The Falkirk FC Thread

[FFC 1876]

29 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

…….and therein lies a problem. So £10 a month buys you one vote. So £50 a month buys you one vote. There is absolutely no incentive in terms of voting rights to pay more than £10 a month. It needs to be fixed. 

Tory^

[LatapyBairn.]

1 hour ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Yes, very frank and open.

The one thing which I would have liked to know is - ‘when does the cash run out?’ Is it November or December?

With the best will in the world, FSS is NEVER going to be able to plug the gap.

So we’re back to soft loans or a new investor.

Wasn't clear as to whether the usual donors had been approached and, if so, how amenable they would be to help.

It just all seems to be so, so late in the day when the same information was available months ago.

Their analysis of the situation was good but I’m not filled with a lot of confidence that they’ve been taking the necessary action and speaking to the right people to solve the short term problem.

I think I can now see why the FD resigned.
No mention of the AGM- worrying - probably down to the Auditors needing comfort?

Fingers crossed.

I might be wrong here but when you say “usual donors”  I presume you meant SA and MR, the guys definitely stated they had meetings scheduled next week with them and others about potentially arranging either soft loans or some sort of share buy back scheme involving the FSS. I also wouldn’t write of the FSS or patrons group getting a considerable boost in numbers over the next month if the message is driven home properly as it was on last nights podcast. It might not plug the gap fully but it could go a large way towards doing that and regarding the AGM I don’t see the point in holding it until we know exactly how the shortfall is being made up, whether that’ll be via soft loans, FSS/patron contributions or the afore mentioned share buy back thing (most likely a combination of these measures) The picture will be much clearer over the next few weeks and at least when it is the details can be communicated accurately via the AGM to shareholders, holding it before we have all the facts is pointless. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[Hampden Roar]

For me it shows that If you want to call the shots in any club you need cash behind you, whether it’s through your own or other peoples ….we have a club that at the moment has neither.

[bairn88]

Interesting interview, I'm glad they admit they were "mortified" at the wording of that paragraph. 

 

Most fascinating for me was the meander through the last decade on which years we turned a profit and which years we were effectively completely running out of cash. Peak years when we sold players, trough years when we didn't (not rocket science).  This of course wasn't smooth (a couple of lean years = some potential issues). However, when academy really gets going again (medium to long term) this does seem like the best way for a club like us to operate. 

 

 

[LatapyBairn.]

2 hours ago, Shodwall cat said:

Wee bit surprised at the bod talking about returning cap in hand to the old msg members having pushed so hard to get them out of being involved in the first place.  

Are you saying they should let personal pride or ego stop them from doing the right thing?! The club is more important than any individual(s) Fair play to them, they need to be bigger than that and should be listening and speaking with anybody (within reason) that’s prepared to invest regardless of any previous personal differences or fall outs. Everybody needs to pull in the same direction here and stop the shit flinging. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[LatapyBairn.]

1 hour ago, Bigbri Bairn said:

The size of your monthly payment cant dictate how powerful you are. If you are in the financial position to afford £50 a month then well done but it should not give you a bigger say than a person on low income for whom £5 a month is a big part of their budget. We should all be in this for richer for poorer for better for worse. NO fans should be billy big baws because they can afford more

Agree with this, it’s in the wrong spirit and not how a fan or community run organisation should operate. All fans/members need to be seen as equals for a project like the FSS to work properly.

Edited October 4, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[RC_Bairn]

Thought it was a really good podcast and both directors done very well at explaining the situation and the subsequent action.  I feel alot more reassured about the financial position than I did yesterday.

The most telling part of the podcast however was the absence of the FSS Director, and then the very long and awkward pause when asked about the relationship between the Patrons and FSS.  A blind man can see there are tensions there and I do hope FSS will come out soon and clarify matters and outline next steps for getting another FSS director on the board.

[RC_Bairn]

54 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:

Wee bit surprised at the bod talking about returning cap in hand to the old msg members having pushed so hard to get them out of being involved in the first place.  

100% this.  It'll certainly be an awkward conversation for those directors and the MSG GTF brigade

[Roboccop]

There has been a small uptake in new FSS members c 30 since the message and the podcast. About 535 people now. 
 

We intend to promote membership again this week coming with an interesting announcement. 
 

We have discussed a £5 tier several times as a committee and will again but it has issues. And personally I am against people having more than one vote in elections etc no matter how much they pay monthly. 

[gav-ffc]

5 minutes ago, Roboccop said:

There has been a small uptake in new FSS members c 30 since the message and the podcast. About 535 people now. 
 

We intend to promote membership again this week coming with an interesting announcement. 
 

We have discussed a £5 tier several times as a committee and will again but it has issues. And personally I am against people having more than one vote in elections etc no matter how much they pay monthly. 

What about being able to up it to £15 a month rather than the next jump being £20?

[Dawson Park Boy]

29 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

I might be wrong here but when you say “usual donors”  I presume you meant SA and MR, the guys definitely stated they had meetings scheduled next week with them and others about potentially arranging either soft loans or some sort of share buy back scheme involving the FSS. I also wouldn’t write of the FSS or patrons group getting a considerable boost in numbers over the next month if the message is driven home properly as it was on last nights podcast. It might not plug the gap fully but it could go a large way towards doing that and regarding the AGM I don’t see the point in holding it until we know exactly how the shortfall is being made up, whether that’ll be via soft loans, FSS/patron contributions or the afore mentioned share buy back thing (most likely a combination of these measures) The picture will be much clearer over the next few weeks and at least when it is the details can be communicated accurately via the AGM to shareholders, holding it before we have all the facts is pointless. 

Fair points.

[Dawson Park Boy]

35 minutes ago, FFC 1876 said:

Tory^

Grow up.

