Zbairn
-
Posts
789 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Zbairn
-
-
23 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:
Phill Rawlins apparently has a net worth of around 60 million, I don’t thinks he needs the money however if he was to be made an offer and did want to sell his shareholding the club would have to approve that sale anyway. It’s not messy or problematic at all, the Rawlins have became pretty insignificant to be honest.
£300k's worth of shares isn't insignificant to Falkirk FC. It may be insignificant to the Rawlins.
0 -
29 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:
They paid cira 300k for they’re shareholding, do you think they are just going to hand those shares back or over to somebody else for free? It’s not like they are fans or have any other emotional attachment to the club. I’m guessing they’ll just sit on those shares on the off chance someone might see value or a need for them in the future and make them an offer.
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.
0 -
14 hours ago, Springfield said:
Update on FSS Fans Director Nominations
We wanted to update members that disappointedly, despite an extension of the deadline to 11th September, there have been no nominations. This vacancy is open at an exciting time for the club as we look to push for promotion back to the Championship.
This means, that for the time being, FSS have a vacant seat on the Board. We will discuss with the Board the potential to appoint an interim, co-opted director from the FSS Committee who can support the refinement of the role.
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.
1 -
17 minutes ago, HopeStreetWalker said:
Here is a good thread
Former professional footballers are 3.5 times more likely to develop dementia.
There was a discussion on Off The Ball a week last Saturday where the statistics were went through and it was sobering. For example if you are a defender your chances of being afflicted by this terrible condition increase from 3.5 times to 5 times while a Goalie who very rarely if ever heads a ball has the same chances as a fan in the stand. It looks like heading the ball will end in the early 2030's
Heading the ball is on it's way out in the game and it's going to become sport described in its name - Football.
It will transform the game benefitting the skillful, intelligent player. Tactics will change for example Corner kicks will become a whole new set play. The physical aspect will change for example a smaller mobile, quick-on-the-turn, positional defender will have the advantage over the traditional power defender.
The teams that are brave enough and have the vision to transition first will benefit and reap the rewards.
Thoughts?
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.
1 -
1 minute ago, Steven Mill Out said:
I've been scrolling for about a week straight bro
Keep scrolling..... the footy stuff will start in a day or so
0 -
20 hours ago, Forever_Blue_ said:
Falkirk fan unhappy the fans group is giving money to the club the fans support.
Sorry, but I just find it mental people are this unhappy. The club have explained the money we're putting in is helping to sign better players.. Potentially going to the academy in the future.
The agreement is not set in stone and can be updated (or that's how I understood it from the podcast anyway).
I agree with the other poster though, either draw a line under this or creating a new thread and people can debate both sides of the arguement on there.
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.
5 -
3 minutes ago, gav-ffc said:
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 !
0 -
30 minutes ago, gav-ffc said:
I was there also and majority were quiet as you have said but I don’t see how that means a minority are happy. I thought the meeting went well and obviously yourself and a couple others had their say that’s what democracy is all about.
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.
1 -
3 minutes ago, gav-ffc said:
It’s a massive echo chamber for those who are unhappy with Fss. With 3 people cancelling their subs from 724 to 721 hardly shows a mass exodus.
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%.
3 -
3 hours ago, LatapyBairn. said:
the vast majority seem quite content with the final outcome,
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.
0 -
4 minutes ago, Van_damage said:
I don’t understand this line. If ZBairn wanted FSS to be able to buy the shares with some of the money he contributed as a member then if he didn’t donate shares, surely that would be aligned to his position?
Can I ask, do you think the patrons would have still given the money to the club to help McGlynn, if there was no shares left?
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.
0 -
Just now, LatapyBairn. said:
Correct, it does have nothing to do with me personally and of course you’re under no obligation to answer. It was only a question.
Absolutely. It has nothing to do with you.
0 -
3 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:
Absolutely nothing, does relate directly to the supporters society however.
Righty. So we are agree, whether I have or not has absolutely nothing to do with you.
0 -
16 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:
Have you donated any of your shareholding to the FSS?
What's that to do with you ?
0 -
3 hours ago, FFC 1876 said:
Easy to jump to conclusions when you've only been given a snippet of the information and I was guilty of expecting the worst so I apologise for that.
In reality the club have done, in my eyes, the best thing for us by selling the remaining shares to the patron's in order to raise extra funds(the FSS money has already been accounted for) for a few more signings. Also fantastic to hear the patron's and other shareholders have gifted FSS the shares they need to get to the 25%+1 showing we are all working together for the better of Falkirk football club.
McGlynn seems to have us sorted on the park this season and from the outside the board have done a fantastic job of sorting out the off the park mess they inherited just under 2 years ago.
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 !
6 -
5 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:
Shares are being gifted to the FSS, some patrons chose to hand a proportion of they’re shareholding over to the FSS and some did not, thats an individual decision but my thanks goes to the ones who did and got the FSS to the 25% point. They FSS will indeed own the said shareholding.
So why the word "proxy" in the official statement ?
-1 -
12 minutes ago, Mr Grimsdale said:
So the rep/reps are not representing the members well or not?
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."
0 -
4 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:
Possibly, what’s your point? I was looking h for an answer as I genuinely wasn’t sure?
I think you are telling we fibs there. You well know that all the BoD's are also FSS members.
0 -
5 minutes ago, Jimmy1876 said:
I get what you mean by saying this and I fully believe the patrons are invested in FSS as evidenced by the offer to buy shares and gift to FSS.
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.
0 -
12 minutes ago, Mr Grimsdale said:
Reading this I would say you are implying the FSS rep/reps are not representing the members. That what you are saying? Or am I, like you making incorrect assumptions?
I would think 95% of the FSS don’t give a damn about anything but the playing side either.
On here ain’t the fanbase.You could well be making incorrect assumptions.
I only stated my opinion.
0 -
7 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:
Am I correct in saying every one of the current BOD are members of the FSS?
Am I correct in saying that all BoD members are Patrons?
0 -
10 minutes 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.
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.
1 -
16 minutes ago, Bairney The Dinosaur said:
Can't agree with you there BPM.
I thought BPM had packed it in
Surely you aren't saying Mr G and BPM are one and the same person ?
0 -
47 minutes ago, Mr Grimsdale said:
As far as the FSS reps go they look after the clubs interests first and foremost - that is their statutory duty as company directors. Rabble rousing Mick Lynch’s are the last thing this club or the fans needs currently
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.
0
The Falkirk FC Thread
in Scottish League 1 General Chatter
Posted
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.