Zbairn
-
Posts
789 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Zbairn
-
-
5 hours ago, AJ1981 said:
15% I understand. Direct from a somebody ITK, this is a Canadian group with big money who have agreed terms with the Rawlins and in discussion with the MSG, who were critical of the board and fan ownership in the meeting. To invest they want a majority share and are being advised by Martin Rennie and a local businessman.
Brings nothing to the club if the Rawlins and MSG sell their shares. Will still need club approval for the sale. I would hope that the BoD would have discussions with who they are there to represent (i.e. Patrons and FSS), before any meaningful discussions take place.
The only way for the club to benefit is by issuing new shares. Again, that can only be done with approval from a good chunk of the current shareholders.
0 -
46 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:
Well I won’t call you a liar but it does contradict the information I was given, I’m also sure I read a quote from the club confining it. The shareholding is actually 24.3% making us the clubs largest shareholder apparently, with 25.1% made up via proxy. The O.6% currently being made up by proxy I’m told could actually be handed over to the FSS officially in the next few months as well by a fan looking to donate leaving the society no need for small the proxy to make up that number.
24.3% + 0.6% = 24.9% .......still not the 25%+1
That was always the main part of the many previous discussions.
0 -
6 hours ago, grumpyoldman said:
There’s also. over 100000 shares held a company owned by MR, there’s also Moffat and McIntyre who are still shareholders, between the four of them they hold more than 1.2 million shares not a kick in the arse of 24% of the company
Any new investment (£ into the club) would require a new share issue, thus diluting further the old MSG's % shareholding, as well as that of the Patrons and FSS.
I would like to think that any new investment in the club would, at the minimum, need to have the support of all 3 "legs of the stool" before any changes to the current ratios of % shareholding.
Potentially it means that the FSS monthly cash reverts to buying shares, allowing it to retain the current level of, rather than just being a "donation" to the club as it is now. The Patrons would also have to stump up, if they want to retain their %.
2 -
12 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:
Hold on…so who paid Griffiths wages then?
and by my count Rennie brought in 7 players and still had a worse record than Sheerin
To be honest, comparing these managers is a bit like comparing Cumbernauld with East Kilbride. Both crap !
0 -
1 minute ago, Reggie Perrin said:
They are already moving more staff into the spare office space in the stadium.
Don’t have to buy the entire place to use space that they already own.
They could buy the North Stand and redevelop it into offices or units.
My original reply to HSW was in relation to what West Lothian does for Livi. The other bits re council use was an afterthought.
0 -
5 minutes ago, Reggie Perrin said:
Nonsense.
Ownership of an incomplete football stadium should rightly be a very long way down the Council’s list of priorities.
The Council Tax freeze being proposed by both SNP and Labour will mean even more restrictions on day to day Council spending so where is the money to come from for this fantasy?
It's not just a football stadium though is it ?
The Council could easily develop it for more of their own use, reducing their cost base by selling current council offices that are dotted over the town. Having a more centralised base may also make them more efficient.....although I wouldn't bank on that.
Maybe even attracting a few more business use, in addition to the cash they already get from the nursery and the Westifled Lounge.
0 -
25 minutes ago, HopeStreetWalker said:
It would be the final piece of the jigsaw for Falkirk Council.
They own most of the stadium, car park, and surrounding land, and long-term complete ownership of the stadium is a no-brainer.
It's Falkirk Council after all and they do like their statement pieces as status symbols.
I have a lot of sympathy in this.
West Lothian do it for the money launderers so why can't our council take ownership and let us use the football facilities for a peppercorn rent?
A successful footy team brings in a lot of economic benefit / good PR to the area and this should be supported by the Council , not just an afterthought as and when it happens. Look at how the area was buzzing when we last got to a cup final (and finals before that)
The only downside I can see of us turning the place over to the council, would be the loss of revenue when we have concerts. Maybe we could cut a deal that the club owns the pitch whilst the building infrastructure is owned by the Council.
Plus, the space at the stadium is not properly utilised by the council and they could easily absorb many of the outlying offices and depts into the stadium making it financially worth while and save cash.
I honestly think our Council is missing a trick at the Stadium and not using it to its full potential.
0 -
7 minutes ago, Hampden Roar said:
Yet again the 3rd stool via FSS being asked to bring in more money and the other 2 don’t stump up their share, despite being the decision makers.
I think you will find one leg of the stool stumped up a good few thousands to buy up the remaining shares. The other leg of the stool stumped up significant cash as a soft loan to help us get through the season financially unscathed.
