The Falkirk FC Thread

[RC_Bairn]

1 minute ago, Back Post Misses said:

With respect anyone who believes that also believes in Unicorns and the moon being made of cheese. 

Believe what I say or don't - it matters little to me.  This is a place for debate and the sharing of views.  We clearly have differing viewpoints and that's fine with me.

[Bairney The Dinosaur]

My biggest concern since the email on Friday was a feeling that it was inevitable that FSS was being sidelined. 

The podcast and a few emails I've had back and forth with club have eased that, although it's still clear the FSS needs to up the monthly contributions. 

Assuming the full 'investment gap' is not met by FSS May 23 I really do hope that the main effort is placed on finding some way of 'ringfencing' the shares, as the alternative is devastating.

FSS will come, but it needs time.

 

[PedroMoutinho]

46 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

The Patrons are in control - the board composition tells you this. 

Answer me this - if an external party invested £270k into the Club tomorrow and wanted to put four people on the board, would you be comfortable with that?  If not, why should it be ok for the patrons to do this?

Personally I think a more balanced board is needed as a matter of urgency. As you say, we currently have a position where one group has invested less than the price of a 3 bed semi in Larbert yet have total control of the board of directors.

As I and others have said before, it is not good from a corporate governance or decision-making perspective to have a group entitled to 2 board seats but actually make up the entire board.

I don’t particularly care whether it’s achieved through appointing FSS directors who are not patrons, Rawlins-appointed directors or others, but imo we simply cannot go on with patrons members controlling the entire board.

Appointing a non-Patron independent chairman would be a good place to start imo.

Edited October 4, 2022 by PedroMoutinho

[PedroMoutinho]

On 03/10/2022 at 13:27, Back Post Misses said:

You know what. There is something in trying to make us better as a club and investing in the right areas. If we were looking at everything purely on cost then we would not have any development squad either, fitness coach, GK coach FT (he maybe PT I don’t really know) guys doing analysis probably. 

 

 

That’s all very well but if the money isn’t there to pay for “making us better as a club” (which it clearly isn’t going by the recent statements), it isn’t there.

You can’t on the one hand say we’re going to run out of money unless the fans put their hands in their pockets and on the other spend thousands on non-essentials.

You criticised the previous board for restarting the youth development squads given the money it cost. Why  is it any different now?

[LatapyBairn.]

Both the PG and the FSS have two seats on the BOD each,  the fact that some people chose to invest in both groups is petty irrelevant IMO as both sets of directors are democratically elected by its members/the fans, in fact the closer the two fan organisations are the better. We all need to be on the same page working together here. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

Personally I think a more balanced board is needed as a matter of urgency. As you say, we currently have a position where one group has invested less than the price of a 3 bed semi in Larbert yet have total control of the board of directors.

As I and others have said before, it is not good from a corporate governance or decision-making perspective to have a group entitled to 2 board seats but actually make up the entire board.

I don’t particularly care whether it’s achieved through appointing FSS directors who are not patrons, Rawlins-appointed directors or others, but imo we simply cannot go with patrons members controlling the entire board.

Appointing a non-Patron independent chairman would be a good place to start imo.

That was the exact same situation with the Rawlins however unlike the Rawlins the Patrons are Falkirk fans. Their intentions are clear and they represent a much larger pool of people than the Rawlins with a democratic structure at heart. 

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

35 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

The Patrons are in control - the board composition tells you this. 

Answer me this - if an external party invested £270k into the Club tomorrow and wanted to put four people on the board, would you be comfortable with that?  If not, why should it be ok for the patrons to do this?

Legally the Directors have to act independently and focus on safeguarding the company. 
 

Your statements (they’re not even arguments) have to be based on evidence and fact. Not feelings.  

[NavyBlueArmy1876]

42 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Montrose beating Airdrie tonight is a good result for us IMO, things really tight at the top of the league now and we are hopefully hitting form just at the right time. 

Airdrie making the classic Dunfermline mistake of signing our dross in the hope that they somehow remember to be footballers again 

[PedroMoutinho]

 

9 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

That was the exact same situation with the Rawlins however unlike the Rawlins the Patrons are Falkirk fans. Their intentions are clear and they represent a much larger pool of people than the Rawlins with a democratic structure at heart. 

When did the Rawlins make up the entire board of directors?

[PedroMoutinho]

12 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

in fact the closer the two fan organisations are the better. We all need to be on the same page working together here. 

