Zbairn

Only if he doesn't want to sell ..... or the club refuses his request to sell. I'd wager that £60 million quid could buy a good lawyer. It's not going to happen as he has probably all but forgotten that we exist....but nevertheless still a possibility. The point I'm making is that unless we have a new share issue, any future potential sale or transfer of shares between two parties (Rawlins or otherwise) means that the club will get nothing.

£300k's worth of shares isn't insignificant to Falkirk FC. It may be insignificant to the Rawlins.

This is where it all gets messy and hope that my logic makes sense. If there are no shares left, then the Rawlins potentially can sell the shares with the club getting nowt. If I remember correctly, the club has to agree that sale. However, I am not sure what the legal position is if the Rawlins want to sell and the club refuses to sanction it. There is also the potential that the Rawlins may want to sell to someone who we don't want as a major shareholder in the club. Now, if the club were to make a new issue of shares available, then the Rawlins position is less problematic. Whoever wants to buy shares need to pay the club cash for them. Alternatively, maybe they have enough cash that the Falkirk shares are not important and will try and sell at some point in the future if they are worth anything. That may be a veery long way away.....as I've had my shares for decades and they are in reality worth nothing and always have been.

Disappointing that, from over 700 members, not one is willing to give it a go. Hope that whoever is co-opted is strong enough to stand up for the FSS members and not chosen just because they will follow the party line.

Interesting subject! it depends on when and where the data was taken from. If we are talking about players from before the 70's when sodden balls were like a concrete sphere, then I could understand. Today's balls are so much lighter, but travel at much more pace. We need someone with a physics PhD on here to explain the concept / effect of mass and velocity compared to then and now. I think the more technically gifted countries tend to head the ball less as well, so that data may not be relevant to them Any blow to the head can lead to serious issues. With respect to the game changing, it would be more akin to a larger 5-a-side match. It would be a completely different sport.

Keep scrolling..... the footy stuff will start in a day or so

I actually see the merit in moving to another thread, as there are only about 6 or 7 of us contributing. However, I remember Van D mentioning the fact that he is posting on here to disseminate the information to a wider audience, which is also important. With that in mind, I think it's good that as many fans as possible get to see both side of the discussion and contribute if they wish. As someone else said previously, if you are not interested, you can easily scroll past.

You need to take that into context of what I was replying to ! The first one was in response to the comment that was made " "majority seem quite content" ...we dont know that. The second one was made in response to the comment you made "that means a minority are happy" .....we dont know that either No one knows if the majority / minority were happy or unhappy at the FSS meeting, as they all sat quiet !

No one stated that a minority was happy or that a minority were unhappy. All I'm saying is, that only a few folk are taking a real interest in the governance of the club. Most there that night probably hadn't a clue about what was going on and dont really care as long as the team is winning on the park. I personally would have liked to have seen more participation from the members to gauge their feelings, from either side of the debate, but it wasnt to be.

I was at the FSS meeting a couple of weeks back. 2 members argued against what was happening re the shares, a director of the club (and FSS member) argued for it. From around 80 or so there that night (by my reckoning), hardly a word was said by anyone else. For the most part. they all sat on their hands and kept quiet. ............as I said "apathy and cant be arsed". Particulalrly when it comes to club governance. I've stated on here many a time, around 95% (or maybe more) of fans are only interested in what happens for 90 mins on the pitch. 5% (or maybe less) are also interested in the direction the club is going. This may go up slightly if we have another set of Directors like the Deans and Co. in charge..... but I would reckon that would be a transient increase until things change. Having lived through the original Deans from Lauder, Fulston, Club going bust, holding a bucket outside Brockville, Henderson, Lang etc..... I am certainly one of that 5%.

Apathy and the usual cannot be arsed is not the same as "majority seem quite content" I would argue that a minority are not happy and a minorty are ............. as can be seen on here.

Here's the rub. From the Falkirk daft podcast, I believe that they stated 14 patrons bought shares. By my reckoning that's only half of the PG members who decided to participate. Probably the BoD and their mates. There are probably good reasons for the other members not splashing the cash, but I would wager it's not all because they are skint. Also stated on FD, that the official statement from the Club and FSS is that nobody on the PG had any issues with buying shares. From the above (and knowing one or two) that is an outright wee fib. I still have had no good answer to the proxy part of the share "swap deal" to make it 25%+1. If the PG do not donate enough shares, then the FSS cannot own 25%+1 as they try to make out.

Absolutely. It has nothing to do with you.

Righty. So we are agree, whether I have or not has absolutely nothing to do with you.

What's that to do with you ?

