RC_Bairn
-
Posts
137 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by RC_Bairn
-
-
13 minutes ago, Zbairn said:
Heard the same. Pablo did a lot good work for the FSS and he will be sorely missed. Helluva coincidence that John Wright excused himself from the BoD as the FSS rep and now Pablo, who I think was instrumental in getting the Govt. loan.
Some good guys who have made a difference going, in my opinion.
Better watch yourself. @LatapyBairn. will be along in a moment to tell us that everything is fine
-1 -
23 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:
But that isn’t and won’t be the case regardless of what division we are in, please show me a quote from the club to this effect? You’re literally just making shit up now! I heard talk of a possible hybrid set up at the AGM but that’s it.
Read the last supporters update. It says the only reason we are full time this season is the cup run and FSS money. If there's no cup run, external investment, promotion or a tangible increase in FSS membership this season then we won''t be full time next season. Then there will need to be some hard choices made about whether the funding for the 'academy' continues as it is.
0 -
7 minutes ago, Brockvillenomore said:
Lewis and Stuart had a public face and should be praised or critiqued on their work accordingly. Like the board, the players, the management team, CEO etc.
By your logic we shouldn’t criticise the board etc?
That's some logic you've got there. It's fine to slag off Lewis and Stuart who volunteered their time and effort to the club, but don't dare slag off SD.
2 -
26 minutes ago, Brockvillenomore said:
So his “personal” comments were directed at you?
Not that I'm aware of. They were directed at the previous board I believe?
0 -
7 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:
You don't have a point. You're behaving like an arsehole.
No one on an anonymous football forum is duty bound to have their identity outed and personal attacks made. They are only duty bound to post within the rules of the forum owner.
So with that in mind, and from behind my cloak of Batfink strength anonymity.... Shut the f**k up you absolute bore
Aye, I'm the arsehole. Jog on.
0 -
8 hours ago, Brockvillenomore said:
See the posts that single people out like this are a real problem for me. We had a terrible remark directed at SD a week or so ago and now this. It’s not hard, respect the fact we’re anonymous and if somebody’s identity is known for whatever reason, don’t hide behind your anonymity while targeting them.
Still salty about it I see. My point remains the same - if you're going to make personal comments about people (as SD does on a regular basis) then you better be prepared to take them too. As my auld granny used to say "Don't dish it out if you can't take it."
0 -
3 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:
No sure what you’re getting at but it sounds like a cheap shot. The point here is what Shadwell said is pretty accurate, trying to fling in personal shit only shows up your obvious attempt at deflection from what he said.
If you're going to be referring to people as 'cretins' then you better have a pretty squeeky clean back story in my view. Don't dish it out if you can't take it
0 -
2 minutes ago, Jimmy1876 said:
Don't agree with that, if you don't see how 26% of shareholding is stronger than less than 10% then not sure there is much point discussing further.
As for the structure changing - again the point of FSS is if you don't agree then you can vote people in and out, and or don't be a part of it. The fundamental selling point of FSS has always been the voice in the club, that has been only strengthened by this loan and surely that is the point of FF. If you want a donation scheme then donate there, if you want a voice then you join FSS.
You don't have to agree with it. Them's the facts. The FSS has two board seats and will still have two board seats when it pumps in the 350k. If you think that's having 'more of an influence' then I agree there is little point in discussing further.
-3 -
1 minute ago, Shodwall cat said:
I've learned to become more balanced in my views. Dont agree with the new bod on everything but I also can see that they are a huge step up from the cretins that we had previously who nearly put the club under . This is a win win for me and great news.
Bold statement from a man with your past
-6 -
2 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:
It's the same people though that whilst asking these questions legitimately never have anything positive to say either.
You've hardly been a shining beacon of positivity over the years
0 -
1 minute ago, Jimmy1876 said:
1. Personally makes this an easier sell for me - now you can have a voice in the biggest shareholder of the club so that voice counts for more and if 80% of that money is still going to the club to me completely worth the 20% going to pay back a loan to get that voice.
