The Falkirk FC Thread

[Zbairn]

9 hours ago, RC_Bairn said:

Are you actually being serious? This is like standard grade business studies all over again.

The Directors you are talking about were ratified by a vote of all FFC shareholders at an AGM.  I can't tell you which one exactly but I'd imagine it'd be the 2019 or 2020 AGM.

One slightly interesting but important difference between 2019/2020 and now is that the BOD’s have been elected by fans Groups, either PG or FSS. In the case of FSS by around 500 members. Previous BOD’s were essentially selected by the very few MSG members due to their % shareholding. That’s how we got Doug Henderson, Margaret Lang et al.

To put this into perspective, remember the Doug Henderson fiasco at the AGM where virtually all shareholders wanted him ousted and he was still elected by 2 or 3 MSG members. 

There were quite a few situations where it was a job for best mates and even then, some were only in it for themselves. On occasion not even FFC fans.

At least with the current guys we know that they are FFC fans. They may not get everything right, but I’m 100% convinced they are trying their best for the club. 

[Jimmy1876]

8 hours ago, Duncan Freemason said:

Now, whether it is uncomfortable or not, the very fist thing you do when we you join FSS is “buy a vote”.

This isn’t about having or not having money. Is it about opinion? Maybe, but not about it being “more valid, important, or worthy”. That phrase is a bit too worthy for its own good.. Joining at all is an altruistic act. There is absolutely zero incentive to go above £10pcm. Some do, but it’s precious few.

Is someone who chooses to deposit £100pcm, for which he receives 10 votes then considered enough of a threat as to undermine a founding reason for FSS’s very existence? Is that one person with 10 votes considered a threat to the other 529 votes?
FSS  trying to grow organically by 500% in a 6 month period that includes a backdrop of the energy bills crisis and a fast approaching Christmas season that will absolutely stress out 70% of the country’s domestic finance, is quite frankly, Mission Impossible.

I do not envy them their task.

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. 

Edited October 5, 2022 by Jimmy1876

[Bairney The Dinosaur]

2 hours ago, PedroMoutinho said:

A cynic might even say the FSS have been given a task and deadline we all know is impossible to achieve…

I (and believe a good few others who are within FSS) had a similar thought after the initial email. My worries have been eased that if 'Plan A', the 500% 6 month increase, is not achieved then the effort will be placed in finding a way of holding these shares until FSS catch up.

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

2 hours ago, Back Post Misses said:

And the cynic would also say you are trying to cause trouble for the sake of it

And talk down the Falkirk fans. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jimmy1876 said:

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. 

I will just go with the first bit. Paying £10 a month to buy the vote that someone who can’t afford £10 to buy a vote is in every essence, you making my argument for me. You cannot escape the principle.

Ceding more votes to someone paying £100 a month isn’t anything to do with worthiness. It’s reflects their contribution to the group, and I ask again, is the person who does that very thing, and is assigned 10 votes, a threat to the other 529 votes out there? What about 10 people doing £100 a month? Is their 100 votes enough to destabilise or undermine the other 520 votes?

Bear in mind that beyond all the heady inclusive chat, the FSS is about one thing……..raising as much cash as possible……and like everything in life, there is little wrong in recognising contributions that are above and beyond the base requirement. Hell, it’s why people who pay more for a ST get a Prime seat.

Your point about “go buy shares” is ultimately a bit daft, as that is exactly what FSS does, and that is what buys FSS its power……..again, the more contributions FSS makes, the more valid, important and worthy the voice of FSS becomes…..no?

There is a whole raft of stuff that for me, makes this “equality” stuff creak at the seams. How many monthly contributions do you need to make before you can vote? Does a single £10 payment entitle an individual to a vote? Is that considered to be “equality”?

Back to my theoretical person thinking about £50 a month, but seeing no incentive to do so. If they then chose to pay £10 in their name and the same again for their partner and three kids who have no interest in football……..so one person gets 5 votes for their £50……..would you seek to remove that person from the FSS membership?

