The Falkirk FC Thread

[bairn88]

28 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

Forgive me if I'm picking something up wrong here from just reading posts about this podcast having not listened to it, but am I reading this correctly? Your board have deliberately set a budget with projected expenditure £400K higher than projected income, and the plans to make up that shortfall are more fans contributing to FSS (on the basis of joining from October at £10 a month you'd need 5000 new members to raise £400K by May), then the hope that privately wealthy individuals will step forward to cover whatever gap remains after that, whether that be through soft loans, share purchases or donations from the goodness of their hearts?

That seems highly risky, to say the least. What happens if that £400K can't be raised?

I get that there's a desperation to get out of that division while there was a squad containing shite inherited from the previous board and managers, but the size of Falkirk's support is kind of the point here. When you have such high attendances relative to the rest of the division you should be able to live within your means and still have the highest (or second highest, Dunfermline dependent) budget in the division with a competitive squad to match. If you can't build a title challenging League One squad with £1.9M you are doing something extremely wrong.

Rent on a stand, rent to council, 14 jobber players signed up on good wages very few of which McGlynn wanted, having to hire a proper management team (something our previous board failed miserably at). A very expensive immediate list for why we find it difficult not to run at a loss in this league. 

[grahamstonbairn]

2 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Yes, very frank and open.

The one thing which I would have liked to know is - ‘when does the cash run out?’ Is it November or December?

With the best will in the world, FSS is NEVER going to be able to plug the gap.

So we’re back to soft loans or a new investor.

Wasn't clear as to whether the usual donors had been approached and, if so, how amenable they would be to help.

It just all seems to be so, so late in the day when the same information was available months ago.

Their analysis of the situation was good but I’m not filled with a lot of confidence that they’ve been taking the necessary action and speaking to the right people to solve the short term problem.

I think I can now see why the FD resigned.
No mention of the AGM- worrying - probably down to the Auditors needing comfort?

Fingers crossed.

Excellent summary.

I would love to be a fly on the wall at the MSG meeting. 

[RC_Bairn]

10 minutes ago, bairn88 said:

Rent on a stand, rent to council, 14 jobber players signed up on good wages very few of which McGlynn wanted, having to hire a proper management team (something our previous board failed miserably at). A very expensive immediate list for why we find it difficult not to run at a loss in this league. 

None of which are a new phenomenon.  Every board in the last ten years has had to pay rent on the stand, to the council and had players on the books that the new manager didn't fancy.  

And don't forget the current board hired Martin Rennie!

Edited October 4, 2022 by RC_Bairn

[Zbairn]

8 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

None of which are a new phenomenon.  Every board in the last ten years has had to pay rent on the stand, to the council and had players on the books that the new manager didn't fancy.  

And don't forget the current board hired Martin Rennie!

Previous Boards hired Hartley and Sheerin.... if we go back even further - Lambie, Bannon, etc.

Your point is ?  How often do a Board get the managers appointment right first time ?

[bairn88]

12 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

None of which are a new phenomenon.  Every board in the last ten years has had to pay rent on the stand, to the council and had players on the books that the new manager didn't fancy.  

And don't forget the current board hired Martin Rennie!

Hmm, I presume you haven't listened to the podcast yet? It's a worthwhile listen imo.

I have no skin in the game. But there are specific mentions of times we would've ran out of cash if it wasn't for the numerous multi million pound player sales in the last decade. Very timely sell on fees/appearance fees (Tony Gallacher at Liverpool being the lol one) also crucial.

"New phenomenon" they are not, but there has been get out of jail free cards for previous incumbents. Not now. 

ETA - Rennie was given a 6 month deal. Using this as proof of how terrible the board are? Shiter. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by bairn88

[Believe The Hype]

19 minutes ago, Caractacus Potts said:

I don’t think many will drop down as I’d imagine most who contribute do so for the ideology of it and not for a vote. 

We keep referencing the Hearts, St.Mirren and Motherwell models who all have £5 options so if we want to try and have as many members then we need to do the same. £10 may be too much of a stretch for some fans so they should be accommodated with a £5 option. 

I agree but some might not think it fair, like when sky etc come in with these deals for new customers only pissing off those who already pay more for the same service as there was no option for them of this deal at the time. 

