The Falkirk FC Thread

[RC_Bairn]

5 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

So you are not a fan then?

What’s your vision for the club? 

It's nothing to do with whether I'm a fan or not.  Let's call a spade a spade.  The PG are a group of people who have pulled their shareholdings to take control of the day-to-day running of the club.  The PG entity itself owns no shares and can disband with one year's notice.

My original debate with van_damage was around the level of influence that the Rawlins had.  His contention is that they had too great an influence for an investment of £350k.  My counter was that the PG now effectively run the Club (every director is a member of the PG I believe) and they did this for the princely sum of £270k.

Nothing I've said above is incorrect and people certainly have the right to challenge and disagree.

[RC_Bairn]

1 minute ago, Rugster said:

He’s just another one with an agenda against the current regime. We really do have some of the worst “fans” in the country. 

Ah the old 'agenda'  accusation if you dare question anything...

[LatapyBairn.]

10 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

As I already mentioned a few posts ago...

Your tying yourself up in knots here, you started of by claiming the Rawlins had a larger shareholding than the Patrons Group, then when proven wrong went on to tell us the shares the patrons group have are somehow “loaned” as if those shares for some reason don’t count as much as the shareholding the Rawlins have. What actually is the point your trying to make? 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

It's nothing to do with whether I'm a fan or not.  Let's call a spade a spade.  The PG are a group of people who have pulled their shareholdings to take control of the day-to-day running of the club.  The PG entity itself owns no shares and can disband with one year's notice.

My original debate with van_damage was around the level of influence that the Rawlins had.  His contention is that they had too great an influence for an investment of £350k.  My counter was that the PG now effectively run the Club (every director is a member of the PG I believe) and they did this for the princely sum of £270k.

Nothing I've said above is incorrect and people certainly have the right to challenge and disagree.

So what is your vision? You seem to be very much against the current set up. So share your alternative with us 

[RC_Bairn]

1 minute ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Your tying yourself up in knots here, you started of by claiming the Rawlins had a larger shareholding than the Patrons Group, then when proven wrong went on to tell us the shares the patrons group have are somehow “loaned” as if those shares for some reason don’t count as much as the shareholding the Rawlins have. What actually is the point your trying to make? 

See above.  I can't keep spoon feeding it to you.  If you are stuggling to keep up then take a nap and come back refreshed in the morning.  We'll have another go then.

[LatapyBairn.]

6 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

Ah the old 'agenda'  accusation if you dare question anything...

I would normally agree with you, people shouldn’t be shouted down for constructive criticisms but reading back through your posts since you appeared a few days ago I can see why folk would come to the thinking your on here with an axe to grind as you’ve been very one track. A blind man could see you have indeed been pushing a single agenda. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[latapythelegend]

6 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

It's nothing to do with whether I'm a fan or not.  Let's call a spade a spade.  The PG are a group of people who have pulled their shareholdings to take control of the day-to-day running of the club.  The PG entity itself owns no shares and can disband with one year's notice.

My original debate with van_damage was around the level of influence that the Rawlins had.  His contention is that they had too great an influence for an investment of £350k.  My counter was that the PG now effectively run the Club (every director is a member of the PG I believe) and they did this for the princely sum of £270k.

Nothing I've said above is incorrect and people certainly have the right to challenge and disagree.

Let's say everything you say here is correct.

In your opinion, is there a better way of running the club at the moment with what we have available to us?

Edited October 4, 2022 by latapythelegend

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

6 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

It's nothing to do with whether I'm a fan or not.  Let's call a spade a spade.  The PG are a group of people who have pulled their shareholdings to take control of the day-to-day running of the club.  The PG entity itself owns no shares and can disband with one year's notice.

My original debate with van_damage was around the level of influence that the Rawlins had.  His contention is that they had too great an influence for an investment of £350k.  My counter was that the PG now effectively run the Club (every director is a member of the PG I believe) and they did this for the princely sum of £270k.

Nothing I've said above is incorrect and people certainly have the right to challenge and disagree.

All the Directors are also members of the FSS. Each group share the same vision and ultimate objective. 

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

3 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

See above.  I can't keep spoon feeding it to you.  If you are stuggling to keep up then take a nap and come back refreshed in the morning.  We'll have another go then.

You have a narrow and selective perspective, ignoring what is inconvenient. Emphasising what suits your predisposed position and when challenged rely on (charitably) sarcasm to avoid the points being made.  See above. 
 

You’re welcome on here @RC_Bairn and I looK forward to hearing your thoughts. 

