The Falkirk FC Thread

[Zbairn]

10 minutes ago, FTID1876 said:

Can you share the Navy Blue proposal? Would be keen to see what they offered to get a balanced view.  I guess with their investment would come a change in youth development, DoF and Manager?

Is the £600k an initial investment with further add ons? Was there significant knowledge of running football clubs involved? And by that I don’t mean running gang clubs like Livi or Hamilton but actual clubs with ethics and morals

More importantly, to get a balanced view, I would like to see a statement from our current BoD why they turned it down. Perhaps you could help us there ?

[Sarcastic Bairn]

17 minutes ago, FTID1876 said:

Can you share the Navy Blue proposal? Would be keen to see what they offered to get a balanced view.  I guess with their investment would come a change in youth development, DoF and Manager?

Is the £600k an initial investment with further add ons? Was there significant knowledge of running football clubs involved? And by that I don’t mean running gang clubs like Livi or Hamilton but actual clubs with ethics and morals

 Yeah right, Bantabairn account number 2!

[Zbairn]

39 minutes ago, FTID1876 said:

Can you share the Navy Blue proposal? Would be keen to see what they offered to get a balanced view.  I guess with their investment would come a change in youth development, DoF and Manager?

Is the £600k an initial investment with further add ons? Was there significant knowledge of running football clubs involved? And by that I don’t mean running gang clubs like Livi or Hamilton but actual clubs with ethics and morals

Ethics and morals? Do you seriously think after reading Brockvillenomore’s post, that our current BoD’s are acting ethically and morally in turning down £600k and abusing long time fans by letter?

If not Bantabairn account No.2.....then certainly another BoD plant. We already have had the mistakenly use of the word “us” in a previous post.  We now have similar with “their” .

[Guest Peter LaFleur]

Did the navy blue proposal get down to advising managerial and DoF positions? Was this a bump in the road in respect the BoD had already picked their man and wanted Holt? Is there any chance this could still go ahead or is it completely parked?

Edited May 29, 2021 by Peter LaFleur

[LatapyBairn.]

8 hours ago, Brockvillenomore said:

 

Some facts to ponder.

1.        Gary Deans has been on the board for over two years, most of that time as Chairman.

2.        The Board as it looks now has been running longer than a year plus, there was a shadow Board as Gary Deans pushed to the side those members that eventually left, they were all out of the picture for months and the current board members were working with Gary.

3.        Gary Deans prepared a root and branch review, remember the statement, this is his board, handpicked. They all look the same, sound the same and have the same background – consultancy, accounts and PR. Soft skills, nobody used to working at the sharp end in an industry where cost control and profit is on a knife edge and you need to think on your feet.

4.        This board have been in place for at least18 months; all this talk of them being "new" is a distraction. If we failed in our jobs as the club did last season we’d get the bullet – why haven’t they resigned? I would.

5.        There one success was the Rawlins, wasn’t it? Then you start to get a sense of what these two are like, now I’m not so sure.

6.        I’ve seen the paperwork for the Navy Blue group of local businessmen, shareholders, sponsors and fervent supporters of Falkirk FC.

7.        They had discussions looking to invest as much as £600k in cash.

8.        The MSG, as was, agreed to the idea of diluting their shareholding and take a step back.

9.        There was tentative discussion about the MSG and the Navy Blue Group giving the supporter’s group shares to get it going as they wanted supporters to always have control of the club.

10.    Let’s face facts. 20/21 season was a disaster, an embarrassing failure. If I was on the board and presided over that disgrace I’d resign. Sorry, they should be ashamed. But they stayed.

11.    It was clear to anybody who knows the game that after the first round of games we were found out, we couldn’t beat Partick when they had a full team missing and when they got their players back, we were in trouble. So it proved.

12.    It wasn’t clear to the Board, or the management team though, was it.

13.    The Board the Navy Blue guys decided there had to real change and proposed a new, independent Chairman of  a sensible sized board, suggesting  changes that would see two join and three leave, no names were tabled by the Navy Blue group.

14.    The choice was then for members in the board to do the right thing for the club, stand down and £600k is invested.

15.    They would also have brought with them somebody with real football knowledge, playing, managing and board experience. He was also an investor. 

16.    Despite making their intentions clear from the get-go the Rawlins acted as the proposed changes didn’t exist and continued happily along essentially avoiding dealing with it, as if their charm and sales pitch would somehow convince these guys what they wanted wasn’t all that important. But they didn't want seats on the board, they wanted change and help drive the club forward.

17.    It came to a head in the middle of the week when it became clear the Rawlins were supporting the board, sweeping the failure under the table as if it was trivial and unimportant. Clearly more important than the £600k.

18.    The Navy Blue group announced they were walking away as they were both so far apart it would be daft to carry on, maybe not the words they used to be fair.

19.    The Rawlins reaction was petty and, in my view, childish. Suggesting in as many words the bid was wasting their time and they had a record of offering to invest 4 or 5 times and then walking away.

20.    This is utter BS, and the only conclusion is this BS was given to them by the Board. Sad and pathetic stuff really.