You can always become a decision maker by nominating yourself (assuming you are a member of the FSS)
8 -
6 hours ago, Grangemouth Bairn said:
, Falkirk guys like BPM have stopped posting.I may be wrong but I’m not totally convinced on that
3 -
33 minutes ago, Mr Grimsdale said:
I would wager All the below have benefactors pumping in money
Ross County, Hibs, Aberdeen, Ayr Utd, Dundee Utd, Raith, Queens Park, Dunfermline, Kilmarnock, Dundee, Livingston, Hamilton, Cove
up till this season you could have added Edinburgh City and Kelty.
To think this is isolated to one or two clubs is naive
We got lucky last season with the Cup run and the FSS Govt. donation. If not, our benefactors would have been called upon to pump in even more cash to keep us afloat...... albeit some did with another series of soft loans.
0 -
1 hour ago, gav-ffc said:
Writing off his south stand loan would do more for the club than lending 40k and also receiving 80k every year.
Absolutely !
Ever since we have been demoted, the North Stand has stood largely empty, apart from the occasional match. A stand we actually own.
However, we have to stump up for the KM Stand irrespective...... a stand we don't own.
SA has done more for our club than anyone else and I can't thank him enough for that. We also cannot deny that the KM Stand was required when we needed it, but it has been millstone around our necks for a good few seasons now.
1 -
4 hours ago, LatapyBairn. said:
We are also operating in the third tier of Scottish football where both the prize money, travelling support and sponsorship money is significantly less than it is even in the championship to the tune of around 3 or 400k.
We are operating in the 3rd tier with a home support larger than most in the league above and possibly more of a turnover than many in the Championship.
The real difference is prize cash. We need to get promoted !
0 -
6 hours ago, Mr Grimsdale said:
And other clubs have benefactors.
Some other clubs don't have benefactors and seem to manage OK.
We also have benefactors in SA and those who agreed to give a loan to the club last season.
I agree that some like Ross Co. would not survive without their sugar daddy, but watch them implode when it all goes pear shaped a la Gretna.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Ryan-FFC said:
Just picking up on a small part (apologies if I’ve misread - I was just scanning) - you do get the chance to win prizes with the fss. The draw is done on Falkirk daft.
Could be wrong, but is that not a Falkirk Daft initiative rather than an FSS one ?
0 -
It's pretty clear from the thousand or so previous posts who are "pro" board and who are "anti" board. There are some on here who know me and hopefully would testify that I am one of the biggest advocates of fan ownership. If I'm being honest , I don't really have any great feeling for either faction as I agree and disagree with some of the comments from both sides. My one and only concern is that the club moves in the right direction in a just and fair way that has the support of the majority of fans. Compared to previous Boards, the current incumbents are streets ahead in my estimation, although I have been critical of some decisions that have been made, particularly with respect to the FSS relationship and the share issue.
However, trying to look at the latest (and previous) statements objectively (my perspective only), I think the Board are looking to the future rather than the immediate present. I would like to think that the picture painted is a worst case scenario and that we need to get promoted to exist "as is" next season. I also understand the need to consider the consequences of not going up and what may likely happen.
What I am against is this continual conversation about FSS numbers and the fact that we have a hardcore of around 4000 fans. If you consider that many of the 4000 are made up of families, teenagers who perhaps want to spend their spare cash on something else, those that really cant afford it but still make an effort to get to a match, oldies who perhaps have no idea of the FSS or any other offering etc. then that number is never going to be achievable. Even getting to 1000 would be a significant milestone. We have to remember that only a few years ago we did not have this extra £100k/yr coming in from fans and we should be praising them rather than asking them to fork out again. This cash is really a bonus to the club that we never had in the past.
One of my main gripes is asking for cash for nothing. As it stands the FSS don't even have the option to buy shares as there are non left. However there should be some incentive for fans to sign up. I previously mentioned the 1876 Club (£10/mth) and the possibility to at least win something. Why is this not being actively pursued by the club ? There are still some 10 year season tickets left. Why is this not being advertised (fans targeted by the commercial people) for those who perhaps can afford it ? I am sure that some on here will have some pretty good ideas for cash generation that could help the club.
I'm certainly no financial expert and what I cannot understand is how a club that has a turnover of over £2 million and a playing budget of £1.3 million cannot be sustainable. As an aside, I would wager loads of clubs in the SPFL would love to have that level of turnover and probably are nowhere near it. If this is really the case then we either need to look at our cost base and reduce it if possible (I'm pretty sure that this is being done but perhaps needs some fresh eyes to help here), as well as look at alternative ways of bringing cash in. Bottom line is that the fans and the FSS will not be the answer.
