The Falkirk FC Thread

[strichener]

59 minutes ago, Bigbri Bairn said:

Absolutely correct Harry. Me too
But dont like the idea that the bigger you pay the more you can say. That sinks of the usual capitalist mantra

Aka The Patrons?

[GeordieBairn]

5 minutes ago, strichener said:

Aka The Patrons?

Different thing entirely to the FSS so not really relevant 

[NavyBlueArmy1876]

52 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Not appropriate to a football forum.

Looks like we’ll need some Tories to bail us out.

[Bairnardo]

Not appropriate to a football forum.
Looks like we’ll need some Tories to bail us out.

That you trying to curb someone's free speech there mate?

SURELY not?

[Bigbri Bairn]

Aka The Patrons?

In a way yes. But the way the system should go they have the same clout on the BoD as the FSS( CUE THE NIGEL IS A PATRON RESPONSE ). If the FSS had a few members with the time experience and desire that would be perfect.

[Dawson Park Boy]

18 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

That you trying to curb someone's free speech there mate?

SURELY not?

Saying something is inappropriate is not stopping it.

Happy to debate with him on the Politics Forum.

[RC_Bairn]

30 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

Not sure what thanks the Rawlins deserve. They were very much part of the last board and had a lot of influence which they got for little money. They’re not philanthropists who wanted to gift their money to us. They seen us as an investment and a way to make a good return although not sure their exact plan for that.

God knows where it would have led to with them but I’m far from convinced they were the saviours they were made to be at the time.

They did not get what the club was about at all and their style of management was flippant, to say the least. We weren’t the only ones to form that opinion with them and the last board. Happy to take their money but they squandered much more. 

Alot of influence which they got for little money?  That's bonkers.  The Patrons bought far more influence in the club and paid £80k-90k less than the Rawlins for it.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Rawlins sat down with £350k in their pocket and thought the best way to make a return on it was to invest in a Scottish League One club?  I could think of a million better ways to make a profitable return and I'm skint!

[strichener]

30 minutes ago, GeordieBairn said:

Different thing entirely to the FSS so not really relevant 

They have committed money to the club in return for influence.  It might no suit the current "everyone is equal" groupthink but as an outsider looking in, is appears very much like it is the same thing entirely.

I get that some or maybe even all of the patrons are also FSS members which means that they are also getting a vote through this mechanism so it already isn't the one person, one vote that was being discussed.

[18BAIRN76]

I’ve been banging on about the £5 tier for ages. People talk about the the number of folk who might drop from £10 to £5 - that might well happen, but I honestly don’t think it would be that frequent. People who want to contribute more are free to do so because their financial situation allows it (hopefully - no one should be paying more because they feel obliged and thereby put themselves in financial trouble). You’ve also got to think about all the people you might well be able to recruit at a fiver a month who wouldn’t touch the £10 tier. To me, it’s a no brainer.

Finally, £5 as the basic tier should give you voting rights, the same as everyone else. That’s just fair. Introduce other incentives/prize draws etc for folk giving more, that’s totally legitimate. But you can’t go out barring people from voting because they only donate £5 instead of £10, £15 or more. Pure Tory patter. We’re better than that.

[Van_damage]

3 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

Alot of influence which they got for little money?  That's bonkers.  The Patrons bought far more influence in the club and paid £80k-90k less than the Rawlins for it.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Rawlins sat down with £350k in their pocket and thought the best way to make a return on it was to invest in a Scottish League One club?  I could think of a million better ways to make a profitable return and I'm skint!

The Patrons did get a lot influence but mainly by default of the Rawlins and Deans abandoning ship. £350k in the grand scheme of things is nothing to gain control of a club which they effectively had. If that offer had been available at the time for another fan group to invest then I’m sure it would equally have been taken up. 

Also are you suggesting that someone with zero attachment to Falkirk invested out of the kindness of their heart? 

[Brockvillenomore]

1 minute ago, strichener said:

They have committed money to the club in return for influence.  It might no suit the current "everyone is equal" groupthink but as an outsider looking in, is appears very much like it is the same thing entirely.

I get that some or maybe even all of the patrons are also FSS members which means that they are also getting a vote through this mechanism so it already isn't the one person, one vote that was being discussed.

So, the patrons invest, provide the cash to see us though last season and then, simultaneously actively support a significant % dilution of their investment by encouraging the supporters to also invest. All while also being members of the FSS! And this is somehow a bad thing?  

[RC_Bairn]

1 minute ago, Van_damage said:

The Patrons did get a lot influence but mainly by default of the Rawlins and Deans abandoning ship. £350k in the grand scheme of things is nothing to gain control of a club which they effectively had. If that offer had been available at the time for another fan group to invest then I’m sure it would equally have been taken up. 

Also are you suggesting that someone with zero attachment to Falkirk invested out of the kindness of their heart? 

