PedroMoutinho
-
Posts
1,666 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by PedroMoutinho
-
-
I see the club have just announced 5171 Falkirk tickets sold. That doesn’t add up to me given the tickets available- can’t imagine only 71 have been sold since yesterday’s update.
1 -
I would think even if the main did sell out, any plan to segregate the north would need to have been planned well in advance.
It hasn’t been done for 15+ years so there would need to be logistics in place that can’t be put in place on the morning of the game.
1 -
1 minute ago, latapythelegend said:
Crazy that we aren't splitting the North stand IMo.
Difficult one for me. There are still around 300 tickets left, so the majority of fans who want a ticket should get one.
Not sure it would be financially viable splitting the north with all the security costs that would entail for maybe less than 100 bairns.
1 -
Looks like approx 250 tickets now gone on sale in block H lower, with a handful of tickets left in the other sections.
Shouldn’t be far off a sell out in the home end.
8 -
4 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:
Is there not still an option to open up the right hand side of the North Stand if absolutely necessary?
Don't quite think it’ll get to that though….
I think in theory that could happen but Jamie Swinney has confirmed on Twitter that it won’t due to the recent crowd trouble.
I actually can’t ever remember the north stand being segregated (unless I’m forgetting) as the need has never arisen- we have always maxed out at around the 6000 home fan mark for previous big matches at TFS.
1 -
There is still the ability to buy tickets in the shop and online until kick off, which is better than having people queuing at a turnstile for tickets that may be sold out imo.
0 -
Not many tickets left in the available sections so it looks like Block H lower will go on sale. Could well be looking at 5500+ Bairns by kick off, which would be fantastic.
4 -
2 minutes ago, Bairn in Exile said:
Especially when you consider that Raith have lost their last 3 league games, their fans still believe and are doing their bit.
Tbf I believe Dundee United have sold 3500 of those tickets with Raith shifting 3800.
Just shows how impressive our backing is.
1 -
3 hours ago, Harry Kinnear said:
Part of the reason I don’t do social media, way too many lunatics have access to it. I am all from friendly banter, which I know can sometimes get heated but that’s part and parcel of football.
Unfortunately some people think that if folk do podcasts etc it makes them fair game, like they think it’s alright to shout anything they like at players and are surprised when players bark back at them.
There is a line that shouldn’t be crossed and threatening to kidnap someone’s child is most definitely that line. As could be seen after the TNS game we have some zoomers in our fan base, hopefully when they grow up they will regret and be embarrassed by their actions.
I am sure most Falkirk fans would feel the same.
Totally agree- all for a bit of banter between fans but any personal abuse and threats are totally over the line.
8 -
Good interview. Particularly glad to hear McGlynn say that the objective would be to compete at the top end of the championship should we go up.
He also said a budget would need to be provided to facilitate this- which you’d presume would have been discussed as part of contract renewal.
2 -
23 minutes ago, Jimmy1876 said:
I'm sure way back the board said that to compete at the top end of the championship we would still run at a 400k operating loss. I've interpreted that as our current budget would compete at a break even level for lower end championship (as we would have more prize money and better gates to fill in the current 400k) but if we wanted to compete at the top end we would need another 400k over and above that.
So if we maintained our current expenditure we would have no operating loss, a full time team but only one that was competitive at the lower end.
Don't know if that's right though, just my interpretation. If someone has more info then please correct.
The other point is in my view we will not be getting anywhere close to the home support we are getting this season if we’re only competing at the lower end of the championship (and therefore not winning many games).
-5 -
More than happy to keep McGlynn on if we go up. However, ideally I’d have waited until promotion is guaranteed or close to it- hopefully at 5pm next Saturday.
There are still 14 games to be played and the gap at the top could be 5 points next week (clearly we all hope not).
With all respect, I don’t think other clubs are going to be banging down his door for getting Falkirk out of the third tier at his second attempt.
-4 -
1 hour ago, 60`s bairn said:
Ryan Flynn was sold to Liverpool from our Academy in 2005. Murray Wallace was brought in from Rangers Academy to ours and spent a year or so in our Academy before getting into the first team.
Ryan Flynn was then re-signed and sold for a higher sum. The current model would not have prevented Wallace from coming through.
0 -
3 hours ago, BPM said:
Have you not been paying attention for the last two years?