[Dunning1874]

Forgive me if I'm picking something up wrong here from just reading posts about this podcast having not listened to it, but am I reading this correctly? Your board have deliberately set a budget with projected expenditure £400K higher than projected income, and the plans to make up that shortfall are more fans contributing to FSS (on the basis of joining from October at £10 a month you'd need 5000 new members to raise £400K by May), then the hope that privately wealthy individuals will step forward to cover whatever gap remains after that, whether that be through soft loans, share purchases or donations from the goodness of their hearts?

That seems highly risky, to say the least. What happens if that £400K can't be raised?

I get that there's a desperation to get out of that division while there was a squad containing shite inherited from the previous board and managers, but the size of Falkirk's support is kind of the point here. When you have such high attendances relative to the rest of the division you should be able to live within your means and still have the highest (or second highest, Dunfermline dependent) budget in the division with a competitive squad to match. If you can't build a title challenging League One squad with £1.9M you are doing something extremely wrong.

[gav-ffc]

3 hours ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Think you’ve picked that up wrong, turnover is predicted to be at 1.9 million. The actual playing budget is probably around 60% of that figure which I agree is still pretty hefty for league one and it’s quite embarrassing we somehow managed to finish 5th last year on a similar budget. There is also a projected operating loss of 400k this year and unlike in previous seasons we don’t currently have the cash reserves to cover it, barring an unexpected windfall if we don’t go up this season shit could really hit the fan. The hope is our fans will buy into the recent share issue and fan ownership model subscribing to the newly formed Falkirk supporters society and Patrons Group for those that can afford to purchase larger amounts of shares but the numbers needed are pretty ambitious to say the least! Success on the pitch obviously helps motivate fans to invest in things like that so hopefully our recent form continues. 

 

2 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

Forgive me if I'm picking something up wrong here from just reading posts about this podcast having not listened to it, but am I reading this correctly? Your board have deliberately set a budget with projected expenditure £400K higher than projected income, and the plans to make up that shortfall are more fans contributing to FSS (on the basis of joining from October at £10 a month you'd need 5000 new members to raise £400K by May), then the hope that privately wealthy individuals will step forward to cover whatever gap remains after that, whether that be through soft loans, share purchases or donations from the goodness of their hearts?

That seems highly risky, to say the least. What happens if that £400K can't be raised?

I get that there's a desperation to get out of that division while there was a squad containing shite inherited from the previous board and managers, but the size of Falkirk's support is kind of the point here. When you have such high attendances relative to the rest of the division you should be able to live within your means and still have the highest (or second highest, Dunfermline dependent) budget in the division with a competitive squad to match. If you can't build a title challenging League One squad with £1.9M you are doing something extremely wrong.

Covered in the Airdrie thread. 

[FFC 1876]

Back to on the field, who we fancying?

Edited October 4, 2022 by FFC 1876

[Grangemouth Bairn]

3 minutes ago, FFC 1876 said:

Back to on the field, who we fancying?

We’ll beat any c**t. Bring them on.

[RC55 FFC]

Pars away

[Believe The Hype]

1 hour ago, Caractacus Potts said:

If that’s the case then surely a £5/month option would be the same? 

Don't think it should be. When it was started it was advertised as minimum £10 and you get a vote. So what happens if you now have a £5 option, guranteed there would be existing contributors dropping down to that payment. £5 should maybe get you all the info, emails, newsletters, foot in the door etc, but if you want a vote its minimum £10. If you can afford anymore then it's entirely up to yourself but it doesn't get you any more clout, you are just doing it off your own back because you can. Just because you have more money doesn't mean you have better or more important views and that's the way it should be. The idea of Folk buying votes gives me the heave. 

[Caractacus Potts]

5 minutes ago, Believe The Hype said:

Don't think it should be. When it was started it was advertised as minimum £10 and you get a vote. So what happens if you now have a £5 option, guranteed there would be existing contributors dropping down to that payment. £5 should maybe get you all the info, emails, newsletters, foot in the door etc, but if you want a vote its minimum £10. If you can afford anymore then it's entirely up to yourself but it doesn't get you any more clout, you are just doing it off your own back because you can. Just because you have more money doesn't mean you have better or more important views and that's the way it should be. The idea of Folk buying votes gives me the heave. 

I don’t think many will drop down as I’d imagine most who contribute do so for the ideology of it and not for a vote. 

We keep referencing the Hearts, St.Mirren and Motherwell models who all have £5 options so if we want to try and have as many members then we need to do the same. £10 may be too much of a stretch for some fans so they should be accommodated with a £5 option. 

[bairn88]

28 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

Forgive me if I'm picking something up wrong here from just reading posts about this podcast having not listened to it, but am I reading this correctly? Your board have deliberately set a budget with projected expenditure £400K higher than projected income, and the plans to make up that shortfall are more fans contributing to FSS (on the basis of joining from October at £10 a month you'd need 5000 new members to raise £400K by May), then the hope that privately wealthy individuals will step forward to cover whatever gap remains after that, whether that be through soft loans, share purchases or donations from the goodness of their hearts?

That seems highly risky, to say the least. What happens if that £400K can't be raised?

I get that there's a desperation to get out of that division while there was a squad containing shite inherited from the previous board and managers, but the size of Falkirk's support is kind of the point here. When you have such high attendances relative to the rest of the division you should be able to live within your means and still have the highest (or second highest, Dunfermline dependent) budget in the division with a competitive squad to match. If you can't build a title challenging League One squad with £1.9M you are doing something extremely wrong.

Rent on a stand, rent to council, 14 jobber players signed up on good wages very few of which McGlynn wanted, having to hire a proper management team (something our previous board failed miserably at). A very expensive immediate list for why we find it difficult not to run at a loss in this league.