RC_Bairn
-
Posts
137 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by RC_Bairn
-
-
1 hour ago, LatapyBairn. said:
He will reappear along with Pedro as soon as we loose a game. What this space!
Oh don’t you worry pal. I’ll be here win, loose or draw
0 -
26 minutes ago, Zbairn said:
To be honest, comparing these managers is a bit like comparing Cumbernauld with East Kilbride. Both crap !
Agreed. The point was more to do with shodwell’s selective use of facts or too blatantly make stuff up to suit his argument
0 -
19 hours ago, Shodwall cat said:
The Griffith's money was given to the club to bring in a player it was the wrong player but that wasn't cash reserves then though was it? I don't think we signed that many players in that window? 3 maybe including griffiths. Certainly pales into insignificance when compared to the long list of utter dross that m and m, sheerin and Holt brought in. I'd reckon the majority of the money was pissed down the drain way before Rennie came in that season. The current board like the last will be judged on what happens on the park whilst they are in post. You surely can't argue that last season although still disappointing was better than coming fifth and sixth in league one which the previous board achieved spending ridiculous amounts of money to do so. So far this season again it's been a mile better than anything the previous board produced and recruitment which was horrific under deans bunch has been excellent in the main. Surely you can't be trying to say that the previous bunch did a better job on the park than the current lot for goodness sake.
Hold on…so who paid Griffiths wages then?
and by my count Rennie brought in 7 players and still had a worse record than Sheerin
1 -
22 hours ago, Shodwall cat said:
Get it right on the park and you've got a far better chance of getting it right off the park . All I've ever wanted was a decent manager appointed who could persuade decent players to sign for the club. The former board gave miller and McCracken contract extensions and then appointed both sheeting and Holt. All dreadful appointments that cost the club god knows how much money. M and m and Holt's recruitment were absolutely honking and that's more money down the drain. How anyone could appoint two guys that looked so far out of their depth that night at the inchyra is completely beyond me. I've never heard a manager tell people I wish I was better in all my life, never mind holts were you good in your first job pish. A complete disaster which saw all our cash reserves we'd built up pissed down the drain to come mid table in league one. Inexcusable I'm afraid in my book.
As opposed to the appointment of Martin Rennie which turned out to be such a success???
How much of the cash reserves do you think he pissed away on duds like Griffiths and others who conspired to have a worse record than Sheerin.
-2 -
Just now, AJ1981 said:
Why don't you come along and ask at the FSS meeting next Friday.
Because I already know the answer. If you think i’m full of it then ask the question, and come back on here and tell everyone what they said.
0 -
8 minutes ago, AJ1981 said:
Dude, last night you were claiming no connection to the previous board, now you have a "reliable source" from the previous board.......I've taken a screenshot because you're making this up as you go along.
Where does it say my reliable source was a member of the previous board? Reading comprehension ain’t your thing clearly dude.
As I said to your mates (the same three that red dot me) if you don’t believe me then ask the Board. I’m sure you have their number.
AJ1981 is typing….this’ll be fun!
0 -
1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:
Another "it's ma baw" tale to back up the idea that the new board weren't fit to take over from his pals
Go ask the Board then and we’ll see how much of a tale it is. You’re clearly close with them
-6 -
4 hours ago, gav-ffc said:
Yeah of course at the time it was great but we are 13/14 years down the line paying 80k each year and another 40k to be paid back while FSS and patrons are making donations via shares.
Not sure how you can equate a guy who invested £2 million (of which he's only had just over half back if my maths are correct) and some Patrons who have donated shares which are, frankly, barely worth the paper the certificate is printed on.
-1 -
1 hour ago, Disco Duck said:
As far as I’m aware it’s owned by SA and rented by the club.
That's correct I believe. I've heard from a pretty reliable source that the club started conversations a few years ago with SA about 'coming to an arrangement' to end the rental payments but these conversations were put on ice when the FSS/Patrons guys took over.
-1 -
30 minutes ago, AJ1981 said:
Defo part of the old regime or one of their hanger's on sitting like poodles at the table, cap in hand, waiting for scraps....
It's the same old story - disagree with anything and you must be aligned to the previous board - yawn. The same accusation could be laid at your door that your bind loyalty means you must have some affiliation to the current incumbents.
Plenty on here hiding behind usernames, or leaving the site only to return with a new profile a few weeks later...
-1 -
30 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:
It's frankly amazing that anyone involved directly or indirectly with the bowling club committee that brought us League 1 for multiple seasons, no academy, Gary Deans and Gary fucking Holt has the sheer fucking audacity to come on here even under a pseudonym and lecture the fans about how we're not capable of Stewarding the club and how it should have been left as their baw to treat us like fannies
You almost would have to laugh and give a wee tip of the hat, if it wasn't for the fact that even with the benefit of anonymity and communicating using the written word, "Braes Bairn" still manages to come across like an obnoxious bell end, and an absolute tory.