[RC_Bairn]

7 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

So what is your vision? You seem to be very much against the current set up. So share your alternative with us 

The current set-up is too heavily weighted toward the PG in my view.  As I've said on numerous occasions they invested £270k into the club and effectively received four board seats.  No other investor would be afforded the same reward for such a low investment.

My vision?  We need to grow the FSS so they have more financial teeth and can restore a bit of balance to the board - at the moment they feel too much like the junior partner.  We also need to attract external investment.  All of which is easier said than done I appreciate - but you asked me for my vision.

[LatapyBairn.]

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. 

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

6 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

The current set-up is too heavily weighted toward the PG in my view.  As I've said on numerous occasions they invested £270k into the club and effectively received four board seats.  No other investor would be afforded the same reward for such a low investment.

My vision?  We need to grow the FSS so they have more financial teeth and can restore a bit of balance to the board - at the moment they feel too much like the junior partner.  We also need to attract external investment.  All of which is easier said than done I appreciate - but you asked me for my vision.

You do realise that directors have legal responsibilities that expressly state they have to act in the best interests of the company, irrespective of their external interests and influences. There are other and similarly defined rules and regulations around conduct. 
 

Your suggestion that the patrons are in some sort of control is essentially a direct criticism of all the directors? 
 

Have you seen or heard anything to back up this position? 

Edited October 4, 2022 by Brockvillenomore

[RC_Bairn]

14 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

I would normally agree with you, people shouldn’t be shouted down for constructive criticisms but reading back through your posts since you appeared a few days ago I can see why folk would come to the thinking your on here with an axe to grind as you’ve been very one track. A blind man could see you have indeed been pushing a single agenda. 

I've read this forum for many years but never took to posting.  I decided to change that recently and express my viewpoint which is my right on a public forum.  Folk reading these posts can either believe what I say, or happily sit back and cast me as a 'man with an agenda'

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

See above.  I can't keep spoon feeding it to you.  If you are stuggling to keep up then take a nap and come back refreshed in the morning.  We'll have another go then.

I’m not sure of your point either. You said the Patrons didn’t have more shares than the Rawlins. That was proven wrong and your point about shares being pulled does nothing to change that fact. 

Also you refuted my claim of the Rawlins having a lot of power for relatively little money yet say the same of the Patrons. As it is I agree the patrons do have a lot of power, even more so, for little however I’m far more comfortable with it being part of a democratic structure of Falkirk fans than an investor having control of a club they have no attachment to. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by Guest

[18BAIRN76]

8 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. 

Absolutely shocked to see a team with Charlie Telfer anchoring the middle of the park folding like a deck of cards.

Edited October 4, 2022 by 18BAIRN76

[Springfield]

1 minute 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. 

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. 

[Zbairn]

11 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

The current set-up is too heavily weighted toward the PG in my view.  As I've said on numerous occasions they invested £270k into the club and effectively received four board seats.  No other investor would be afforded the same reward for such a low investment.

My vision?  We need to grow the FSS so they have more financial teeth and can restore a bit of balance to the board - at the moment they feel too much like the junior partner.  We also need to attract external investment.  All of which is easier said than done I appreciate - but you asked me for my vision.

The PG effectively received 2 board seats. The FSS have 2 seats. It’s up to that group who they appoint to the Board. It’s irrelevant that one of their picks happens to be a member of both Groups. It’s who the FSS voted for.
 

They can just as easily “unvote” him and get 2 non patrons on board….if they can find 2 guys willing to take it on.…..just as you can put yourself forward if you are an FSS member.

Edited October 4, 2022 by Zbairn

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

The current set-up is too heavily weighted toward the PG in my view.  As I've said on numerous occasions they invested £270k into the club and effectively received four board seats.  No other investor would be afforded the same reward for such a low investment.

My vision?  We need to grow the FSS so they have more financial teeth and can restore a bit of balance to the board - at the moment they feel too much like the junior partner.  We also need to attract external investment.  All of which is easier said than done I appreciate - but you asked me for my vision.

So your vision is pretty much the same as you would have heard last night. Grow FSS, diluting PG influence and look for external investment too. 
Really not sure what you are arguing about TBH. 

[RC_Bairn]

3 minutes ago, Brockvillenomore said:

You do realise that directors have legal responsibilities that expressly state they have to act in the best interests of the company, irrespective of their external interests and influences. There are other and similarly defined rules and regulations around conduct. 
 

Your suggestion that the patrons are in some sort of control is essential a direct criticism of all the directors? 
 

Have you seen or heard anything to back up this position? 

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?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

I've read this forum for many years but never took to posting.  I decided to change that recently and express my viewpoint which is my right on a public forum.  Folk reading these posts can either believe what I say, or happily sit back and cast me as a 'man with an agenda'

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