The Falkirk FC Thread

[The Moonster]

8 hours ago, PedroMoutinho said:

 

Hopefully things can be sorted out with the Crunchie initiative as it is a positive idea. I would be astonished though if the club got health and safety approval to put lettering on the roof of the stand, so again there seems to be some element of the group seeking the impossible.

You mean lettering like this?

[Bainsfordbairn]

40 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

1. From the first written communication to the club they knew the 10 names and their backgrounds. The group added one other nearer the end of the process whose name was communicated to the Board. The club never asked “several times” to meet all the group. They asked once which the group agreed to it when the process had made progress. That meeting was arranged however before that it became abundantly clear the Boards position was in the Gary Deans trench so it was pointless to meet. 

2. The club absolutely knew the figure on the table. They knew from the initial presentation the figure. They had It in writing and even responded to it in writing trying to charge 20% more initially than the Rawlins paid. For Gordon Colborn to say the club didn’t know the figure from the group is a bit baffling. I assume he is simply playing semantics as the offer was not “formal” in that it didn’t come from a solicitor. But they knew the amount 100%. 

3. The meeting was cancelled due to the fact the Board refused to negotiate anything. The only thing in the whole process they conceded was the price of the shares. The group felt the process was going nowhere so pulled out and let the club get on with their business without this distraction. 

4. This has been explained numerous times. The group felt the club needed a reboot and a freshening up. The Board didn’t. In the initial presentation however the only thing the group believed had to happen was a removal of the DOF as the expense was not required.  The group were bringing  in a replacement who was investing therefore giving the club a 100k up. The group conceded that position and said they would work with Holt. 

Hope this helps. 
 

 

Fair play to you BPM. You’ve consistently given answers to questions on here and you’re not hiding behind a username as I think most of us know who you are. You also manage to provide what appears to be factual information without resorting to the juvenile stuff.

I supported the old BTB bib and would probably have supported this had I known about it.

The only observation I’d make is the “let the club get on with their business without this distraction”. I agree completely. I just wish some of the posters on here would buy into it.

[falkirkzombie]

7 hours ago, roman_bairn said:

Not taking sides here but getting a bit fed up with the one sided anti board rhetoric over the ‘free 600k’ that the board apparently turned down and has been castigated for. So to balance things up a bit, can someone explain the following:
Why the Navy Blue group would not disclose who all the investors were and meet in total with the board as planned?
Why was it being suggested that the board turned down money when no offer was apparently made?
Why did the Navy Blue group cancel the planned meeting with the board and withdraw from the proposal?
Why is everyone saying that it’s free money when there are conditions attached that the board say that they could not agree to?
Maybe when someone gives us some honest, transparent and reasoned answers the rest of us will be in a position to take sides…

I think your being a bit disingenuous, not once have i seen it described as "free money" on here. I was aware that it was the group that walked away as the board weren't willing to compromise at all just from reading stuff on here so not quite sure why that was a surprise to people. In the end the 2 parties could not agree with each other and both moved on, I personally think the club made a mistake in that but that's only my opinion.  BMP has answered your other points and it not the 1st time he or others have made that info available. The one thing I did agee in what GC said last night was getting into entrenched positions on this isnt going to help anyone, they couldn't come to an agreement - everybody moves on - lets just hope that PS has the tools and backing to get finally get us out of this league.

[Bairney The Dinosaur]

Fair play to you BPM. You’ve consistently given answers to questions on here and you’re not hiding behind a username as I think most of us know who you are. You also manage to provide what appears to be factual information without resorting to the juvenile stuff.
I supported the old BTB bib and would probably have supported this had I known about it.
The only observation I’d make is the “let the club get on with their business without this distraction”. I agree completely. I just wish some of the posters on here would buy into it.

I would not be surprised if BPM was one of the individuals the board was hinting at wanting to return to some sort of discussion.