You're certainly entitled to your view but atleast do it based on some facts. The previous bowling club committee were the ones who re-established the 'academy'. This is also our third season in L1 under the current incumbents.
-4 -
19 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:
Batting for Phil fucking Rawlins now
and crying over things said on Pie And Bovril
Jog on you absolute loser
Will do bud. Name calling from behind a keyboard - stay classy
edited to add: i’m not batting for anyone - i’m just not delusional enough to think that guys are gonna put money into our club when folk are calling them all sorts. If you wanna believe that then fair enough.
1 -
1 hour ago, Springfield said:
Fair comment, however based on quite a few unknowns. For me think it’s best we keep with what’s we know. Following the recent AGM/shareholder meeting and the press release, we urgently need to substantially increase the funding/cash/investment within the club. Disappointingly for me the ask (threat) is without a huge uptake in FSS membership, we need to be at 2400 (currently 750ish after hard selling for a year) so that the -400K is funded.
The reality is that many players will be able to sign pre-season contracts in 12 weeks and guys like Spencer & Lang would walk this summer, straight from McGlynn on his presentation to the AGM. Not quite sure what the hell the BOD expects from the fans. Do they honestly think we’re suddenly have a huge uptake in the next few weeks? Not a chance in hell.
So what’s the alternative? It’s got to be from the existing investment or external investment. We’ve already had a group of guys ( Patrons) being asked for a second dip and god knows where we’d be without them. Will they dig again ? Not sure.Maybe MSG former guys Ritchie - Alexander? after all didn’t we try and chase them?
Rawlins? All quiet and suspect they will disappear one way or another soon.
So we’re top of the league, best opening nine games and best looking squad in maybe 4 years, let’s see where the next few months take us, one things for sure, there will be no second chances.
The Board have been saying for two years that we need to change the business model and as far as I can see things haven't changed in a business sense - the operating loss is still as large as ever (even when taking into account cup monies and other unbudgeted for income). What happened to all the big ideas that Kenny Jamieson had for changing the operating model? Hot air I suspect.
The harsh realities are:
There's no opportunity for small shareholders to purchase additional shares.
The projections for growth of the FSS are unrealistic (and from recent comments on here it looks like some members have left)
The PG are tapped out. They might be able to contribute the odd thousand here and there but they don't have the same financial clout as Ritchie, Alexander, Rawlins.
As for those latter three - why on earth would they put more money into the club? Unless they've all developed collective amnesia over the abuse they've received the past few years (much of it on this forum and from members of the current board) then there's no way they'll step up.
-1 -
8 hours ago, RC55 FFC said:
Fortress Brockville event was booked for The Beancross originally. We were told that the club try to move events around club sponsors (they used Beancross for the pre semi final event) so this was the original plan but were contacted by Beancross due to their current situation. Inchyra, as another sponsor, was then booked.
As Shodwell Cat says though, otherwise their are no real alternatives to getting 300/350 people in a room for dinner. Grange Manor doesn’t hold that & may not even be a club sponsor.
Hopefully this Fortress Brockville event is better run than the Latapy night which you guys were promoting. Still waiting on my refund or further information!
0 -
3 hours ago, Blame Me said:
Being honest, I do find it utterly bizarre that the FSS found itself in this position in the first place.
As I write I am still seeing members asking JS online if the FSS is now FF/BfL in all but name!
I paraphrase as I can't remember where I read that events had overtook the FSS and they achieved the main aim much quicker than expected, which is true, yet that shouldn't have stopped the committee from canvassing their members and understanding the demonstrably diverse views within and clarifying whether the agreement met those aims before it was agreed.
Sadly, votes on legends and quizzes isn't engaging the membership - That's a pat on the head.
To have no formulation of what happens next suggests there was - and still is - too much focus on bailing out the club and the messaging and perception is that rather than the being the fans voice it's the fans pocket.I'd really like to hear some concrete views emanating from the FSS yet appreciating they won't all be enacted but certainly tangible outcomes. That there is no discernible difference between the FF and FSS to the layman should concern the committee.
Agreed. It's also very interesting to note that many of the 'founding fathers' of the FSS have now gone to ground. Would be keen to hear their take on things as recent statements seem to point the finger at those individuals for misreading the relationship between FSS and the club.
0 -
7 hours ago, Van_damage said:
I did wonder if it would get many putting their names forward as we’ve only had 3 people nominate themselves on the last 3 occasions and all have now served or are still serving on the board.
Maybe needs to be more detail about exactly what is expected of the candidate as one of the last sets of criteria was to be able to put in 20 hours a week outside of match days. Does seem like a lot of hours to ask someone to give up and will no doubt limit the amount of fans that are able to commit to that.
The fact that all bar one of the FSS directors have resigned since it's inception suggests it may not purely be an issue of time commitment.
3 -
2 hours ago, Van_damage said:
I would rather see Yeats in midfield but you are right. Darren Barr more recently was a right back turned centre half for us and done a great job. Luke Leahy another who went from a centre midfielder to an amazing left back.
