to be making a great chief exec.

I'm not clear on who's at fault in the Rudden deal. I get that Rudden wanted to go for a bigger payday but why did we allow a loan and not make a permanent transfer even if the fee had to be decided by arbitration at a later date? If we had rejected the transfer would Rudden really have not given his all after the window closed?

I'm not particularly bothered to lose Rudden as whilst he has potential he was still a bit hit and miss. I've just more concerned that the deal we struck to allow him to leave looks poor and we so far haven't replaced him with a similar type of player.

Whilst Jukubiak is a decent player I'm not convinced McCall looked at him and defintely wanted him to replace Rudden. I think McCall had his eyes on other targets but either was told we could only afford Jukubiak or his original targets knocked us back because of the state of the pitch.

[Garscube Road End 2]

24 minutes ago, laukat said:

I don't see much wrong with the coaching team, the playing style they are trying to play or the playing squad (bar a lack of a striker). If anyone should be considered for a P45 then it must surely be the person(s) responsible for agreeing the groundshare.

If its true that we are only getting £40k from Queens Park for the pleasure of playing on mud and messing up our promotion chances then that looks an extraordinarily bad piece of business. I could understand it if Queen's were paying £100-150k as they would then be funding 3 or 4 players and a promotion push that we normally struggle to finance  but at £40k that's really just one player less.

Gerry Britton was a brilliant player but he doesn't appear to be making a great chief exec.

I'm not clear on who's at fault in the Rudden deal. I get that Rudden wanted to go for a bigger payday but why did we allow a loan and not make a permanent transfer even if the fee had to be decided by arbitration at a later date? If we had rejected the transfer would Rudden really have not given his all after the window closed?

I'm not particularly bothered to lose Rudden as whilst he has potential he was still a bit hit and miss. I've just more concerned that the deal we struck to allow him to leave looks poor and we so far haven't replaced him with a similar type of player.

Whilst Jukubiak is a decent player I'm not convinced McCall looked at him and defintely wanted him to replace Rudden. I think McCall had his eyes on other targets but either was told we could only afford Jukubiak or his original targets knocked us back because of the state of the pitch.

Gerry Britton is waaaay out of his depth. But he has the confidence of the chairman???

[sandy]

9 hours ago, Fawlty Towers said:

I don't seem to recall many (if any) posts about the number of people in the management team after a victory 

It’s not so much that @Fawlty Towers as a gradual realisation on my part that having 3 is not really delivering for us. How about 2 and a new striker instead? 

[laukat]

1 hour ago, Garscube Road End 2 said:

Gerry Britton is waaaay out of his depth. But he has the confidence of the chairman???

Yip, strikes me that we actually have a decent playing squad and managment team that may be getting let down by our chief exec and chairman

[Fawlty Towers]

I thought the whole 2 assistant managers thing was common knowledge but it might have been explained by the manager on a zoom meeting last season (2nd prize in 50/50 draw) so let me explain what was said.

McCall has always worked with 2 others in his managerial career. In this situation Neil Scally is the assistant manager and Archie is first team coach. The reason why both were referred to as assistant manger is that McCall did not think that coach was good enough for someone with Archie's history at the club. Now, personally I don't think that was an issue but clearly the manager did but they are performing different roles so, hopefully, that clears that up.

Also (on a roll today) I think if we looked at the websites of other clubs in the Championship we would find they have a manager, assistant and coach (and goalkeeper coach as well) set up as well so I don't think we are doing anything unusual.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

9 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

I thought the whole 2 assistant managers thing was common knowledge but it might have been explained by the manager on a zoom meeting last season (2nd prize in 50/50 draw) so let me explain what was said.

McCall has always worked with 2 others in his managerial career. In this situation Neil Scally is the assistant manager and Archie is first team coach. The reason why both were referred to as assistant manger is that McCall did not think that coach was good enough for someone with Archie's history at the club. Now, personally I don't think that was an issue but clearly the manager did but they are performing different roles so, hopefully, that clears that up.

