The Falkirk FC Thread

[hobbes]

If you're so interested I suggest you speak to them rather than posting on P&B. Will you make that contact, as you evidently failed to do after your comments on the consortium were rebuffed? 
Or will you hide behind an internet username and use it to criticise the work of others from anonymity?
 
 

I think we all know the answer to this one

[EdiBairn]

Just now, knee jerk reaction said:

This is getting ridiculous now, so someone who has a £1  worth of shares in a multi national company has the same say as a pension fund who have invested millions?  @EdiBairn  that's how big companies work,  people are elected to the board, please stop trolling and if you really are a falkirk fan actually contribute positively to the forum.

Of course they don't have the same say but they have 'a say' in that they have the personal right to elect directors and vote on other things. Why this scheme hasn't been designed like any other company's share issue I don't know.

[EdiBairn]

13 minutes ago, Bainsfordbairn said:

From the information given tonight anyone who participates will be buying shares at 33p each and will thus become a shareholder. With all the rights to attend AGMs this entails.

The only difference is that their voting rights won't be exercised individually on the night of the AGM.

The fans shareholding will be a "block" vote. There will probably need to be a fans group, made up of payees into the scheme. where individuals will be asked how the entire group should vote on AGM night. I presume the voting power of individuals in this group will depend on how much they've contributed. The group will be represented by whoever they choose to nominate.

At least that was my take on the presentation.  I may be completely wrong as those details may not have been worked out yet and my assumptions could be inaccurate.

I don't think that was what tonight was about though. It was simply to introduce the proposed scheme to us ordinary fans and see if there was enough "buyin" to make it viable.

It seems that you're picking faults with details which may not have been agreed yet.  Particularly as you can contact the people who will provide those details at any time. 

If you're so interested I suggest you speak to them rather than posting on P&B. Will you make that contact, as you evidently failed to do after your comments on the consortium were rebuffed? 

Or will you hide behind an internet username and use it to criticise the work of others from anonymity?

 

 

I can see that a lot of work has gone into this proposal and I'm not trying to be critical for the sake of it. I just don't see the point of issuing 'shares' which don't come with the rights normally associated with owning shares in a company i.e. the right to a say in how it is run.

The block voting idea just seems like a way for a few high-profile individuals to take seats in the boardroom. If that aspect of the scheme was removed and these shares came with normal voting rights, I'd be fully behind it.

[knee jerk reaction]

If you were at the meeting, then you would have heard why the set up is the way it is. It has serious advantages such as not allowing the stadium to be sold or the club sold to a Romanov or Craig  Whyte type, you would have a say in who represents the fans, in the same way you have a say who represents a pension fund or other investor. Again I'd say you are trolling rather than seriously stating your case!

Edited January 8, 2019 by knee jerk reaction

[roman_bairn]

I can see that a lot of work has gone into this proposal and I'm not trying to be critical for the sake of it. I just don't see the point of issuing 'shares' which don't come with the rights normally associated with owning shares in a company i.e. the right to a say in how it is run.
The block voting idea just seems like a way for a few high-profile individuals to take seats in the boardroom. If that aspect of the scheme was removed and these shares came with normal voting rights, I'd be fully behind it.

Surely the key to this is how the block vote works?
You keep ranting about a few elected individuals, but as someone mentioned earlier we could have meetings where small shareholders can democratically (please note), take a view on how to vote on key issues.
This level of detail has yet to be bottomed out but seems entirely plausible.
Why are you so down on something that the majority of true supporters have been waiting years to see happen?

[Bainsfordbairn]

1 minute ago, EdiBairn said:

I can see that a lot of work has gone into this proposal and I'm not trying to be critical for the sake of it. I just don't see the point of issuing 'shares' which don't come with the rights normally associated with owning shares in a company i.e. the right to a say in how it is run.

The block voting idea just seems like a way for a few high-profile individuals to take seats in the boardroom. If that aspect of the scheme was removed and these shares came with normal voting rights, I'd be fully behind it.

The first paragraph sums up my point Edi. You have no idea what rights an ordinary fan will have  but you're making assumptions and criticising accordingly. Every negative point you've made in the last couple of hours is based on assumptions.