Darren Barr actually started as a winger in the youth development set up. Leahy played as a striker his first few games for us, then moved to left back. Seems he's now playing in midfield for Wycombe - a jack of all trades clearly.
1 -
57 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:
Did the previous board have it's moments? I must have missed them.
Think there were a few tbf. Disbanding the MSG, facilitating the creation of the FSS, restarting the youth development programme and bringing in the largest single investment in the club’s history. There’s a few to get you started…
-1 -
2 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:
Let's face it they can only spend it better than the previous lot that's for sure. I've rarely moaned about anything on here of late other than the previous board nearly putting us out of business by burning through every penny we had in the bank whilst also leaving us mid table in league one. I'd just rather wait and attend the FSS meeting to find out the facts before bumping my gums about things on here. I'll raise my concerns if necessary when the time is right
An interesting deflection
1 -
3 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:
I thought there was a planned meeting to decide on the way ahead for fss. If that's the case then surely no decision has been made as of yet. I was always of the opinion that once the FSS had arrived at it's 25 percent then the money would be used for investment in various things to be decided between the members. Surely the 3 legged stool wouldn't work if one leg had far more shares than the other two anyway.I would suggest that if you are a member then you go to the up coming meeting and find out what's happening before spitting the dummy . Anyway I suppose after a good result on Saturday some folk had to have something to moan about.
That's rich coming from one of the biggest moaners on here. A few points to clarify:
1. FSS members cannot dictate what their money is spent on. Once it's in the club's coffers then it's entirely at the discretion of the BoD how to use it.
2. There has to be flexibility in the three legged stool model. If one leg has money to invest are we really saying they can't because the other two legs are not going to invest? That's madness and will cripple the club.
1 -
4 minutes ago, falkirkzombie said:
I'd always assumed the aim was just to get to 25% - which makes the clubs decision to not allow this to happen when we are so close very strange. After the 25% was reached I think it makes sense to continue as a donation based scheme - with FSS having authority on how they money is spent
In my humble view there should be no limit on the shareholding that FSS can have. If others (such as the Patrons, MR and SA, Rawlins etc) are worried about dilution then they should be afforded a similar opportunity to buy more shares to maintain their percentage - thus keeping all three legs of the stool as close to even as they can be. I'm personally uncomfortable with the idea that the FSS continues to pump money into the club, but its influence in the boardroom does not grow. I'm equally uncomfortable that the Patrons can maintain their level of influence in the boardroom but not offer up further investment.
2 -
6 minutes ago, Brockers61 said:
Would the Club entertain that, hundreds of small shareholders with only 1 share? The administration of the share register would multiply tenfold.
The reality is that the admin involved in dealing with a shareholder who has 1 share, and a shareholder who has 2,000 shares is exactly the same. That being said, I believe there was a minimum share purchase of £400 at the last share issue - but that obviously applies to new shares purchased and not people with an existing shareholding.
What FSS would probably be looking at is not a transfer of shares, but an agreement that individual shareholders would pool together and vote alongside the FSS in a bloc. Similar to how the MSG and Patrons work/worked.
0 -
2 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:
Not sure what’s so outlandish about my suggestion, I’m purely offering a potential solution rather than just howling at the moon. Have also emailed the FSS with the suggestion. Hopefully something along along those lines can be offered up to the members in a vote, I’d be more than happy to transfer my own small shareholding and it could also potentially lead to growing the FSS shareholding way beyond the 25% if enough done the same.
You're missing the point (not sure whether it's deliberate or not). Why should fans with individual shareholdings be asked to transfer them to the FSS because the BoD have set an arbitrary limit on the FSS shareholding? Also aren't you concerned that fans have been misled? We were told that FSS donations would be used to build up a shareholding in the club and to further fan ownership. It would now appear that's been dumped and FSS has now become a vehicle to deliver a donation to the club.
3 -
33 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:
Should be easy enough to find the final 3700 shares, I’m told one or two of the patrons group would happily transfer their shareholding to the FSS and there will be a number of minor shareholders prepared to do the same (i’d happily do so)as well I presume. Can also understand why the club would like to retain some unsold shares for fans or potential new patrons to buy. Don’t see this becoming a massive issue for the FSS to solve in all honestly. Might actually be a good way of unionising and bringing all the small shareholders under one umbrella, FSS could easily exceed the 25% needed given the number of small shareholdings that exist.
Seriously? I know you've drank the kool-aid but surely you see the flaws in this? There's no need for the club to retain unsold shares for new patrons or new external investers. The BoD have the ability to issue new shares whenever they want (subject to shareholder approval) so it makes no sense to put a limit on one group, but not others. This is a power play - pure and simple. It's now becoming increasingly clear what's behind the recent FSS resignations.
1
The Falkirk FC Thread
in Scottish League 1 General Chatter
Posted
Name and shame…