Zbairn
-
Posts
789 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Zbairn
-
-
4 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:
Now, remember when I said that I didn't think that you were trying to stir things?
Moi ?
-2 -
6 minutes ago, gav-ffc said:
I would be interested in van Damages position but I imagine he’s posting under another name.
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.
1 -
36 minutes ago, scottsdad said:
When are we playing again guys, so we have something better to discuss?
We will start talking about footy and the Dundee Utd match officially tomorrow night !
0 -
11 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:
Don’t think there is a debate now that somebody had the sense to simply ask the club the question! Time to move on.
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."
-1 -
I'd be interested in Mr Grimsdale's position re the Rawlins share debate !
-2 -
2 minutes ago, Bairney The Dinosaur said:
I seem to remember they went to the BOD with their concerns about Campbell and only escalated it when they were dismissed.
I think you should do the same and hope the outcome is different.
What concerns do I have ?
0 -
11 minutes ago, Bairney The Dinosaur said:
How many more pages is there going to be debating this when nobody on P&B will have a fucking clue whether this is a genuine concern or not.
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.
2 -
1 minute ago, Bigbrbairn said:
The person that leaked about investors has certainly opened Pandoras Box
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.
0 -
2 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:
I’m not being dismissive , I am engaging. However it does tend to be you and zbairn that talk mostly about these subjects. If I’ve flung a personal insult in somplace and not noticed then my apologies!
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
0 -
7 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:
I don't get that feeling from these guys at all. I think they're just asking pertinent questions and have the club's (and fans) interest at heart. There are plenty who come on here whenever anything negative appears who want to stir things up, I don't think they're two of them. I could be wrong of course because I don't know them and don't pretend to know anything about the situation with the share option etc., but I don't believe that they're trying to stir things.
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 !
0 -
1 minute ago, Bainsfordbairn said:
I think you also have to take into account the likelihood of that happening.
Even if the Rawlins shares somehow found their way into unscrupulous hands, and the option was there for them to purchase more, that still wouldn't be enough to outvote the supporters groups unless the likes of Sandy Alexander / Martin Ritchie also sold their shares to them. I can't imagine they would suddenly walk away and possibly screw over the club that they've protected all these years. Particularly as the fan ownership model we now likely wouldn't have happened without their support.
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.
0 -
2 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:
No necessarily no, I’m also less concerned about sombody putting a lump of cash in than I am about the right person coming on board. One of lumps of investment are to short term and we need to try get away from that finding a more steady / regular income stream. I think we are already on that trajectory and the right people added to the mix can only help that.
Agree...but do you think someone (the right person) will come in with cash for nothing in return ?
0 -
2 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:
It’s amazing it’s the same posters that bring this stuff up, I far prefer discussing the football so probably shouldn’t give it any air. I really think a simple email or phone call to one of the reps we now have on the club board would answer any questions yet people seem determined to try and rabble rouse on public platforms like this.
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.
0 -
2 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:
If there is an investor speaking to the Rawlins and/or the former MSG the club should engage with them positively, do due diligence and try to accommodate them within the three legged stool model we have been trying to build. The structure is now there for it. If somebody with money to potentially invest, expertise, time to commit and vision can be added then we may well have found a “third leg” that could actually add some value!
Absolutely...although we are now going around in circles. For someone to put cash in, there needs to be a share issue.
0 -
2 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:
This is all starting to become a bit bonkers to me, it’s as if we are desperate to try and find some convoluted way the club could somehow be screwed over. As things stand I’m as confident as most people could be given the information availability there is no evil plan behind the scenes from an investor to try and do the club over or dilute the shareholding the fans now have in the club, nor can I see any credible avenue where it is likely to happen. Even if there was some loophole lurking in the small print that allowed the Rawlins to take up 45% at 50p a share have you actually calculated how much more money that would cost them?! Money that would actually need to go directly to club incidentally and not to an individual.
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.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Dave McInally said:
I don’t think that is the case with the Rawlins shares. They are held by a company(Steller Blue). If you look at our articles of association then it is open to interpretation of whether the Rawlins need board approval to sell their company(and the shares) to another party.
If they can still take up a 45% option then Steller Blue will have over 3m shares in the club.
Exactly....a good summary and basically where I am coming from.
0 -
5 hours ago, BPM Again said:
I even called you to tell you I was not on P&B but you keep throwing the accusation on here. Well here I am you now know who I am.
You are well aware that the Rawlins option has lapsed. It was mentioned more than once at Patron meetings which you probably attended and as someone else on here said it was on the FD podcast that it was lapsed.Why are you continuing to peddle this line? If it bothers you that much why did you now ask for it in writing? Why not raise it at the AGM of a few weeks ago?
As we have discussed privately the FSS has more than enough shares to block anything. The 25%+1 whilst important in the cosmetics of it all the reality is that the safety of this club is assured now as the FSS and Patrons can easily block anything we don’t like.
The FSS and Patrons have 4 Board members. Do you really think that if there was outside investment available that they wouldn’t consult?
FWIW I believe that the club does need the major shareholder part of the mix to take more active interest in the club. If that means that party spending money on Rawlins and former MSG shareholding to get a seat at the table so be it. If they are good people and good investors the club will get a long term benefit as their investment will continue to come in.
Where I do agree is that the supporters have to continue to have an active part to play and have the ability to maintain their shareholding % at a healthy level, north of 20% for sure. What that level is I would guess would be down to any deal any new investor wishes to make.
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 !
0 -
31 minutes ago, Bairney The Dinosaur said:
If you're a member send the idea into the committee.
I'm sure many of the committee can read this on here and take it on board.
0 -
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.
3 -
54 minutes ago, Bainsfordbairn said:
Re the Edinburgh highlights, I have no idea how they do it. They even had a remote camera monitoring their own dugout on Saturday. I'm guessing they may have a tieup with a university media department as it was more professional than I'd have expected from a club who brought 37 fans to TFS. We certainly don't have the kit for that.
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 ?
1 -
2 hours ago, Mr Grimsdale said:
I remember clearly at the time Gary Deans, at a virtual AGM, say they had until the end of that year to take up that option.
You are a Patron? Why not ask the board to get it clarified rather than scaremongering on here to suit the agenda you and your compadres have been peddling.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 ?
-1 -
31 minutes ago, Mr Grimsdale said:
Can prove it isn’t? If not stop scaremongering.
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
0 -
1 hour ago, Mr Grimsdale said:
Stop this nonsense with their share option. It was made clear that date for the option is well passed.
Has it really ? Can you prove this ?
0 -
1 hour ago, Shodwall cat said:
It may well bring something to the club if they have contacts etc in either a sporting context or can help bring more money into the club. Perhaps help with getting the stadium finished too. Who knows at the moment the Rawlins have shares but are not involved in the club.
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 !
0
The Falkirk FC Thread
in Scottish League 1 General Chatter
Posted
Difficult to do when you are top o' the league