The Falkirk FC Thread

[RC_Bairn]

1 minute ago, Van_damage said:

I’m 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. 

Best that you do.  Most good book stores will have 'how a business functions' textbook that you can buy.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

Best that you do.  Most good book stores will have 'how a business functions' textbook that you can buy.

No bother, I’ll make sure to send you the chapter that explains how 25% is more than 21%.

[Bairn in Exile]

24 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

Best that you do.  Most good book stores will have 'how a business functions' textbook that you can buy.

Here's a book that I suggest that you buy, you supercilious w*nker.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Jimmy1876 said:

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.

Now, whether it is uncomfortable or not, the very fist thing you do when we you join FSS is “buy a vote”.

This isn’t about having or not having money. Is it about opinion? Maybe, but not about it being “more valid, important, or worthy”. That phrase is a bit too worthy for its own good.. Joining at all is an altruistic act. There is absolutely zero incentive to go above £10pcm. Some do, but it’s precious few.

Is someone who chooses to deposit £100pcm, for which he receives 10 votes then considered enough of a threat as to undermine a founding reason for FSS’s very existence? Is that one person with 10 votes considered a threat to the other 529 votes?
FSS  trying to grow organically by 500% in a 6 month period that includes a backdrop of the energy bills crisis and a fast approaching Christmas season that will absolutely stress out 70% of the country’s domestic finance, is quite frankly, Mission Impossible.

I do not envy them their task.

[Anthony Fitzgerald]

This shareholder chat has turned the page into Capitalism for Dummies.
Certainly important but by god it’s dull.

Sadly this is when this thread is the busiest and has the most contributions. Think we could win the Scottish Cup Final and it would have less chat in a week that this.

[Guest Back Post Misses]

Good result Airdrie getting pumped 

[PedroMoutinho]

7 hours ago, Duncan Freemason said:

FSS  trying to grow organically by 500% in a 6 month period that includes a backdrop of the energy bills crisis and a fast approaching Christmas season that will absolutely stress out 70% of the country’s domestic finance, is quite frankly, Mission Impossible.

I do not envy them their task.

A cynic might even say the FSS have been given a task and deadline we all know is impossible to achieve…

[Guest Back Post Misses]

19 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

A cynic might even say the FSS have been given a task and deadline we all know is impossible to achieve…

And the cynic would also say you are trying to cause trouble for the sake of it

[Springfield]

Deliberately kept away from the “debate” however some interesting comments and some absolute shite.

Like the vast majority if not all supporters of the club, we’ve been subjected to the worst few years we could have ever imagined. Now in the lower reaches of Scottish football, three BODs and four/five managers in past few seasons confirm our abhorrent decline.

All I want is a credible/stable BOD, people with the ability to run the club, in all capacities, and if these people are “Falkirk People” it’s a bonus. For me the current BOD have made some howlers/errors but I’m sure they’ve all learned ie DGW/Griffiths/Jeremy Beadle. 

I don’t know any of the current directors, but I do believe that they are trying their bollocks to get the club on a stable financial footing, and ultimately have the club in “fan ownership”.

My views are this is going to be a huge challenge, we’d stand a better chance of people signing up if we were challenging in next league up and different economic conditions, but that’s where we are.

I will one hundred percent back the BOD  and club, but it want stop my having a genuine dig if I feel the theirs a genuine reason to do so.

With the appointment of M&S, and without getting carried away, there’s signs that if we can keep our key players fit, we won’t be far away at season end. 

 
 

 

[FFC 1876]

37 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

Good result Airdrie getting pumped 

Only if we now go win our games.

[Guest Back Post Misses]

2 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Deliberately kept away from the “debate” however some interesting comments and some absolute shite.

Like the vast majority if not all supporters of the club, we’ve been subjected to the worst few years we could have ever imagined. Now in the lower reaches of Scottish football, three BODs and four/five managers in past few seasons confirm our abhorrent decline.

All I want is a credible/stable BOD, people with the ability to run the club, in all capacities, and if these people are “Falkirk People” it’s a bonus. For me the current BOD have made some howlers/errors but I’m sure they’ve all learned ie DGW/Griffiths/Jeremy Beadle. 

