The Falkirk FC Thread

[gav-ffc]

1 hour ago, Dunning1874 said:

You're proving his point here.

Plan A is obviously that the £400K is raised via FSS (just the 5000 members needed from this month to raise that total by the end of the season) and Patrons. Plan B is some other privately wealthy individuals buying shares, providing soft loans or contributing by some other means. Alongside those is the prospect that the expenditure leads to promotion and significantly increases income for next season.

However, none of that answers what happens if the £400K can't be raised. Is there a credit facility? Will it be bank debt? If not, what then?

The 400k isn’t from FSS alone.

Quote

However, we still have £500,000 worth of shares to sell, and these need to be sold before the end of the season to ensure we can cover the projected losses (and provide a 25% buffer in case we don’t reach our income or cost targets). We’re therefore setting the following goals:

• £250,000 to be raised via lump sum investment by the end of 2022
• £250,000 to be raised via monthly subscriptions by the end of May 2023

 

[PedroMoutinho]

1 hour ago, Dunning1874 said:

You're proving his point here.

Plan A is obviously that the £400K is raised via FSS (just the 5000 members needed from this month to raise that total by the end of the season) and Patrons. Plan B is some other privately wealthy individuals buying shares, providing soft loans or contributing by some other means. Alongside those is the prospect that the expenditure leads to promotion and significantly increases income for next season.

However, none of that answers what happens if the £400K can't be raised. Is there a credit facility? Will it be bank debt? If not, what then?

It was quite apparent to me from the podcast that the intention is to seek soft loans from Martin Ritchie and Sandy Alexander. 

Alexander was described as a “fantastic fan of the club” which is quite the turnaround from the current bod.

 

[Springfield]

Maybe I’m way off mark, but if it wasn’t for the two named, not quite sure if we would have a club……

[PedroMoutinho]

7 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Maybe I’m way off mark, but if it wasn’t for the two named, not quite sure if we would have a club……

Exactly. Tbh it shows for me the danger of not having a wealthy individual who is actively engaged in the club as the third stool of the model.

Seemingly the patrons are either unable or unwilling to invest any more to cover the losses. So we are left with going cap in hand to MSG members who I think most of us (definitely including the patrons, some of whom I recall criticised previous directors for not investing more of their own money in the club) wanted rid of.

Edited October 6, 2022 by PedroMoutinho

[Guest Back Post Misses]

10 hours ago, Harry Kinnear said:

Is there a cost to FSS if i pay my subscription by PayPal, if there is I will cancel and set up a standing order.

Yes probably the most expensive way to collect card payments 

[NavyBlueArmy1876]

2 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

You're proving his point here.

Plan A is obviously that the £400K is raised via FSS (just the 5000 members needed from this month to raise that total by the end of the season) and Patrons. Plan B is some other privately wealthy individuals buying shares, providing soft loans or contributing by some other means. Alongside those is the prospect that the expenditure leads to promotion and significantly increases income for next season.

However, none of that answers what happens if the £400K can't be raised. Is there a credit facility? Will it be bank debt? If not, what then?

That '5,000' new members figure is based on everyone paying the minimum £10 a month. A lot will pay more than that and many existing members have upped their contributions as well. Anyway, it's not beyond the realms of possibility for us to get to 5.5k signed up - because we are fucking massive x 

[Guest FFC1965]

Just cancelled my £10 pm via Paypal and replaced it with a higher monthly payment via Standing Order.       

[Jimmy1876]

3 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

Plan A is obviously that the £400K is raised via FSS (just the 5000 members needed from this month to raise that total by the end of the season) and Patrons. Plan B is some other privately wealthy individuals buying shares, providing soft loans or contributing by some other means. Alongside those is the prospect that the expenditure leads to promotion and significantly increases income for next season.

However, none of that answers what happens if the £400K can't be raised. Is there a credit facility? Will it be bank debt? If not, what then?

Maybe don't comment on other clubs finances if you don't understand them? Operating losses are normal for almost all clubs outwith the premiership and are covered by clubs making additional financial gain either through wealthy owners providing soft loans, player sales or various commercial deals. This is pretty normal running of football clubs so reckon it is you who should get off your high horse honestly. 