Not for me- the FSS are there to represent the interests of Falkirk fans, not behave as a support act to the patrons.

It is very possible that the interests of the Falkirk supporters could differ from those of the patrons and the FSS have to be able to speak out when that happens.

[LatapyBairn.]

6 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

Not for me- the FSS are there to represent the interests of Falkirk fans, not behave as a support act to the patrons.

It is very possible that the interests of the Falkirk supporters could differ from those of the patrons and the FSS have to be able to speak out when that happens.

Both groups are compromised of supporters/fans, they have the same interests, goals and democratic structure. Your also missing the point that directors from both organisations are democratically elected by its members/the fans. You could just as easily turn it around the other way and say the PG are a “support act” to the FSS because all the directors are also FSS members so by your logic the FSS actually control the BOD. Your point doesn’t make any sense. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, PedroMoutinho said:

 

When did the Rawlins make up the entire board of directors?

Who were the other directors representing on that board room? 

Whether they are all patrons or FSS members, Nigel is elected by the FSS and Kenny and Keith are elected by the Patrons. Only Gordon Wright remains as an independent.  

It’s maybe still not perfect but it’s definitely a lot better to have a structure whereby people are elected to the board than purely invited on by their friends. 
 

Did you think it was a better structure with the Rawlins in the board and Deans as chair? 

[PedroMoutinho]

6 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Both groups are compromised of supporters/fans, they have the same interests and goals.

That’s just nonsense I’m afraid. Quite clearly, there is huge potential for the interests of a group of 20 or so people who’ve invested a minimum of £10,000 each to differ from 500 paying a tenner a month.

The MSG was comprised of Falkirk supporters. Does that mean they has the same interests as the FSS?

I’ve got some magic beans to sell you if you think there is no difference there.

Edited October 4, 2022 by PedroMoutinho

[PedroMoutinho]

2 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

Who were the other directors representing on that board room? 
 

It certainly wasn’t the Rawlins. How on earth could the Rawlins be represented by directors who they didn’t even appoint?

[RC_Bairn]

12 minutes ago, Brockvillenomore said:

Legally the Directors have to act independently and focus on safeguarding the company. 
 

Your statements (they’re not even arguments) have to be based on evidence and fact. Not feelings.  

Thanks for posting this.  'Avoid conflicts of interest' - perfectly describes those on the BOD who have a foot in both the PG and the FSS camp.  These directors will be in a difficult position when FSS and PG disagree (Goodwillie being a good example).

My view is that directors should be either members of the FSS or members of the PG - not both.  People will disagree but that's my view.

 

[Reggie Perrin]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

And the league begins to take shape. Looking at our fixtures for October and then our fife neighbours early November, really looking forward to the upcoming games. 

Airdrie’s arse has collapsed early this season.

[LatapyBairn.]

3 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

That’s just nonsense I’m afraid. Quite clearly, there is huge potential for the interests of a group of 20 or so people who’ve invested a minimum of £10,000 each to differ from 500 paying a tenner a month.

I’ve got some magic beans to sell you if you think there is no difference there.

So if I’m following you correctly here you think that the PG have to much influence on the BOD and the FSS don’t have enough? Despite there being equal numbers of both FSS members and PG members sitting on the board? ……but I’m the one talking nonsense? 

[RC_Bairn]

6 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

Who were the other directors representing on that board room? 

Whether they are all patrons or FSS members, Nigel is elected by the FSS and Kenny and Keith are elected by the Patrons. Only Gordon Wright remains as an independent.  

It’s maybe still not perfect but it’s definitely a lot better to have a structure whereby people are elected to the board than purely invited on by their friends. 
 

Did you think it was a better structure with the Rawlins in the board and Deans as chair? 

They were representing the existing shareholders who voted them onto the board at an AGM.

[Jimmy1876]

Think it is worth noting that the directors cannot go with the wishes of any specific group by law whether that is the PG, FSS or anything else and if they are members or not doesn't change that. The only actual involvement or influence the group's have on the board is in electing the members they choose and then getting rid of they want. The influence of any group stops there and the board, again legally, has to be independent of all groups, and instead act in the interest of the club. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

It certainly wasn’t the Rawlins. How on earth could the Rawlins be represented by directors who they didn’t even appoint?

It was noone. The Patrons do have control of the board but like I say they are elected. If you don’t think the Rawlins had effective control over that board then fair enough.