[Zbairn]

1 hour ago, Back Post Misses said:

 

4. This has been explained numerous times. The group felt the club needed a reboot and a freshening up. The Board didn’t. In the initial presentation however the only thing the group believed had to happen was a removal of the DOF as the expense was not required.  The group were bringing  in a replacement who was investing therefore giving the club a 100k up. The group conceded that position and said they would work with Holt. 

 

 

Pretty obvious that, if the NB compromised on the issue of Holt, other issues were considered not acceptable by the BoD.

if it is simply that those currently in charge did not want to cede any power, then it is a dereliction of duty to the other 74% shareholding in that they are not considering the best interests of the club. This offer should have been placed before an EGM to vote.

[hobbes]

If there was a full height wall pitch side (at times we wish there had been) then yeah but there is nothing substantial to attach that kind of signage to.

You mean lettering like this?

[Chinatoon Bairn]

As most people have already mentioned Holt didn't come across well at all last night. Those on the board certainly seem to have plenty praise for the work that he has done to date so fingers crossed it's not impacting any of his work. Glad to hear that roughly 60 players have been trialled for the reserve team.

The collective agreement from most that the communication from the board has to improve is a welcome one. Phil's document right at the beginning, while filled with some fluff regarding floodlights and roof panel repairs, was good to see and something that has been missed. Obviously not everything has to be announced but given the wholescale changes that the infrastructure of the club is seemingly facing a few updates along the way wouldn't have gone a miss. The agreement with Greaves on the face of it seems a good one, remains to be seen what is actually implemented.

I can understand where Sheerin/Holt are coming from regarding the loan system being a bit of a gamble with managers never being able to tell exactly how a player will take to the full time/senior situation but hopefully with their experience in developing youth at various points in their careers they will get it right. Should ideally have some good connections as well to get some good players through the door.

A bit torn on the fan initiatives that were discussed throughout. Especially with BPM coming on here this morning and clarifying some of the difficulties that were had throughout the negotiations from his perspective. Two different stories. I fear that the CI situation may be similar, although the lettering off the front of the stand is not possible given the lack of facia as mentioned by Phil.

Never great seeing someone laughing at questions asked by fans but I think the idea that a full time side were only training 5 hours a week, then another question following shortly after about the possibility of us training 9-5 this season deserved one.

Lastly, credit to Lewis. Aside from not giving an introduction to everyone, he didn't do much wrong last night. Certainly didn't shirk away from asking the awkward questions.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Chinatoon Bairn

[Grangemouth Bairn]

On 23/06/2021 at 15:03, MrDust said:

Vigurs for me the best signing in this division so far, he should get double figures in goals and create similar or more

Is Vigurs not the nutter who’s got the reputation for always being drunk and fighting in the pubs ? 

[TheScarf]

Just now, Grangemouth Bairn said:

Is Vigurs not the nutter who’s got the reputation for always being drunk and fighting in the pubs ? 

Yes, and on the pitch, minus the drunk bit.

[RC55 FFC]

I’m sure Zbairn & Dunc Freemason will confirm too but the original proposal was never to be anywhere near the roof edge (due to obvious reasons) so that’s a bit of an odd statement from Gary. Some fluffing by Gary & Carrie on that issue & was the only disappointment from the call bar Holts attitude. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Chinatoon Bairn said:

As most people have already mentioned Holt didn't come across well at all last night. Those on the board certainly seem to have plenty praise for the work that he has done to date so fingers crossed it's not impacting any of his work. Glad to hear that roughly 60 players have been trialled for the reserve team.

The collective agreement from most that the communication from the board has to improve is a welcome one. Phil's document right at the beginning, while filled with some fluff regarding floodlights and roof panel repairs, was good to see and something that has been missed. Obviously not everything has to be announced but given the wholescale changes that the infrastructure of the club is seemingly facing a few updates along the way wouldn't have gone a miss. The agreement with Greaves on the face of it seems a good one, remains to be seem what is actually implemented.