I don’t know any of the current directors, but I do believe that they are trying their bollocks to get the club on a stable financial footing, and ultimately have the club in “fan ownership”.

My views are this is going to be a huge challenge, we’d stand a better chance of people signing up if we were challenging in next league up and different economic conditions, but that’s where we are.

I will one hundred percent back the BOD  and club, but it want stop my having a genuine dig if I feel the theirs a genuine reason to do so.

With the appointment of M&S, and without getting carried away, there’s signs that if we can keep our key players fit, we won’t be far away at season end. 

 
 

 

I think most of what you say is fair however the Griffiths lesson is not for the Board. They can rightly be fingered for Rennie but have learned from that and appointed McGlynn.

It is no secret I know these guys, I trust them to sort this, I always did from the start, and I think given time they will prove why I had that confidence. 
 

Anyone who watched the Podcast and contrast that with the Q&A of a year ago can’t say these guys are way more credible, have a better grip of the detail and the drive to do it. 

 

[Guest Back Post Misses]

4 minutes ago, FFC 1876 said:

Only if we now go win our games.

Goes without saying

[NavyBlueArmy1876]

A quick gander of the Airdrie and Dunfermline threads and both bemoaning a lack of depth in their squads.

If the extra £400k invested in the team this season gets us out of this good forsaken league when injuries and suspensions inevitably kick in for everyone it will be money very well spent imo. The difference is it looks like McGlynn might actually have spent it wisely unlike the string of diddies that went before him  

[Zbairn]

9 hours 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.

One slightly interesting but important difference between 2019/2020 and now is that the BOD’s have been elected by fans Groups, either PG or FSS. In the case of FSS by around 500 members. Previous BOD’s were essentially selected by the very few MSG members due to their % shareholding. That’s how we got Doug Henderson, Margaret Lang et al.

To put this into perspective, remember the Doug Henderson fiasco at the AGM where virtually all shareholders wanted him ousted and he was still elected by 2 or 3 MSG members. 

There were quite a few situations where it was a job for best mates and even then, some were only in it for themselves. On occasion not even FFC fans.

At least with the current guys we know that they are FFC fans. They may not get everything right, but I’m 100% convinced they are trying their best for the club. 

[Jimmy1876]

8 hours ago, Duncan Freemason said:

Now, whether it is uncomfortable or not, the very fist thing you do when we you join FSS is “buy a vote”.

This isn’t about having or not having money. Is it about opinion? Maybe, but not about it being “more valid, important, or worthy”. That phrase is a bit too worthy for its own good.. Joining at all is an altruistic act. There is absolutely zero incentive to go above £10pcm. Some do, but it’s precious few.

Is someone who chooses to deposit £100pcm, for which he receives 10 votes then considered enough of a threat as to undermine a founding reason for FSS’s very existence? Is that one person with 10 votes considered a threat to the other 529 votes?
FSS  trying to grow organically by 500% in a 6 month period that includes a backdrop of the energy bills crisis and a fast approaching Christmas season that will absolutely stress out 70% of the country’s domestic finance, is quite frankly, Mission Impossible.

I do not envy them their task.

So I think we are going to just have to agree to disagree on what FSS is about because I never believed I joined FSS just to buy some power, I joined because I support the idea of fan ownership and equality of opinion between fans. 

As for it not being about money? Afraid only people who have more money than anyone else are the only people who can say that, because anyone who cannot afford more than £10 and their opinion is therefore valued less will tell you it's absolutely about the money. And by extension, valuing opinion in number of votes, giving more votes to those who pay more, very clearly assigns more validity, worth and importance to those people. And that's just fact that literally can be measured - in number of votes. Again only someone who can buy their power can say "oh it's not that my opinion is more worthy.... It's just that I can afford to buy more opinions than you". 

And finally is the FSS in itself a difficult task? Absolutely. Raising that many members is an extremely difficult task and that is why one of my first posts here was my intense concern about the finances. That responsibility of managing finances however lies with the board. Not with a fan organisation. Although the FSS is rightly aiming to support the club and board by extension with membership and hopefully cover the gap. But it doesn't mean the FSS itself should compromise the ethos of fan equality and fan ownership to do that, it is just "one leg of the stool" in the end. As I mentioned, if you want to buy more power, buy shares, that other leg of the stool is there for that very reason. 

