Zbairn

Difficult to do when you are top o' the league

Moi ?

Interesting that Van's name should be brought up, who has had nothing to say in this discussion whatsoever. As opposed to Mr Grimsdale?, who was very vocal at the start, but seems to have disappeared. I would like to garner his opinion as well, since he had a lot say at the beginning.

We will start talking about footy and the Dundee Utd match officially tomorrow night !

You think ? Dave McInally also e-mailed the club and still comes out with the comment :- "I’m happy to leave it as only replying to what has been said and trying to gain clarity which I don’t think has occurred yet."

I'd be interested in Mr Grimsdale's position re the Rawlins share debate !

What concerns do I have ?

Problem is.... I remember being in the Brockville Bar when Campbell was being lauded as the new saviour of the club. Just as well KJ and a few others had his card marked. There will always be a concern when it's not a Falkirk man who is doling out the cash. We certainly don't want to go down the Campbell route again and I have a lot more confidence in our current BoD to make sure that it doesn't.

Without looking back (really cant be arsed)...can you remember who it was ? Did someone not also state that the Canadians were in the Boardroom at the game on Sat ? Cant remember who that was either.

Apart from the time you called me a "usefully used idiot who can't admit when they are wrong " re the FSS shares issue. I think that is a reasonably fair insult. Interestingly, you could classify yourself (and perhaps a Mr G) in the category of talking mostly about these subjects

This all started with me trying to answer a question posed by Shodwell Cat. I wasn't even asking a question. Then for some reason, a few took umbrage at my answer. No idea why (although I have a rough idea ) .... but hey ho !

I think the problem is that they potentially could get to 45%. Doesn't leave an awful lot to have a majority stake in terms of running the club. One person or small group to be their allies with >5% will do it for them. I believe, where they will have a problem is getting to the 75% needed to change the statutes of the club. But in essence they would have majority votes in all resolutions. I'm not entirely sure what they can do and cant do in respect of making changes to the legal status...... something for the lawyers out there to help with.

Agree...but do you think someone (the right person) will come in with cash for nothing in return ?

Its not rabble rousing or brought up by "usual" posters..., it was trying to answer a question posed by Shadwell. Although some of the "usual" posters are perpetuating the discussion, by arguing against a point of view.

Absolutely...although we are now going around in circles. For someone to put cash in, there needs to be a share issue.

We are not talking about whether this would be beneficial to the club or not, although I would love to see the Rawlins (or some other beneficial entity) take up their option as it would probably put around £1 million into the coffers. This whole discussion is about their legal right to do so.

Exactly....a good summary and basically where I am coming from.

Welcome back..... I will repeat my answer/reply to Shadwell which was part of the discussion re Rawlins and their shares. So I don't know why you are getting your knickers in a twist, as it has hee haw to do with you really ! This has nothing to do with peddling a line or any agenda but something which I thought was pertinent to the discussion at the time. "One main point I believe with the Rawlins, is that their shareholding is actually not personal but is registered to a business they own. If they sell the business, they may also be able to transfer the shares without our Boards approval. Not sure about the legality of this, but it's a possibility. Edited to add - The owners of these "Rawlins shares" will possibly have an option to take their shareholding to 45% with new shares being issued to allow this to happen. By this token, whoever owns the "company" that owns these shares, potentially have the possibility of partnering with a minor shareholder of 5% +1 ....thus owning the club. Puts fan ownership into perspective ! " Now as I see it, a resolution has been passed by the club to allow the "Rawlins" or "Rawlins Co." to get to 45% (as highlighted by Dave above). Unless another resolution has been passed to time limit this, I don't think the club can effectively block a new issue of shares to allow this to happen. I am quite happy to be proven wrong, but unless the time limit is described in black and white, the option for them to get 45% shareholding is probably legally binding. From a personal point of view, I'm interested and happy to discuss and put over my point of view, but not that interested to go chasing Directors for an absolute definitive answer. As for the rest of the stuff......have your wee rant !

I'm sure many of the committee can read this on here and take it on board.

It’s been a long time coming, but women’s football is gaining in popularity with many more girls being actively involved. We can now see other clubs taking an interest in amalgamating the women’s team into club structures. It’s been happening for a good wee while in other countries and now starting here. If we keep our ladies team at arms length then there is a good chance we will fall behind the competition. Time to change. There will be sponsorship out there to help finance, who have no interest in the man’s game, but possibly interested in the Women’s. We just need to go out and find it. in terms of the FSS, my opinion only……but now that the shares are all gone, a small % of the monthly subs would go a long way for the Women’s team and should be supported by the FSS committee.

Good point that. If I recall, we have occasionally tied up with Stirling Uni for various student work experience subjects. Could we not get them to help out ? Maybe as part of some visual media course ? Particularly for our home matches to enhance the broadcasts ?

I'm a Patron?.....I have compadres ? ...... I have an agenda ?. I'm not going to get involved in personal digs here, but there is a bit of pot, kettle, black. I reiterate, "There is absolutely no mention of any time limit for them to exercise this." As far as I am aware the resolution states clearly what the Rawlins position is. No time limit was included in the resolution. If that has changed then the resolution has been changed, which I believe it hasn't, since it would probably need shareholder approval. You asked me to prove that there is no time limit. I have quoted verbatim the resolution that was passed by shareholders. If you think otherwise, prove me wrong rather than quotes from Deans et al. As an aside.... it's "past" and not "passed" (see your post). Someone who used to post on here made that mistake on more that one occasion Edited to add - That person was also a big fan of Norman Wisdom . Helluva coincidence ?

You haven't substantiated or indicated how you come to know that there is a time limit. But in the spirit of the discussion.... I'll try my best to explain where I am coming from ! From the Ordinary Resolution, the exact words are :- "(ii) to grant to the Rawlins an option to to subscribe for further new ordinary shares in the capital of the Company at a subscription price of 50p per share up to such number of shares as represents a 45% shareholding" There is absolutely no mention of any time limit for them to exercise this. By that token....it's now up to you to prove that there was a time limit !!!! I am happy to be proven wrong

Has it really ? Can you prove this ?

Thats what the Rawlins were supposed to bring to the club but that didn't materialise. One main point I believe with the Rawlins, is that their shareholding is actually not personal but is registered to a business they own. If they sell the business, they may also be able to transfer the shares without our Boards approval. Not sure about the legality of this, but it's a possibility. Edited to add - The owners of these "Rawlins shares" will possibly have an option to take their shareholding to 45% with new shares being issued to allow this to happen. By this token, whoever owns the "company" that owns these shares, potentially have the possibility of partnering with a minor shareholder of 5% +1 ....thus owning the club. Puts fan ownership into perspective ! Edited to add (2) - If they do want to take their shareholding to 45%, it would bring a substantial £ into the club !