The Falkirk FC Thread

[FFC 1876]

14 minutes ago, TxRover said:

Yea, and you pumped us six nil, but that didn’t mean much at the end. I’m kidding about Nando, somewhat…but I do think he’d do the job in League One or Two for someone.

I'm saving that result for when we get pumped in any of our friendlies.

[FFC 1876]

56 minutes ago, Syd Puddefoot said:

Soccerbase has him playing zero games for Rothes and scoring 19 goals. He must be good.

 

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

8 hours ago, AL-FFC said:

The investments on the Scotsman news article and got to admit after reading it after the comments by Colburn they come out of it looking worse than the Q&A, f**k knows how they managed it but they did. Bit of a contradiction there as well we want fan ownership and investment.

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/falkirk-supporters-consortium-explains-why-talks-over-potential-ps500k-investment-ended-3287053

Gordon Colborn said the club was disappointed confidential talks had reached social media but explained “discussions made it clear they were a number of pre-conditions associated with their proposed investment in the club”. He added: “There was one which the board simply could not deliver and was outwith the board’s authority.

"We were in a place where this was not going to work, but to re-emphasise the board did not turn down an offer, the group removed themselves from the discussions and I would let them explain why.”

“This was not acceptable to the Navy Blue who, as a group would not accept any proposal that diluted our vision and saw a level of influence and control that did not match the level of investment being provided.

“In our opinion significant change is clearly required at board level before this objective can be achieved and we regret our offering was unable to bring about that change.”

In the two-hour Q&A Mr Colborn did stress the club was supportive of fan ownership and added: “I don't want to find ourselves in a situation where things are said and positions become so entrenched that we can never recover. That's not good for the club because we want to see investment in the club from fans and welcome it, but it has to be reasonable and come without a set of pre-conditions that the board simply can't deliver on.”

 

 

it's obvious where it broke down: the NB were asking for Directors to stand down and the BoD were taking the view they were appointed by the shareholders and didn't see that they should. This can only be what was.

It's actually quite surprising that their objectives are so similar, maybe the NB wanted things quicker, who knows.

The question is why didn't one or two of them accept to secure £550k they should stand aside? If that's the case it's pretty disappointing.

Talks went on for six weeks? Why wasn't that resolved? The impression I got from the Q&A is the board is pretty tight and the Rawlins are running the show. With 26%!

I imagine they didn't want that happy and conveniently beneficial balance disrupted. Didn't PR say he wanted stability? 

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

On 26/06/2021 at 18:25, HonestAl said:

Thanks for the reply, and to Duncan F too.

Just taking a couple of points from your response.

a. Whether it comes to fruition or not, the BoD stated that there will be a share issue to raise capital. And they are open to fans investment too - just not of the sort that would stipulate removal of current board / members of staff.

b. I wasn’t aware of your understanding regarding a company being set up. I do feel if NB wish the backing of 99% of the fan base who are not “in the know”, far more detail is required. 
Oh, and has been stated previously, can’t see how this could be achieved without the expense of £200 an hour lawyers - on both sides.

a. That's exactly where they are - that's a lot of pressure to out themselves under. Plus I gather the last two share issues members of the NB have bought a sizeable number of shares. One where it was the majority. Not sure if that will happen this time round. Worryingly the fans supporters group isn't getting a lot of traction so I'm not sure there is a lot of interest out there.

b. The NB investment is dead, they won't be back I'm told. 

[TxRover]

21 minutes ago, FFC 1876 said:

I'm saving that result for when we get pumped in any of our friendlies.

Alway good. Assuming Sheerin is a competent manager, he’ll be mix and matching his available players throughout the friendlies anyway, so the result, goals and everything mean pretty much diddly, especially if the other lot is doing the same. It does serve to liven up P&B speculation though.

[Shadwell Dog]

13 minutes ago, Brockvillenomore said:

it's obvious where it broke down: the NB were asking for Directors to stand down and the BoD were taking the view they were appointed by the shareholders and didn't see that they should. This can only be what was.

