The Falkirk FC Thread

[Zbairn]

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

2 posts on the forum, as a Pars fan, both about Falkirks imminent demise 

......a bit like Dunfermline selling their soul to some German mob to make ends meet.  Sounds like a Brooks Mileson storyline to me  

As Peter Grant stated at the time "Its great that the German guys have come and seen Dunfermline as that potential club. That is what it is - potential - we need to go and make that a reality" ...... that reality was getting relegated last season !

[Shodwall cat]

5 minutes ago, Ecosse83 said:

Honestly just stop twisting what I’ve said and go away

Absolutely pathetic! 

I said please tell me I'm picking it up wrong in my original post so you could simply have explained it better . So what did you mean then when you said

'On the whole I don’t think any of the players that remained from last season are below what Mcglynn has brought in (Wilson and Ross obvious exceptions)'. 

Edited December 5, 2022 by Shodwall cat

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

1 hour ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

All they have to do is issue a statement outlining the facts.

They will need to do that anyway for the AGM.

Reading this and other comments of a similar vein it occurred to me that the amount of official detail of the club's inner workings really is at  unprecedented levels.

@Dawson Park Boy I'm certain the board will let us know when they're ready and have all the facts. That said, what's issued to shareholders and the public domain will likely be two different things. Are you suggesting, or do you know, that that they have all the facts and are deliberately keeping us all in the dark? 

I want fan ownership, I like the different approach, which as far as I understand it was intended to make things clearer and bring us together as a support. But has it?  Or is it a lightning rod for the different factions to fire pot shots at each other. Which FWIW, to me, is more tiresome than fans of Airdrie, Morton and Dunfermline taking pot shots at us. 

 

[Guest Back Post Misses]

16 hours ago, roman_bairn said:

I am not sure how I can write that he’s the best we have had since Houstie but he deemed the most critical when there are others apparently questioning if we should be considering change?
I have noted the very pro board sentiments on here for weeks and weeks and have always approached things on here from a devils advocate perspective as I hate the imbalance that I think we are seeing on here at the moment and there are plenty of us on here that are fed up with the constant defence of anything that gets criticised by those of us not in the know.
You should note that again, you are doing the same of myself.
Irrespective, I think we are a better team and I DO feel we have better people in place but I’m genuinely concerned re our financial situation and the fact that we need to go cap in hand to the very people we were trying to get shot of. What worries me more is that we have no update on that and possible credible indication that the accounts may not yet be signed off and AGM postponed.
I’ll accept and apologise for the dig at you re friends on the board as that was probably unfair, but I also think you need to accept that from an outsiders perspective the board should receive the same balanced criticism of previous boards when there are issues in question.
I’ll leave it there and continue to look forward to your constructive and informative posts on occasion……

As I said to another poster it is the fans board not “this board” and not some distant shareholder or shareholders board. Combined the FSS and Patrons are the largest shareholders. Four of the directors are elected by the two organisations. They are working on OUR behalf not anyone else. The sooner the mistrust and the us and them mentality goes the better. 

That doesn’t mean we should not be critical if we deem necessary. IMO they are doing a good job. Have they got everything right? No they haven’t. Rennie was a mistake (but they took away the long term commitment to him upfront which was a good call). I think they should have a Chairman and they have made a couple of comms mistakes. However given their predecessors catalogue in errors those issues are pretty small in the big scheme of things.

IMO They will get the club through the short term financial issues and providing we stick together we have a chance to make the fan ownership plan work.

However it needs a larger number of fans to buy in. If we are fan owned then more than 10/15% of the fanbase need to carry the financial burden. Plenty may not like to hear that but that is the reality. If they don’t fanownership will go the way of Dundee and Dunfermline. If they do we have a chance to do a Motherwell or St.Mirren.

If we don’t then IMO there will be no option but to seek an investor and fans lose the control we have and if that investor is not the right one no one knows the clubs future. 

[Dawson Park Boy]

1 hour ago, Brockvillenomore said:

Reading this and other comments of a similar vein it occurred to me that the amount of official detail of the club's inner workings really is at  unprecedented levels.