The difference here is our current board are wanting to push for fan ownership so that we have more control and say in our club, an initiative not many clubs and certainly few boards have wanted to push for. One which I am grateful they have given us the option of exploring. But with that comes a deadline, because they need to know the income that will be there, otherwise they need to go back to the standard means of running clubs (as other clubs do). That means being able to guarantee that £400k is covered. And with a current average of £12 per month, it is around 2500-3000 members recquired to cover the portion designated for FSS which was £250k, a membership number other fan owned clubs have managed. And considering we had at least 2500 per game last season and are heading for 4000 per home game this season it is not unreasonable. Certainly a challenge and a concern for those who want fan ownership to be given that deadline but trying to lecture on finances is just a bit pathetic when you clearly don't even understand them. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 minute ago, Jimmy1876 said:

Maybe don't comment on other clubs finances if you don't understand them? Operating losses are normal for almost all clubs outwith the premiership and are covered by clubs making additional financial gain either through wealthy owners providing soft loans, player sales or various commercial deals. This is pretty normal running of football clubs so reckon it is you who should get off your high horse honestly. 

The difference here is our current board are wanting to push for fan ownership so that we have more control and say in our club, an initiative not many clubs and certainly few boards have wanted to push for. One which I am grateful they have given us the option of exploring. But with that comes a deadline, because they need to know the income that will be there, otherwise they need to go back to the standard means of running clubs (as other clubs do). That means being able to guarantee that £400k is covered. And with a current average of £12 per month, it is around 2500-3000 members recquired to cover the portion designated for FSS which was £250k, a membership number other fan owned clubs have managed. And considering we had at least 2500 per game last season and are heading for 4000 per home game this season it is not unreasonable. Certainly a challenge and a concern for those who want fan ownership to be given that deadline but trying to lecture on finances is just a bit pathetic when you clearly don't even understand them. 

Wouldn't operating costs/losses be the figure after commercial deals and player sales have been taken in to account.  I thought these were part of how football clubs "operate".

Genuine question.

[ShaggerG]

2 hours ago, PedroMoutinho said:

It was quite apparent to me from the podcast that the intention is to seek soft loans from Martin Ritchie and Sandy Alexander. 

Alexander was described as a “fantastic fan of the club” which is quite the turnaround from the current bod.

 

Which (or is it all) of the current BOD described SA as not being a 'fantastic fan of the club' or, as you allude to, describing him as something much worse? I'm not having a go here as I honestly don't know.

I'm obviously aware of the clamour to get rid of them, especially by some on here, due to them being seen as the culprits in appointing past failure but would be interested to hear why you think there's been a 'turnaround' by the BOD.

Personally I would never be against a wealthy fan or fans of the club that are willing to invest as long as they're not looking for full control or want to treat the club as some sort of vanity project and I would certainly want that investment to run alongside the FSS involvement. I hope that some sort of deal can be sorted to allow that to happen. 

[Jimmy1876]

3 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Wouldn't operating costs/losses be the figure after commercial deals and player sales have been taken in to account.  I thought these were part of how football clubs "operate".

Genuine question.

I believe that is the official definition in accounting but Kenny Jamieson on the padcast explains he likes to consider operating losses before that primarily because he does not want to count on those things happening every season. In general operating losses do have to then be covered by soft loans or simply a cheque is written by wealthy owners. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

Just now, Jimmy1876 said:

I believe that is the official definition in accounting but Kenny Jamieson on the padcast explains he likes to consider operating losses before that primarily because he does not want to count on those things happening every season. In general operating losses do have to then be covered by soft loans or simply a cheque is written by wealthy owners. 

Fair enough.

[Skyline Drifter]

5 hours ago, Back Post Misses said:

I ain’t on any high horse but won’t take lectures from anyone at a club with your track record. Two words Gavin Masterson now f**k off 

Ludicrous attitude here. You're making yourself look like a two bit moron, and I know you're not. Perhaps you could let us know which clubs would be acceptable to have a fan ask you that very straightforward question and get it addressed properly?