As for the second, I actually agree with you. I've been involved with the club for a long time, previously through Bairnstrust and then through voluntary roles. I've known a lot of people who suffered from  what I call "big man syndrome." Folk who held  positions - either voluntary, employed or occasionally on the board - and who used those positions to tell the world how important and well-connected they were.  Or their acquaintances did, by trying to pass themselves off as ITK. And it's gotten worse with the internet age.  As various leaks when we make a signing will confirm.

There's always a danger that by inviting greater involvement from the fanbase you risk bringing in such people. However, I believe the benefits outweigh those risks.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Bainsfordbairn said:

The first paragraph sums up my point Edi. You have no idea what rights an ordinary fan will have  but you're making assumptions and criticising accordingly. Every negative point you've made in the last couple of hours is based on assumptions.

As for the second, I actually agree with you. I've been involved with the club for a long time, previously through Bairnstrust and then through voluntary roles. I've known a lot of people who suffered from  what I call "big man syndrome." Folk who held  positions - either voluntary, employed or occasionally on the board - and who used those positions to tell the world how important and well-connected they were.  Or their acquaintances did, by trying to pass themselves off as ITK. And it's gotten worse with the internet age.  As various leaks when we make a signing will confirm.

There's always a danger that by inviting greater involvement from the fanbase you risk bringing in such people. However, I believe the benefits outweigh those risks.

Those riske always exist. They can be managed within the model. Even in the original BtB, you had the selfless contribution from the likes of Gordon McFarlane, and you had the ultimately self serving contribution of GC. I think we are collectively wiser to that kind of scheming than we were a couple of decades or so ago.

Governance needs to reflect that wisdom.

[Guest]

Agreed, because they'll not only put in the majority of the cash but they'll do it in the fastest timescale. And if the average punter sees the scheme working then it makes it more likely they'll buy in.
I'm half-tempted to splash out and join the patrons just that I can vote against you if you run for one of that group's places on the BOD. [emoji14]

I can tell you 100% I have no interest in going onto the BoD. So I have saved you money.

The days of Directors turning up for the butties on a Saturday will hopefully end with this. It needs 5/6 people with the skill sets and importantly the time to do the job.

[Guest]

That's folk with 16-23K to pour down the drain?

Or money they can easily afford to spend to support something they think a lot of.

[Guest]

Based on this we are talking about the club being 75% owned by some 40-odd individuals and 25% owned by the remaining fans group?  How would this functionally work in terms of voting, would the fans group then be represented by a couple of individuals chosen by them to vote on things like board members etc?

At a meeting I attended before the Dunfermline game the voting rights were discussed. Kenny threw some thoughts around but it is very much part of the next phase of working. He is quite right to say if there is not enough interest by the end of the month then what is the point sorting out the detail. These are pledged to get an indication of interest not cast in stone.

The timescale as I understand would be pledges this month. Work then to take place on all the final detail to get to an EGM in April so the shareholders can agree the final plan and get things moving.

At that point if all the cash is raised is where I see an issue. There are two schools of thought. Transition to an evolving BoD or a virtual clean sweep and a new BoD completely. Merits in both. I personally think it has to be the latter.

If people think this is the basis of something decent moving forward then get the plane in if you can afford it. It isn't a firm commitment simple an expression of interest. If you don't like the look of it when all the final detail is done don't invest. Pretty simple. If it doesn't fly stop moaning about the club governance though if you decide to take part. It is the only deal in town the MSG are prepared to back.

[Guest]

I can see that a lot of work has gone into this proposal and I'm not trying to be critical for the sake of it. I just don't see the point of issuing 'shares' which don't come with the rights normally associated with owning shares in a company i.e. the right to a say in how it is run.
The block voting idea just seems like a way for a few high-profile individuals to take seats in the boardroom. If that aspect of the scheme was removed and these shares came with normal voting rights, I'd be fully behind it.

Who are these high profile individuals you have referred to on more than one occasion?

[Guest]

Those riske always exist. They can be managed within the model. Even in the original BtB, you had the selfless contribution from the likes of Gordon McFarlane, and you had the ultimately self serving contribution of GC. I think we are collectively wiser to that kind of scheming than we were a couple of decades or so ago.
Governance needs to reflect that wisdom.

The Board has been full of "high profile" individuals for years who have only taken and not contributed. At least now fans have a chance to hunt people who fall into that category now or do that in the future.

[Harry Kinnear]

It was clear last night that David and Kenny, who are volunteers have put a lot of work into this. It was also clear that they are intelligent individuals with business knowledge. They have done this, because like the majority of us they love Falkirk FC and have concerns about the way the club is heading.