@Dawson Park Boy I'm certain the board will let us know when they're ready and have all the facts. That said, what's issued to shareholders and the public domain will likely be two different things. Are you suggesting, or do you know, that that they have all the facts and are deliberately keeping us all in the dark? 

I want fan ownership, I like the different approach, which as far as I understand it was intended to make things clearer and bring us together as a support. But has it?  Or is it a lightning rod for the different factions to fire pot shots at each other. Which FWIW, to me, is more tiresome than fans of Airdrie, Morton and Dunfermline taking pot shots at us. 

 

Firstly, I have no knowledge other than what has been put out at the meetings early in the season, the podcast and the statements put out.

Forecasting finances of football clubs strikes me as being fairly straightforward as the income comes from supporters, advertisers, sponsors, hospitality and occasionally player sales. Costs are mainly fixed with wages making up the bulk.

We started the season knowing there was a loss of at least £400k and it is probably higher as we haven’t moved any players on.

Attendances have probably been better than forecast so that would help a bit. Sponsorship income, etc. - probably better than forecast.

Anyway, a big gap to fund.

To fill this, we have FSS which is great but lower than what was hoped.

There is the Patrons investments which again is great but not enough.

From all that, we have the delay in the AGM which rings alarm bells.

Yes, I’m sure the Directors are working hard to get soft loans, increase the Patrons, sell ST’s for years ahead etc., etc.,

As yet we don’t know the result of their endeavours and, you’re right, we’ve no reason to be told.

What I don’t want is a last minute announcement that there is a problem and urgent help is needed to avert a crisis.

I would have thought that it would be better to announce now the current state of play and how much is required to see us through to the end of the season. If I knew the exact position then I for one would offer help at the level I can manage as I’m sure would many others. Obviously most folks can’t manage £100k plus sums but a lot could manage more modest amounts.

Anyway, that’s where I stand and I will certainly give the BOD credit for at last appointing a real football manager.

 

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

52 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Firstly, I have no knowledge other than what has been put out at the meetings early in the season, the podcast and the statements put out.

Forecasting finances of football clubs strikes me as being fairly straightforward as the income comes from supporters, advertisers, sponsors, hospitality and occasionally player sales. Costs are mainly fixed with wages making up the bulk.

We started the season knowing there was a loss of at least £400k and it is probably higher as we haven’t moved any players on.

Attendances have probably been better than forecast so that would help a bit. Sponsorship income, etc. - probably better than forecast.

Anyway, a big gap to fund.

To fill this, we have FSS which is great but lower than what was hoped.

There is the Patrons investments which again is great but not enough.

From all that, we have the delay in the AGM which rings alarm bells.

Yes, I’m sure the Directors are working hard to get soft loans, increase the Patrons, sell ST’s for years ahead etc., etc.,

As yet we don’t know the result of their endeavours and, you’re right, we’ve no reason to be told.

What I don’t want is a last minute announcement that there is a problem and urgent help is needed to avert a crisis.

I would have thought that it would be better to announce now the current state of play and how much is required to see us through to the end of the season. If I knew the exact position then I for one would offer help at the level I can manage as I’m sure would many others. Obviously most folks can’t manage £100k plus sums but a lot could manage more modest amounts.

Anyway, that’s where I stand and I will certainly give the BOD credit for at last appointing a real football manager.

 

Can't argue with any of that @Dawson Park Boy. I'm going to be positive and optimistic here (and hopefully not live to regret it) but I'm going to take confidence from the 'silence' (or perception of silence) as confirmation everything is in hand and they're dotting the I's and crossing the t's. Time will tell. 

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

3 hours ago, Back Post Misses said:

If we are fan owned then more than 10/15% of the fanbase need to carry the financial burden. Plenty may not like to hear that but that is the reality.

I don't see it as anything other than a choice really, we either want a majority fan owned club or we don't.

By "we" I mean all the supporters and FFC minded folk, wherever you are.