2. Imagine that was not possible if Falkirk was the first club to do this then imagine the government would want this kept quietly. Either way the point of FSS is if you don't like how things are run you can vote people in or out.
3. Robocop said above the club are not liable for the loan and FSS are only liable for the money they have in the bank at time of repayment request (someone correct me if I got that wrong).
Also to your last point. The committee was announced at the last AGM and if you are an FSS member will be in your emails. Likewise the club board I feel have been pretty visible and vocal with the fan base with lots of opportunities to speak to them so I am sure you are welcome to speak to them if you are concerned
1. But the point is that the FSS's voice is not any stronger. The FSS has two board seats just now, and will still have two board seats after it puts this money in. So actually you're not getting any more influence. I think its a harder sell to say to fans now - join FSS and 80% of your money will go to FFC and 20% will go to repaying a loan we took from the Government.
2. It's more the fact the nature of the organisation has changed without consultation with members. We were never told that a % of our payments would be used to service a loan.
3. Appreciate the clarification from Robocop. I hadn't seen his post until after I posted
-6 -
2 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:
Honestly you can tell the previous board sycophants a mile off.
Heaven forbid people are allowed to ask legitimate questions
0 -
4 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:
Can you not read above?
I was typing before it was posted. And the above doesn't answer all of my questions.
0 -
Must admit to having a bit of trepidation when I read the Sun story last night but wanted to wait for the further detail before commenting. Just seen the FSS statement and still worried. Looks like we are making short-term financial promises based on future income (Remember Craig Whyte anyone?). Hopefully the FSS outriders on this forum can put me at ease.
1. Does this news now make the FSS an even harder sell to the ordinary punter? Before you could claim that every penny went into the club. Now the marketing line has to be 'Join FSS and help us pay back the Government'.
2. As an FSS member myself, bit worried this has not been done in consultation with members. Seems like a bit of mission creep to me. I joined the FSS on the basis that my money would be drip fed into the club and not to pay back a loan. If I had known that FSS was suddenly going to be taking out loans I might have thought twice.
3. Would be good to have a bit of clarity on what the loan is secured against? 20 years seems a long time and there's no guarantee that FSS will exist in that time. So what happens if FSS defaults? Also a worrying lack of clarity about who calls the shots at FSS. Lots of different names mentioned on the committee but who is actually in charge? A bit like the Club where no one seems willing to step up and take the responsibility.
-5 -
15 hours ago, Back Post Misses said:
I thought he was Alloa’s best player last season. At least he is someone who has taken a step back to get games and deserves another crack at FT. As others have said a good foil for Jordan. We have to add goals to his game though.
Based on what? The handful of times you saw him play against us?
I know you feel the need to defend everything that goes on at FFC these days but that's just daft.
2 -
10 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:
As I said before you aren't going to get part time players to give up their day jobs on a one year punt at full time football. The main problem under the last bunch of cretins was that we were handing out two and three year deals to utter shite.
So you must have supported the two year deal for Hetherington given he was PT?
0 -
1 hour ago, Shodwall cat said:
You're not going to get part time players giving up their day jobs for one year contracts I'm afraid.
Dishing out two year deals when there's a real possibility that we'll be hybrid or part time in 24/25 is mad. Holt rightly got criticised for handing out 2 and 3 year deals but now we're just repeating the same mistakes. I'm all for the manager getting freedom to sign the players but should he really be tieing the club's hands for future seasons when there's doubt over our full-time status and whether he'll still be in a job in 24/25.
4 -
3 hours ago, Back Post Misses said:
We all know how poor the cash was last summer after the massive overspending of the previous season. Could have been a cashflow reason?
So given this season's budget was higher than last season, does that mean the club massively overspent this season too?
0 -
1 hour ago, Back Post Misses said:
I wasn’t giving Gary Deans a bolt. Too many backed the little toad and see where it got us. The club is OWNED by the fans, not my pals and if the fans collectively want shot of them then that’s democracy.
