Jimmy1876

Nope did not say it was fine, and again I am very concerned about the finances. What I did say was that it is common and not just at Falkirk because it has been covered through a variety of different means in the past. I agree it is a short term solution and that is why I am glad that the current board are pushing for fan ownership, because memberships are a much more stable financial than soft loans as you have said. But once again, it is not unusual at all and so I don't really get the criticism of that. The idea that just because they went public means they are in trouble is just not true, our past boards (as have yours in fact) have been readily criticsed and ridiculed about not being open or clear about the finances and the club operations. This board came in saying very clearly they want to be as open as possible (something many clubs want from their boards) and then get criticised for being open? If anything everything I have said, and am aware of is because the board members went on a public unofficial podcast to explain the situation and I am glad I know about it. As for raising the members, it is massively difficult and unlikely to get the full amount covered, as you say. The whole point of giving the October deadline is so that the board then have time to go and find investment elsewhere. But I am at least grateful for the chance of developing fan ownership.

So basically there is an aim to raise £400k to cover an operating loss, this loss has usually been covered by various other means in the past, soft loans, share holders, investment, player sales. However, this new board is trying to make a push for fan ownership and so the goal is to have two fans organisations raise 250k each (to give a £100k flexibility). One of those fan organisations is the Falkirk Supporters Society (FSS). The money must be raised by end of the season, but the board needs to guarantee that and so we need the total figure to be "pledged" or signed up to by the end of October otherwise the shares designated to FSS will have to be sold elsewhere to guarantee the £400k operating loss is covered. Currently FSS had 500 members (before the recent call to sign up) donating on average £12. To cover the £250k designated to FSS we would need between 2500 to 3000 members at an average of £12 per month. There appears to have been an uptake since the call for sign ups both in new members but also in current members increasing their monthly subscription but as of yet not clear exactly how much. Hope that explains it and makes up for my earlier frustration.

To be clear, my response was only a selection of an ongoing conversation between other posters. And I only included part of one single post I was responding to because the aim of my post was to clarify where the facts had gone wrong in terms of FSS needing 5000 members to cover a £400k deficit which is not true. I have to say maybe my post came across as harsh and that is likely because I can't help but get riled up when other clubs come to criticise finances when they themselves have had similar situations but also have facts wrong. So if that is the case will hold my hands up to that.

In fact I totally agree with you and have been quite open about my concern as well as trying to decipher the finances to get myself a bit more clarity. I absolutely welcome anyone being interested and trying to find out more and in that same post went on to explain the finances/goals/how it works when there is operating losses. What I meant by "don't comment when you don't understand" is when someone is laughing at the club, when they have the facts wrong. Don't think that is unreasonable tbh.

I believe that is the official definition in accounting but Kenny Jamieson on the padcast explains he likes to consider operating losses before that primarily because he does not want to count on those things happening every season. In general operating losses do have to then be covered by soft loans or simply a cheque is written by wealthy owners.

Maybe don't comment on other clubs finances if you don't understand them? Operating losses are normal for almost all clubs outwith the premiership and are covered by clubs making additional financial gain either through wealthy owners providing soft loans, player sales or various commercial deals. This is pretty normal running of football clubs so reckon it is you who should get off your high horse honestly. The difference here is our current board are wanting to push for fan ownership so that we have more control and say in our club, an initiative not many clubs and certainly few boards have wanted to push for. One which I am grateful they have given us the option of exploring. But with that comes a deadline, because they need to know the income that will be there, otherwise they need to go back to the standard means of running clubs (as other clubs do). That means being able to guarantee that £400k is covered. And with a current average of £12 per month, it is around 2500-3000 members recquired to cover the portion designated for FSS which was £250k, a membership number other fan owned clubs have managed. And considering we had at least 2500 per game last season and are heading for 4000 per home game this season it is not unreasonable. Certainly a challenge and a concern for those who want fan ownership to be given that deadline but trying to lecture on finances is just a bit pathetic when you clearly don't even understand them.

