Jump to content

The Falkirk FC Thread


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Your wrong here. The patrons do now hold a larger shareholding the the Rawlins. 

Only if you include the existing shareholders who 'loaned' their shares to the Patrons Group.  In terms of shares purchased, the Rawlins purchased far more than the Patrons Group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

Only if you include the existing shareholders who 'loaned' their shares to the Patrons Group.  In terms of shares purchased, the Rawlins purchased far more than the Patrons Group.

The point was shares owned. Didn’t mention shares purchased however all shares were purchased at some point in time by those members so no less significant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said:

Only if you include the existing shareholders who 'loaned' their shares to the Patrons Group.  In terms of shares purchased, the Rawlins purchased far more than the Patrons Group.

Many of the patrons also had excising shares pre the recent share issue of which they transferred to the group, there was no “loan” of shares, don’t see why that would be an issue anyway. Why would when the shares were bought make any difference to the percentage overall shareholding which is what we were discussing. 

Edited by LatapyBairn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RC_Bairn said:

Only if you include the existing shareholders who 'loaned' their shares to the Patrons Group.  In terms of shares purchased, the Rawlins purchased far more than the Patrons Group.

Loaned? So the previous purchase of share don’t mean anything or shouldn’t be counted? I and others haven’t loaned any shares to anyone they are in my name whether I bought them last December or years ago (incidentally paid a lot more then too). We are part of a group that believes in this model and the people helping to run it on behalf of the supporters as a whole. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

Loaned? So the previous purchase of share don’t mean anything or shouldn’t be counted? I and others haven’t loaned any shares to anyone they are in my name whether I bought them last December or years ago (incidentally paid a lot more then too). We are part of a group that believes in this model and the people helping to run it on behalf of the supporters as a whole. 
 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 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.

This  

FF49344D-BBB3-4977-A94C-EF2621D640B3.jpeg

Edited by Brockvillenomore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

1 minute ago, Back Post Misses said:

What @Brockvillenomoresaid. 
 

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.

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

Just now, LatapyBairn. said:

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. 

As I already mentioned a few posts ago...

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

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...

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

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...