Also (on a roll today) I think if we looked at the websites of other clubs in the Championship we would find they have a manager, assistant and coach (and goalkeeper coach as well) set up as well so I don't think we are doing anything unusual.

Thanks for clearing that up. 

My memory is fuddled re the "and 2 others"  McCall/Gardner Spiers and ?. Then when Gardner left I can't even mind who was McCall's assistant (maybe McNamara?) let alone who was the third on the management team. Help, anyone?

[Fawlty Towers]

2 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

Thanks for clearing that up. 

My memory is fuddled re the "and 2 others"  McCall/Gardner Spiers and ?. Then when Gardner left I can't even mind who was McCall's assistant (maybe McNamara?) let alone who was the third on the management team. Help, anyone?

If I recall correctly the 3rd person then was John Henry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_(footballer)

[Auld Jag]

54 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

I thought the whole 2 assistant managers thing was common knowledge but it might have been explained by the manager on a zoom meeting last season (2nd prize in 50/50 draw) so let me explain what was said.

McCall has always worked with 2 others in his managerial career. In this situation Neil Scally is the assistant manager and Archie is first team coach. The reason why both were referred to as assistant manger is that McCall did not think that coach was good enough for someone with Archie's history at the club. Now, personally I don't think that was an issue but clearly the manager did but they are performing different roles so, hopefully, that clears that up.

Also (on a roll today) I think if we looked at the websites of other clubs in the Championship we would find they have a manager, assistant and coach (and goalkeeper coach as well) set up as well so I don't think we are doing anything unusual.

Thanks for the explanation with regard joint assistant managers. I have said before imo it would be better for Archie to be manager with another team and see if  he could build up his reputation again. A year ago some on this forum said that with McCall in charge the only way we would get out of league 1 would be going down to league 2. A year later we find ourselves having a comfortable season in the championship and some still want rid. I know that we have had some poor results/performances, but there has also been some good ones. I would be disappointed if we don't make top 4 this season. I think next season will give us a better indication of how far we can go with McCall in charge.

[Garscube Road End 2]

27 minutes ago, Auld Jag said:

Thanks for the explanation with regard joint assistant managers. I have said before imo it would be better for Archie to be manager with another team and see if  he could build up his reputation again. A year ago some on this forum said that with McCall in charge the only way we would get out of league 1 would be going down to league 2. A year later we find ourselves having a comfortable season in the championship and some still want rid. I know that we have had some poor results/performances, but there has also been some good ones. I would be disappointed if we don't make top 4 this season. I think next season will give us a better indication of how far we can go with McCall in charge.

As McCall has said that hus target is play offs, then if he fails he must go at the end of the season.

[Auld Jag]

13 minutes ago, Garscube Road End 2 said:

As McCall has said that hus target is play offs, then if he fails he must go at the end of the season.

He has said his target is play offs, but if we don't manage it i feel he should still be in charge next season and see how we do then. Imo the problem for most managers and teams in the championship is Arbroath, most expected them to be at the bottom of the league, that they are not has put most of the other managers under pressure.

[Garscube Road End 2]

19 minutes ago, Auld Jag said:

He has said his target is play offs, but if we don't manage it i feel he should still be in charge next season and see how we do then. Imo the problem for most managers and teams in the championship is Arbroath, most expected them to be at the bottom of the league, that they are not has put most of the other managers under pressure.

Certainly Arbroath are the cat amongst the pigeons, but there are 4 places up for grabs. If we don't get one of them, he has failed and needs to go. I don't think he will, or be sacked.

[Fawlty Towers]

4 minutes ago, Garscube Road End 2 said:

Certainly Arbroath are the cat amongst the pigeons, but there are 4 places up for grabs. If we don't get one of them, he has failed and needs to go. I don't think he will, or be sacked.

If we finish in the top 4 he has then met his target regardless of what happens in the playoffs (assuming we are not 1st) and you would then say he deserves to start the next season as manager?

