Jump to content

The Falkirk FC Thread


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

You’re becoming even more childish.

I don't know what's childish about pointing out the toryness in wanting more of a say than someone else simply because you can afford to give more money to the same cause but carry on.

Edited by FFC 1876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I joined the FSS when it first started and I’ve recently upped my monthly contribution but I see it as a donation to the club, I know I am lucky in the current financial climate to be able to do this. I don’t honestly care about voting rights/owning shares etc but that’s just me and each to their own. I see this more as a monthly donation than anything else.
Absolutely correct Harry. Me too
But dont like the idea that the bigger you pay the more you can say. That sinks of the usual capitalist mantra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, FFC 1876 said:

I don't know what's childish about pointing out the toryness in wanting more of a say than someone else simply because you can afford to give more money to the same cause but carry on.

Not appropriate to a football forum.

Looks like we’ll need some Tories to bail us out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bigbri Bairn said:

Absolutely correct Harry. Me too
But dont like the idea that the bigger you pay the more you can say. That sinks of the usual capitalist mantra

Yeah, I totally agree. You give what you can and you get equal voting rights no matter the amount.

Edited by Harry Kinnear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RC_Bairn said:

The Q&A was undoubtedly the straw that broke the camel's back.  Can't blame them for walking away to be honest.  £350k invested without as much as a thank you from what I can recall.

If I had their bank balance I'd be off laying on a beach somewhere.

Not sure what thanks the Rawlins deserve. They were very much part of the last board and had a lot of influence which they got for little money. They’re not philanthropists who wanted to gift their money to us. They seen us as an investment and a way to make a good return although not sure their exact plan for that.

God knows where it would have led to with them but I’m far from convinced they were the saviours they were made to be at the time.

They did not get what the club was about at all and their style of management was flippant, to say the least. We weren’t the only ones to form that opinion with them and the last board. Happy to take their money but they squandered much more. 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

Not sure what thanks the Rawlins deserve. They were very much part of the last board and had a lot of influence which they got for little money. They’re not philanthropists who wanted to gift their money to us. They seen us as an investment and a way to make a good return although not sure their exact plan for that.

God knows where it would have led to with them but I’m far from convinced they were the saviours they were made to be at the time.

They did not get what the club was about at all and their style of management was flippant, to say the least. We weren’t the only ones to form that opinion with them and the last board. Happy to take their money but they squandered much more. 

Alot of influence which they got for little money?  That's bonkers.  The Patrons bought far more influence in the club and paid £80k-90k less than the Rawlins for it.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Rawlins sat down with £350k in their pocket and thought the best way to make a return on it was to invest in a Scottish League One club?  I could think of a million better ways to make a profitable return and I'm skint!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, GeordieBairn said:

Different thing entirely to the FSS so not really relevant 

They have committed money to the club in return for influence.  It might no suit the current "everyone is equal" groupthink but as an outsider looking in, is appears very much like it is the same thing entirely.

I get that some or maybe even all of the patrons are also FSS members which means that they are also getting a vote through this mechanism so it already isn't the one person, one vote that was being discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been banging on about the £5 tier for ages. People talk about the the number of folk who might drop from £10 to £5 - that might well happen, but I honestly don’t think it would be that frequent. People who want to contribute more are free to do so because their financial situation allows it (hopefully - no one should be paying more because they feel obliged and thereby put themselves in financial trouble). You’ve also got to think about all the people you might well be able to recruit at a fiver a month who wouldn’t touch the £10 tier. To me, it’s a no brainer.

Finally, £5 as the basic tier should give you voting rights, the same as everyone else. That’s just fair. Introduce other incentives/prize draws etc for folk giving more, that’s totally legitimate. But you can’t go out barring people from voting because they only donate £5 instead of £10, £15 or more. Pure Tory patter. We’re better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

Alot of influence which they got for little money?  That's bonkers.  The Patrons bought far more influence in the club and paid £80k-90k less than the Rawlins for it.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Rawlins sat down with £350k in their pocket and thought the best way to make a return on it was to invest in a Scottish League One club?  I could think of a million better ways to make a profitable return and I'm skint!

The Patrons did get a lot influence but mainly by default of the Rawlins and Deans abandoning ship. £350k in the grand scheme of things is nothing to gain control of a club which they effectively had. If that offer had been available at the time for another fan group to invest then I’m sure it would equally have been taken up. 

Also are you suggesting that someone with zero attachment to Falkirk invested out of the kindness of their heart? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Brockvillenomore
1 minute ago, strichener said:

They have committed money to the club in return for influence.  It might no suit the current "everyone is equal" groupthink but as an outsider looking in, is appears very much like it is the same thing entirely.

I get that some or maybe even all of the patrons are also FSS members which means that they are also getting a vote through this mechanism so it already isn't the one person, one vote that was being discussed.

So, the patrons invest, provide the cash to see us though last season and then, simultaneously actively support a significant % dilution of their investment by encouraging the supporters to also invest. All while also being members of the FSS! And this is somehow a bad thing?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Van_damage said:

The Patrons did get a lot influence but mainly by default of the Rawlins and Deans abandoning ship. £350k in the grand scheme of things is nothing to gain control of a club which they effectively had. If that offer had been available at the time for another fan group to invest then I’m sure it would equally have been taken up. 

Also are you suggesting that someone with zero attachment to Falkirk invested out of the kindness of their heart? 

So it's not OK to gain control of the club with £350k but it is with £270k (what the patrons invested)?.  That makes no sense.  Another fan group would have taken up the offer to invest £350k?  Are you actually reading your own words?  The Patrons topped out at £270k and I don't see an army of other investors coming forward, do you?

Not suggesting their motives were driven by kindness, but to suggest it was to make a quick buck is nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Brockvillenomore said:

So, the patrons invest, provide the cash to see us though last season and then, simultaneously actively support a significant % dilution of their investment by encouraging the supporters to also invest. All while also being members of the FSS! And this is somehow a bad thing?  

Yes, just continue to argue with yourself.  I don't think the investment from the Patrons was a bad thing but you can't take a position that it doesn't matter how much you contribute to the FSS, you have an equal say when the horse has already bolted.  Your three legged stool model relies on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

So it's not OK to gain control of the club with £350k but it is with £270k (what the patrons invested)?.  That makes no sense.  Another fan group would have taken up the offer to invest £350k?  Are you actually reading your own words?  The Patrons topped out at £270k and I don't see an army of other investors coming forward, do you?

Not suggesting their motives were driven by kindness, but to suggest it was to make a quick buck is nonsense.

The Navy Blue offered £550k if memory serves right to gain the same level of ownership as the Rawlins. Are you saying they wouldn’t have formed to take up 25% at £350k if it was on the table? 

I never said the Rawlins were there for a quick buck but you said we should just thank them as though their investment was out of charity. Anyones money is welcome but it doesn’t mean the club then can become their plaything. If they want to run things then they still have to gain respect. The Rawlins input to the club could have set us further back than if they never invested. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...