Comes back to many of the original comments and discussions. Just to put it into some perspective, I'll try and summarise the reasons for my disquiet as an FSS member at the time (and also after chatting with several other FSS members, who were in agreement) :- The original e-mail from the FSS stated that the remaining shares requested from the Club would not be available for purchase and were ring fenced for Patrons. There was no comment that they were there only to bolster McGlynns budget. There was never any appetite form the Patrons to buy shares when asked previously, hence the remaining shares being available. it was only when the discussion on here started (by 2 or 3 of us), that an initiative by the Patrons to try and donate shares allowing the 25%+1 happened. You can argue that if we hadn't started, what some on here would claim to be a divisive discussion, that the above would not have happened. The Patrons have not fully "gifted" shares, but it's a a mixture of "donation" and "proxied". This effectively means that the FSS do not own the proxied shares which can be removed by their owners at anytime. Why did the FSS Board agree to just "donate" cash without recourse to the members when all discussions at the very outset and selling point of the FSS, was to buy shares to protect the club from detrimental investors ? Interestingly, as indicated by Van D.....why did the FSS and club not take the extra £25k when offered, which could have gone to McGlynns budget? The Club have probably done what is best to maximise income. I can't blame them for that. However, if they had just been a little bit more honest re the availability of shares and the need for extra cash, then I think most of the detractors on here would have been OK with that. To try and paint it that they were ring fenced for the Patrons or to argue that the FSS were never guaranteed the 25%+1 was a little disingenuous. I have major issues with the FSS Board for agreeing to the donation aspect (before and after the Govt cash) without recourse to it's members. Also, that they really haven't cast in stone the after effects once all shares are sold. They could have demanded that, if a new issue of shares were to happen, the FSS would be given a requisite number based on cash given to the club. Basically to help protect the 25%+1. As I have previously stated, because the FSS has now morphed in Falkirk Forever, the fans who signed up thinking they were buying shares to protect the club are being short changed. They would be just as well joining the 1876 Club and giving their tenner that way. At least then, they would be in with the shout of wining a scarf !

So why the word "proxy" in the official statement ?

As I stated in my opinion, I don't think so. I'll give my reasoning at the end. Incidentally, before you ask, there is no way in hell I would get involved in the Board of the FSS. It's a thankless task. However, they took it upon themselves to be the FSS Board. Therefore they have to take accountability for their actions. As a good friend and FSS member stated to me during a chat " The FSS Board appear to have entered into a contract with the club (which was unanimously agreed by both FSS Board and FFS Club Board rep). This contract details an acceptance that no more shares are forthcoming, even if some are still available to purchase. The purchase of shares and fan ownership is pivotal to why I joined the FSS. This decision should not have been without getting back to the FSS membership who pay their dues. I find it totally unacceptable."

I think you are telling we fibs there. You well know that all the BoD's are also FSS members.

Interesting point, but I think the official wording was gift and proxy. A subtle difference between the two. A gift means that the shares are owned by the FSS. Proxy effectively means a loan. The shares are not owned by the FSS. The proxy can be withdrawn anytime if the individual Patron so decides.

You could well be making incorrect assumptions. I only stated my opinion.

Am I correct in saying that all BoD members are Patrons?

BPM, as you well know, the Board are currently made up of reps from both Patrons and FSS. In fact, 4 Patrons. Apart from their statutory duty as Directors, they also have a moral duty to represent their members. It is here where there may be a conflict of interest. My opinion only, the communication link between the mass membership is pretty shabby if non-existent. It's unlikely that the FSS reps take feedback from the 700 who put the cash in every month, but rather the FSS Board. An FSS Board who are reticent to rock the boat and question. There have been several instances recently where the FSS Board could (and probably should) have consulted members but chose not to do so. Now for the other 80% (in fact I would state more). This part of the support does not care what happens at Boardroom level. Possibly one reason why we only have around 700 FSS members and not more. They only care what happens on the pitch. it probably doesn't matter to them whether we stick together or not as long as the team are winning. Yes, the club has a duty of care to all fans, but I would opine, more so to those who actually contribute to the club ownership.

I thought BPM had packed it in Surely you aren't saying Mr G and BPM are one and the same person ?

2 things :- 1. The FSS reps statutory duty is to act in the Clubs best interests. That's the law. However, they are there at the request of over 700 FSS members and first and foremost, it is their duty to act as their representatives. If the 700 members of the FSS disagree with something that may disadvantage them, irrespective of the 5 member Board's thoughts, I would argue that the FSS rep should resign rather than side with the Board to remove the conflict of interest. 2. ..........and who would that "rabble rouser, Mick Lynch guy" be, that you are alluding to? I haven't seen one at any FSS meeting.