How many times have we been told this is a historical gap for 15 years plus? We have filled the whole before with players sales and cup runs (as we did last season). Now a previous regime pretty much set us back on the player sales for 10 years by closing the academy and we are certainly not going to get good cup runs every season. So some sort of plan needed to be put in place out with those two things as we could not rely on soft loans any more.
When the new funding plan was put in place we were told that to fill the £400,000 gap we would need to grow the FSS. Kenny Jamieson who headed it said there was around 5000 fans we could get to. If you got all 5000 you fill the hole plus 200k. Now that number is unrealistic and we are now pushing 900 which fills about 100k (net less the loan repayment), if you add other share sales this year and other donations my guess is about 150k is where we are at. The club has worked really hard on sponsorship, merchandise sales etc which I am sure will have gone above the targets set and will eat into the hole. To what extent I have no idea. The club also put the price of ST’s up this season which I would assume has also covered a bit too. Getting up will obviously help revenue but the trick will be to ensure we keep a lid on costs to get some benefit from that.
So to say the club is merely obsessed with the FSS to fill the hole is frankly not true.
What, on top of what they have done could they do? Who else but the fans is going to fill this void? Only about 20-25% of the fans are contributing to this at the moment, that is fact. No matter how you dress it up the scheme needs more supporters involved. It is not an obsession it is the model the shareholders voted for. Why would the Board not do what their shareholders voted for? The club recognised in the summer some fans did not wish to join FSS so launched the FFF fund. That gave a home for those fans, it went no where. We could try and get outside investment which I think should be done. Giving how proactive the Board has been I would be surprised if they haven’t had conversations on that front. A share issue has been ruled out for now.I keep asking you this question but you have still to give us any ideas outside this model as how the hole is to be filled.
As I have said, the club should be making sure there are as many options as possible for people to contribute to the club. FSS should be one part of that.
I’m also not sure how the closure of the academy prevents us selling players. Vaulks, Taylor, Wallace and Flynn have all been sold without coming through our academy.
Will be controversial but another thing I would do to stop the gap becoming any bigger is to cap academy spending at current levels until we are established in the premier league.
There is a danger imo (which the board have done well to avert to far) that you have coaches and fans understandably wanting more investment and you end up as an academy with a football club attached again.
The current approach also frees up resources to take gambles like Yeats, Lawal and Adams.
-4 -
44 minutes ago, MSG GTF! said:
There’s nothing wrong with expressing that view, you’re not alone in being disappointed.
Let’s cut the bullsh*t. A very small minority of our support are likely to fall into the bracket of struggling financially to the extent that they are unable to justify an extra tenner a month. However far too many are latching onto that as a convenient excuse, and either can’t be arsed or simply don’t care enough. It’s £2.50 a week ffs! No one will convince me so many people are that hard up.
This season, as well as increased FSS subscriptions, we have had substantially increased attendances, sponsorships and hospitality numbers.
In my view, it is disgraceful to suggest that fans who have put additional money into the club in this way don’t care simply because they have chosen not to join the FSS.
I just don’t get the obsession with the gap needing to be closed through FSS memberships alone. To me if a supporter is choosing to put more of their hard earned cash into the club (whether that be through FSS, hospitality, merchandise or whatever), they should be thanked for that.
It makes no sense to me to suggest they “don’t care enough” simply because they are choosing to do that via a medium others than FSS.
0 -
3 hours ago, Reggie Perrin said:
Are they not?
The point is people contribute to the club in different ways based on their preferences and ability to do so. It is not as simple as saying FSS members are “stepping up” more than non-FSS members.
A non-FSS member who is an ST holder, buys a programme/50-50 tickets, merchandise, drinks at the South Stand bar and hospitality once or twice a season could easily be putting more into the club than a lot of FSS members.
To me it is ludicrous to suggest they are stepping up less than someone giving a tenner a month to the FSS simply because they are doing so via different mechanisms.
0 -
19 minutes ago, AJ1981 said:
If this a parody account? No? okay i will play along, it's because the FSS members are doing that as well?
Are they?
-4 -
2 minutes ago, BPM said:
Maybe it rubs up FSS members that others are not stepping up to the extent they are?
How is an FSS member paying £10 a month ‘stepping up’ more than an ST holder who buys a programme and some 50-50 tickets every game (£7 x 22 games=£154) and goes to hospitality once a season (£90)?
Why is the fan who contributes £120 via FSS more deserving of special privileges than the one who contributes £244 via other means?