[Garscube Road End 2]

9 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

If we finish in the top 4 he has then met his target regardless of what happens in the playoffs (assuming we are not 1st) and you would then say he deserves to start the next season as manager?

Indeed. He has met his target. I suggested earlier in the season that we wouldn't make play offs. But if he makes top 4 then he has hit his target.

[Fawlty Towers]

1 minute ago, Garscube Road End 2 said:

Indeed. He has met his target. I suggested earlier in the season that we wouldn't make play offs. But if he makes top 4 then he has hit his target.

That is fair.

More general discussion point - at the start of a season should it be the board or the manager who sets the targets?

[Garscube Road End 2]

1 hour ago, Fawlty Towers said:

That is fair.

More general discussion point - at the start of a season should it be the board or the manager who sets the targets?

The board should tell the manager of their expectations in context of the budget they give him. And if he agrees then he is the fall guy.

[Third Lanark]

Unfortunately I don’t think the state of our pitch is going to help with any targets.

 

unless something radical is done over the summer we could lose our better players and miss out on other targets.

I have no idea if the £40,000 income for the hire of the pitch is true but if it is and we are left with having to pay something like £200,000 to repair it then it has to go down as one of the most ridiculous decisions the club has made in recent years- on a par with appointing a manager because of a power point presentation and just as costly

[Garscube Road End 2]

31 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

Unfortunately I don’t think the state of our pitch is going to help with any targets.

 

unless something radical is done over the summer we could lose our better players and miss out on other targets.

I have no idea if the £40,000 income for the hire of the pitch is true but if it is and we are left with having to pay something like £200,000 to repair it then it has to go down as one of the most ridiculous decisions the club has made in recent years- on a par with appointing a manager because of a power point presentation and just as costly

I am afraid we are appallingly run off the pitch. Akin to a chimps tea party.

[Fawlty Towers]

I heard that we got £4M from Queens Park for ground sharing.

Actually I did not and I don't know what we did get but that just puts me on an equal footing with whoever put the £40K figure out there but when it comes to believing gossip football fans are unmatched.

[dl1971]

49 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

Unfortunately I don’t think the state of our pitch is going to help with any targets.

 

unless something radical is done over the summer we could lose our better players and miss out on other targets.

I have no idea if the £40,000 income for the hire of the pitch is true but if it is and we are left with having to pay something like £200,000 to repair it then it has to go down as one of the most ridiculous decisions the club has made in recent years- on a par with appointing a manager because of a power point presentation and just as costly

Where has the 200k figure come from? How about we think of best case scenario rather than worst? For example we get promoted with the financial rewards that would bring. I remember people saying players wouldn't go to a team who had artificial turf. It was hogwash. Players go where the money is. Simples.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

£40K nett of Vat appears a poor return. That's effectively around £2K a game. Putting aside the pitch issue, as the cost of repair may well be the same regardless of QP, who pays for match running costs such as electricity, insurances etc?  

Another way of looking at things would be from QPs viewpoint. I roughly estimate going on their entry charges the first 160 thru the gate would go to us on rental. Looking at their average home gate that's quite a big chunk going out on rental.  Whilst I sense the rental should be more than £40K maybe the difference in what we're charging and what QP could realistically afford isn't that great.

Edited February 24, 2022 by lady-isobel-barnett

[Jaggernaut]

One thing I wonder about with the pitch is why it is SO bad this season. We've had teams ground sharing with us before, sometimes for years on end  (Clyde, Hamilton, Warriors.... Didn't Clydebank even share with us for a while?) and so with just as many games being played as now. Even in the old days of the Reserve leagues, when the first team were away from home the Reserves had their matches at Firhill, so there was probably no overall greater use than now.

We know that over the years the club has put money into improving the draining of the pitch, yet this year it's clearly in a disastrous state (as bad as in some of those old photos from the 1960s!)

So why is it SO especially bad this year? 

[a f kincaid]

Don't know where I saw this but I read that QP are being charged around £8k a game (say £160k in total).  If the figure of £40k is correct then at around £2k a match, it's ridiculously low.  In short, no-one knows.