Edited October 5, 2022 by Jimmy1876

[Bairney The Dinosaur]

2 hours ago, PedroMoutinho said:

A cynic might even say the FSS have been given a task and deadline we all know is impossible to achieve…

I (and believe a good few others who are within FSS) had a similar thought after the initial email. My worries have been eased that if 'Plan A', the 500% 6 month increase, is not achieved then the effort will be placed in finding a way of holding these shares until FSS catch up.

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

2 hours ago, Back Post Misses said:

And the cynic would also say you are trying to cause trouble for the sake of it

And talk down the Falkirk fans. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jimmy1876 said:

So I think we are going to just have to agree to disagree on what FSS is about because I never believed I joined FSS just to buy some power, I joined because I support the idea of fan ownership and equality of opinion between fans. 

As for it not being about money? Afraid only people who have more money than anyone else are the only people who can say that, because anyone who cannot afford more than £10 and their opinion is therefore valued less will tell you it's absolutely about the money. And by extension, valuing opinion in number of votes, giving more votes to those who pay more, very clearly assigns more validity, worth and importance to those people. And that's just fact that literally can be measured - in number of votes. Again only someone who can buy their power can say "oh it's not that my opinion is more worthy.... It's just that I can afford to buy more opinions than you". 

And finally is the FSS in itself a difficult task? Absolutely. Raising that many members is an extremely difficult task and that is why one of my first posts here was my intense concern about the finances. That responsibility of managing finances however lies with the board. Not with a fan organisation. Although the FSS is rightly aiming to support the club and board by extension with membership and hopefully cover the gap. But it doesn't mean the FSS itself should compromise the ethos of fan equality and fan ownership to do that, it is just "one leg of the stool" in the end. As I mentioned, if you want to buy more power, buy shares, that other leg of the stool is there for that very reason. 

I will just go with the first bit. Paying £10 a month to buy the vote that someone who can’t afford £10 to buy a vote is in every essence, you making my argument for me. You cannot escape the principle.

Ceding more votes to someone paying £100 a month isn’t anything to do with worthiness. It’s reflects their contribution to the group, and I ask again, is the person who does that very thing, and is assigned 10 votes, a threat to the other 529 votes out there? What about 10 people doing £100 a month? Is their 100 votes enough to destabilise or undermine the other 520 votes?

Bear in mind that beyond all the heady inclusive chat, the FSS is about one thing……..raising as much cash as possible……and like everything in life, there is little wrong in recognising contributions that are above and beyond the base requirement. Hell, it’s why people who pay more for a ST get a Prime seat.

Your point about “go buy shares” is ultimately a bit daft, as that is exactly what FSS does, and that is what buys FSS its power……..again, the more contributions FSS makes, the more valid, important and worthy the voice of FSS becomes…..no?

There is a whole raft of stuff that for me, makes this “equality” stuff creak at the seams. How many monthly contributions do you need to make before you can vote? Does a single £10 payment entitle an individual to a vote? Is that considered to be “equality”?

Back to my theoretical person thinking about £50 a month, but seeing no incentive to do so. If they then chose to pay £10 in their name and the same again for their partner and three kids who have no interest in football……..so one person gets 5 votes for their £50……..would you seek to remove that person from the FSS membership?

Or if that person just decided to make up 4 names and pay £10 for each of them via a common PayPal account. How would you deal with that?

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Brockvillenomore said:

And talk down the Falkirk fans. 

? How come?

[Kevin James Left Knee]

1 minute ago, Duncan Freemason said:

 

Back to my theoretical person thinking about £50 a month, but seeing no incentive to do so. If they then chose to pay £10 in their name and the same again for their partner and three kids who have no interest in football……..so one person gets 5 votes for their £50……..would you seek to remove that person from the FSS membership?

 

 

There is nothing to stop that person (as no-one can investigate who is signing up) from opening  5 different memberships one in each name of his family. Under 16s are not meant to get a vote in the elections but in practice that is not checkable as no-one asks for proof of age when joining. I still think it is best to be a single payer and accept parity in voting but the reality doesn't stop what you are arguing for.