0 -
2 hours ago, BPM said:
It is not nonsensical at all. FSS members do all of those things on top of their monthly subs.
Not necessarily- a hypothetical non-FSS member could easily contribute more to the club than an FSS over a season.
The point is that every fan is different and has different abilities and desires to contribute to the club. You therefore cannot say that those in the FSS are somehow superior and deserve more rights than others.
1 -
29 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:
I don't like using the word 'burden' because it's not a burden to those that are contributing to the FSS. It is, however, a commitment and it is very valuable to the club because we know how much (near enough) that is going to be raised each month. The purchase of merchandise, sponsorship etc is, of course, extremely valuable to the club too, our budget would be severely impacted without it, however, I think that if the club could magically convert all of that income into something that they knew was going to come in every month they would jump at the chance.
I also had the understanding that my subs would become donations once the share target was reached and have no problem with that at all.
I don’t see how there is any more certainty of income from the FSS than from other sources. FSS is simply a monthly donation mechanism. People could stop donating at any time- as they might for example if a managerial decision was made that they disagreed with.
The point is FSS should be seen as one income stream amongst many. I also think the idea that someone donating £10 a month to FSS is somehow morally superior to another donating the same via programmes or 50-50 tickets needs to be ditched.
0 -
2 hours ago, BPM said:
I am not sure if their opinion is less valid if they are not a member of FSS or helping fund the club in other ways.
However what seems a bit unfair to me is that about 25% of the fanbase are carrying the bulk of the financial burden of fan ownership and those who are not doing anything thing more than the ST or even PATG are getting the same in return as those who have stepped up financially. It is difficult one because there are various reason for that which a lot can be financial restraints but in any other business people who spend more tend to get better deals/service etcTo me there is far too much focus on the FSS ‘needing’ to raise a particular amount. Now that the FSS isn’t buying shares, funds raised are effectively a donation to the club.
To me it makes little difference whether this additional sum is raised via FSS, ticket sales, hospitality, merchandise or sponsorship. It is all going into the same pot.
To say a fan contributing £10 a month is carrying more financial burden than another buying a season ticket, strip, programme and hospitality once or twice a season is just nonsensical.
0 -
9 hours ago, StuartA said:
No Dave, it isn’t and I think it’s out of order to scapegoat like this. Individuals caused this and individuals should be held accountable on the basis of evidence. It’s intellectually lazy to just try and blame a group because they’re prominent.
Sorry, not that simple for me. If it is established that Ultras members/St Mirren ultras who have formed some sort of alliance were involved, the ultras have to take responsibility.
I have also seen a number of Ultras members on social media trying to minimise what happened, which isn’t acceptable imo. In my view, they are going to leave the club with very little option if they are not careful.
-2 -
5 minutes ago, Jimmy1876 said:
I agree with this. Especially now that it seems to be that St Mirren and Sheffield fans were involved.
The only thing I'm not a fan of from whoever is running the ultras social media is the graffiti. Maybe poor timing but it does add to the perception of hooliganism which by all accounts is not at all the case of the main organisers. If the perception starts going down that route it pushes the club into a difficult situation because they can't be supporting a group of kids spreading tags around the place as well as getting into fights.
There are posts on the ultras’ instagram page hinting at some sort of link with St Mirren ultras.
0 -
3 minutes ago, StuartA said:
To be honest, I think they’ve been quite restrained given some of the pish that’s been posted about them across several channels. That violence would have happened whether or not the ultras been created this year. There’s been bother at Falkirk games - and many other clubs’ - for years.
The club’s statement was excellent and I hope there’s enough evidence to get at least the worst offenders. But it’s clear that any silly notion of collective responsibility or punishment is off the table.
I wouldn’t be looking at collective punishment at this stage, but would definitely be issuing strike 1 of 3 with the hope that’s the end of the matter.
I would also be saying that the social media stuff needs to be toned down.
0
The Falkirk FC Thread
in Scottish League 1 General Chatter
Posted
Fantastic result and day overall yesterday. It has been a long 5 years in coming, but it finally looks like we are getting out of here.
Great performance first 30 minutes and looked like we would get another couple. Hamilton then came back into it and we made things hard for ourselves second half. However, we showed great battling spirit to hold on for the three points.
Attention will soon turn to next season (in my view, we will need better quality in a number of positions to challenge at the top end as John has stated). But let’s get it wrapped up officially first.