Or if that person just decided to make up 4 names and pay £10 for each of them via a common PayPal account. How would you deal with that?

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Brockvillenomore said:

And talk down the Falkirk fans. 

? How come?

[Kevin James Left Knee]

1 minute ago, Duncan Freemason said:

 

Back to my theoretical person thinking about £50 a month, but seeing no incentive to do so. If they then chose to pay £10 in their name and the same again for their partner and three kids who have no interest in football……..so one person gets 5 votes for their £50……..would you seek to remove that person from the FSS membership?

 

 

There is nothing to stop that person (as no-one can investigate who is signing up) from opening  5 different memberships one in each name of his family. Under 16s are not meant to get a vote in the elections but in practice that is not checkable as no-one asks for proof of age when joining. I still think it is best to be a single payer and accept parity in voting but the reality doesn't stop what you are arguing for.

[AL-FFC]

Just now, Kevin James Left Knee said:

There is nothing to stop that person (as no-one can investigate who is signing up) from opening  5 different memberships one in each name of his family. Under 16s are not meant to get a vote in the elections but in practice that is not checkable as no-one asks for proof of age when joining. I still think it is best to be a single payer and accept parity in voting but the reality doesn't stop what you are arguing for.

No being funny and I can see your point with the 5 different memberships but do you really think that someone would go to the trouble to create 5 different email accounts verify such email accounts and then maintain them, just for a vote at the club.  if anything human nature and especially in this day and age but people will take the path of least resistance so basically (they wouldn't be arsed).

[Kevin James Left Knee]

3 minutes ago, AL-FFC said:

No being funny and I can see your point with the 5 different memberships but do you really think that someone would go to the trouble to create 5 different email accounts verify such email accounts and then maintain them, just for a vote at the club.  if anything human nature and especially in this day and age but people will take the path of least resistance so basically (they wouldn't be arsed).

I know of one person who has three accounts that he pays for which include his children. I am not saying this is how people should progress or is a good idea but if its a big deal it could be a way round the one vote per account. We just don't have the resources to check every membership sign up.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Springfield said:

Deliberately kept away from the “debate” however some interesting comments and some absolute shite.

Like the vast majority if not all supporters of the club, we’ve been subjected to the worst few years we could have ever imagined. Now in the lower reaches of Scottish football, three BODs and four/five managers in past few seasons confirm our abhorrent decline.

All I want is a credible/stable BOD, people with the ability to run the club, in all capacities, and if these people are “Falkirk People” it’s a bonus. For me the current BOD have made some howlers/errors but I’m sure they’ve all learned ie DGW/Griffiths/Jeremy Beadle. 

I don’t know any of the current directors, but I do believe that they are trying their bollocks to get the club on a stable financial footing, and ultimately have the club in “fan ownership”.

My views are this is going to be a huge challenge, we’d stand a better chance of people signing up if we were challenging in next league up and different economic conditions, but that’s where we are.

I will one hundred percent back the BOD  and club, but it want stop my having a genuine dig if I feel the theirs a genuine reason to do so.

With the appointment of M&S, and without getting carried away, there’s signs that if we can keep our key players fit, we won’t be far away at season end. 

 
 

 

I agree with you. No board should ever be immune from criticism. 

What I can say on behalf of those in the CI is that dealing with the new board has been night and day to the last lot. That doesn’t mean to say there wasn’t one or two things we had issues with however Keith and Kenny are willing to listen and stand to reason. That never occurred with Deans and Co. 

There’s definitely still room for improvement in all areas of the club but I don’t think they would suggest otherwise and feel there has been a steady improvement since they took over. Hopefully we can continue to progress and the decision they made to increase the budget will be prove to be the right one. Think they explained the decision to make that pretty well and there will be an increase in FSS membership to help plug the gap. 

