The Falkirk FC Thread

[PedroMoutinho]

11 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

When was this announced? They said on the podcast they were due to meet with them regarding potential soft loans but that was in amongst a raft of other measures, I presumed we wouldn’t find out the finalised detail until the AGM. 

It hasn’t been announced anywhere as far as I know. However given that one of the other measures was increasing FSS membership to 3000, which clearly we aren’t anywhere near, I would assume the soft loans have been pursued.

[LatapyBairn.]

25 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

It hasn’t been announced anywhere as far as I know. However given that one of the other measures was increasing FSS membership to 3000, which clearly we aren’t anywhere near, I would assume the soft loans have been pursued.

They also suggested selling shareholding to new investment, additional investment via the patrons group taking a bigger shareholding and spoke about some sort of share buy back scheme over and above the soft loans and simply increasing FSS membership. The 25 season tickets made available for 10 seasons at 5k each is obviously another initiative despite it not being mentioned on the podcast, that in itself could potentially raise 125k. At I guess I’m going to presume if the 400k gap is to be closed it’ll be a combined effort rather than a heavy reliance on one initiative alone.

Edited November 20, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[Dawson Park Boy]

1 hour ago, PedroMoutinho said:

My understanding was that a large part of the gap would be covered by soft loans from Martin Ritchie and Sandy Alexander.

Have they agreed to that?

[PedroMoutinho]

12 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Have they agreed to that?

No idea but it was heavily implied in my view on the Falkirk daft podcast that soft loans from those two was the most likely route to filling the black whole.

Personally if I were those 2, I’d have doubts about committing any further sums given the past acrimony with some patrons and abuse they’ve both taken more widely.

Edited November 20, 2022 by PedroMoutinho

[LatapyBairn.]

1 hour ago, PedroMoutinho said:

No idea but it was heavily implied in my view on the Falkirk daft podcast that soft loans from those two was the most likely route to filling the ball whole.

Personally if I were those 2, I’d have doubts about committing any further sums given the past acrimony with some patrons and abuse they’ve both taken more widely.

Who within the patrons group has “past acrimony” with SA or MR? I wasn’t aware of this, presumed relations were good. Even if true I don’t imagine a personal issue regarding a person or persons within a larger fans group should detract from the main objective, the club is more important than any single fan or shareholder. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[PedroMoutinho]

3 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Who within the patrons group has “past acrimony” with SA or MR? I wasn’t aware of this, presumed relations were good. Even if true I don’t imagine a personal issue with an individual within a larger fans group should detract from the larger objective, the club is more important than any single fan or shareholder. 

My understanding is that there is acrimony dating back to the failed navy blue group bid for a stake in the club relating to the way that was approached by the NB’s negotiating stance with them allegedly immediately demanding removal of directors etc.

Edited November 20, 2022 by PedroMoutinho

[LatapyBairn.]

7 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

My understanding is that there is acrimony dating back to the failed navy blue group bid for a stake in the club relating to the way that was approached by the NB’s negotiating stance with them allegedly immediately demanding removal of directors etc.

Were SA and MR not already out of the picture by then, they’ve both been hands off for a while now? They’d diluted their shareholding’s and Rawlins had already invested placing himself and wife on the BOD as the clubs largest shareholders at the point of the NB bid. Surely any acrimony would have been with the BOD who were sitting at that point in time? The acrimony I remember was more with the Deans, Mcfarlane, Coburn BOD ect who have now all moved on. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[PedroMoutinho]

2 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Were SA and MR not already out of the picture by then, they’ve both been hands off for a while now? They’d diluted their shareholding’s and Rawlins had already invested placing himself and wife on the BOD as the clubs largest shareholders at the point of the NB bid. Surely any acrimony would have been with the BOD who were sitting at that point in time? 

I think the navy blue bid was in the running when Mark Campbell was selected instead as preferred bidder (before the bod stoped talks with him).

I believe MR is on record as saying that the navy blue’s behaviour and attitude made their bid very difficult to accept.

[Proudtobeabairn]

Watson coming back might actually turn out to be more of a blessing than we thought.  Could see Watson/Donaldson becoming our 2 first choice CBs for the second half of the season.  Williamson right back when fit, McKay filling in when not.  

[LatapyBairn.]

4 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

I think the navy blue bid was in the running when Mark Campbell was selected instead as preferred bidder (before the bod stoped talks with him).

I believe MR is on record as saying that the navy blue’s behaviour and attitude made their bid very difficult to accept.