FSS was launched a year ago in the belief there was an appetite for fan ownership. 12 months on we have 600+ members and we are at a crossroads. To push on we need to grow and grow quickly. The current financial climate sets our objectives back, but we can't complain about the cards we've been dealt.  We are where we are, as smart arses like to say

We can't let it degenerate into blame, or recrimination, or being a part of one group, or one faction, or settling old scores - that pish will only holds us back.

 

[RC_Bairn]

3 hours ago, Back Post Misses said:

As I said to another poster it is the fans board not “this board” and not some distant shareholder or shareholders board. Combined the FSS and Patrons are the largest shareholders. Four of the directors are elected by the two organisations. They are working on OUR behalf not anyone else. The sooner the mistrust and the us and them mentality goes the better. 

That doesn’t mean we should not be critical if we deem necessary. IMO they are doing a good job. Have they got everything right? No they haven’t. Rennie was a mistake (but they took away the long term commitment to him upfront which was a good call). I think they should have a Chairman and they have made a couple of comms mistakes. However given their predecessors catalogue in errors those issues are pretty small in the big scheme of things.

IMO They will get the club through the short term financial issues and providing we stick together we have a chance to make the fan ownership plan work.

However it needs a larger number of fans to buy in. If we are fan owned then more than 10/15% of the fanbase need to carry the financial burden. Plenty may not like to hear that but that is the reality. If they don’t fanownership will go the way of Dundee and Dunfermline. If they do we have a chance to do a Motherwell or St.Mirren.

If we don’t then IMO there will be no option but to seek an investor and fans lose the control we have and if that investor is not the right one no one knows the clubs future. 

It is not a fans board yet (but appreciate strides have been taken forward in this area).  Remember that 2/5 of the directors were appointed by a group of 20 or so wealthier supporters.  I'm sure you'd agree that those 20 are hardly a representative sample of the entire fan base.

You've missed a few errors from your list too - a pursuit of David Goodwillie and adding nearly £200k onto the playing budget against the backdrop of a £400k operating loss.

[Zbairn]

14 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

It is not a fans board yet (but appreciate strides have been taken forward in this area).  Remember that 2/5 of the directors were appointed by a group of 20 or so wealthier supporters.  I'm sure you'd agree that those 20 are hardly a representative sample of the entire fan base.

You've missed a few errors from your list too - a pursuit of David Goodwillie and adding nearly £200k onto the playing budget against the backdrop of a £400k operating loss.

2 of 20 wealthier supporters = fans

2 of 600 supporters = fans

Bottom line…end of! 
 

edited to add. The DG comment is an assumption. Regardless of people saying they are itk, no one has come out categorically and stated this has been the case. 
 

If the extra cash hadn’t been spent we would probably be looking at staving off relegation or at best mid table mediocrity. Then the crap re financials would really have hit the fan.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Zbairn

[Guest Ecosse83]

4 hours ago, Shodwall cat said:

I said please tell me I'm picking it up wrong in my original post so you could simply have explained it better . So what did you mean then when you said

'On the whole I don’t think any of the players that remained from last season are below what Mcglynn has brought in (Wilson and Ross obvious exceptions)'. 

I don’t think what Mcglynn has signed overall (as a whole) is exactly head and shoulders above the players we already have in the squad from last season. Yes you can pick out individuals like Mcginn over Hetherington but I’m looking at the big picture. I’m just a bit bored of hearing that because we have players from last season that’s why we are struggling. 
 

He made 4 subs on Saturday, 3 of them that came on are his signings so if his signings are so much better they should all start surely? 
 

Now that’s not me having a go at Mcglynn I actually praise him for getting more out of what we have but it’s the argument that last seasons players are why we aren’t going great that gets to me! 
 

Hopefully my pint is clearer now. 

[Guest Back Post Misses]

15 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

It is not a fans board yet (but appreciate strides have been taken forward in this area).  Remember that 2/5 of the directors were appointed by a group of 20 or so wealthier supporters.  I'm sure you'd agree that those 20 are hardly a representative sample of the entire fan base.

