Jump to content

The Falkirk FC Thread


Recommended Posts

Guest Caractacus Potts
2 minutes ago, bairn88 said:

Again, when you talk that way about a poster who’s been on here years and years before you turned up, it’s hard to take seriously on face value 

Eh!? Pedro Moutinho joined the same time as me! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said:

It's not a fan ownership proposal by any means it's a group of fans who want to invest in the club.

But the argument that you and others have made is that it’s somehow better for the club to have ‘fans’ in charge rather than ‘chesty Morgan’ and ‘some guy from America’ who don’t support the club and apparently don’t really care.

I don’t really see how that can be the case when the vast majority of supporters haven’t a clue who is even involved in this ‘group of fans’, what their backgrounds are or what proposals they have.

From what I can see, there has been absolutely zero communication with the fan base other than anonymous complaints and allegations on here.

Yet we’re just supposed to trust that this group would be better for the club because they are ‘fans’ (just as Ritchie and Alexander were).

Say what you want about the Rawlins but they introduced themselves and their backgrounds to the fans and gave a clear indication of their plans. They were then backed by the vast majority of fans and shareholders.

Edited by PedroMoutinho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, steveffc said:

I'm hoping Mcbookie open a book on Lewis first question, surely

"Not the result we were looking for last season, but I thought we were good at this,,,,"

Got to be odds on fav

Harsh.
 

Unpaid volunteer who gives up a ton of his time & really, for what? Abuse from people who wouldn’t give the club their time if asked. Not directed at you specifically but it’s the same on FB too. 
 

It’s an official club media outlet, you & I both know if he’s asks a question that’s controversial it’ll be his last. 
 

Club should be doing a LIVE Q&A in my opinion, even on zoom if needed, so not to put Lewis under more pressure/scrutiny but that’s not going to happen it seems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, steveffc said:

I'm hoping Mcbookie open a book on Lewis first question, surely

"Not the result we were looking for last season, but I thought we were good at this,,,,"

Got to be odds on fav

 

Lewis is a particularly mild mannered uberfan.  If we or Scotland were playing on Mars he'd be there. 

Not really the man for a controversial question. I wouldn't bother with post match interviews.  You get non answers and questions are bland and obsequious because thems the rules.

Edited by FalkirkBairn2021
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

But the argument that you and others have made is that it’s somehow better for the club to have ‘fans’ in charge rather than ‘chesty Morgan’ and ‘some guy from America’ who don’t support the club and apparently don’t really care.

I don’t really see how that can be the case when the vast majority of supporters haven’t a clue who is even involved in this ‘group of fans’, what their backgrounds are or what proposals they have.

From what I can see, there has been absolutely zero communication with the fan base other than anonymous complaints and allegations on here.

Yet we’re just supposed to trust that this group would be better for the club because they are ‘fans’ (just as Ritchie and Alexander were).

Say what you want about the Rawlins but they introduced themselves and their backgrounds to the fans and gave a clear indication of their plans. They were then backed by the vast majority of fans and shareholders.

So was Fulston.....and would you like to remind me how that ended ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shadwell Dog said:

What a joke. It's like the feckin polit buro running the club now. How can you get a real answer to any questions when you can't get to reply to whatever easy answer they give. Why did you knock back 600k of fans investment. Because we wanted to. Next question......

That would be my one question. Maybe if we all ask it they will feel obliged to answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

But the argument that you and others have made is that it’s somehow better for the club to have ‘fans’ in charge rather than ‘chesty Morgan’ and ‘some guy from America’ who don’t support the club and apparently don’t really care.

I don’t really see how that can be the case when the vast majority of supporters haven’t a clue who is even involved in this ‘group of fans’, what their backgrounds are or what proposals they have.

From what I can see, there has been absolutely zero communication with the fan base other than anonymous complaints and allegations on here.

Yet we’re just supposed to trust that this group would be better for the club because they are ‘fans’ (just as Ritchie and Alexander were).

Say what you want about the Rawlins but they introduced themselves and their backgrounds to the fans and gave a clear indication of their plans. They were then backed by the vast majority of fans and shareholders.