I'm sure lots of options are being looked at to accommodate as many contributors as possible. 

[LatapyBairn.]

3 minutes ago, Zbairn said:

Previous Boards hired Hartley and Sheerin.... if we go back even further - Lambie, Bannon, etc.

Your point is ?  How often do a Board get the managers appointment right first time ?

Also Martin Rennie was on a 6 month deal, at least we didn’t have an expensive pay off to fork out in his case like others. He was punted/left free of charge. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[Jimmy1876]

New poster so hope I don't get slated for that  but will add I think the board so far are doing some good things but also some actions (such as the recent email) should be criticised. But I just wanted to clarify a few points with the finances based on what was said in the podcast that I am quite worried about. Also had a question about the FSS which I am a big supporter of and have upped my subscription today having listened to the podcast. 

Just to lay out the finances for the last several years: 

2019/2020 (curtailed in March) - Income: £2.1m (had the season continued), expenditure: £2.5m, loss: about £400k (covered with soft loans??)

2020/2021 (covid season) - Income: £1.1m, expenditure £1.8m, loss: £700k (covered by furlough scheme etc)

2021/2022 - Income: £1.3m, expenditure: £2.3m, loss: £1m (covered by Vaulks knock on/cash in the bank/more soft loans?)

2022/2023 (projected) - Income goal: £1.9m (+£600k from last season), projected expenditure: £2.3m, projected loss: £400k (covered by Plan A: FFS + Patrons, Plan B: Soft loans/investment). 

What worries me about this is actually not only the £400k projected loss, but that this is not including the additional £600k increase in income that this budget relies on. While they mentioned we were on track with that based on season tickets, increased crowds etc (and maybe also increased sponsorship?) this still means we have to make up £600k income that was not there last season. This means the big crowds etc are not remotely eating into the 400k and if for whatever reason the feel good nature on the park right now does not continue, we will actually be having to make up more than just the 400k projected loss. So we are not just trying to make up 400k, but basically trying to increase the incoming money into the club by £1m more than last season, and that is a frightening number.

I think it now makes sense why they have given the deadline of October to ringfence shares for FFS, because they just cannot wait any longer before searching for additional investment. Feels a very unsteady place to be in with the club right now. 

I also picked up on the FSS seeming to have not made any moves to appoint a new director? The last communication from FSS was when the last director resigned and there would be an update but nothing since then. No call for applications or indication if there will be another nomination. But the board members seemed to indicate they had been waiting on this from FSS so wondering why that has been delayed or put on the back burner? Feel like this is a massive job for just 4 guys and they need to expand the board at least a little.

Overall, concerned about how quickly these finances can be covered and just hoping the crowd numbers stay up the whole year to cover that increased income target.

[latapythelegend]

1 hour ago, FFC 1876 said:

Back to on the field, who we fancying?

A trip to Belfast for a good bevvy or Elgin so I can complete the 42.

[Shodwall cat]

1 hour ago, Dunning1874 said:

Forgive me if I'm picking something up wrong here from just reading posts about this podcast having not listened to it, but am I reading this correctly? Your board have deliberately set a budget with projected expenditure £400K higher than projected income, and the plans to make up that shortfall are more fans contributing to FSS (on the basis of joining from October at £10 a month you'd need 5000 new members to raise £400K by May), then the hope that privately wealthy individuals will step forward to cover whatever gap remains after that, whether that be through soft loans, share purchases or donations from the goodness of their hearts?

That seems highly risky, to say the least. What happens if that £400K can't be raised?

I get that there's a desperation to get out of that division while there was a squad containing shite inherited from the previous board and managers, but the size of Falkirk's support is kind of the point here. When you have such high attendances relative to the rest of the division you should be able to live within your means and still have the highest (or second highest, Dunfermline dependent) budget in the division with a competitive squad to match. If you can't build a title challenging League One squad with £1.9M you are doing something extremely wrong.

Try going from a million pound loss to break even in one season when you have a sizeable number of players contracted for the season ahead etc. It's just not feasible. 

[PedroMoutinho]

Frankly the financial situation is looking very worrying to me. We are heading for a huge unfunded loss (which will actually be higher in all likelihood given the very optimistic commercial targets).

It’s now looking like we’re going to need to go cap in hand to the MSG who the vast majority of fans including the current board wanted rid of. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the likes of MR tell the new board to sling their hooks in all honesty given the personal acrimony.