I think it is actually more difficult than just emails, when I upped my contribution by cancelling and resubscribing with my paypal I got an email to say thank you for increasing. So the system is linked to the paypal account, not just the email I think. If that is the case then I think you have to set up 5 different paypal accounts under different emails and set up card details for each of those paypal accounts which I am not sure how many people would go to the effort to do

Think you misread what I said, I said those who cannot afford more than £10. But to add to that, I also mentioned in another post I think £5 would also be reasonable (and is done so by other clubs) and if they include that I think it should also mean 1 vote. Primarily because I believe the "product" you pay for is to be part of the organisation and what it stands for and to help get shares and as part of that, you get to vote as one person of that organisation. I think this is where we disagree, because you seem to believe that power or votes should be based on level of contribution, and that is why I say there are other options for that, such as buying shares. So to say that argument is daft I think is just a bit short sighted, my point in saying that is to point out there are already avenues for people to have more say based on contribution. But FSS was not built for that purpose, FSS is a supporter group designed to build shares so fans can all have a say which collectively cannot be ignored, and to do that the organisation needs to buy shares, the same as every other group or individual who wants more power to have more say. The difference is that within FSS, there is a collective, based on votes. By telling some people within that organisation they have more votes just defeats the point, and that is why I say just to buy shares, because that is already possible if that is what you want to do. As for incentives and contribution, the incentive is that FSS can buy shares, the incentive is being part of an organisation developing fan ownership and if you want your contribution to be recognised and that is truly the only reason you want to give more (which just says a lot about you tbh) then once again I would suggest buying your own shares in your own name. Because that is already a system which facilitates that. Also this whole "is a person who has 10 votes a threat" is just a bit silly honestly? Like no of course they are not a threat, but that person believes their opinion is worth the same as 10 individual people with 10 individual brains/opinions/decisions. And once again I just do not believe that is what fan ownership should be about when the whole premise is to have fans be able to have their collective voice heard. And is one person able to destabilise a whole system, no, but if one person does not want stand for and agree with the ideals of that collective why bother being part of it? As for dealing with people who want to set up all these different accounts, nothing to stop them if they want to do that, I am not here to question every individual person and their decisions. People can make their own decisions. But ultimately what I am here to discuss is whether the FSS as an organisation and fans group should facilitate the idea that those with more money have more say, and I do not think they should. Lastly. "this “equality” stuff".... statements like that really just make it clear what kind of person you are. Maybe the idea of "equality stuff" comes apart at the seams because there are people who think they are better than others and don't want equality of opinion. And those people are generally privelaged enough to not need to think about "this equality stuff". But, each to their own, if that is what you believe its what you believe but I think if the FSS were to adopt that attitude it would be very contradictory to everything else they stand for. Ultimately though that statement there is why I am going to leave this conversation here, because there are very obvious fundamentals we are just not going to agree on which underpin this £10 per vote conversation. Said my piece on it.

So I think we are going to just have to agree to disagree on what FSS is about because I never believed I joined FSS just to buy some power, I joined because I support the idea of fan ownership and equality of opinion between fans. As for it not being about money? Afraid only people who have more money than anyone else are the only people who can say that, because anyone who cannot afford more than £10 and their opinion is therefore valued less will tell you it's absolutely about the money. And by extension, valuing opinion in number of votes, giving more votes to those who pay more, very clearly assigns more validity, worth and importance to those people. And that's just fact that literally can be measured - in number of votes. Again only someone who can buy their power can say "oh it's not that my opinion is more worthy.... It's just that I can afford to buy more opinions than you". And finally is the FSS in itself a difficult task? Absolutely. Raising that many members is an extremely difficult task and that is why one of my first posts here was my intense concern about the finances. That responsibility of managing finances however lies with the board. Not with a fan organisation. Although the FSS is rightly aiming to support the club and board by extension with membership and hopefully cover the gap. But it doesn't mean the FSS itself should compromise the ethos of fan equality and fan ownership to do that, it is just "one leg of the stool" in the end. As I mentioned, if you want to buy more power, buy shares, that other leg of the stool is there for that very reason.