Edited October 6, 2022 by Skyline Drifter

[Skyline Drifter]

32 minutes ago, Jimmy1876 said:

Maybe don't comment on other clubs finances if you don't understand them? Operating losses are normal for almost all clubs outwith the premiership and are covered by clubs making additional financial gain either through wealthy owners providing soft loans, player sales or various commercial deals. This is pretty normal running of football clubs so reckon it is you who should get off your high horse honestly. 

The difference here is our current board are wanting to push for fan ownership so that we have more control and say in our club, an initiative not many clubs and certainly few boards have wanted to push for. One which I am grateful they have given us the option of exploring. But with that comes a deadline, because they need to know the income that will be there, otherwise they need to go back to the standard means of running clubs (as other clubs do). That means being able to guarantee that £400k is covered. And with a current average of £12 per month, it is around 2500-3000 members recquired to cover the portion designated for FSS which was £250k, a membership number other fan owned clubs have managed. And considering we had at least 2500 per game last season and are heading for 4000 per home game this season it is not unreasonable. Certainly a challenge and a concern for those who want fan ownership to be given that deadline but trying to lecture on finances is just a bit pathetic when you clearly don't even understand them. 

Jesus wept.

[Springfield]

We’d still be sitting with a one off - centre piece main stand, if it wasn’t for SA/MR, from what I can gather.
Regardless of how you pitch or see these guys, one leg stool, patrons, investors, wealthy fans, and the not so nice names I won’t print. These guys have helped the club significantly and probably more than we will ever be told. 

[Dawson Park Boy]

1 minute ago, Springfield said:

We’d still be sitting with a one off - centre piece main stand, if it wasn’t for SA/MR, from what I can gather.
Regardless of how you pitch or see these guys, one leg stool, patrons, investors, wealthy fans, and the not so nice names I won’t print. These guys have helped the club significantly and probably more than we will ever be told. 

Indeed and back in around 2015, I think, they wrote off (forgave) a few hundred thousand of their loans.

Not much publicised but there was a Note deep in the Accounts confirming what they had done.
That should never be forgotten.

[NavyBlueArmy1876]

A winning team will also generate cash. Our average attendances have been brilliant since we were relegated considering what's been served up on the park with 3,713 in our first season down and and 3,468 last year. 

So far this season

3,682 (Montrose)
3,426 (Peterhead)
3,884 (Queen of the South)
3,689 (Clyde)

But I don't see any reason why we can't get to the 4k mark from 3.5k last season. 500 extra walk up fans will generate £5-10k a game. Every little helps and all that

Edited October 6, 2022 by NavyBlueArmy1876

[Fifes Elite Force]

One of the big mistakes with Dunfermline was the fans not asking more questions at the time on the theme of the ones being asked on here. Getting  angry and responding with "f**k off" or "Maybe don't comment on other clubs finances if you don't understand them?" towards people posing sensible questions even if they are from fans of other teams isnt the way to go about things. Infact if I was a casual poster on here viewing the thread to find out more about the whole proposal I would be put off by that sort of reaction and regard it with a bit of suspicion rather than joining up.

Edited October 6, 2022 by Fifes Elite Force

[Jimmy1876]

Just now, Fifes Elite Force said:

One of the big mistakes with Dunfermline was the fans not asking more questions at the time on the theme of the ones being asked on here. Getting  angry and responding with "f**k off" or "Maybe don't comment on other clubs finances if you don't understand them?" towards people posing sensible questions even if they are from fans of other teams isnt the way to go about things. Infact if I was a casual poster on here viewing the thread to find out more about the whole proposal I would be put of by that sort of reaction and regard it with a bit of suspicion rather than joining up.

In fact I totally agree with you and have been quite open about my concern as well as trying to decipher the finances to get myself a bit more clarity. I absolutely welcome anyone being interested and trying to find out more and in that same post went on to explain the finances/goals/how it works when there is operating losses. What I meant by "don't comment when you don't understand" is when someone is laughing at the club, when they have the facts wrong. Don't think that is unreasonable tbh. 

[HoBNob]

6 hours ago, Back Post Misses said:

I ain’t on any high horse but won’t take lectures from anyone at a club with your track record. Two words Gavin Masterson now f**k off 

Point proven.