Jump to content

The Falkirk FC Thread


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

You've made my point for me.  You are part of a group of people who have pooled their shares together.  You can withdraw your shares from that pot at any time (although there is a notice period).  That is the definition of a loan.

Sorry but your point was the patrons group having less shares than the Rawlins. Who those shares belong to doesn’t matter. The group itself currently has more shares than the Rawlins. That’s what you refuted. 
 

For what it’s worth too, the Rawlins don’t have any shares in their own name. They’re held by a holding company which has 3 directors, 2 of which are the Rawlins and the other is Gary Mellor. 

Edited by Van_damage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

Conveniently ignoring the underlying point.  The PG is a group of individuals who have pooled their shareholdings and those shares can be taken back by those individuals at any point.  The harsh reality is that the PG does not 'own' any shares.

There is a 12 month notice period to resign from the group, so no, patrons cannot just “take back” they’re shares at any point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

Conveniently ignoring the underlying point.  The PG is a group of individuals who have pooled their shareholdings and those shares can be taken back by those individuals at any point.  The harsh reality is that the PG does not 'own' any shares.

So you are not a fan then?

What’s your vision for the club? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

So you are not a fan then?

What’s your vision for the club? 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by LatapyBairn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by latapythelegend
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Brockvillenomore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...