You've missed a few errors from your list too - a pursuit of David Goodwillie and adding nearly £200k onto the playing budget against the backdrop of a £400k operating loss.

No idea if they went for Goodwillie or not. That is a manager call if they did anyway - so on Rennie. 
If they didn’t add anything to the budget you were left with 13 players - So that was never a mistake. 
Patrons and FSS are THE largest shareholders combined. EVERY single fan has had more than enough time to join either group so it is the fans board. Sadly however only 10-15% have decided to join so far. That is not the clubs fault it is fans decision. They either want to own the club as I said or allow it to be sold to someone who could do anything with it 

[ShaggerG]

13 minutes ago, Ecosse83 said:

I don’t think what Mcglynn has signed overall (as a whole) is exactly head and shoulders above the players we already have in the squad from last season. Yes you can pick out individuals like Mcginn over Hetherington but I’m looking at the big picture. I’m just a bit bored of hearing that because we have players from last season that’s why we are struggling. 
 

He made 4 subs on Saturday, 3 of them that came on are his signings so if his signings are so much better they should all start surely? 
 

Now that’s not me having a go at Mcglynn I actually praise him for getting more out of what we have but it’s the argument that last seasons players are why we aren’t going great that gets to me! 
 

Hopefully my pint is clearer now. 

how many cloudy pints have you had?

 

[Guest Ecosse83]

8 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

how many cloudy pints have you had?

 

Not enough clearly

[roman_bairn]

No idea if they went for Goodwillie or not. That is a manager call if they did anyway - so on Rennie. 
If they didn’t add anything to the budget you were left with 13 players - So that was never a mistake. 
Patrons and FSS are THE largest shareholders combined. EVERY single fan has had more than enough time to join either group so it is the fans board. Sadly however only 10-15% have decided to join so far. That is not the clubs fault it is fans decision. They either want to own the club as I said or allow it to be sold to someone who could do anything with it 

Sorry BPM but signing Goodwillie is not just a manager decision….and if it is at our club I’d be even more concerned…

[LatapyBairn.]

What players we sign should 100% be up to the manager, how the manager spends his playing budget is completely his domain IMO. I’d be quite heavily opposed to any BOD at the club interfering with footballing matters in that way, it just does not work at our level and even further up the pyramid I can’t think of many examples where a manager not being in control of what players sign for the club has yielded much success. 

Edited December 5, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[Zbairn]

This is just raking up old muck again. No one will admit if we did or didn’t approach DG. 
In the end it didn’t happen, let’s just be thankful of that.

We have more immediate issues to resolve, like winning this league! 

[RC_Bairn]

39 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

If they didn’t add anything to the budget you were left with 13 players - So that was never a mistake. 

That is simply untrue.  They could have ran with the same budget as last season and ran with a similar sized squad as last season.  But they didn't and that has a financial impact.

[RC_Bairn]

54 minutes ago, Zbairn said:

2 of 20 wealthier supporters = fans

2 of 600 supporters = fans

Bottom line…end of!

I do love when people say "end of" as if they have the ultimate authority and their opinion is more valid than anyone else's. 

How does the above stack up differently from previous boards?

6 of (how many shareholders we have) = fans

[RC_Bairn]

17 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

What players we sign should 100% be up the the manager, how the manager spends his playing budget is completely his domain IMO. I’d be quite heavily opposed to any BOD at the club interfering with footballing matters in that way, it just does not work at our level and even further up the pyramid I can’t think of many examples where a manager not being in control of what players sign for the club has yielded much success. 

No one is disputing that.  However you would surely agree that there are a very small number of players that pose a huge reputational risk to the club and its partners/sponsors etc.  DG falls squarely into that category

[Zbairn]

6 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

I do love when people say "end of" as if they have the ultimate authority and their opinion is more valid than anyone else's. 

How does the above stack up differently from previous boards?

6 of (how many shareholders we have) = fans

Pretty easy. Some members of previous Boards were not fans. 

This board is made up of fans…..end of!