There are also clearly issues between the FSS and board/Patrons group. The FSS should be honest and open about what is going on- they are there to represent the Falkirk fans, not act as the gardening wing of the Patrons. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by PedroMoutinho

[Proudtobeabairn]

56 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

None of which are a new phenomenon.  Every board in the last ten years has had to pay rent on the stand, to the council and had players on the books that the new manager didn't fancy.  

And don't forget the current board hired Martin Rennie!

I think everyone should have a vote, regardless of whether £5, £10 or more.  That makes it easy to manage. 

Imo the only people who would drop from £10 to £5 would be those struggling with cost of living and who would otherwise stop their £10 payment completely.  

This is the most straightforward route to introducing a £5 option.  We're potentially locking out those who can't afford to contribute at all as things stand.  Nothing to stop us introducing other (non vote related) incentives to encourage others to up their payments.  

Also - time to stop the under 12s go free at the gate?   Would need to seek fans input here but £5 (or even £2.50) might be acceptable to most? No point giving tickets away to create fans of the future if they don't have a club to support by the time their 18.  

[RC_Bairn]

51 minutes ago, bairn88 said:

Hmm, I presume you haven't listened to the podcast yet? It's a worthwhile listen imo.

I have no skin in the game. But there are specific mentions of times we would've ran out of cash if it wasn't for the numerous multi million pound player sales in the last decade. Very timely sell on fees/appearance fees (Tony Gallacher at Liverpool being the lol one) also crucial.

"New phenomenon" they are not, but there has been get out of jail free cards for previous incumbents. Not now. 

ETA - Rennie was given a 6 month deal. Using this as proof of how terrible the board are? Shiter. 

Scroll up and you'll see I listened to the podcast.  The point I was making was that you were digging out previous boards for poor management recruitment yet conveniently forgot about Martin Rennie who is arguably one of the worst FFC managers in history - appointed by this board.  Shiter indeed.

[AL-FFC]

4 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

Scroll up and you'll see I listened to the podcast.  The point I was making was that you were digging out previous boards for poor management recruitment yet conveniently forgot about Martin Rennie who is arguably one of the worst FFC managers in history - appointed by this board.  Shiter indeed.

Give it a rest ffs, we are where we are for a reason appointing any manager is a gamble lets look at Sheerin, Hartley and McKinnon for the previous boards so there's 3 examples or do you want to talk about the track record of signings for Hartleys heroes not to mention possibly the worst goalkeeper in FFC history in Leo Fasan not to mention an added factor to our financial woes in terminating contracts for players for either being sh*t or not living up to their hype.

[Chinatoon Bairn]

Home to Dundee in the 4th round of the Trust Trophy.

[NavyBlueArmy1876]

Home to Dundee in the diddy diddy cup 

[latapythelegend]

Home to Dundee in the challenge cup.

Only positive being that is should be a 3k crowd that is not budgeted for. Say £10k after costs and splitting the gate. Chips away at that back hole.

[FFC 1876]

At least it's at home this time, chance to get some payback after the previous cup tie.

[Springfield]

Said previously that the FSS has just been a victim of very unlucky circumstances” and timing. Earlier post said we’ve attracted thirtyish new sign-ups, since the statement was released.

The uptake to say the least is very underwhelming given how dire the situation is. For me, I honestly believe that the current climate is biting far more intensive than many think.
Add on the absolutely shite years and we’ve got the perfect storm. 
I’ve no doubt SA will be asked to help, and from what I’ve heard he’s been the saviour more than once, unless a major player is brought on board.

[StuartA]

24 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

 

There are also clearly issues between the FSS and board/Patrons group. The FSS should be honest and open about what is going on- they are there to represent the Falkirk fans, not act as the gardening wing of the Patrons. 

Just wanted to respond on this point.  There are no issues or problems between FSS and the patrons group, or FSS and the board.  I don't know where this is coming from but it's simply untrue.  Many of the patrons group are FSS members too.  Happy to discuss with anyone who thinks that there is. 

We do need to get a shift on and appoint a new director, that's a fair criticism.  No reason for the delay other than taking a breath and all of us having lives/jobs etc.  We plan to communicate to members about that this week.