I really hope we don't go down the route of looking for external investors to take over the club unless it's a sovereign investment fund. More importantly I hope we win the league and that this discussion can be put on the back burner for another season.
5 -
17 minutes ago, Mr Grimsdale said:
He doesn’t need to join but he could still give the club £10/month via another route
He could join the 1876 club for £10/mth. Chance to win a prize as well.
1 -
2 hours ago, Hampden Roar said:
By speaking to former members of staff….. statements like that send jitters, whatever the business.
Tend to agree.
This has been picked up by the mainstream press and it does not send a confident message to anyone employed by the club.
We were in a similar (or worse position) this time last season, but we were fortunate that the late AGM allowed us to get a message across that was a little bit less in panic mode. Probably due to the cup run etc.
This time around, I'm not sure the detail of our finances have been truly scrutinised but just the headline that we are skint with the possibility of going part time. Whether its accurate or not, this is not good PR.
1 -
3 hours ago, ChoppeReid said:
I am one of the fans not investing.
Was initially really up for fan ownership but the set up we have is not really for me.
If it was similar to Hearts, Motherwell or StMirren where fans actually owned the club I would sign up tomorrow but max 25% shareholding doesn’t really appeal.
Sounds like the FSS is donating around £80k right now. If the other 75% of shareholders chipped in would almost clear deficit.
Think you will find that between the FSS and the Patrons, these 2 fans groups actually own around or greater than 50%.
What is disappointing is that the FSS still don’t OWN the 25% +1.
-1 -
2 minutes ago, Springfield said:
Travelling from Queen's St - only cancellation’s are Dundee & North
Just looked on Scotrail app. Loads of trains through Polmont cancelled.
0 -
5 hours ago, Bairn in Exile said:
I haven't lived in the Falkirk area for yonks so I have no idea what venues are available or otherwise. So, here comes a totally stupid idea: instead of using a local hotel is there any way that you could have these events on a regular basis but move them around the Falkirk area by using a marquee and some catering company instead? Denny, Banknock, Bonnybridge, Camelon, Polmont, the Braes etc., Have the events double as a function but also use them to get new fans, steal them back from the Arse Cheeks and maybe sign existing fans up to the FSS?
Just thinking aloud. Could the club not have organised this for the Westfield Lounge, with a beer and pie thrown in ?
Maybe make a higher margin of profit over having it at the inchyra ?
1 -
2 hours ago, 18BAIRN76 said:
Ken that was a troll above, but Spencer is quite literally the midfielder we’ve been crying out for for years. Good defensively as well as carrying the ball forward, and rarely - if ever - wastes a pass. Top class and the type of guy you happily pay your money to watch.
Something we haven't seen for a good few seasons at the Bairnabeu, a player who passes the ball forwards first time. Seems to have great vision and doesn't even take one touch to steady himself before playing the pass. That splits the line with a quick ball through and causes defenders to turn (which they hate). What a difference between him and McGinn !
1 -
2 hours ago, ShaggerG said:
Why should the club get anything if they decide to sell?
eh ? Don't you want the club to get anything if someone wants to buy shares ?
It's all in the opportunity of where you buy from. The only way for someone to buy shares now is to purchase them from an existing shareholder i.e. not the club. This is where the Rawlins sale comes in.
Until the last few weeks that was not the case. You would normally buy them from the club and by that token give cash to the club.
Virtually everyone (maybe apart from Rawlins) who has bought shares has done so in that knowledge. They are not bought as an investment but as an emotional tie, with the club getting the money.
0 -
1 minute ago, Disco Duck said:
Is the clubs approval written into the Articles?
I seem to remember that ...but not 100% sure
0 -
Just now, Disco Duck said:
I don’t see how a share issue changes that
At the moment there are no free shares available. If you want to purchase shares you need to try and get someone to sell to you who already has them (with the Clubs approval). You then pay the person for the shares and the club doesn't get a penny. This is the Rawlins scenario. If they want to sell, they get the cash not the club.
With a new share issue, you can buy direct from the Club, with the cash going to the Club.
There are several caveats to that and reasons for the Club not to issue shares. But it does mean that the club cannot raise cash by selling shares as there are none to sell.
0
The Falkirk FC Thread
in Scottish League 1 General Chatter
Posted
For external investment, new shares will need to be issued. Either that or someone donates cash for nothing in return.
The raison d'être of the the FSS and the Patrons Groups has always been the ability to resist unwanted predators. They should at least have a say. If it was only left to those who are currently on the Board, I would be extremely disappointed.
FT status is not dependent upon external investment.....yet !