Think it is worth noting that the directors cannot go with the wishes of any specific group by law whether that is the PG, FSS or anything else and if they are members or not doesn't change that. The only actual involvement or influence the group's have on the board is in electing the members they choose and then getting rid of they want. The influence of any group stops there and the board, again legally, has to be independent of all groups, and instead act in the interest of the club.

I think whether or not the £5 is introduced is up to FSS, but I really don't think more money should buy more power regardless. So if the £5 is brought in its under the assumption it should also be 1 vote. Otherwise what is the point in joining FSS? The newsletters are always posted online so if the £5 doesn't let you vote there is no real point in adding it. I also don't think people would necessarily decrease their subscription unless they couldn't afford the £10 and were going to cancel anyway so £5 is still beneficial.

I think this completely missed the point of FSS. Buying power is something previous boards have allowed and has allowed a culture of "I have more money I have more say". That is literally everything that fan ownership is trying to avoid. The £10 is not to "buy a vote", it's to enter into a SUPPORTER group which is trying to benefit and build the club and eventually get fan ownership. As part of being a member of that group, you also get to vote, as one person. Just because you have more money does not mean your opinion is more valid, more important or more worthy than someone who cannot afford it and that notion should be binned tbh. If you want to buy more power, buy shares, but that's surely not the point of the FSS? The idea of paying more per month is for the benefit of the club, not to better your own position.

Just to say what I said was not meant as a criticism as I think FSS is a great plan and idea, was more a point of wondering what had happened or if there was some change where there might not be a new board member. Thanks for the explanation and fair enough, these are big jobs for people to do in their spare time.

New poster so hope I don't get slated for that but will add I think the board so far are doing some good things but also some actions (such as the recent email) should be criticised. But I just wanted to clarify a few points with the finances based on what was said in the podcast that I am quite worried about. Also had a question about the FSS which I am a big supporter of and have upped my subscription today having listened to the podcast. Just to lay out the finances for the last several years: 2019/2020 (curtailed in March) - Income: £2.1m (had the season continued), expenditure: £2.5m, loss: about £400k (covered with soft loans??) 2020/2021 (covid season) - Income: £1.1m, expenditure £1.8m, loss: £700k (covered by furlough scheme etc) 2021/2022 - Income: £1.3m, expenditure: £2.3m, loss: £1m (covered by Vaulks knock on/cash in the bank/more soft loans?) 2022/2023 (projected) - Income goal: £1.9m (+£600k from last season), projected expenditure: £2.3m, projected loss: £400k (covered by Plan A: FFS + Patrons, Plan B: Soft loans/investment). What worries me about this is actually not only the £400k projected loss, but that this is not including the additional £600k increase in income that this budget relies on. While they mentioned we were on track with that based on season tickets, increased crowds etc (and maybe also increased sponsorship?) this still means we have to make up £600k income that was not there last season. This means the big crowds etc are not remotely eating into the 400k and if for whatever reason the feel good nature on the park right now does not continue, we will actually be having to make up more than just the 400k projected loss. So we are not just trying to make up 400k, but basically trying to increase the incoming money into the club by £1m more than last season, and that is a frightening number. I think it now makes sense why they have given the deadline of October to ringfence shares for FFS, because they just cannot wait any longer before searching for additional investment. Feels a very unsteady place to be in with the club right now. I also picked up on the FSS seeming to have not made any moves to appoint a new director? The last communication from FSS was when the last director resigned and there would be an update but nothing since then. No call for applications or indication if there will be another nomination. But the board members seemed to indicate they had been waiting on this from FSS so wondering why that has been delayed or put on the back burner? Feel like this is a massive job for just 4 guys and they need to expand the board at least a little. Overall, concerned about how quickly these finances can be covered and just hoping the crowd numbers stay up the whole year to cover that increased income target.