The Falkirk FC Thread

[Shodwall cat]

I've got to say they have a far better way of dealing with pre contracts down south than they do up here . The SFA should take note but of course teams like rangers and Celtic wouldn't be happy as it would prevent them preying on the smaller clubs.

[Blame Me]

8 minutes ago, Proudtobeabairn said:

@LatapyBairn. is correct that we need to push FSS during season ticket renewal this summer, especially if we go up as there will be a feelgood factor that will benefit numbers. 

We also need to be more creative with FSS marketing, there should be perks/benefits that don't cost much to deliver e.g the right to vote on shirt designs and the likes and maybe discount perks triggered by length of FSS membership at club shop etc.  Get John McGlynn to face up the recruitment campaign and stories in the Herald etc. 

The best ownership model for me is a hybrid of fan ownership and deep pocketed investor though essential any investors have the clubs interests at heart.  Easier said than done to find that.  

Telling the story is definitely key.

Most supporters should know what the aims of the FSS are by now and there will have been a few rounds of directors being nominated from the membership - Hearing about the achievements that have been made as a direct result of FSS involvement might persuade people to join.

Also, some vox pops from the FSS demographic about why it's good to get involved and get some "real" voices to articulate why joining is important. No doubt all these avenues have been discussed but throwing it out anyways.

[MrDust]

29 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:

I've got to say they have a far better way of dealing with pre contracts down south than they do up here . The SFA should take note but of course teams like rangers and Celtic wouldn't be happy as it would prevent them preying on the smaller clubs.

It's more of a hard cash market down south, someone earlier posting Nesbit Hibs to Millwall deal being a loan with view to buy, I don't think that's ever happened with a Scotland to England transfer, it's always show us the money.

The money down there is the only difference I see regarding pre contracts. The players at the top end generally leave when the £s suit them or they manufacture it to happen. 

 

[Big chungus]

who we all voting for as the player of the month then. Personally, I'll be voting for CM7. But Kennedy, Nesbitt and Rowe could all very well be in a for a shout.

[Shodwall cat]

17 minutes ago, MrDust said:

It's more of a hard cash market down south, someone earlier posting Nesbit Hibs to Millwall deal being a loan with view to buy, I don't think that's ever happened with a Scotland to England transfer, it's always show us the money.

The money down there is the only difference I see regarding pre contracts. The players at the top end generally leave when the £s suit them  manufacture it to happen. 

 

In England you can't sign another player from an English club  on a pre contract till they enter the last month of their agreement which is after the season has finished. It's to stop players on pre contracts signing for clubs they could then play against. Absolute common sense and the same ruling should've brought in up here.

[Zbairn]

1 hour ago, Proudtobeabairn said:

@LatapyBairn. is correct that we need to push FSS during season ticket renewal this summer, especially if we go up as there will be a feelgood factor that will benefit numbers. 

We also need to be more creative with FSS marketing, there should be perks/benefits that don't cost much to deliver e.g the right to vote on shirt designs and the likes and maybe discount perks triggered by length of FSS membership at club shop etc.  Get John McGlynn to face up the recruitment campaign and stories in the Herald etc. 

The best ownership model for me is a hybrid of fan ownership and deep pocketed investor though essential any investors have the clubs interests at heart.  Easier said than done to find that.  

To find another Sandy Alexander with deep pockets will be nigh on impossible. Yes, we need to increase the FSS membership, but to get over 600 in its first year is pretty good going. To put in over £7k a month is not to be sneezed at, particularly given our current financial issues.  The idea of fan ownership is twofold i) to try and generate regular income, which is happening (more would be better) and ii) to give all fans a say in the running of the club. We currently achieve that with Patrons and FSS being the majority on the BoD.

The issue of historical debt is well documented and we have done well this season between Patrons, FSS, those willing to give loans and increased commercial activity...not to mention retention of season ticket numbers / fans attending, which is pretty amazing given the fact of how we have performed the last few seasons. 

Hopefully we can run at a more stable fiscal situation next season if we get promoted. 

However, one point I would like to make though, is that we have not yet addressed the situation of our overheads. That is what is crippling the club financially...... not the income we generate. We seriously need to look at where we can reduce costs. We need to see where we can work more efficiently with less staff. We need to have words with the councIl. We need to get SA to agree to donate the SS back to the club (I think he has now almost received in rent what the cost of building was). There needs to be more creative thinking in how we can achieve less outgoings than what we currently pay.

