The Falkirk FC Thread

[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'

[Van_damage]

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 Van_damage

[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

[Back Post Misses]

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?

[Back Post Misses]

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. 

[RC_Bairn]

1 minute ago, Back Post Misses said:

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

Believe what I say or don't - it matters little to me.  This is a place for debate and the sharing of views.  We clearly have differing viewpoints and that's fine with me.

[Bairney The Dinosaur]

My biggest concern since the email on Friday was a feeling that it was inevitable that FSS was being sidelined. 

The podcast and a few emails I've had back and forth with club have eased that, although it's still clear the FSS needs to up the monthly contributions. 

Assuming the full 'investment gap' is not met by FSS May 23 I really do hope that the main effort is placed on finding some way of 'ringfencing' the shares, as the alternative is devastating.

FSS will come, but it needs time.

 

[PedroMoutinho]

46 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

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?

Personally I think a more balanced board is needed as a matter of urgency. As you say, we currently have a position where one group has invested less than the price of a 3 bed semi in Larbert yet have total control of the board of directors.

As I and others have said before, it is not good from a corporate governance or decision-making perspective to have a group entitled to 2 board seats but actually make up the entire board.

I don’t particularly care whether it’s achieved through appointing FSS directors who are not patrons, Rawlins-appointed directors or others, but imo we simply cannot go on with patrons members controlling the entire board.

Appointing a non-Patron independent chairman would be a good place to start imo.

Edited October 4, 2022 by PedroMoutinho

[PedroMoutinho]

On 03/10/2022 at 13:27, Back Post Misses said:

You know what. There is something in trying to make us better as a club and investing in the right areas. If we were looking at everything purely on cost then we would not have any development squad either, fitness coach, GK coach FT (he maybe PT I don’t really know) guys doing analysis probably. 

 

 

That’s all very well but if the money isn’t there to pay for “making us better as a club” (which it clearly isn’t going by the recent statements), it isn’t there.

You can’t on the one hand say we’re going to run out of money unless the fans put their hands in their pockets and on the other spend thousands on non-essentials.

You criticised the previous board for restarting the youth development squads given the money it cost. Why  is it any different now?

[LatapyBairn.]

Both the PG and the FSS have two seats on the BOD each,  the fact that some people chose to invest in both groups is petty irrelevant IMO as both sets of directors are democratically elected by its members/the fans, in fact the closer the two fan organisations are the better. We all need to be on the same page working together here. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[Van_damage]

25 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

Personally I think a more balanced board is needed as a matter of urgency. As you say, we currently have a position where one group has invested less than the price of a 3 bed semi in Larbert yet have total control of the board of directors.

As I and others have said before, it is not good from a corporate governance or decision-making perspective to have a group entitled to 2 board seats but actually make up the entire board.

I don’t particularly care whether it’s achieved through appointing FSS directors who are not patrons, Rawlins-appointed directors or others, but imo we simply cannot go with patrons members controlling the entire board.

Appointing a non-Patron independent chairman would be a good place to start imo.

That was the exact same situation with the Rawlins however unlike the Rawlins the Patrons are Falkirk fans. Their intentions are clear and they represent a much larger pool of people than the Rawlins with a democratic structure at heart. 

[Brockvillenomore]

35 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

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?

Legally the Directors have to act independently and focus on safeguarding the company. 
 

Your statements (they’re not even arguments) have to be based on evidence and fact. Not feelings.  

[NavyBlueArmy1876]

42 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. 

Airdrie making the classic Dunfermline mistake of signing our dross in the hope that they somehow remember to be footballers again 

[PedroMoutinho]

 

9 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

That was the exact same situation with the Rawlins however unlike the Rawlins the Patrons are Falkirk fans. Their intentions are clear and they represent a much larger pool of people than the Rawlins with a democratic structure at heart. 

When did the Rawlins make up the entire board of directors?

[PedroMoutinho]

12 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

in fact the closer the two fan organisations are the better. We all need to be on the same page working together here. 

Not for me- the FSS are there to represent the interests of Falkirk fans, not behave as a support act to the patrons.

It is very possible that the interests of the Falkirk supporters could differ from those of the patrons and the FSS have to be able to speak out when that happens.

[LatapyBairn.]

6 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

Not for me- the FSS are there to represent the interests of Falkirk fans, not behave as a support act to the patrons.

It is very possible that the interests of the Falkirk supporters could differ from those of the patrons and the FSS have to be able to speak out when that happens.

Both groups are compromised of supporters/fans, they have the same interests, goals and democratic structure. Your also missing the point that directors from both organisations are democratically elected by its members/the fans. You could just as easily turn it around the other way and say the PG are a “support act” to the FSS because all the directors are also FSS members so by your logic the FSS actually control the BOD. Your point doesn’t make any sense. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[Van_damage]

1 minute ago, PedroMoutinho said:

 

When did the Rawlins make up the entire board of directors?

Who were the other directors representing on that board room? 

Whether they are all patrons or FSS members, Nigel is elected by the FSS and Kenny and Keith are elected by the Patrons. Only Gordon Wright remains as an independent.  

It’s maybe still not perfect but it’s definitely a lot better to have a structure whereby people are elected to the board than purely invited on by their friends. 
 

Did you think it was a better structure with the Rawlins in the board and Deans as chair?