21.    One of the guys in the group emailed the Rawlins privately and very nicely explained they were wrong. Challenging people’s motives and intentions when these are Falkirk supporters through and through, supporting the club for 50 and 60 years in some cases was bang out of order; very nicely he asked them to explain who told them the BS and please list out the 4 or 5 times they were referring to. As far as I know he’s had no response.

22.    Honestly, I’m worried about the club. Rawlins has 26%, a puppet board who do as he says and they’re turning down a £600k investment and introducing guys who can help the club but will challenge and not just rollover to what the Rawlins or anybody else says. I’m speculating of course, but it looks that way.

23.    Also, the shareholders of the Club should be asking if the Board of Director’s acted in the best interests of the Club by declining the opportunity to stand aside in order to attract such a significant investment. £600K FFS. 

24.    That’s their duty as directors under company law, act in a way that protects the company, before your self-interest. Did they do that, or are they just holding onto the status of the positions and Rawlins coat tails.

Only time will tell.

Excellent summary 

[Zbairn]

2 minutes ago, Peter LaFleur said:

Did the navy blue proposal get down to advising managerial and DoF positions? Was this a hump in the road in respect the BoD had already picked their man and wanted Holt? Is there any chance this could still go ahead or is it completely parked?

I could be wrong, but I don’t think they wanted to advise, but at least be part of the process....which would be understandable in a “parity” stakeholding.

From what I heard, several of the guys walked after the letter from Mrs Rawlins. 

[Bairney The Dinosaur]

Seems in business the only thing bigger than your pockets is your ego.

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, FTID1876 said:

Can you share the Navy Blue proposal? Would be keen to see what they offered to get a balanced view.  I guess with their investment would come a change in youth development, DoF and Manager?

Is the £600k an initial investment with further add ons? Was there significant knowledge of running football clubs involved? And by that I don’t mean running gang clubs like Livi or Hamilton but actual clubs with ethics and morals

A balanced view? So that assumes you are completely up to speed with what the current incumbents are up to.

Well done you. Give us all a treat and roll out the business brilliance of what it is the current crew have achieved, and I am sure someone from Navy Blue will be along to help you in your search for “a balanced view”.

Btw, we don’t have a DoF. Surprised you didn’t know that.

A change in youth development? You mean like the one that was proposed by members of the Patrons a while back (including a funding proposal) that was rejected by the Board only for them to put together a near identical proposal recently , and claim it to be all their own work by not recognising who put it together in the first place?

[Guest Caractacus Potts]

1 hour ago, FTID1876 said:

Can you share the Navy Blue proposal? Would be keen to see what they offered to get a balanced view.  I guess with their investment would come a change in youth development, DoF and Manager?

Is the £600k an initial investment with further add ons? Was there significant knowledge of running football clubs involved? And by that I don’t mean running gang clubs like Livi or Hamilton but actual clubs with ethics and morals

What knowledge did Phil Rawlins have of running a football club before investing in Stoke? What right does he have of running our football club and knocking back investment when only owning 26%?

Phil’s background is sales and Carries is accountancy. If she is doing a lot of the talking then what knowledge does she have of football clubs, particularly provincial Scottish clubs?

 

[LatapyBairn.]

30 minutes ago, Zbairn said:

I could be wrong, but I don’t think they wanted to advise, but at least be part of the process....which would be understandable in a “parity” stakeholding.

From what I heard, several of the guys walked after the letter from Mrs Rawlins. 

Considering the level of investment which would have made the group on par the single largest shareholder surely having an equitable number of seats on the board and some form of input into the new manager should be an absolute given! The removal of failed board members replaced with people prepared to invest they’re own hard cash -and time should have at least been entertained surely?! The club should have been looking not only for the investment but to utilise the talent and expertise within the group. It does seem they expected the investment to happen without said investors then having any input on how the money was spent and the club ran. Members on our current BOD unfortunately are not making decisions in the best interest of the club but instead acting to endear themselves to the Rawlins and keep themselves in a position of power. It’s really quite pathetic but in the long run could have serous consequences for the club we love. The fact that not SA and MR were happy to dilute and donate there shareholding to allow the group in speaks to the groups credibility. 

Edited May 29, 2021 by LatapyBairn.

[Proudtobeabairn]

The extra detail is very interesting but I can still see why this failed.  

The Rawlins got in first.  They want to do things their way and don't welcome interference to the extent the fans group are asking for.  This could turn out good or bad for us but giving the Rawlins the influence they need to do things their way is what we all wanted a few short months ago - let's not forget that.   In that respect the fans offer could maybe have been better timed. 

Instead of going in with an all or nothing offer which was unlikely to win the Rawlins support (given the above) why not try and work with the Rawlins for a while and stagger the investment or put conditions in place that guarantees investment and gives the fans group more influence over time.  E.g if certain conditions are met over the next 6-12 months. 