[Reggie Perrin]

26 minutes ago, Zbairn said:

To find another Sandy Alexander with deep pockets will be nigh on impossible. Yes, we need to increase the FSS membership, but to get over 600 in its first year is pretty good going. To put in over £7k a month is not to be sneezed at, particularly given our current financial issues.  The idea of fan ownership is twofold i) to try and generate regular income, which is happening (more would be better) and ii) to give all fans a say in the running of the club. We currently achieve that with Patrons and FSS being the majority on the BoD.

The issue of historical debt is well documented and we have done well this season between Patrons, FSS, those willing to give loans and increased commercial activity...not to mention retention of season ticket numbers / fans attending, which is pretty amazing given the fact of how we have performed the last few seasons. 

Hopefully we can run at a more stable fiscal situation next season if we get promoted. 

However, one point I would like to make though, is that we have not yet addressed the situation of our overheads. That is what is crippling the club financially...... not the income we generate. We seriously need to look at where we can reduce costs. We need to see where we can work more efficiently with less staff. We need to have words with the councIl. We need to get SA to agree to donate the SS back to the club (I think he has now almost received in rent what the cost of building was). There needs to be more creative thinking in how we can achieve less outgoings than what we currently pay.

Do you seriously think that there are staff cuts to be made?

The club is hugely dependent on volunteers already.

[HopeStreetWalker]

24 minutes ago, Zbairn said:

To find another Sandy Alexander with deep pockets will be nigh on impossible. Yes, we need to increase the FSS membership, but to get over 600 in its first year is pretty good going. To put in over £7k a month is not to be sneezed at, particularly given our current financial issues.  The idea of fan ownership is twofold i) to try and generate regular income, which is happening (more would be better) and ii) to give all fans a say in the running of the club. We currently achieve that with Patrons and FSS being the majority on the BoD.

The issue of historical debt is well documented and we have done well this season between Patrons, FSS, those willing to give loans and increased commercial activity...not to mention retention of season ticket numbers / fans attending, which is pretty amazing given the fact of how we have performed the last few seasons. 

Hopefully we can run at a more stable fiscal situation next season if we get promoted. 

However, one point I would like to make though, is that we have not yet addressed the situation of our overheads. That is what is crippling the club financially...... not the income we generate. We seriously need to look at where we can reduce costs. We need to see where we can work more efficiently with less staff. We need to have words with the councIl. We need to get SA to agree to donate the SS back to the club (I think he has now almost received in rent what the cost of building was). There needs to be more creative thinking in how we can achieve less outgoings than what we currently pay.

Falkirk Council have the club stitched up regarding the stadium and they know it. So there can be no savings from that direction.

Standard lease plus the running costs which they decide and that is where they make the money. Staff costs, insurance, maintenance, repairs, and services all with what will be a massive markup. Goodness knows what the increase will be with 11.3% inflation.

 

[Zbairn]

2 minutes ago, Reggie Perrin said:

Do you seriously think that there are staff cuts to be made?

The club is hugely dependent on volunteers already.

Possibly.

To have a CEO on around (rumoured) £50k for a club our size and turnover is perhaps a wee bit excessive.

I think we depend on many volunteers but I'm not convinced that the full time admin staff  we have are possibly as efficient as they could be. We have 2 in retail and ticketing. Our ticketing system is now pretty much automated and we have passed a bit of our shop sales over to Greaves (another potential loss of cash given over to someone else that I wouldnt have, if I'm being honest). I'm not sure what else they do during the week. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

According to the website we also have 5 in operation, plus 2 in Commercial (who we really need !!! )

It's only one facet of where we should maybe look at cost savings !

[scottsdad]

@The Toun Clock reporting this on the Dunfermline thread:

Are we really looking to bring in another one?

[Reggie Perrin]

7 minutes ago, Zbairn said:

Possibly.

To have a CEO on around (rumoured) £50k for a club our size and turnover is perhaps a wee bit excessive.

I think we depend on many volunteers but I'm not convinced that the full time admin staff  we have are possibly as efficient as they could be. We have 2 in retail and ticketing. Our ticketing system is now pretty much automated and we have passed a bit of our shop sales over to Greaves (another potential loss of cash given over to someone else that I wouldnt have, if I'm being honest). I'm not sure what else they do during the week. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

According to the website we also have 5 in operation, plus 2 in Commercial (who we really need !!! )

It's only one facet of where we should maybe look at cost savings !

Why don’t you drop the CEO an email with your thoughts and ask him what the employees actually do.

