Jump to content

LatapyBairn.

Gold Members
  • Posts

    1,559
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LatapyBairn.

  1. Agree with most of what your saying but for SA and MR to form what your effectively saying would be an MSG mark 2 they’d need Rawlins on board, he’s not going to blindly go along with the wishes of that pair, at the end of the day Mr Rawlings now owns the bulk of our club, is his own man and the buck stops with him. I don’t know the guy personally but I find it very hard to believe he’s intending allowing others already at the club to over rule him looking at the level of investment he’s put up and also the guys previous track record in football he obviously intends on implementing upward change. I can’t believe he is going to be the type that’s influenced by two grumpy old men whispering in his ear. The buck now stops with him, especially if he takes up the additional 19% shareholding. I do have confidence going forward however I admit I am now starting to get a little impatient at the lack of obvious change behind the scenes or engagement with the fans. I’d like Rawlins to be a little more visible even if for nothing more than a PR point of view at this point.
  2. If your referring to SA and MR they have had 3 significant cash offers for they’re shareholding, all in the region of 30p per share so could have chosen to walk at any time but instead are still hanging about. One from the BtB patrons group , one from Kenny Rodgers and one from Alan Gows consortium. Also I’m not so not convinced they “control” the club in any meaningful way, neither have a seat on the board and even they’re combined shareholding is now less than the 27% of the club Rawlings now owns as our largest shareholder. If anybody has a “control” over the club it should be him. I’d like to see him starting to be a bit more hands on now. He surely hasn’t invested 350k (with more to come, I’m told he has an option to buy a further 19%) into a club just to let the status quo rumble on, the guy must have his own plans.
  3. Is it one out one in regarding Todd? Are we looking to bring another player in before the deadline?
  4. Mutch gave them a goal at the Falkirk stadium so we’ll take that gift in return thank you very much
  5. Looks like you’ve got your wish. Appears it is indeed a 4-3-3 with the midfield and front 3 you’ve suggested.
  6. Money will go to the club, they bought the outgoing MSG shares at 30p and are selling at 40p via the share issue. It’s a move in the right direction, will give the fans a bigger shareholding should they invest and will also raise capital for the club at the same time. However it’s highly disappointing the club have stone walled the proposal for larger investment via what was the former patrons group from the previous BtB scheme, I’d heard the group had raised circa 400k and were prepared to buy in in exchange for a seat on the board and a meaningful % shareholding but the club (Gary Deans) isn’t keen on a group having such a large block vote and would prefer the shares were sold/distributed in smaller numbers around the wider group of fans. I completely agree with some of the above posters, SA and MR have run they’re course now and should perhaps consider selling or diluting they’re shareholding. People should remember the current board were effectively put in place by the previous MSG, as much as GD has been relatively impressive and speaks very well he’s still the voice of SA and MR. Hopefully now Rawlins has his feet under the table as our new major shareholder things will shake up over the next 18 months or so and larger fresh investment from the fans may be possible.
  7. Sandy Alexander owns the south stand , he would have to agree to sell that part of the stadium as well. Not just the council, there are 3 parties involved in ownership of the stadium. SA, the club and the council.
  8. Always though it was excessive, certainly no gift or favour from a fan. It’s 100% been seen as long term investment opportunity for SA personally, nothing more nothing less. Dunfermline also pay the consortium that bought in during administration less in rent for the whole stadium than we do for that one stand.
  9. No, I don’t know, that’s the reason I asked the question in the first place! Various other posters then suggested we are indeed still paying rent. It’s a pretty relevant question considering the stand isn’t being used at present. Do you know that we are NOT still paying rent? It’s a fair assumption to presume the rent situation is exactly the same as it was pre covid without the club or SA having communicated otherwise.
  10. No but a season with out rent while the stand is effectively mothballed would have been a nice gesture, 80k for a stand we can’t and don’t use is a waste of money. It would be easier to swallow if the money was going toward paying off an asset we would eventually own. Renting especially in the current circumstances makes no sense.
  11. Depends on the terms of a the loan/mortgage but regardless of that if we were repaying a loan at least it would have a final payment where we would eventually own the thing. At the moment it’s 80k a year rent down the toilet for a stand we can’t and don’t use. Would have been a nice gestures from super fan to maybe give the club he supports few months rent holiday during covid times where the stand has no use.
  12. Brilliant question actually! I wonder if SA is still paying himself 80k a year in rent for a stand we don’t and can’t use. Wish I had asked this at the AGM now, by rights that’s one saving the club should be making. Is anybody in a position to shed any light on this?
  13. Feeling exactly the same, the the inequality and borderline corruption shown by our footballing authorities combined with the attitude shown by some of our member clubs really tests your faith in the game. If it happens I think I’m done with Scottish football, I’m out.
  14. Light at the end off the tunnel now, this combined with the pending share issue and fan investment could be a massive turning point for the club.
  15. Regarding the EGM I presume the club have sufficient shareholder numbers and vote isn’t in question to ratify it? .....As in the minor shareholders won’t be required to vote in numbers again this time for it to be passed?
  16. I presumed the figures would have included season tickets sold as well as the PPV in the same way match attendances were calculated as a combined ST sales and PATG.
  17. Club announced the viewing figures on they’re Facebook page
  18. Most home games the club have had between 3 and 4K fans paying for the online stream already this season so I don’t think it’s unrealistic to expect a higher subscription rate in a cup game against premiership opposition.
  19. What does a “virtual ticket” entail? If it’s a live televised game the clubs can’t sell PPV due to the tv contracts.
  20. Agreed, it doesn’t feel like we would have a chance going into this game, in years gone by you always had some sort of hope when playing the old firm. Felt the same before the sevco tie, the gulf between where we were on the park even just a few seasons ago and now is massive.
  21. I’m curious as to what has given you the impression people are celebrating a tie against Celtic because of a 26k windfall. I’ve seen nothing suggesting that’s how anybody has viewed the tie
  22. Where are you getting this? Not read one single post suggesting making 26k is some sort of coup. If fact I’d say the narrative has been quite the opposite, 26k is a drop in the ocean, be lucky if it even covers a players wage for the year. Under normal circumstances a tie at parkhead could easily be worth 200k to the club, that at least in some way compensates there being a higher than usual chance of being knocked out. In an ideal world we get a more winnable tie but life’s not perfect unfortunately.
  23. I’m guessing we’d be better off not being chosen for TV in that case and getting our split of the gate/PPV money instead?
×
×
  • Create New...