So it's not OK to gain control of the club with £350k but it is with £270k (what the patrons invested)?.  That makes no sense.  Another fan group would have taken up the offer to invest £350k?  Are you actually reading your own words?  The Patrons topped out at £270k and I don't see an army of other investors coming forward, do you?

Not suggesting their motives were driven by kindness, but to suggest it was to make a quick buck is nonsense.

[strichener]

6 minutes ago, Brockvillenomore said:

So, the patrons invest, provide the cash to see us though last season and then, simultaneously actively support a significant % dilution of their investment by encouraging the supporters to also invest. All while also being members of the FSS! And this is somehow a bad thing?  

Yes, just continue to argue with yourself.  I don't think the investment from the Patrons was a bad thing but you can't take a position that it doesn't matter how much you contribute to the FSS, you have an equal say when the horse has already bolted.  Your three legged stool model relies on this.

[Van_damage]

3 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

So it's not OK to gain control of the club with £350k but it is with £270k (what the patrons invested)?.  That makes no sense.  Another fan group would have taken up the offer to invest £350k?  Are you actually reading your own words?  The Patrons topped out at £270k and I don't see an army of other investors coming forward, do you?

Not suggesting their motives were driven by kindness, but to suggest it was to make a quick buck is nonsense.

The Navy Blue offered £550k if memory serves right to gain the same level of ownership as the Rawlins. Are you saying they wouldn’t have formed to take up 25% at £350k if it was on the table? 

I never said the Rawlins were there for a quick buck but you said we should just thank them as though their investment was out of charity. Anyones money is welcome but it doesn’t mean the club then can become their plaything. If they want to run things then they still have to gain respect. The Rawlins input to the club could have set us further back than if they never invested. 

[RC_Bairn]

2 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

The Navy Blue offered £550k if memory serves right to gain the same level of ownership as the Rawlins. Are you saying they wouldn’t have formed to take up 25% at £350k if it was on the table? 

I never said the Rawlins were there for a quick buck but you said we should just thank them as though their investment was out of charity. Anyones money is welcome but it doesn’t mean the club then can become their plaything. If they want to run things then they still have to gain respect. The Rawlins input to the club could have set us further back than if they never invested. 

There's nothing stopping the Navy Blue group from investing £550k.  In fact they could do it tomorrow if they wanted to.  Let's see if they do...

[LatapyBairn.]

14 minutes ago, strichener said:

Yes, just continue to argue with yourself.  I don't think the investment from the Patrons was a bad thing but you can't take a position that it doesn't matter how much you contribute to the FSS, you have an equal say when the horse has already bolted.  Your three legged stool model relies on this.

What on earth are you slavering about, the patrons group and the FSS are two totaly separate things run in a separate way. The idea behind the FSS was to gain a 26% shareholding in the club to give the fans a voice equal to that of the other major shareholders. The principal behind the patrons group although having similarities is different, the focus was more on bringing in larger investment quickly while still being as democratic as possible and to that extent it’s achieved most of its goals having raised 300k of which 100% went into the club. Now as the FSS grows it’s shareholding both the Patrons Group and other major shareholders % control of the club will shrink in tandem, the FSS is a long term thing to safeguard the future of the club and give fans a voice. It’s an excellent concept in my opinion, not sure why you seem to have a problem with it. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[Brockvillenomore]

7 minutes ago, strichener said:

Yes, just continue to argue with yourself.  I don't think the investment from the Patrons was a bad thing but you can't take a position that it doesn't matter how much you contribute to the FSS, you have an equal say when the horse has already bolted.  Your three legged stool model relies on this.

The model relies on over 1,000 supporters signing up to FSS.
 

This increases the supporters % of the club. 
 

Reduces the % of the patrons, the Rawlins and the shareholders we used to call the msg. 
 

There’s no argument really on simple facts. 

[Van_damage]

11 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

There's nothing stopping the Navy Blue group from investing £550k.  In fact they could do it tomorrow if they wanted to.  Let's see if they do...

That’s another point to what we were discussing.

We were talking about the Rawlins impact to the club. They took an active role in the commercial side which, from the podcast, dropped massively so sorry if I don’t share your sentiment if we are to thank them for getting involved with Falkirk. I think we would have been better off if they never set foot in the club to be honest. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by Van_damage

[Shodwall cat]

As far as I'm aware the Rawlins are in no rush to get their money back. Happy to take a back seat and hope we go further up the leagues. I would think though  that if things went pear shaped a bit and their investment was put at risk then they'd take up the board position they are due and have someone representing their corner .  

[FFC1965]

I think I'll be due an increase in my take home pay next month as a result of the reversal of the National Insurance hike so I'll bump up my FSS subscription accordingly.  Like others I guess I started at the minimum of £10 to see how it went, it feels like the right time now to bump it up.  I imagine that there is as much potential growth in the FSS through existing members increasing their sub than via new members but both would be good. 

Like an earlier poster, I see the FSS subscription as a donation to the club, in order to try and protect it against a Romanov type scenario.  Influence doesnt come into it.    

I thought the Directors were very good on the podcast.