 

Edited October 5, 2022 by Guest

[Jimmy1876]

45 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

I will just go with the first bit. Paying £10 a month to buy the vote that someone who can’t afford £10 to buy a vote is in every essence, you making my argument for me. You cannot escape the principle.

Ceding more votes to someone paying £100 a month isn’t anything to do with worthiness. It’s reflects their contribution to the group, and I ask again, is the person who does that very thing, and is assigned 10 votes, a threat to the other 529 votes out there? What about 10 people doing £100 a month? Is their 100 votes enough to destabilise or undermine the other 520 votes?

Bear in mind that beyond all the heady inclusive chat, the FSS is about one thing……..raising as much cash as possible……and like everything in life, there is little wrong in recognising contributions that are above and beyond the base requirement. Hell, it’s why people who pay more for a ST get a Prime seat.

Your point about “go buy shares” is ultimately a bit daft, as that is exactly what FSS does, and that is what buys FSS its power……..again, the more contributions FSS makes, the more valid, important and worthy the voice of FSS becomes…..no?

There is a whole raft of stuff that for me, makes this “equality” stuff creak at the seams. How many monthly contributions do you need to make before you can vote? Does a single £10 payment entitle an individual to a vote? Is that considered to be “equality”?

Back to my theoretical person thinking about £50 a month, but seeing no incentive to do so. If they then chose to pay £10 in their name and the same again for their partner and three kids who have no interest in football……..so one person gets 5 votes for their £50……..would you seek to remove that person from the FSS membership?

Or if that person just decided to make up 4 names and pay £10 for each of them via a common PayPal account. How would you deal with that?

 

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. 

Edited October 5, 2022 by Jimmy1876

[Jimmy1876]

42 minutes ago, AL-FFC said:

No being funny and I can see your point with the 5 different memberships but do you really think that someone would go to the trouble to create 5 different email accounts verify such email accounts and then maintain them, just for a vote at the club.  if anything human nature and especially in this day and age but people will take the path of least resistance so basically (they wouldn't be arsed).

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 

[Guest]

As an aside, the option to buy personal shares is still available. I’ve just purchased some as decided I wanted shares in my own name rather than up my FSS subs. 

Just to let you know that there are various options available if you can afford to contribute more, whether it be via the FSS, personal shares or the Patrons. 

Edited October 5, 2022 by Guest

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

1 hour ago, Duncan Freemason said:

? How come?

@PedroMoutinho said a cynic might say that the FSS has been given an impossible task.
 

It’s not and suggesting it could be read as talking down what we can achieve as supporters. IMHO. 
 

Edited October 5, 2022 by Brockvillenomore
Twice cos I’m an ar@e

[PedroMoutinho]

1 hour ago, Brockvillenomore said:

@PedroMoutinho said a cynic might say that the FSS has been given an impossible task.
 

It’s not and suggesting it could be read as talking down what we can achieve as supporters. IMHO. 
 

I’m afraid setting a target for the FSS to increase income by 500% by the end of October in the middle of a cost of living crisis is quite clearly an impossible task. Quite possibly deliberately so imo.

 

[Springfield]

Any update of new subscriptions ?

[d , mcarthur]

Is there not a Pie and Bovril for lawyers and accountants you could all piss of too, does nobody ever want to post about football on here, 

[NavyBlueArmy1876]

Just now, Springfield said:

Any update of new subscriptions ?

Last I heard there had been an increase of around 30 to take the total numbers to 535 

[Guest Back Post Misses]

16 minutes ago, NavyBlueArmy1876 said:

Last I heard there had been an increase of around 30 to take the total numbers to 535 

I heard more than that, also a few upgrading and some one off donations. 

[Grangemouth Bairn]

7 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

I heard more than that, also a few upgrading and some one off donations. 

So what’s the total and who has the correct MI ? It seems like loads of people have an opinion on what the impact has been and they all differ.

It’s maybe just a personal thing but it’d be good to hear the actual impact the statement has had volume wise.