AL-FFC Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 1 minute ago, Shadwell Dog said: 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? They have rebranded to Cazoo now and online only i think 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman_bairn Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 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.Maybe that might have been an option had the planned meeting taken place?Instead the investors have allowed themselves to look like they threw the toys out of the pram without taking every opportunity to make their case sadly.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman_bairn Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 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. No, I’m trying to be devils advocate after 50 pages of a one sided, and possibly fair, assessment of the failings of the board.Only people criticising me for trying to ask balanced questions are those who already have an ‘entrenched position’.It seems it’s unfair to question the reasoning of one party but not the other according to some..... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zbairn Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 3 minutes ago, roman_bairn said: Maybe that might have been an option had the planned meeting taken place? Instead the investors have allowed themselves to look like they threw the toys out of the pram without taking every opportunity to make their case sadly.... BPM has stated their case on several occasions. We still haven’t heard why the BoD did not want this investment....other than the NB guys withdrew their offer. I don’t know the reasons, but it looks as though the NB made compromises. There must have been something said from the other side for them to walk away. We still haven’t got to the bottom of that part yet. Last night in the Q&A Gordon Colborn indicated that there were things that the BoD wouldn’t agree to. We have no idea what that was. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadwell Dog Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 Just now, roman_bairn said: No, I’m trying to be devils advocate after 50 pages of a one sided, and possibly fair, assessment of the failings of the board. Only people criticising me for trying to ask balanced questions are those who already have an ‘entrenched position’. It seems it’s unfair to question the reasoning of one party but not the other according to some..... The questions have been answered time and again on.here by BPM and others though. The bod are the ones hiding behind secrecy and lies. There is not a single prerequisite that couldn't have been supplied by the bod by simply calling an egm of the shareholders and getting them to vote on it like they did with the Rawlins. The bod only represent 26 percent of the shareholding and yet they have kod a large investment in the club without breathing a word of it to the vast majority of the shareholding. It's quite obvious after the experiences of both the CI and navy blue that our bod cannot be trusted and have continuously lied and gone back on promises and agreements. Everytime these were questioned on the q and a we didn't get one answer to that part of the question. Lewis did a good job but as a q and a it was about as useful as a fart in a spacesuit as not once could anyone follow up or grill them on some of the pathetic answers to some questions whilst others were ignored completely. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadwell Dog Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 I still have to laugh at the arrogance of Gary Deans towards the ci boys. His idea that it doesn't matter that I promised you one thing on a certain date and then reneged on it totally as we shouldn't be getting entrenched in certain points in time. Is completely ludicrous. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 Makes you wonder if we have better in mind. Wouldn't have thought they could afford the compensation if indeed that is the case.We've still got plenty of the £500k from the government left. Have you spent all of yours? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zbairn Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 13 minutes ago, Believe The Hype said: 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. I take your exaggerated point. I am not convinced that the club has an official supply chain or contractor...but I could be wrong in that. However, the point was that there would be no accountability by the club either. They could use their preferred supplier who may have been much more expensive without oversight by those paying i.e the CI. The original concept agreed with club was for this to be a fans led initiative and they agreed that the CI would take this to completion. The club were happy initially with all aspects of this, including sourcing of suppliers.....only to demand control at a very late stage once people had been contacted for quotes. Many of the legal aspects re liability, insurances etc were also taken into account in conversations with the club and no issues were raised. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieBairn Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 Glad the Q&A had a positive effect on the state of this forum… 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL-FFC Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 14 minutes ago, Zbairn said: BPM has stated their case on several occasions. We still haven’t heard why the BoD did not want this investment....other than the NB guys withdrew their offer. I don’t know the reasons, but it looks as though the NB made compromises. There must have been something said from the other side for them to walk away. We still haven’t got to the bottom of that part yet. Last night in the Q&A Gordon Colborn indicated that there were things that the BoD wouldn’t agree to. We have no idea what that was. Pretty sure on the interview they mentioned there was preconditions the board were not going to agree to, but they said the board wanted further talks about the investment and TNB didnt respond (their version of events) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDust Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 3 hours ago, Syd Puddefoot said: Holts just not a likable person is he, and him being involved with recruitment is a worry. Justifying the January signings and stating Tiffony 'is young as well' when theres a 4 year age gap from tge guys we signed is desperate. stuff Massive season for us, we need to deliver. I recall Holt's first signing of Olu Durojaiye, he signed as the season ended. I like many thought he must be the real deal if he was signed that quickly. He could tackle, I'll give him that but was one of the slowest players I've ever seen at Falkirk, he even went on loan to Brechin and couldn't get a game. Holt also responsible for Phil Roberts ! It is very much a big season for us 1 hour ago, Grangemouth Bairn said: Is Vigurs not the nutter who’s got the reputation for always being drunk and fighting in the pubs ? Always ? As a player he is very capable, do we have a player in our midfield better, for me no. Not condoning any of his behaviour with alcohol but we have had our fair share of players who have enjoyed a drink away from the pitch. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bainsfordbairn Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 21 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said: 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? The company who took over Imperial Cars are still honouring the contract and paying monthly fees for the branding. I was told the value and it's a substantial amount of cash. It's up to that company to decide if they want to change their signage or not. I was inside Livvy's stadium last Sunday and noticed they also have Imperial Cars adverts. I'd assume there's still a lot of the old Imperial logos that they need to update. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zbairn Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 8 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said: I still have to laugh at the arrogance of Gary Deans towards the ci boys. His idea that it doesn't matter that I promised you one thing on a certain date and then reneged on it totally as we shouldn't be getting entrenched in certain points in time. Is completely ludicrous. Apparently GD wanted all discussions to be held over the phone as he did not want/like anything to be written in e mails. I wonder why? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman_bairn Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 BPM has stated their case on several occasions. We still haven’t heard why the BoD did not want this investment....other than the NB guys withdrew their offer. I don’t know the reasons, but it looks as though the NB made compromises. There must have been something said from the other side for them to walk away. We still haven’t got to the bottom of that part yet. Last night in the Q&A Gordon Colborn indicated that there were things that the BoD wouldn’t agree to. We have no idea what that was. I don’t think Ive seen anywhere that the board did not want the investment. It looked more like they could not accept the conditions that were attached and did appear to suggest that they were not in a position to agree immediately to some of them. Presumably suggesting that it would have needed a shareholder vote to agree, although no doubt that’s something they probably did not want?What compromises did the NB make?… 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zbairn Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 Just now, roman_bairn said: I don’t think Ive seen anywhere that the board did not want the investment. It looked more like they could not accept the conditions that were attached and did appear to suggest that they were not in a position to agree immediately to some of them. Presumably suggesting that it would have needed a shareholder vote to agree, although no doubt it’s something they probably did not want? What compromises did the NB make?… Read BPM’s post 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believe The Hype Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 5 minutes ago, Zbairn said: I take your exaggerated point. I am not convinced that the club has an official supply chain or contractor...but I could be wrong in that. However, the point was that there would be no accountability by the club either. They could use their preferred supplier who may have been much more expensive without oversight by those paying i.e the CI. The original concept agreed with club was for this to be a fans led initiative and they agreed that the CI would take this to completion. The club were happy initially with all aspects of this, including sourcing of suppliers.....only to demand control at a very late stage once people had been contacted for quotes. Many of the legal aspects re liability, insurances etc were also taken into account in conversations with the club and no issues were raised. Sounds to me then, which could be a possibility, that the club have been all for it, CI guys have done all the leg work, then once certain contractors, partners, suppliers etc that have an affiliation with the board and that could have carried this out and got the business, got wind of the initiative and have then made it clear they were unhappy not to be considered the contracts. Jobs for the boys as they say. Again just food for thought. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FFC 1876 Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Zbairn said: BPM has stated their case on several occasions. We still haven’t heard why the BoD did not want this investment....other than the NB guys withdrew their offer. I don’t know the reasons, but it looks as though the NB made compromises. There must have been something said from the other side for them to walk away. We still haven’t got to the bottom of that part yet. Last night in the Q&A Gordon Colborn indicated that there were things that the BoD wouldn’t agree to. We have no idea what that was. I think it's painstakingly obvious what the board wouldn't agree to as it's been papped on here several times. The navy blue group wanted Deans gone and only 2 of the remaining board leftover. Gordon Colborn's answer last night alluded to 'we couldn't do that as our shareholders had voted Gary/other board members in place' essentially the boards point of view is the demands were too much but the NB's point of view is for the money they were proposing they were entitled to ask for whatever they wanted. The NB group were obviously willing to concede on certain parts of their wants but the board obviously weren't going to concede, probably didn't help that obviously all of the board and the Rawlins have become quite tight nit over the past year so asking for that to be disbanded was always going to be a tough ask(obviously that doesn't make it the wrong thing for the NB group to ask for as we all know here our board could still do with a shake up) We keep getting told about the three pronged stool and how the club would love to have fans on board in the running of the club but that's exactly what NB were asking for, 2 from the current board, 2 from the rawlins and 2 from the navy blue group with an independent chairmen which is obviously a three pronger and the board clearly couldn't come to terms with losing a few of the current members which is disappointing. In summary some of the demands from the NB group seemed a bit strong but when you are ponying up that kind of money you are entitled to make demands. Still seems like a massive opportunity missed to dilute Standy and Martin Ritchie's shares and have a much needed change at the top with fans and football men on the board. Edited June 25, 2021 by FFC 1876 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falkirkzombie Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 1 minute ago, roman_bairn said: What compromises did the NB make?… it been answered before but they agreed to work with Holt after the BOD backed him, they originally wanted him replace/removed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 56 minutes ago, Believe The Hype said: 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. Not the case. When I was involved in putting the Murals in the people running the club at the time were more than happy that the contractors I put forward. Red herring 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grangemouth Bairn Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 29 minutes ago, MrDust said: I recall Holt's first signing of Olu Durojaiye, he signed as the season ended. I like many thought he must be the real deal if he was signed that quickly. He could tackle, I'll give him that but was one of the slowest players I've ever seen at Falkirk, he even went on loan to Brechin and couldn't get a game. Holt also responsible for Phil Roberts ! It is very much a big season for us Always ? As a player he is very capable, do we have a player in our midfield better, for me no. Not condoning any of his behaviour with alcohol but we have had our fair share of players who have enjoyed a drink away from the pitch. Sorry should have said ‘regularly’ - not seen enough of him to comment on his ability as a player tbh so you could be right about how good he is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.