I can understand where Sheerin/Holt are coming from regarding the loan system being a bit of a gamble with managers never being able to tell exactly how a player will take to the full time/senior situation but hopefully with their experience in developing youth at various points in their careers they will get it right. Should ideally have some good connections as well to get some good players through the door.

A bit torn on the fan initiatives that were discussed throughout. Especially with BPM coming on here this morning and clarifying some of the difficulties that were had throughout the negotiations from his perspective. Two different stories. I fear that the CI situation may be similar, although the lettering off the front of the stand is not possible given the lack of facia as mentioned by Phil.

Never great seeing someone laughing at questions asked by fans but I think the idea that a full time side were only training 5 hours a week, then another question following shortly after about the possibility of us training 9-5 this season deserved one.

Lastly, credit to Lewis. Aside from not giving an introduction to everyone, he didn't do much wrong last night. Certainly didn't shirk away from asking the awkward questions.

I get that it seems like there are two “different stories”. However there is only one story and that is what factually happened. My post earlier is just that and the group have the paper trail to prove it. 

[Grangemouth Bairn]

1 minute ago, TheScarf said:

Yes, and on the pitch, minus the drunk bit.

Cheers - I’d heard a lot of not very nice things out with the stuff that made the press/courts.

[Guest Peter LaFleur]

3 minutes ago, Chinatoon Bairn said:

As most people have already mentioned Holt didn't come across well at all last night. Those on the board certainly seem to have plenty praise for the work that he has done to date so fingers crossed it's not impacting any of his work. Glad to hear that roughly 60 players have been trialled for the reserve team.

The collective agreement from most that the communication from the board has to improve is a welcome one. Phil's document right at the beginning, while filled with some fluff regarding floodlights and roof panel repairs, was good to see and something that has been missed. Obviously not everything has to be announced but given the wholescale changes that the infrastructure of the club is seemingly facing a few updates along the way wouldn't have gone a miss. The agreement with Greaves on the face of it seems a good one, remains to be seem what is actually implemented.

I can understand where Sheerin/Holt are coming from regarding the loan system being a bit of a gamble with managers never being able to tell exactly how a player will take to the full time/senior situation but hopefully with their experience in developing youth at various points in their careers they will get it right. Should ideally have some good connections as well to get some good players through the door.

A bit torn on the fan initiatives that were discussed throughout. Especially with BPM coming on here this morning and clarifying some of the difficulties that were had throughout the negotiations from his perspective. Two different stories. I fear that the CI situation may be similar, although the lettering off the front of the stand is not possible given the lack of facia as mentioned by Phil.

Never great seeing someone laughing at questions asked by fans but I think the idea that a full time side were only training 5 hours a week, then another question following shortly after about the possibility of us training 9-5 this season deserved one.

Lastly, credit to Lewis. Aside from not giving an introduction to everyone, he didn't do much wrong last night. Certainly didn't shirk away from asking the awkward questions.

Nailed it. Can’t disagree with any of that. 
I was pleased to hear Sheerin’s views on the loan market in respect he won’t be going for totally unproven players unless they come with an exceptional reputation. Hopefully this means less Fotheringham and Deveney types and more Neilson and Ballantyne types.

[TheScarf]

9 minutes ago, Grangemouth Bairn said:

Cheers - I’d heard a lot of not very nice things out with the stuff that made the press/courts.

Aye, he doesn't take drunk The Caley fans winding him up very well.

[AL-FFC]

20 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

I get that it seems like there are two “different stories”. However there is only one story and that is what factually happened. My post earlier is just that and the group have the paper trail to prove it. 

They were always going to peddle their narrative  Deans and Colburn come across as very bitter towards the fans and any input and would take it they would be the 2 the Navy Blue group wanted removed as even after that it seems like we arent going to get much more communication from them and is pretty much comes across as pony up with your money for the coming season to support the club but your getting nothing in return

[Zbairn]

14 minutes ago, RC55 FFC said:

I’m sure Zbairn & Dunc Freemason will confirm too but the original proposal was never to be anywhere near the roof edge (due to obvious reasons) so that’s a bit of an odd statement from Gary. Some fluffing by Gary & Carrie on that issue & was the only disappointment from the call bar Holts attitude. 

