Jump to content

The Falkirk FC Thread


Recommended Posts

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

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 by Van_damage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by 18BAIRN76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Zbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by PedroMoutinho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by LatapyBairn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

1F4B75E2-5E69-4D57-995B-9555EF89B3DE.jpeg

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...