The Falkirk FC Thread

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Proudtobeabairn said:

I think everyone should have a vote, regardless of whether £5, £10 or more.  That makes it easy to manage.

It is also a major reason for not going above £10 a month. Five people can put in a tenner a month and have five votes. One person can put in £50, yet they get one vote. Sorry, that isn’t right.

Equally, how much should be paid before a vote is possible? It would be easy for say 20 people to join, pay £10, then vote, then cancel their SOs. Result? £200 buys 20 votes. Someone paying £10 a month for a year……£120…..that buys 1 vote. Someone putting in £50 a month for a year…….£600……that buys 1 vote.
There is zero incentive to pay more than £10 a month. Your “easy to manage” is even easier to manipulate.

[Guest Caractacus Potts]

33 minutes ago, Believe The Hype said:

I thought I pointed out the logic pretty clear. If you want to pay more then that's up to you, paying less than what was the minimum and asking for the same advantages is where the difference clearly lies. 

Was asking Robbocop from the FSS who cited the voting rights as the main reason. 

All other fan groups have a £5 option.

What you suggested is logical but there is also as much logic suggesting it won’t affect the £10 contributions. The FSS can easily check out the potential reactions however by running a survey or a vote. The more interaction with members, the better too. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by Caractacus Potts

[Believe The Hype]

9 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

It is also a major reason for not going above £10 a month. Five people can put in a tenner a month and have five votes. One person can put in £50, yet they get one vote. Sorry, that isn’t right.

Equally, how much should be paid before a vote is possible? It would be easy for say 20 people to join, pay £10, then vote, then cancel their SOs. Result? £200 buys 20 votes. Someone paying £10 a month for a year……£120…..that buys 1 vote. Someone putting in £50 a month for a year…….£600……that buys 1 vote.
There is zero incentive to pay more than £10 a month. Your “easy to manage” is even easier to manipulate.

I would like to think people are contributing what they can to help the club, not to buy up power. This is a stinking attitude. Reeks of tory as well. Why should people with more money have a louder voice? Aren't all supporters one and the same in this cause? 

[bairn88]

19 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

It is also a major reason for not going above £10 a month. Five people can put in a tenner a month and have five votes. One person can put in £50, yet they get one vote. Sorry, that isn’t right.

Equally, how much should be paid before a vote is possible? It would be easy for say 20 people to join, pay £10, then vote, then cancel their SOs. Result? £200 buys 20 votes. Someone paying £10 a month for a year……£120…..that buys 1 vote. Someone putting in £50 a month for a year…….£600……that buys 1 vote.
There is zero incentive to pay more than £10 a month. Your “easy to manage” is even easier to manipulate.

Says who?

[Bairnardo]

If its about voting rights, why can't votes be weighted based on contribution if its that important?

I don't care who says it, if there is a market for more contributors at a lower entry point , its an absolutely wild reason not to explore it.

[Jimmy1876]

36 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

It is also a major reason for not going above £10 a month. Five people can put in a tenner a month and have five votes. One person can put in £50, yet they get one vote. Sorry, that isn’t right.

 

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.

Edited October 4, 2022 by Jimmy1876
Spelling

[FFC 1876]

36 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

It is also a major reason for not going above £10 a month. Five people can put in a tenner a month and have five votes. One person can put in £50, yet they get one vote. Sorry, that isn’t right.

Equally, how much should be paid before a vote is possible? It would be easy for say 20 people to join, pay £10, then vote, then cancel their SOs. Result? £200 buys 20 votes. Someone paying £10 a month for a year……£120…..that buys 1 vote. Someone putting in £50 a month for a year…….£600……that buys 1 vote.
There is zero incentive to pay more than £10 a month. Your “easy to manage” is even easier to manipulate.

[Guest Caractacus Potts]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy1876 said:

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.

I agree with that sentiment but it appears to be the FSS saying it wouldn’t be fair for someone to enter paying £5/month and having a vote. Have a survey, find out what people think.

It wouldn’t bother me if people who paid less had the same vote as me, likewise it wouldn’t bother me if people who paid more got more votes. Ultimately either would mean more money being contributed to the club. 

[Believe The Hype]

4 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

If its about voting rights, why can't votes be weighted based on contribution if its that important?
 

I don't think it should ever be about how many votes you get. Isn't it about everyone contributing what they can so the club has more money? The idea that someone could buy out and veto another's vote essentially just because they can put in more money is not what this whole process should be about. I think that would actually put people off wanting to sign up. 

[LatapyBairn.]

8 minutes ago, Caractacus Potts said:

I agree with that sentiment but it appears to be the FSS saying it wouldn’t be fair for someone to enter paying £5/month and having a vote. Have a survey, find out what people think.

It wouldn’t bother me if people who paid less had the same vote as me, likewise it wouldn’t bother me if people who paid more got more votes. Ultimately either would mean more money being contributed to the club. 

People can (if they want to) donate £5 or indeed any amount at any time  if they like. Maybe the minimum membership fee should be lowered to £5 or less but I can’t help thinking it might have a negative impact and lower the overall net contributions if that were to be the new minimum. I think £10 has the balance about right. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[Jimmy1876]

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. 