It's actually quite surprising that their objectives are so similar, maybe the NB wanted things quicker, who knows.

The question is why didn't one or two of them accept to secure £550k they should stand aside? If that's the case it's pretty disappointing.

Talks went on for six weeks? Why wasn't that resolved? The impression I got from the Q&A is the board is pretty tight and the Rawlins are running the show. With 26%!

I imagine they didn't want that happy and conveniently beneficial balance disrupted. Didn't PR say he wanted stability? 

Deans if he had any sense of dignity would've walked in the summer but decided after asking his chums on the board that he would hang about like a bad smell. No chance of him now losing his blazer.

[AL-FFC]

1 hour ago, TxRover said:

Yea, and you pumped us six nil, but that didn’t mean much at the end. I’m kidding about Nando, somewhat…but I do think he’d do the job in League One or Two for someone.

Going to stop with the do a job in league 1 we've heard that long enough and funnily enough every player thats been said about hasnt been able to.

[AL-FFC]

1 hour ago, Brockvillenomore said:

it's obvious where it broke down: the NB were asking for Directors to stand down and the BoD were taking the view they were appointed by the shareholders and didn't see that they should. This can only be what was.

It's actually quite surprising that their objectives are so similar, maybe the NB wanted things quicker, who knows.

The question is why didn't one or two of them accept to secure £550k they should stand aside? If that's the case it's pretty disappointing.

Talks went on for six weeks? Why wasn't that resolved? The impression I got from the Q&A is the board is pretty tight and the Rawlins are running the show. With 26%!

I imagine they didn't want that happy and conveniently beneficial balance disrupted. Didn't PR say he wanted stability? 

arent the new members of the board pals of GD, the other thing is they wanted to add 2 spaces to the board the NB said the board was too top heavy hence the removal of persons.  Also the only reason i can fathom they are clinging onto Rawlins for dear life is the fact that 1. he has a proven track record in football and successful with it. 2. they are relying on Rawlins experience and contacts to try and redeem themselves for the past 4 seasons of utter failure in us becoming successful so they can turn round at the end of it and say "we told you so, we were right" its pretty much fire enough bullets at a target one of them has to hit which isnt a good way to run a football club and neither is clinging onto egos in which we have with us.

[bridge of allan bairn]

Based on the comments on here the past few days the Q&A doesnt seem to have improved the relationship between the board and the fans, if anything it seems to have made the fans even more sceptical. 

I went into watching it with an open mind as I'm not ITK but came out not really taking to any of the characters involved, with the exception of Phil Rawlins and Sheerin who is just in the door. 

[Guest Caractacus Potts]

1 hour ago, Brockvillenomore said:

it's obvious where it broke down: the NB were asking for Directors to stand down and the BoD were taking the view they were appointed by the shareholders and didn't see that they should. This can only be what was.

It's actually quite surprising that their objectives are so similar, maybe the NB wanted things quicker, who knows.

The question is why didn't one or two of them accept to secure £550k they should stand aside? If that's the case it's pretty disappointing.

Talks went on for six weeks? Why wasn't that resolved? The impression I got from the Q&A is the board is pretty tight and the Rawlins are running the show. With 26%!

I imagine they didn't want that happy and conveniently beneficial balance disrupted. Didn't PR say he wanted stability? 

That will be the case. They allowed the rest of the board plus their friend John Bonner to amass 215,800 of the previous MSG shares. That would guarantee the Rawlins the 5% needed to take full control of the club should the other shareholders line up to get rid of them, assuming they take their 45% option. 
 

The board, John Bonner and their 45% option is their back stop should things get difficult but why do that when you can control it with only 26%. 
 

