NavyBlueArmy1876 Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 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 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroMoutinho Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroMoutinho Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatapyBairn. Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 (edited) 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroMoutinho Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 (edited) 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 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroMoutinho Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC_Bairn Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie Perrin Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatapyBairn. Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC_Bairn Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy1876 Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brockvillenomore Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said: They were representing the existing shareholders who voted them onto the board at an AGM. Sorry. They’re representing no individual party or group. They should be acting in the best interest of the company, acting independently for all shareholders. Any other suggestion, if there are no facts or evidence behind the concerns, are mistaken. If there is any doubt in this write to Gordon Wright and ask him. He’s the company secretary. It also just occurred to me the directors talked about this last night on Falkirk Daft. Edited October 4, 2022 by Brockvillenomore Additions 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 6 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said: They were representing the existing shareholders who voted them onto the board at an AGM. What shareholders elected them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie Perrin Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 This shareholder chat has turned the page into Capitalism for Dummies. Certainly important but by god it’s dull. 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC_Bairn Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 1 minute ago, Van_damage said: What shareholders elected them? Are you actually being serious? This is like standard grade business studies all over again. The Directors you are talking about were ratified by a vote of all FFC shareholders at an AGM. I can't tell you which one exactly but I'd imagine it'd be the 2019 or 2020 AGM. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 4 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said: Are you actually being serious? This is like standard grade business studies all over again. The Directors you are talking about were ratified by a vote of all FFC shareholders at an AGM. I can't tell you which one exactly but I'd imagine it'd be the 2019 or 2020 AGM. Ratifying decisions is different from being elected as a representative of a group is it not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC_Bairn Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 Just now, Van_damage said: Ratifying decisions is different from being elected as a representative of a group is it not? Dancing on the head of a pin here. There was a democratic vote put to the shareholders and they chose to put those individuals onto the board. Whether you want to call that an election or a ratification matters little. The outcome is the same - if the shareholders did not want them then they wouldn't be there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said: Dancing on the head of a pin here. There was a democratic vote put to the shareholders and they chose to put those individuals onto the board. Whether you want to call that an election or a ratification matters little. The outcome is the same - if the shareholders did not want them then they wouldn't be there. I think you’re deliberately missing the point and trying to equate a matter of procedure as though it’s equal to a democratic group that’s charged with electing a representative to the board. I’m leaving it there as you seem intent to keep changing the parameters to suit whatever point it is that you’re trying to make. Edited October 4, 2022 by Guest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.