Wasn’t aware the NB group was even a thing back then, can only remember the BtB bid where we all pledged a monthly subscription(think it was fronted by Kenny Jamison) the Allan Gow fronted bid and the Mark Campbell bid which the club inexplicably decided to opt for of the 3 despite warnings and obvious red flags many pointed out.

Edited November 20, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[PedroMoutinho]

2 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Wasn’t aware the NB group was even a thing back then, can only remember the BtB bid where we all pledged a monthly subscription(think it was fronted by Kenny Jamison) the Allan Gow fronted bid and the Mark Campbell bid which the club inexplicably decided to opt for of the 3 despite warnings and obvious red flags many pointed out.

You may well be correct- I can’t remember what the name of the group at that time was called but I think quite a number of people who are now patrons were involved.

[Shodwall cat]

As I've said before Kenny J was certainly very outspoken in his criticism of the majority share group and Ritchie and Alexander at a lot of the meetings etc.

[Reggie Perrin]

13 hours ago, bejazz1 said:

 

Couldn’t agree more and thought that when I read it initially. Most of us listen to McGlynn’s interview on Friday night on FTV and he tries to keep his ‘cards closed to his chest’ regarding team selection and injuries etc.
I really can’t understand what planet some of our fans are on that allows them to pass “privileged” information like that on? it beggars belief, some time it’s better to say nothing rather than coming across like a “billy bigbaws” trying to impress and show how much they are in the know. It’s just plain ridiculous.
I thought the leaks had stopped???

 

This.

I was in the cafe on Friday morning and the blinds were drawn down at about 11 because of something happening on the pitch (according to the waitress) so clearly the management want to play things very close to their chest.

Then you get some desperate to be relevant brain donor announcing the team a full day before the match!

Just ridiculous.

[PedroMoutinho]

37 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:

As I've said before Kenny J was certainly very outspoken in his criticism of the majority share group and Ritchie and Alexander at a lot of the meetings etc.

Exactly- you can understand why MR and SA would be sceptical when people who’ve publicly slated you for years then turn up cap in hand asking for hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Personally in their position I’d be looking for the right to nominate at least one director in return. That may be no bad thing mind you wrt a better balanced board.

[Reggie Perrin]

8 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

Exactly- you can understand why MR and SA would be sceptical when people who’ve publicly slated you for years then turn up cap in hand asking for hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Personally in their position I’d be looking for the right to nominate at least one director in return. That may be no bad thing mind you wrt a better balanced board.

Aye bring back someone who thought Mark Campbell was a genuine businessman.

[Back Post Misses]

3 hours ago, Jimmy1876 said:

Yeah. My point in mentioning the 600k was to address the fact that McGlynns increased budget was covered by a planned increased revenue. And that the higher gate sales and sponsorship are going in to the increased revenue target, not eating away at the 400k operating loss. So only really investment from the patrons, FSS or externally can cover the 400k.

Where ever it is from and how it is structured the cashflow gap we were told was 400k. That I am sure will be smaller now, how small I am sure that AGM will tell us. 

[PedroMoutinho]

13 minutes ago, Reggie Perrin said:

Aye bring back someone who thought Mark Campbell was a genuine businessman.

The bod seem quite happy if not desperate to take money from MR and SA so if I was in their shoes I think it would be fair to expect some sort of representation in return 

[LatapyBairn.]

17 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

The bod seem quite happy if not desperate to take money from MR and SA so if I was in their shoes I think it would be fair to expect some sort of representation in return 

SA still owns more than 10% of the club entitling him to a place on the BOD, he could sit on or place somebody on the board at any time he wanted, however both him and MR have rightly taken a step back from the day to day running of the club with the rest of the former MSG moving on completely. Regardless of that I’m not sure why loaning a company money which will be re-paid (probably with interest as was done previously) would give a person a place on said company’s board. It would be different if that person was buying a significant shareholding obviously but that’s not what’s happening here. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[Back Post Misses]

1 hour ago, PedroMoutinho said:

My understanding is that there is acrimony dating back to the failed navy blue group bid for a stake in the club relating to the way that was approached by the NB’s negotiating stance with them allegedly immediately demanding removal of directors etc.

Well since either MR or SA were not involved in any discussions between the club or the NB Group your understanding is utter nonsense.  In fact MR would have been delighted if a deal could have been struck. 
If you are going to post get your facts together first. 

[Back Post Misses]

24 minutes ago, Reggie Perrin said:

Aye bring back someone who thought Mark Campbell was a genuine businessman.

Not convinced either MR or SA ever wanted MC anywhere near the place.