[FFC 1876]

Seems like lazy journalism linking him with us both. McGlynn said in his meet the fans meeting at the start of the year he likes to work with 3 for each position and we already have 4 capable of playing centre back.

[FFC 1876]

Good to see Malcolm going out to try get games elsewhere instead of wasting away at us for the rest of the season.

[Zbairn]

8 minutes ago, Reggie Perrin said:

Why don’t you drop the CEO an email with your thoughts and ask him what the employees actually do.

I might just actually do that next time I personally see him.

Do you have any other questions that you would like asked when I'm at it .....or are you absolutely happy with the way the club currently operates ? 

[Bigbrbairn]

4 hours ago, LatapyBairn. said:

The club made an operating loss of 1.2 million in the previous year! I actually think getting that down to 400k in the space of 6 months while still being able to fund a decent side on the park is quite good going. Hopefully that improvement continues and they have ideas and strategy to continue to grow our income, simply cutting the playing budget is to simplistic and will actually only make the problem worse, if there is a lack of product on the park it drives turnover down, discourages sponsorship, hospitality and crowd numbers inevitably drop. We need to be creative and find a way to close the funding gap that isn’t simply cut cut cut. If we are not competitive on the park the whole business model collapses. 

Sense is not a thing people are used to but panic is

[Hughsie]

26 minutes ago, Zbairn said:

Possibly.

To have a CEO on around (rumoured) £50k for a club our size and turnover is perhaps a wee bit excessive.

I think we depend on many volunteers but I'm not convinced that the full time admin staff  we have are possibly as efficient as they could be. We have 2 in retail and ticketing. Our ticketing system is now pretty much automated and we have passed a bit of our shop sales over to Greaves (another potential loss of cash given over to someone else that I wouldnt have, if I'm being honest). I'm not sure what else they do during the week. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

According to the website we also have 5 in operation, plus 2 in Commercial (who we really need !!! )

It's only one facet of where we should maybe look at cost savings !

If you think you’re going to get anyone competent enough to run the club properly for less than £50k a year you’re mad.

[Blame Me]

23 minutes ago, Zbairn said:

To have a CEO on around (rumoured) £50k for a club our size and turnover is perhaps a wee bit excessive.

Given our CEO's experience and skill set I don't think the rumoured 50K is that bad, all considered!

On the utilisation of staff, I expect there is a trade-off that's been calculated in tie-ups like Greaves and Ticketing which may not be obvious.

The one I currently can't fathom and can only surmise is due to our catering supplier arrangements is the deal with SeatService. One of their USP's is increasing concession revenue and yet we haven't taken advantage of the service and generate some additional monies. 

[bairn88]

3 minutes ago, Blame Me said:

Given our CEO's experience and skill set I don't think the rumoured 50K is that bad, all considered!

On the utilisation of staff, I expect there is a trade-off that's been calculated in tie-ups like Greaves and Ticketing which may not be obvious.

The one I currently can't fathom and can only surmise is due to our catering supplier arrangements is the deal with SeatService. One of their USP's is increasing concession revenue and yet we haven't taken advantage of the service and generate some additional monies. 

I hate discussion of staff salaries but agreed, given the huge job the CEO currently has at the club, 50k is in absolutely no way "excessive"

[Zbairn]

2 minutes ago, Blame Me said:

Given our CEO's experience and skill set I don't think the rumoured 50K is that bad, all considered!

On the utilisation of staff, I expect there is a trade-off that's been calculated in tie-ups like Greaves and Ticketing which may not be obvious.

The one I currently can't fathom and can only surmise is due to our catering supplier arrangements is the deal with SeatService. One of their USP's is increasing concession revenue and yet we haven't taken advantage of the service and generate some additional monies. 

I'm trying to look at things in the round....where we can cut overheads.

Reducing the KM Stand rent and the Council's take would be a big help. I also think there are some complications in terms of who supplies what during match day for hospitality, in that the club have to accept some form of Council contract for the catering / bar. ...all of which possibly reduces our take.

[PedroMoutinho]

1 hour ago, Zbairn said:

I think we depend on many volunteers but I'm not convinced that the full time admin staff  we have are possibly as efficient as they could be. I'm not sure what else they do during the week. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

Absolutely nothing, I would presume. I’m sure the board would definitely employ staff to sit around all day.

Quite impressive how you’re “not sure” what these individuals’ roles actually entail yet have somehow come to the conclusion that they’re “not as efficient as they could be”. Perhaps you could go along to shadow one for a week and produce a report on how much more efficient they should be.

Edited January 31 by PedroMoutinho