That’s why I’m cynical about this 3 legged stool model as they have actively set up this so they can remain in control whatever happens. That to me suggest they want 2 other thirds to invest as much but not attain the same level of power.  Maybe why the NB guys got rejected too as didn’t want to get rid of their backup. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Caractacus Potts said:

That will be the case. They allowed the rest of the board plus their friend John Bonner to amass 215,800 of the previous MSG shares. That would guarantee the Rawlins the 5% needed to take full control of the club should the other shareholders line up to get rid of them, assuming they take their 45% option. 
 

The board, John Bonner and their 45% option is their back stop should things get difficult but why do that when you can control it with only 26%. 
 

That’s why I’m cynical about this 3 legged stool model as they have actively set up this so they can remain in control whatever happens. That to me suggest they want 2 other thirds to invest as much but not attain the same level of power.  Maybe why the NB guys got rejected too as didn’t want to get rid of their backup. 

There is certainly something we are still to be told IMO

[Gollum]

2 hours ago, clachbairn said:

tristian nydam looks like trialist c

 

Does look very much like him and at first glance that could be a great option for centre midfield.

Played 18 games in the Championship for Ipswich at 18 years old and was seemingly out with injury for two seasons. Must be checking out his fitness status but if that is ok, surely he has the quality for this pish league?! Still only 21 on top of that so sounds a belter to me. 

Edit: Here's a link on his time there: https://www.eadt.co.uk/sport/ipswich-town/tristan-nydam-exit-interview-7978966

"So why was his release surprising? Well, Nydam’s courage to battle back from a nasty injury saw him first return in the Under 23s in February, after 581 days out. He then took to the field for 30 minutes in the first game after the club’s American takeover, showing many of his old qualities as he provided the only real highlight of another drab 0-0 draw with MK Dons in April."

His display prompted some extremely encouraging words from boss Paul Cook, who said: “Tristan has the heart, desire and hunger that a lot of people at this football club don’t have. 

"I’ve watched him in two Under-23s games. When pain comes, he bites it to his bottom lip and drives on. That’s a characteristic that I love in players.” 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Gollum

[Guest Caractacus Potts]

26 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

There is certainly something we are still to be told IMO

I just get pretty weary of things. Phil sounded good but when people produce lists with a lot of filler on it then it makes me wonder. Getting a shirt sponsor, trialing 60 players, having 100 applicants for the managers position, hiring an assistant. A lot of these things are just part of the day to day running of a club. It’s the detail that matters and we haven’t heard anything about how good these deals are, how great the applicants were, how good the trialists were etc. Just tell us the few things that can really excite us because if you stick them in with the rest of the stuff it starts to feel like its just sales speak and the substance isn’t quite as impressive. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Caractacus Potts

[Stainrod]

1 hour ago, Shadwell Dog said:

Deans if he had any sense of dignity would've walked in the summer but decided after asking his chums on the board that he would hang about like a bad smell. No chance of him now losing his blazer.

Sadly Deans looked like a shadow of the confident guy when he was first appointed to the board . His fumbling and bumbling performance on the Q& A won’t have done his credentials as a business consultant any favors. He has given up a lot for the club and perhaps there is too much pressure on him to continue under such expectation of instant success. Irrespective how serious the football is to all of us his well being and health should come first after all it is a volunteer role at the end of the day! 

[Proudtobeabairn]

We definitely need to make the last 4-5 signings count.  They have to be better than whats there already. 

From the Q&A I came away a bit more confident about Rawlins and less confident about Holt.  The latter being the biggest Red Flag of the night.  

Forr me 2 of the most alarming things were Holt saying he'd make the same January signings again and that all 3 had gone through their new player profiling before being signed.  That's worrying.  He also mentioned he's always asking for more money/more signings.  Get them right 1st time and you won't need to be doing that.  

If the board don't want attention on them, they need the last few signings to be good..

[Guest Peter LaFleur]

46 minutes ago, Proudtobeabairn said:

We definitely need to make the last 4-5 signings count.  They have to be better than whats there already. 