The club is owned by SOME fans. It's not a democracy when you have to pay £10k to have a say in removing one of the patron directors.
Always a laugh telling others not to buy season tickets when you don't have one yourself.
-1 -
8 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:
Not buying a ST now doesn’t help.
Funny how much you've changed your tune. Haven't you been the guy advocating a season ticket boycott every year for the past 5-6 seasons?? Amazing what having some pals on the board will do.
-1 -
13 hours ago, Duncan Freemason said:
You made shit up. You lied to make a point. I am sorry, you cannot fabricate a blatant lie, fail to address it, then expect to be taken seriously. Insult away……but you are a liar. Now that’s your choice, and I would suggest your lying is a bigger issue than anything else in this chat. Deal with it, but please no more lies. Recognise that you are a liar, and deal with that first.
You seem a well balanced individual
0 -
22 minutes ago, Brockers61 said:
After reaching the 26% shareholding level (or whatever the target is) I’d be happy to keep my monthly payments going to contribute to another project/target. Say a new fourth stand, raise a 100k a year and within 5 years you would have half a million in the bank. Enough to cover legal, planning, architects costs etc and hopefully the club can The finance the balance through loans. Obviously dependent on us being back in, and established in, the SPL.
Any legal issues with this from a FSS perspective or would a new organisation need to be set up to take future fundraising forward?
The problem with initiatives such as FSS and Falkirk Forever is that the promises made to spend the money on X or Y are meaningless. As soon as the money hits the club bank account then Directors are duty bound to spend it on what they deem are in the best interests of the business. And with no transparency around what the football budget is - how would anyone ever know that the money has gone there?
0 -
1 hour ago, Bairney The Dinosaur said:
I think that is the aim, almost a replacement of B4l. Just feels to me it gets in the way of space the club could use to promote FSS.
It's basically a replacement for B4L - but this time directly under the control of the club
2 -
1 hour ago, Kevin James Left Knee said:
My personal view: Can we stand back and take a breath. Clearly recent performances and team selections have not been good but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. We are clearly in a better position than last year, you can bring up statistics but we are in the playoffs and in a Semi. I sometime think there are some people here on P&B who just wait for bad news to jump in with criticisms.
Personally I think the players are avoiding injury more than trying hard as they want to be in the spotlight on the 29th. Also I bet agents are looking at that game and stirring behind the scenes, they've already been negotiating (this is not any particular inside knowledge this always happens in the cup - Inverness had the same problem a few weeks ago) for more bonus money. I suspect the moving around the players is a mixture of trying to be cute for other managers, trying to rest people and also to motivate players to give them the impression that they have an equal chance of starting against Inverness. I don't think this has worked but that's my reading of it.To start suggesting we should sack McGlynn is utterly stupid and is not going to happen. I'm willing to bet that the players suddenly find form when the tv cameras are on them.
There's no doubt we have improved on last season. But the real question is have we improved enough to justify the significant extra budget that JM has used and arguably wasted? He's signed a string of goalkeepers, each one worse than the last. Finn Yeats who despite a promising start has fallen away badly. Lawal and two strikers (Burrell and Allan) who the manager clearly doesn't rate - the latter even costing us a fee. I'd probably suggest he has a 50% success rate in his recruitment which is simply not good enough.
Let's also take this semi-final issue off the table. It's being used to paper over so many cracks. I would wager than in the history of the Scottish Cup no team has had an easier route to the semi-final, and indeed the final if we make it. So lets no kid ourselves on that reaching the Scottish Cup semi-final is some massive achievement. It's not.
3
The Falkirk FC Thread
in Scottish League 1 General Chatter
Posted
Agreed - it's a shifting of the goalposts. We were told to join FSS which would in turn increase the shareholding in the club. It looks like the FSS has now reached the upper ceiling of it's shareholding and any further money coming into FSS will either be a donation to the club or used to service the SG loan. Disappointing is an understatement.
Anyone know if the Patrons are imposing similar limits on themselves??