The Falkirk FC Thread

[roman_bairn]

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. 

I’m not sure re the split between FSS and the patrons, but it’s extremely worrying to me that the club may be dependent on soft loans or shares being purchased by the very people that there was almost unanimous criticism, and a desire to see out of the club not that long ago.
Feels like really desperate times and understandable re the frustration expressed re the lack of fans investment in the club to date…

[ShaggerG]

36 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.

The difference being that the previous board would have given Rennie a two year deal.

[Jimmy1876]

5 minutes ago, StuartA said:

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.

Just to say what I said was not meant as a criticism as I think FSS is a great plan and idea, was more a point of wondering what had happened or if there was some change where there might not be a new board member. Thanks for the explanation and fair enough, these are big jobs for people to do in their spare time. 

[Roboccop]

2 hours ago, gav-ffc said:

What about being able to up it to £15 a month rather than the next jump being £20?

You çan. You just change the amount you send by PayPal manually. It does meant you will have to cancel the current payment and rejoin but there’s no downside to that. 

[ShaggerG]

15 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:

I’m not sure re the split between FSS and the patrons, but it’s extremely worrying to me that the club may be dependent on soft loans or shares being purchased by the very people that there was almost unanimous criticism, and a desire to see out of the club not that long ago.
Feels like really desperate times and understandable re the frustration expressed re the lack of fans investment in the club to date…

I'm not entirely sure that fans wanted rid of the MSG, they wanted them to relinquish their power. There were of course many people who, not only wanted rid of them, but would have happily seen them hung drawn and quartered however!

I don't know either MR or SA personally but, as I understand things, both have come to our rescue in the past so I can't personally see any reason why they couldn't be considered as 'another leg of the stool'?

I'm sure there will be a queue of people that will tell me why that would be a bad idea though.

[Guest Caractacus Potts]

16 minutes ago, Roboccop said:

You çan. You just change the amount you send by PayPal manually. It does meant you will have to cancel the current payment and rejoin but there’s no downside to that. 

How about the issue with the £5/month option regarding voting rights. Doesn’t make sense to me as being an issue if there is no more rights for those who pay more? 

[LatapyBairn.]

16 minutes ago, Caractacus Potts said:

How about the issue with the £5/month option regarding voting rights. Doesn’t make sense to me as being an issue if there is no more rights for those who pay more? 

I can see the reasoning behind it, the whole principal of a fan/community run organisation like the FSS is not only to raise finance but to give regular fans a say on how our club is ran regardless of how much money they have,  it absolutely needs to be one member one vote. Whether the best minimum membership fee is £5, £10 or £20 a month is up for debate but I think there does need to be a minimum amount set for the group to maximise its ability to raise the funds required not only to purchase the target 26% shareholding but also to help improve the clubs finances going forward. Many fans/members will continue to be happy donating over and above the set minimum as is already happening not because they seek further voting capacity but because they believe in the project and want to see it and the club succeed. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[Guest Caractacus Potts]

11 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

I can see the reasoning behind it, the whole principal of a fan/community run organisation like the FSS is not only to raise finance but to give give regular fans a say in how our club is ran regardless of how much money they have,  it absolutely needs to be one member one vote. Whether the minimum membership fee a £5, £10 or £20 a month is up for debate but I think there does need to be a minimum amount. 

I agree.

Asking as the reason cited for not doing £5 was because of the voting rights but you get no more for paying above £10 so see no reason it should be an issue for paying £5. Just gives the option for those who can’t stretch to £10/month. 
 

Maybe there should be a vote on whether it should be introduced? Easiest way to sort it. 

[Bairnardo]

I agree.
Asking as the reason cited for not doing £5 was because of the voting rights but you get no more for paying above £10 so see no reason it should be an issue for paying £5. Just gives the option for those who can’t stretch to £10/month. 
 
Maybe there should be a vote on whether it should be introduced? Easiest way to sort it. 

Aye. If the facility exists to pay more then where the floor sits is irrelevant. If there is an issue with voting then that issue surely exists the same for someone who pays in 5 where others pay 10, as it does for someone paying 10 where others pay 20

[LatapyBairn.]

8 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

35 minutes ago, Caractacus Potts said:

I agree.
Asking as the reason cited for not doing £5 was because of the voting rights but you get no more for paying above £10 so see no reason it should be an issue for paying £5. Just gives the option for those who can’t stretch to £10/month. 
 
Maybe there should be a vote on whether it should be introduced? Easiest way to sort it. 

Aye. If the facility exists to pay more then where the floor sits is irrelevant. If there is an issue with voting then that issue surely exists the same for someone who pays in 5 where others pay 10, as it does for someone paying 10 where others pay 20

The question is deciding what the optimum minimum membership fee is, I actually think £10 is about the right balance but perhaps lowering it to £5 would encourage enough extra members joining to make it a good move financially. The other side of the coin is obviously people who would have paid the £10 possibly opting to lower contributions to £5 which could result in less overall income, some members may chose to do this and nobody really knows if lowering the minimum membership fee would have a net positive or negative impact on the overall pot raised each month. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[Believe The Hype]

33 minutes ago, Caractacus Potts said:

I agree.