 

They are right to gauge the level of support for the scheme before taking things further as this will probably result in another load of work.

 

All they are asking, is fans if they are interested to make pledges of amounts they can realistically afford to see if the initiative is worth taking further.

 

Kenny said last night if folk have got questions, he will make himself available to answer them.

 

Good chance for us ordinary fans who don't have loads of money to have representation on our board.

 

 

 

 

[Bairnardo]

Signed up. Sounds like a no brainer.

[Bairnardo]

Anyway.... Announce sumcunt!

[Bairn Necessities]

Don't know Kenny but I do know David White. He's a decent guy and has a pretty extensive business background. 

I think this scheme has a chance.

[EdiBrain]

It was clear last night that David and Kenny, who are volunteers have put a lot of work into this. It was also clear that they are intelligent individuals with business knowledge. They have done this, because like the majority of us they love Falkirk FC and have concerns about the way the club is heading.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This makes no sense , Falkirk fans are universally stupid & should have no place in the running of the club. Bonkers !

 

And I’ve stated over & over again Margaret is an UNPAID volunteer (and she knows business) , these two are just volunteers - just how much are they expecting to cream out the club? Blazers Bonkers !

 

[Bairn Necessities]

I was swithering between the monthly and the patron.. 

Does anyone know if that Patron level 5K is a one off opportunity or whether you could at a later date become one?

[NUMBER 7]

9 hours ago, EdiBairn said:

This is the big issue for me. If the people paying £10 a month don't get to attend AGMs, vote on directors etc, then this isn't a share scheme at all really.

All they're effectively doing is joining a supporters group, from which a few blazer chasers will get to represent the fans' 'share' holding.

If you had bothered your arse to go to the meeting, you would have heard a very good and detailed presentation, on a real opportunity for change in the way the club is structured and run. 

The mood of the meeting was one of cautious optimism and enthusiasm of the proposals. 150 or so people interested in doing something positive.

Yes there could be a "Supporters Group" of shareholders " B" holders or however it ends up being called,  that contribute to a block vote on their behalves at AGM's and the likes, which has to be 100 times better than Joe Blogs attending with his 100 shares and pissing in the wind. The "Supporters Group" would at least had some clout potentially holding 25% of the shares. Although it was not discussed, and would probably come out in the detail should things proceed, nobody said "B" shareholders couldn't attend an AGM, although and votes would be made by their representative. 

Also if the proposals were to attract 30/40 Patrons, you are disrespectful to call these people " Blazer Chasers" they are fans like many who have stood on the terraces, travelled in supporters buses over the years, who have done well / been fortunate in life and feel they wish to financially contribute / buy shares in something most of us have a great liking for. 

It was clearly stressed nobody should overstretch themselves financially in this venture, and only pledge what they felt comfortable with or could afford.

The board were in fact praised and acknowledged for their willingness to dilute their shareholding within the club

For you Edi, either put up or shut up.

 

 

 

 

[Harry Kinnear]

If you had bothered your arse to go to the meeting, you would have heard a very good and detailed presentation, on a real opportunity for change in the way the club is structured and run. 
The mood of the meeting was one of cautious optimism and enthusiasm of the proposals. 150 or so people interested in doing something positive.
Yes there could be a "Supporters Group" of shareholders " B" holders or however it ends up being called,  that contribute to a block vote on their behalves at AGM's and the likes, which has to be 100 times better than Joe Blogs attending with his 100 shares and pissing in the wind. The "Supporters Group" would at least had some clout potentially holding 25% of the shares. Although it was not discussed, and would probably come out in the detail should things proceed, nobody said "B" shareholders couldn't attend an AGM, although and votes would be made by their representative. 
Also if the proposals were to attract 30/40 Patrons, you are disrespectful to call these people " Blazer Chasers" they are fans like many who have stood on the terraces, travelled in supporters buses over the years, who have done well / been fortunate in life and feel they wish to financially contribute / buy shares in something most of us have a great liking for. 
It was clearly stressed nobody should overstretch themselves financially in this venture, and only pledge what they felt comfortable with or could afford.
The board were in fact praised and acknowledged for their willingness to dilute their shareholding within the club
For you Edi, either put up or shut up.
 
 
 
 

Well said [emoji122][emoji122][emoji122]