[Bairnardo]

2 minutes ago, Believe The Hype said:

I don't think it should ever be about how many votes you get. Isn't it about everyone contributing what they can so the club has more money? The idea that someone could buy out and veto another's vote essentially just because they can put in more money is not what this whole process should be about. I think that would actually put people off wanting to sign up. 

Well yeah, agreed. But if voting is a sticking point, it's not like there aren't simple solutions. I personally DGAF how much anyone puts in, nor would I have any issue whatsoever with someone who puts in a 5er a month having the same voice as me. 

 

Think it's being overthought tbh. We just need members putting in what they can. Freezing out those who think a 5er is enough makes absolutely no sense. Yer 5er guy might up to a tenner in better times. But if during these times, yer 5er guy is told he isn't welcome, what's the chances of him jumping in at a tenner?

[Bigbri Bairn]

It is also a major reason for not going above £10 a month. Five people can put in a tenner a month and have five votes. One person can put in £50, yet they get one vote. Sorry, that isn’t right.
Equally, how much should be paid before a vote is possible? It would be easy for say 20 people to join, pay £10, then vote, then cancel their SOs. Result? £200 buys 20 votes. Someone paying £10 a month for a year……£120…..that buys 1 vote. Someone putting in £50 a month for a year…….£600……that buys 1 vote.
There is zero incentive to pay more than £10 a month. Your “easy to manage” is even easier to manipulate.

That is the reason that these things fall flat. If you suggest a person who gives a large amount deserves a bigger say in a fan based initiative it stops it being a democracy. In that system the big fish swim to the top and the average punter ( me ) loses any say or at best dilutes any say. Translate that to politics and you would suggest that the richer voters and business owners should get more votes than a person on bwnefits?

[Shodwall cat]

Was always going to be a stretch going from the projected 800k loss to 400k. The fact the loss is actually about 1.1 mill sets us back before we've begun.

[Braes_Bairn]

While the idea of fan ownership is nice this is exactly the problem I saw coming and asked at the time of FSS launching. Who writes the cheques when you have cash flow problems?

With all due respect to the patrons, most of whom paid £10k last season, how many have the ability to keep making that level of payment every year? How many have the ability to write a cheque for £100k? There’s a much smaller pool of people with those resources.

You had the MSG who for all their faults had the resources but the current Board members criticised them for years so why would they bail us out now? You had the Rawlings who had the resources but again they were chased away by the same individuals.

In my opinion fan ownership is not the answer. Most fans are not interested in the behind the scenes of the club, they just want to watch a winning side on a Saturday. The club should be owned by shareholders with the resources to help the club in tough times. Obviously due diligence needs done but any large investment should be welcomed.

[Bairnardo]

2 minutes ago, Braes_Bairn said:

While the idea of fan ownership is nice this is exactly the problem I saw coming and asked at the time of FSS launching. Who writes the cheques when you have cash flow problems?

With all due respect to the patrons, most of whom paid £10k last season, how many have the ability to keep making that level of payment every year? How many have the ability to write a cheque for £100k? There’s a much smaller pool of people with those resources.

You had the MSG who for all their faults had the resources but the current Board members criticised them for years so why would they bail us out now? You had the Rawlings who had the resources but again they were chased away by the same individuals.

In my opinion fan ownership is not the answer. Most fans are not interested in the behind the scenes of the club, they just want to watch a winning side on a Saturday. The club should be owned by shareholders with the resources to help the club in tough times. Obviously due diligence needs done but any large investment should be welcomed.

Have to refresh my memory, how have the Rawlins been chased away? Not being wide here, the Rawlins timeline is sketchy af in my memory amongst all the other shit that was going on.

[Braes_Bairn]

Not a criticism of the podcast - but realistically how many people will listen to it? Why have the board not come out via email or the club website to apologise for their statement? We shouldn’t need to listen to an unofficial podcast to hear an apology or explanation for that email.

[Harry Kinnear]

I joined the FSS when it first started and I’ve recently upped my monthly contribution but I see it as a donation to the club, I know I am lucky in the current financial climate to be able to do this. I don’t honestly care about voting rights/owning shares etc but that’s just me and each to their own. I see this more as a monthly donation than anything else.

[Rugster]

10 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Have to refresh my memory, how have the Rawlins been chased away? Not being wide here, the Rawlins timeline is sketchy af in my memory amongst all the other shit that was going on.

They weren't chased away by the current board. I think they got the fright of their fucking lives with the sheer unprofessionalism of the previous board at the Q & A and thought "f**k this" tout de suite.

[RC55 FFC]

5 minutes ago, Braes_Bairn said:

Not a criticism of the podcast - but realistically how many people will listen to it? Why have the board not come out via email or the club website to apologise for their statement? We shouldn’t need to listen to an unofficial podcast to hear an apology or explanation for that email.

A normal episode has seen circa 1500 listens/views, so a decent % of the Fanbase. However, based on the views/listens so far in less than 24hrs on YouTube, Apple & Spotify etc it could hit 2000-2500. Hopefully more however. 

We are very grateful they came on tbh, with it being an unofficial podcast as you say. And unlike a club media, we didn’t sugarcoat the questions or let them see them in advance. Hopefully it’s landed well, even though we are normally on the lighter side of club topics, we felt it needed the right questions asked.