Your talking as if they are going to take over the club and oust the Rawlins which is not the case. Surely Falkirk fans not fake ones that suddenly appear out the ether or boys that have  buggered off to watch Hibs for a couple of seasons, no proper Falkirk fans  on the bod along with the Rawlins and bringing in 600k can only be a good thing especially when finances are struggling. You then have a bod with many different skills and you ensure that not one group are able to do anything to harm the club.  There would also be the ability for fans to invest smaller amounts and there would be a separate fans Rep on the bod. I can't see how anyone who has an emotional attachment to the club could see that as anything other than a good thing but it seems that some people do which is frankly beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can we not hold a zoom meeting. Ask for questions. Now you rarely get more than 20 or 30 folk wanting to ask questions at these things and zoom has a max of 100. If you want to ask a question you get access to the zoom meeting that night to ask your question and take part in the debate. The zoom meeting is recorded and made available to all fans. Then you get a proper grilling of the board at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Shadwell Dog said:

Why can we not hold a zoom meeting. Ask for questions. Now you rarely get more than 20 or 30 folk wanting to ask questions at these things and zoom has a max of 100. If you want to ask a question you get access to the zoom meeting that night to ask your question and take part in the debate. The zoom meeting is recorded and made available to all fans. Then you get a proper grilling of the board at least.

Can get more on zoom too if needed. Think you can pay extra for a capacity of 500. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

I don’t know anything about who was involved with the fans’ bid but it seems to me that they have gone in all guns blazing with an approach that had absolutely no chance of success.

The Rawlins have said they want fan involvement but they are just in the door after gaining the support of the vast majority of fans.

It’s not exactly surprising that they don’t want to give up control almost immediately. Particularly when the group concerned has immediately demanded the removal of the chairman, directors and sporting director (which is hardly an indication of a group that wants to work collaboratively and constructively).

I’m also not sure how this proposal was any more of a ‘fans group’ than the previous situation with Ritchie, Alexander etc in charge.

How can it be a ‘fan ownership’ proposal when as far as I can tell there appears to have been absolutely no consultation or engagement with the wider fan base and most of us still haven’t a clue who was even involved in this ‘consortium’?

How though with only 26% of the shares and an investment of only £300k do the Rawlins have control.  Is that not a worry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, RC55 FFC said:

Before I post my opinion, I’ll say it now in advance - I’d love nothing more than fan representation within the club & that amount of money could have been huge for the club & its future. It’s a mess it’s not going through but hopefully it’s not dead although sounds like it is. 

Just to clarify though for my own mind.
 

Someone just mentioned parity but didn’t I read the investors wanted three seats instead of 2 for 26% the same as Rawlins? 

Also, from what I’ve read on FB & on here, why did the existing board bar the Rawlins need to be removed? Couldn’t the 2 seats been achieved & then influence change from within?

Lastly, Ritchie and Sandy were also unlikely to want to reduce their shareholding to small levels as part of the agreement too & the board can’t force anyone to sell, so seems set up to fail from the start? 

SA and MR were both on board and had agreed to dilute/donate they’re shareholding to allow the investment to go directly and fully into the clubs coffers. The two of them were never an obstacle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zbairn said:

Righty Shagger boy. I'll answer your question if you will answer mines. 

At first I was impressed with Deans and the way he communicated and indicated the club would be run in future. I was also impressed by Phil Rawlins CV and what he did at Stoke and Orlando. It was my hope that a new broom would sweep away the mismanagement of the past and set us on a new course. 

However, what I have seen over the last few months have left me feeling that this lot are no better than the last lot. We have ended up in a league position that is as low as it has ever been, maybe with the exception of once before.  The Rawlins additional funding has failed to materialise and as posted elsewhere they have not shown anything to suggest that they have changed anything fundamental at the club. For Deans and Rawlins to turn way £600k of investment when we may be struggling financially, is not working in the best interest of the club. We have to remember that these guys are custodians of the club and should not be working against it.  If as suspected, it is to keep their positions on the Board and to keep the "power" when they only have 26% ownership then that again is against the best interests of the club. Deans promises of openness and transparency was all to see when winning but he became Mr Invisible when we were on our downward spiral. 