From the Q&A I came away a bit more confident about Rawlins and less confident about Holt.  The latter being the biggest Red Flag of the night.  

Forr me 2 of the most alarming things were Holt saying he'd make the same January signings again and that all 3 had gone through their new player profiling before being signed.  That's worrying.  He also mentioned he's always asking for more money/more signings.  Get them right 1st time and you won't need to be doing that.  

If the board don't want attention on them, they need the last few signings to be good..

Aye. If the next 4 signings are strong it makes the Seb Ross signing more acceptable as someone with potential Sheerin believes he can develop. But if we see 3/4 signings of that ilk then we are in major trouble. Terrified to see Wilson announced next week.

On another note, Deans for me should be gone. I was yelling at my screen as he came away with being scared of M&M’s recruitment last season. So were we but you were in a position to step in and do something about it. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Peter LaFleur

[GeordieBairn]

5 minutes ago, Peter LaFleur said:

Aye. If the next 4 signings are strong it makes the Seb Ross signing more acceptable as someone with potential Sheerin believes he can develop. But if we see 3/4 signings of that ilk then we are in major trouble. Terrified to see Wilson announced next week.

On another note, Deans for me should be gone. I was yelling at my screen as he came away with being scared of M&M’s recruitment last season. So were we but you were in a position to do something about it. 

Wasn’t he on about when he first joined the board when McKinnon was still in charge? Might be wrong but thats how I interpreted it

[Guest Caractacus Potts]

14 minutes ago, Stainrod said:

Sadly Deans looked like a shadow of the confident guy when he was first appointed to the board . His fumbling and bumbling performance on the Q& A won’t have done his credentials as a business consultant any favors. He has given up a lot for the club and perhaps there is too much pressure on him to continue under such expectation of instant success. Irrespective how serious the football is to all of us his well being and health should come first after all it is a volunteer role at the end of the day! 

Agree entirely with the sentiment but sounds like the board have to consider how they treat people too. There are proper volunteers and staff members who spend a lot of time and effort doing stuff for the club and get treated poorly. It’s happened throughout the years but still appears to be continuing. That’s on them. 

[Guest Caractacus Potts]

11 minutes ago, Peter LaFleur said:

Aye. If the next 4 signings are strong it makes the Seb Ross signing more acceptable as someone with potential Sheerin believes he can develop. But if we see 3/4 signings of that ilk then we are in major trouble. Terrified to see Wilson announced next week.

On another note, Deans for me should be gone. I was yelling at my screen as he came away with being scared of M&M’s recruitment last season. So were we but you were in a position to do something about it. 

Thought he threw them under the bus a bit there. He said in his statement in September  last year that ‘we’ve been able to provide Lee and David with the resources to put together a squad that we believe is capable of taking us back to the Championship.’

Ofcourse you’d say what else could he say at the time but then if he says similar now regarding Sheerin you’re less likely to believe it. He could have lauded Holt/Sheerins recruitment process without having a go at M and M. People take notice to that and sure it wouldn’t have gone amiss to David and Lee. 

[bairn88]

21 minutes ago, Peter LaFleur said:

Aye. If the next 4 signings are strong it makes the Seb Ross signing more acceptable as someone with potential Sheerin believes he can develop. But if we see 3/4 signings of that ilk then we are in major trouble. Terrified to see Wilson announced next week.

On another note, Deans for me should be gone. I was yelling at my screen as he came away with being scared of M&M’s recruitment last season. So were we but you were in a position to do something about it. 

I’m passed that stage now. When we signed Nesbitt, McKay etc I’d hoped that  was the easy, “safe” signings that we probs need for the squad, but wouldn’t be on a huge wage. What I think is actually the case however, is that those were those “profiled” by Corr or whoever, and who Holt thinks he’s scouted. Further proof of this is the utter state of the diddies we’re now giving trials to. A strike force of Keena, dowds and Wilson, with Gary miller in Centre mid, McKay at CB, and a shaky Mutch could be.......4th at best