Jump to content

Bairney The Dinosaur

Gold Members
  • Posts

    1,830
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Bairney The Dinosaur

  1. On 06/10/2023 at 17:11, Bainsfordbairn said:

    Is the three legged stool still a thing? 

    You'll know better than me, but I wouldn't have thought the likes of Sandy Alexander / Martin Ritchie were involved now and we're obviously not seeking external investment atm. 

    That just leaves patrons and FSS. I have no idea who all the patrons are or their financial circumstances, but I wouldn't have thought someone who's already put in 10K would be expected to do it again. Whereas a guy putting in a tenner a month can do it for years to come. Albeit some of the patrons did put in more cash to buy shares recently, which resulted in all sorts of wild theories about their motives. 

    In my eyes patrons and FSS are the same thing: ordinary fans who give what they can to help the club they love. 

    I kind of think of it as a one-legged stool nowadays. Am I wrong? 

    Folk probably won't thank me for bringing this stuff back up but I thought it worth mentioning that I'm still completely behind the 3-legged stool model and actually believe it is really important we stick to it. Although I get the premise of what BB is saying, I'm quoting this post as a way of kicking off my thoughts.

    All three legs still/can still play a vital role to me.

    1. (Small) The collective support from FSS, which does need more buying in (not convinced of 2500 yet but 1200 is a good goal). 

    2. (Medium) I think of the Patrons Group as almost like the 'business' element of the support. I think it's less important how much money they have (although I'd assume it's more than the average fan), but that they have the time and expertise to run a business. From what I understand it is the connections these people have that has helped bring in the significant uplift in sponsorship and also allows the club to run events for effectively no cost (the PG 'covers' costs). I'd quite like them to publish more of what they are doing because it is good work. I don't expect this group to be matching FSS cash contribution, but it would not surprise me if they brought in this amount (maybe more?) in sponsorships/free work for club.

    3. (Large) I think BB post is right. The ones currently in this group are not involved in the day to day. I've absolutely no doubt in my mind though that MR and SA would help if things started to turn again and I don't believe their shares will ever be sold and rather returned to club when that time comes. Moving forward though, if the small and medium shareholders can collectively run the club sustainably, the large group becomes so much more attractive for an external investor. I don't think we would see a 4th stand built unless we had someone here.

    I reckon that with our Fan ownership model we do have the potential to have the best of all worlds that you wouldn't otherwise get being fully owned by a Fans group.

  2. 39 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

    According to some melt sitting close to us, Falkirk were shite and didn't try. Moaning faced b*****d. Every time Donaldson (who I don't think put a foot wrong) went near the ball it was 'c'mon you fur fuks sake'. Doesn't normally sit anywhere near us so he's probably one of those 'fans' that just turn up for the bigger games so that they can whine their faces off!

    Maybe moans on here too?

    There was a lot more moaning around me as well. First time I've heard it this season and I wondered if it was maybe folk coming to their first game in a while. We weren't great obviously, but not poor enough to deserve a slagging.

    It was disappointing because the KM7 has felt a really positive place to be. Last week against Montrose when we had 2 setbacks during the game the fans never turned. I felt like there was a few starting to today.

    Ultras were good as always in responding to moans by trying to lift it. At one point in the second half I think it was clear they were trying to drown it out.

  3. 35 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

    Ultimately the most important part moving forward is that lessons have been learned however upon listening to the podcast it seems the blame has been pushed at members for getting the wrong end of the stick more than any miscommunication.

    Caveat this with I haven't listened to the podcast so don't know what was said, but my understanding is that it wasn't the 25% target that was misunderstood but how to get there. 

    The misunderstanding was that for FSS to get to 25% they would require share donation rather than buying the shares from the club. 

    I agree with you though that this was on FSS for not communicating that clearly rather than members not understanding.

  4. 13 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

    Interesting statement. Not sure how well the FSS subscriptions now being solely a donation to the club with the FSS membership having effectively no say on how they are spent will go down. Tbh I am surprised that has been agreed to.

    Now that the shares have been bought there are very little other options available other than donation. It is what happens with most fan owned clubs.

    Short-term focus on keeping us full-time but driving towards establishment of Falkirk Academy is what was discussed at the members meeting.

  5. 1 hour ago, Mr Grimsdale said:

    BPM? Anyway good try. But the fans are not just FSS are they? We 100% have to stick together I agree. But there is 80% + of the support not in FSS so the Board has a duty to look after all the parts. FSS reps would always take feedback from the members. I assume they meet with the FSS committee on a regular basis to get the feedback? What I want to see is everyone working together. 

    Just a bit of fun 😉

    I took umbrage at what I perceived was a suggestion FSS doesn't need a strong personality who would speak for and garner the support of the fans.

    I'm especially sensitive at the moment that there are attempts circling again to paint football fans as some deviant other - not the club obviously, but wider authorities. It is going to require the same backlash as the OBFTC Act.

  6. 36 minutes ago, Mr Grimsdale said:

    Rabble rousing Mick Lynch’s are the last thing this club or the fans needs currently 

    Can't agree with you there BPM.

    Now, more than ever, we've got Governments prepared to legislate against not only fans wishes, but fans themselves! Ensuring we've got a board who will not only stand against that (which to their credit the new board have), but can empower the support to stand together is a vital aim of a fan owned club. 

  7. 27 minutes ago, Hartleys18/19Army said:

    Also what was Mcglynns issue in a post match interview saying perhaps Allan has a discipline issue? Sent off for us but on another day gets away with it. At past he was trying to do something about the scoreline. 

    I took that more to mean that he thought there may be an issue with whoever issues the suspension because Allan's actions didn't deserve a 3 match suspension.

  8. 1 hour ago, Springfield said:

    I might be completely wrong but if the board think that they’ll get the minus 400K shortfall made up with FSS subscribers, they need to give themselves a shake.

    A few weeks back at the Fan Engagement Day Kenny Jamieson did a presentation and a good chunk of it was related to the 400k shortfall. Previously just about everything the board has said regarding the shortfall has been around the number of FSS subscribers needed to fill it, but it was a bit different this time. He started talking about FSS and the subscriptions increasing, however instead of just focusing on this being used to plug the gap, he seemed to suggest that if FSS began to significantly increase he expected other shareholders (I took it to mean PG and old MSG) would consider investing more too. Therefore we would see all 3 'legs of the stool' providing continual investment.

    Seemed to me a much more realistic and desirable way to operate.

  9. 15 minutes ago, Proudtobeabairn said:

    It's an impressive total but actual figure (when you take out the free under 12s) would be interesting. That's the number we need to grow. 

    I seem to remember U18s estimated to be around 1/5th of total sales. Purely assuming that the breakdown of ages will be roughly the same I think an educated guess of 330ish U12s seems fair. Wouldn't think it would be more than that.

  10. It's not really been touched on much by the board, other than a brief mention of 'soft loans' last seasons, but I wonder hope much scope there is for continual investment from the Patrons Group. One of the benefits of the '3 legged stool' is having these slightly more flush fans active in the club, but we haven't really heard much from them since that initial investment. 

    I expect they have been providing in some way and keeping it behind closed doors, but I'd quite like to find out what they've been doing.

×
×
  • Create New...