Asking as the reason cited for not doing £5 was because of the voting rights but you get no more for paying above £10 so see no reason it should be an issue for paying £5. Just gives the option for those who can’t stretch to £10/month. 
 

Maybe there should be a vote on whether it should be introduced? Easiest way to sort it. 

I thought I pointed out the logic pretty clear. If you want to pay more then that's up to you, paying less than what was the minimum and asking for the same advantages is where the difference clearly lies. 

[Believe The Hype]

33 minutes ago, Caractacus Potts said:

I agree.

Asking as the reason cited for not doing £5 was because of the voting rights but you get no more for paying above £10 so see no reason it should be an issue for paying £5. Just gives the option for those who can’t stretch to £10/month. 
 

Maybe there should be a vote on whether it should be introduced? Easiest way to sort it. 

I thought I pointed out the logic pretty clear. If you want to pay more then that's up to you, paying less than what was the minimum and asking for the same advantages is where the difference clearly lies. 

[Guest]

1 hour 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.

……….that’s all fine and well as a critique provided that you brush context under the rug in the hope that no-one mentions it.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Proudtobeabairn said:

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

It is also a major reason for not going above £10 a month. Five people can put in a tenner a month and have five votes. One person can put in £50, yet they get one vote. Sorry, that isn’t right.

Equally, how much should be paid before a vote is possible? It would be easy for say 20 people to join, pay £10, then vote, then cancel their SOs. Result? £200 buys 20 votes. Someone paying £10 a month for a year……£120…..that buys 1 vote. Someone putting in £50 a month for a year…….£600……that buys 1 vote.
There is zero incentive to pay more than £10 a month. Your “easy to manage” is even easier to manipulate.

[Guest Caractacus Potts]

33 minutes ago, Believe The Hype said:

I thought I pointed out the logic pretty clear. If you want to pay more then that's up to you, paying less than what was the minimum and asking for the same advantages is where the difference clearly lies. 

Was asking Robbocop from the FSS who cited the voting rights as the main reason. 

All other fan groups have a £5 option.

What you suggested is logical but there is also as much logic suggesting it won’t affect the £10 contributions. The FSS can easily check out the potential reactions however by running a survey or a vote. The more interaction with members, the better too. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by Caractacus Potts

[Believe The Hype]

9 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

It is also a major reason for not going above £10 a month. Five people can put in a tenner a month and have five votes. One person can put in £50, yet they get one vote. Sorry, that isn’t right.

Equally, how much should be paid before a vote is possible? It would be easy for say 20 people to join, pay £10, then vote, then cancel their SOs. Result? £200 buys 20 votes. Someone paying £10 a month for a year……£120…..that buys 1 vote. Someone putting in £50 a month for a year…….£600……that buys 1 vote.
There is zero incentive to pay more than £10 a month. Your “easy to manage” is even easier to manipulate.

I would like to think people are contributing what they can to help the club, not to buy up power. This is a stinking attitude. Reeks of tory as well. Why should people with more money have a louder voice? Aren't all supporters one and the same in this cause? 

[bairn88]

19 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

It is also a major reason for not going above £10 a month. Five people can put in a tenner a month and have five votes. One person can put in £50, yet they get one vote. Sorry, that isn’t right.

Equally, how much should be paid before a vote is possible? It would be easy for say 20 people to join, pay £10, then vote, then cancel their SOs. Result? £200 buys 20 votes. Someone paying £10 a month for a year……£120…..that buys 1 vote. Someone putting in £50 a month for a year…….£600……that buys 1 vote.
There is zero incentive to pay more than £10 a month. Your “easy to manage” is even easier to manipulate.

Says who?

[Bairnardo]

If its about voting rights, why can't votes be weighted based on contribution if its that important?

I don't care who says it, if there is a market for more contributors at a lower entry point , its an absolutely wild reason not to explore it.

[Jimmy1876]

36 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

It is also a major reason for not going above £10 a month. Five people can put in a tenner a month and have five votes. One person can put in £50, yet they get one vote. Sorry, that isn’t right.

 

I think this completely missed the point of FSS. Buying power is something previous boards have allowed and has allowed a culture of "I have more money I have more say". That is literally everything that fan ownership is trying to avoid. The £10 is not to "buy a vote", it's to enter into a SUPPORTER group which is trying to benefit and build the club and eventually get fan ownership. As part of being a member of that group, you also get to vote, as one person. Just because you have more money does not mean your opinion is more valid, more important or more worthy than someone who cannot afford it and that notion should be binned tbh. If you want to buy more power, buy shares, but that's surely not the point of the FSS? The idea of paying more per month is for the benefit of the club, not to better your own position.

Edited October 4, 2022 by Jimmy1876
Spelling

[FFC 1876]

36 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

It is also a major reason for not going above £10 a month. Five people can put in a tenner a month and have five votes. One person can put in £50, yet they get one vote. Sorry, that isn’t right.

Equally, how much should be paid before a vote is possible? It would be easy for say 20 people to join, pay £10, then vote, then cancel their SOs. Result? £200 buys 20 votes. Someone paying £10 a month for a year……£120…..that buys 1 vote. Someone putting in £50 a month for a year…….£600……that buys 1 vote.
There is zero incentive to pay more than £10 a month. Your “easy to manage” is even easier to manipulate.