Jump to content

The Falkirk FC Thread


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:

The extra cash was given to mcglynn on the understanding that it would be recouped by moving players on. That has never happened. Supposedly mcglynn didn't want to upset the morale in the camp by doing that which has unfortunately left us with a bigger  hole in the budget and still too much of last year's strugglers in the squad even though he's got more out of the majority of them.

That may have been the case but some money has obviously been made up else where as I explained, the cash gap is 400k as was stated only weeks ago! 

Edited by LatapyBairn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

The money has obviously been made up else where as I explained, the cash gap is 400k as was stated only weeks ago! 

Then perhaps they've had to use any increased cash brought in to cover that instead and get us back to the stated 400k. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes 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.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes 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.

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. 

Edited by LatapyBairn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by LatapyBairn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by PedroMoutinho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by LatapyBairn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by PedroMoutinho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by LatapyBairn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by LatapyBairn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

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...