Now .... on to one of the reasons I have continually posted against the current Board on here. I have a close relative who is one of the CI lads and some of them are friends of mine. I have been fortunate (or unfortunate) to have been kept up to date with what has been going on. The agreements that were made and broken and the obstacles that were put in place by certain individuals at the club. These guys are just fans who wanted to honour Crunchie in an appropriate way. The way they have been treated has been abysmal. I have heard about phone calls from certain individuals at the club berating the CI members and castigating them for the temerity of asking for a "written agreement".  I have actually seen letters from an individual, with the content being both totally patronising and disrespectful to lads who, not only have put a powerhouse of time and effort in to get this done, but in reality only want to honour  a legend. Remember these guys are doing it for absolutely nothing except their love of the club. .... and before anyone asks..... its not for me to publish letters, indicate the content of the phone calls or highlight those at the club who are involved. I think that has been adequately explained on here why they haven't been made public.  One thing though, the message of what has happened needs to be made clear (if not all the minutae detail) so that fans know how our club is being run. 

To finish, after talking to one of the Investors, I believe that Deans and Rawlings have acted in the same way to them. I don't have the same level of info as I do with the CI situation ...but I heard that several walked away because they couldn't work with people who cared so little for the well being of the club.

My "100% accurate comment" was based on the fact I believe they Investors should come out and state who they are and why they walked....similar to the CI guys. 

Now my question to you.... why are you such a sycophant to the  Board of Directors ?  

 

 

 

Oops, seems like I've touched a wee nerve, I do apologise.

I think the crux of your argument is that you have relatives and friends who are part of the CI group and that you think they've been poorly treated? You tell us of phone calls and letters that weren't nice but we've just to accept what you say. I'm sure you have no reason to lie about such things but the problem is that we only have to take your word for it without seeing any evidence. I repeat; if the Rawlins (Mr, Mrs or both) have been abusing our fans then they can do one as far as I'm concerned!

Similarly though, if these new accounts (possible patrons) are simply trying to discredit the club to achieve their goals then they can do one too.

We need openness and honesty from ALL that are involved.

Regarding the current state of the club though I'm not sure that a change in the BOD would have seen us promoted and I'm not sure that the Rawlins can be blamed for our failure either given that they've only been a part of things for 6 months and unable to even come to Falkirk. We certainly need to hear and see more from them now though.

I agree re Deans and the BOD regarding transparency and communication. They are effectively the go-betweens for Rawlins and the fans so we need to know just what the f**k's going on as, at the moment, the silence is deafening .

Obviously £600k of new investment is serious cash for the club so, I repeat, we need to know why it was rejected. All I've seen is what I've read on here which is some folk saying that they were making demands and others saying they weren't. It may well be that, if these demands were unreasonable, they have done what's best for the club by rejecting it?

To answer your question, I'm most certainly not a sycophant of the BOD although I'd be interested to know why you think this is the case. As far as I'm concerned they should be criticised if it's deserved and there is definitely criticism that can be leveled at them at the moment but I don't think they (or anybody else) should be just for the sake of it because that's just devisive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RC55 FFC said:

Can get more on zoom too if needed. Think you can pay extra for a capacity of 500. 

Then everybody on here that's of a mind to needs to email the club and Lewis asking for a Zoom meeting. If Gary Deans wants to be transparent then how can he refuse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter LaFleur
1 hour ago, Shadwell Dog said:

Your talking as if they are going to take over the club and oust the Rawlins which is not the case. Surely Falkirk fans not fake ones that suddenly appear out the ether or boys that have  buggered off to watch Hibs for a couple of seasons, no proper Falkirk fans  on the bod along with the Rawlins and bringing in 600k can only be a good thing especially when finances are struggling. You then have a bod with many different skills and you ensure that not one group are able to do anything to harm the club.  There would also be the ability for fans to invest smaller amounts and there would be a separate fans Rep on the bod. I can't see how anyone who has an emotional attachment to the club could see that as anything other than a good thing but it seems that some people do which is frankly beyond me.