The original proposal was the back wall. The club then indicated that it would lose too much advertising revenue if that were used. The CI guys then looked at letters on a gantry hung from the back of the stand roof. A structural engineer was found to confirm it could be done in a safe manner. The extra cost would have been around £10k which the CI lads believed was achievable. The club then changed their position again and suggested a portion of the back wall, which possibly may have been hidden by the tv gantry. 

Signage for The gable end of the stand and “behind the goals” entrance was agreed. Cash is available to do that immediately.

Then 2 issues surfaced. One, the club wanted all control over who does what in terms of implementation i.e. who manufactures the lettering, who is contracted to do the fitting etc with the CI handing over the cash and no input over the quotes given or who wins the contracts (even though estimates were already organised by the CI). Secondly, when the CI guys wanted a written assurance that this would be done in a way befitting Crunchies  status with the fans, certain individual members of the Board turned nasty with bullying phone calls, e-mails (which for obvious reasons can not be published) and demanded that certain leading members of the CI group be removed with no suitable explanations why.  That was one of the questions that went unanswered at last nights Q&A.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, AL-FFC said:

They were always going to peddle their narrative  Deans and Colburn come across as very bitter towards the fans and any input and would take it they would be the 2 the Navy Blue group wanted removed as even after that it seems like we arent going to get much more communication from them and is pretty much comes across as pony up with your money for the coming season to support the club but your getting nothing in return

The group wanted an independent Chairman. In our 2,2,2 plus fans rep suggestion the group did not ask for any specific Board member to leave. Gary Deans could easily have staying on the Board. 

The reality is the club won’t heal until there is a regime that the vast majority of the fanbase can get behind. This regime will never be able to achieve that. They are doing the club a disservice to think otherwise. 

[Shadwell Dog]

9 hours ago, roman_bairn said:

Not taking sides here but getting a bit fed up with the one sided anti board rhetoric over the ‘free 600k’ that the board apparently turned down and has been castigated for. So to balance things up a bit, can someone explain the following:
Why the Navy Blue group would not disclose who all the investors were and meet in total with the board as planned?
Why was it being suggested that the board turned down money when no offer was apparently made?
Why did the Navy Blue group cancel the planned meeting with the board and withdraw from the proposal?
Why is everyone saying that it’s free money when there are conditions attached that the board say that they could not agree to?
Maybe when someone gives us some honest, transparent and reasoned answers the rest of us will be in a position to take sides…

Your just taking the worst bod in the history of the club word for it now in a q and a session where none of them could be grilled on the accurateness of their answers.  The majority of these questions have been answered previously in the main on here about hundred pages back.  

[Shadwell Dog]

Are we still getting money from Imperial cars? Do they actually still exist.  If the answer to both is no then why are the bod greeting about a bit of space at the back of the south stand when we're still advertising a company that no longer exists on the whole of the north stand?

[Believe The Hype]

17 minutes ago, Zbairn said:

who is contracted to do the fitting etc with the CI handing over the cash and no input over the quotes given or who wins the contracts (even though estimates were already organised by the CI

They would have to be an approved supplier/sub contractor on FFC's supply chain. You can't just propose someone's uncle (an exaggeration to make a point) to work on the stadium. There would be a vigerous process to ensure the company proposed filled all the correct criteria, public liability insurances etc and fair employment, all the legal gumf like that. If they already have a company capable of doing the work that has already went through all of this process on their books I can see why they may have veto'd the CI groups proposed contractors. That's just a professional opinion of why they may have threw red tape on that point. 

As for the rest of your points it doesn't paint a good picture whatsoever for fan/board relationships, this should have all been explained clearly to these guys who obviously only have a fantastic initiative put forward in their best interests. A compete own goal by the club not treating this with the respect it deserves going by your comments. A real chance to try and mend the discord.