It does also look (to a complete outsider) that the fans group have walked away when discussions became fraught at least twice now (in the public domain).  This was never going to be an easy negotiation and maybe some of the "red lines" could have been relaxed or delayed to get a better outcome?  Its unrealistic to expect to remove board member, choose the manager and make possibly other demands that the Rawlins would see as unpractical (or certainly not beneficial to them).  These type of discussions are always going to be fraught and should really only be made through lawyers for some of the reasons we're seeing in the detail.  Yes the fans investment is higher but you have to take into account the fact the Rawlins are only here at all to do things their way (and we as fans enabled that only a few short months ago).  

I just can't see a benefit to the Rawlins of the fans group offer (other than the initial funds which the Rawlins would be unlikely to have control over) - if anything the offer seriously hampers the plans the Rawlins have for the club.  Again this might work out well and maybe it won't but if they get us to the Premiership and make a bit of money along the way on player sales, is that so bad?  

Sounds like the Rawlins response has been petty but let's remember we are getting only one side of the story here.  The Q&A coming up is where the hard questions need to be asked.  

 

 

[Guest Caractacus Potts]

2 hours ago, Sarcastic Bairn said:

 Yeah right, Bantabairn account number 2!

Another who has changed his tune. Lex in hot water for not upholding his duties but the Rawlins able to knock back serious investment of £600k?

Edited May 29, 2021 by Caractacus Potts

[FalkirkBairn2021]

I've seem reference to these 'plans for the club' the Rawlins have. Seen zero evidence they have any plans other than trying to cheapskate our way through the divisions, investing nothing significant in the playing squad in the vain hope we somehow have saleable assets further down the line. Great plan.

And if we remain rooted in the lower leagues, so what? They'll get their couple of hundred grand back down the line anyway. They aren't fans so don't really give a f**k.

Edited May 29, 2021 by FalkirkBairn2021

[Proudtobeabairn]

2 minutes ago, FalkirkBairn2021 said:

I've seem reference to these 'plans for the club' the Rawlins have. Seem zero evidence they have any plans other than trying to cheapskate our way through the divisions, investing nothing significant in the playing squad in the vain hope we somehow have saleable assets further down the line. Great plan.

Agree we need to see and hear more from them and hopefully they are over here soon so we can ask these questions directly.  

In the interests of this discussion not just becoming a wind tunnel of only one point of view, the counter point here is that since the Rawlins came in we've seen MR and SA influence reduce, a new board structure, appointment of a Sporting Director, restart of a youth team and academy coach appointed,  a new manager... 

Again - a few months ago this forum was full of folk demanding all those things.  I'm not saying they've all been done well (Deans and Holt have massive question marks over them and staying in League 1 is a disaster) but time will tell.    The easy thing for them would have been to walk away when we failed to go up.  

[Newbornbairn]

63 days until the new season starts, the time brain doctors say it takes to break a habit.

 

Falkirk FC is a habit, right?

[FalkirkBairn2021]

I was always unhappy at the level of influence they got for what was really a pathetically small investment. 

I'm not saying we should have Sheikh money but a couple of hundred grand seems chump change to me. Not that I have it in my back pocket.

[Guest Caractacus Potts]

7 minutes ago, Proudtobeabairn said:

Agree we need to see and hear more from them and hopefully they are over here soon so we can ask these questions directly.  

In the interests of this discussion not just becoming a wind tunnel of only one point of view, the counter point here is that since the Rawlins came in we've seen MR and SA influence reduce, a new board structure, appointment of a Sporting Director, restart of a youth team and academy coach appointed,  a new manager... 

Again - a few months ago this forum was full of folk demanding all those things.  I'm not saying they've all been done well (Deans and Holt have massive question marks over them and staying in League 1 is a disaster) but time will tell.    The easy thing for them would have been to walk away when we failed to go up.  

I think it’s good to have alternative views but not just for the sake of it. There has been a lot of open comment about the patrons but you want to constantly question their intentions or state the Rawlins defence before they’ve answered. 
 

Judging by the lack of financial investment so far from the Rawlins and the lack of inspiring input to the managerial search including the  appointment of Holt, I think we need to start focussing on them. Why are they controlling the club with a small stake and why did they knock back £600k? Let’s have them answer first before questioning the fans group. 

[HopeStreetWalker]

Paul Sheerin requires all the support he can get.

So give the guy a chance to prove himself. His PR is going to be an improvement on the last few appointments, mind you that should not be hard.

 

[Zbairn]

28 minutes ago, Proudtobeabairn said:

Agree we need to see and hear more from them and hopefully they are over here soon so we can ask these questions directly.  

In the interests of this discussion not just becoming a wind tunnel of only one point of view, the counter point here is that since the Rawlins came in we've seen MR and SA influence reduce, a new board structure, appointment of a Sporting Director, restart of a youth team and academy coach appointed,  a new manager... 

Again - a few months ago this forum was full of folk demanding all those things.  I'm not saying they've all been done well (Deans and Holt have massive question marks over them and staying in League 1 is a disaster) but time will tell.    The easy thing for them would have been to walk away when we failed to go up.  

The problem is they can’t walk away without losing their initial investment. They need to get Board permission to sell their shares. Oh, I forgot, they effectively are the Board. 

[NUMBER 7]

Are “The Navy Blue” the guys who were prepared to keep the academy going when Campbell and Laing pulled the plug on it ?  If so they would have my backing 100%