You keep saying this fans group are proper fans but who are they? How many made up this proposal? What were their plans? I genuinely don’t know anything about it other than knowing the name of one of the people involved. I can’t blindly back something I have no knowledge or clarity about because a few roasters on here keep pushing it.

Edited by Peter LaFleur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very difficult just now due to Covid restrictions but boy do we need some kind of fan meeting as soon as its viable. Fans at each others throats is doing none of us any good. We all need to know what's going on. Deep down we all love the club and want the best for it. There is no doubt Falkirk FC has potential but until we are all working together it's never going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at this objectively from the Rawlings point of view they had the chance to increase their shareholding from 26 per cent but at the time they invested we were sitting top of the league 7 points clear and nothing to worry about and a very real chance of promotion.

We then went from that to mid table and a collapse that would have put a controlled demolition to shame so ask yourself would you invest more in that calamity when the ones that were there to safeguard and make the hard choices f**ked it up so monumentally.  In the same vein they have a yes man there to keep them in the loop in the hope they will increase their shareholding but are more than likely stringing him along in the hope we don't f**k it up this season and have a championship club worth more than what they bought in for.

Edited by AL-FFC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

Oops, seems like I've touched a wee nerve, I do apologise.

I think the crux of your argument is that you have relatives and friends who are part of the CI group and that you think they've been poorly treated? You tell us of phone calls and letters that weren't nice but we've just to accept what you say. I'm sure you have no reason to lie about such things but the problem is that we only have to take your word for it without seeing any evidence. I repeat; if the Rawlins (Mr, Mrs or both) have been abusing our fans then they can do one as far as I'm concerned!

Similarly though, if these new accounts (possible patrons) are simply trying to discredit the club to achieve their goals then they can do one too.

We need openness and honesty from ALL that are involved.

Regarding the current state of the club though I'm not sure that a change in the BOD would have seen us promoted and I'm not sure that the Rawlins can be blamed for our failure either given that they've only been a part of things for 6 months and unable to even come to Falkirk. We certainly need to hear and see more from them now though.

I agree re Deans and the BOD regarding transparency and communication. They are effectively the go-betweens for Rawlins and the fans so we need to know just what the f**k's going on as, at the moment, the silence is deafening .

Obviously £600k of new investment is serious cash for the club so, I repeat, we need to know why it was rejected. All I've seen is what I've read on here which is some folk saying that they were making demands and others saying they weren't. It may well be that, if these demands were unreasonable, they have done what's best for the club by rejecting it?

To answer your question, I'm most certainly not a sycophant of the BOD although I'd be interested to know why you think this is the case. As far as I'm concerned they should be criticised if it's deserved and there is definitely criticism that can be leveled at them at the moment but I don't think they (or anybody else) should be just for the sake of it because that's just devisive.

 

I am not going to apologise for my comments on how the BoD and Rawlings have treated the CI guys. Thats your prerogative not to believe it.  As a relative, I find it hard to watch how soul destroying it has been for these guys and how they have been treated. 

I agree that clarity is needed from the Investors. However, the criticism is well deserved re the BoD. The Rawlins have dangled a carrot in front of Deans so they can keep power and he has responded in kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Peter LaFleur said:

You keep saying this fans group are proper fans but who are they? How many made up this proposal? What were their plans? I genuinely don’t know anything about it other than knowing the name one of the people involved. I can’t blindly back something I have no knowledge or clarity about because a few roasters on here keep pushing it.

Want to post on why the current BoD are so great ? Why you actively have a negative comment on anything that perhaps asks questions of Rawlins and the BoD ? Maybe you may want to post on my previous question I posed to you re Fulston ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shadwell Dog said:

They'll answer them but there's noone to take them to task on the answer.  They can spout any old pish and noone can say hey wait a minute that isn't right/that never happened/ you haven't explained this properly and so on. 

That's true and a fair point SD; however if the answer IS just a whitewash, then everyone who sees/hears it will be rightly pissed off... then we have social media, public forums, & direct contact to collectively follow up and keep these issues to the forefront.  I hope...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...