The Falkirk FC Thread

[Bairney The Dinosaur]

46 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

I have not seen anywhere that the FSS is failing. My view is that it is a bit of a victim of circumstances. To be bringing in 100k per season from nothing is a great effort. Unfortunately it is not enough in the current situation.

 

39 minutes ago, Brockvillenomore said:

I agree. There is no narrative about the FSS failing. Nor was there a suggestion at the AGM.

Not a dominant narrative but have started to feel it creeping in. It's usually when, as BPM you've mentioned above, the money generated not being enough. I just don't feel like it the role of FSS to fill the budget gap, but therefore understand why other income streams are needed like ticket price increases and 'Falkirk Forever' (although I'm not convinced the latter doesn't step on toes the of FSS).

[Bainsfordbairn]

2 hours ago, PedroMoutinho said:

Not advocating them fighting each other. However, patently the interests of people who’ve ponied up £10k minimum will not always be the same as people contributing a tenner a month.

It appears you think a fan paying less will have different interests than a fan who pays more.

I would have thought both would have only one interest, which is for Falkirk FC to be successful. How much they contribute to that is irrelevant. Everyone pays what they can afford. 

Neither are going to get any any dividend from what they put in so why would they have different interests? 

 

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

22 minutes ago, Bairney The Dinosaur said:

 

Not a dominant narrative but have started to feel it creeping in. It's usually when, as BPM you've mentioned above, the money generated not being enough. I just don't feel like it the role of FSS to fill the budget gap, but therefore understand why other income streams are needed like ticket price increases and 'Falkirk Forever' (although I'm not convinced the latter doesn't step on toes the of FSS).

There doesn’t need to be a budget gap. The BoD can lower expectations and let the management team build a team on a smaller budget. 

Their declared objective is to be back in the Premiership by our 150th anniversary.  
Perhaps this is where the potential disconnect is? 

 

 

[ClathyDave]

5 hours ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

The overall quality of Falkirk TV is superb, probably the best in the lower leagues.

Got to say though the commentator always comes across as ridiculous. He resembles how I watched football when I was 12 years old, seems to think everything is against his team and complains about it during the commentatory. In a 9 minute highlights package he whines about Airdrie's goal being offside on 3 separate occasions, despite it being almost impossible to tell from the replay.

Absolutely no issue with club commentators being biased, as ours is, but there's a way of doing it. It's the only unprofessional part of an otherwise excellent service. Although I appreciate 95% of viewers aren't really going to care!

I have to agree regarding the commentators. I applaud the work they do, but it does frustrate me a wee bit. I tuned into WaspsTV a few weeks ago for the rescheduled game, and their commentary team were great. Seemed insightful and weren’t overly biased 

[Springfield]

Let’s be realistic and and sensible. The FSS has done remarkably well in a relatively short period. The club are absolutely correct & within their rights to explore every single possible source of revenue, as we as supporters would expect, however that statement was so bloody wrong. Roll on the recent AGM and good news that the hole in finances is pretty much filled but with a lot of hard work to do. 
My fear and sure it’s a worry with many supporters that we won’t get FSS numbers anywhere near expectations of the FSS/club. If we’re relying on a new supporters funding ie. Falkirk Forever for the shortfall, have considerable worries this isn’t the answer. 

 

[grumpyoldman]

1 hour ago, PedroMoutinho said:

I don’t disagree but launching a competing scheme and whacking up ticket prices seems a strange way of increasing FSS numbers. The latter has the potential to decrease membership depending on the scale of the increases.

In my view you need to look at how to make the FSS more attractive rather than directing more of people’s money elsewhere. The price draws are a great initiative- we should be looking to build on these. The political objections to a share save scheme also need to go imo.

I think by launching a scheme to put a tenner a month and get nothing for it, makes the FSS option far more attractive 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Bainsfordbairn said:

It appears you think a fan paying less will have different interests than a fan who pays more.

I would have thought both would have only one interest, which is for Falkirk FC to be successful. How much they contribute to that is irrelevant. Everyone pays what they can afford. 

Neither are going to get any any dividend from what they put in so why would they have different interests? 

 

It’s too simplistic a view. Yes, there is a common aim, but remember, there are two Board members appointed by the Patrons, and I guess they are accountable to the Patrons group just as the two FSS Board members will have some degree of accountability to the FSS subscribers.

That one group or the other might have differing views on how certain things can be achieved is a perfectly normal piece of business I would have thought.

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

As it stands, we have progressed some way from the depths of where we were at the end of last season. Squad manager potential for promotion and a shot at a Scottish Cup Semi Final.

Our choice is simple. We have the opportunity to become a club, fully owned by our community and a support ideally in their thousands,  putting in what they can to push for 2 promotions and ultimately make us competitive and established in the premiership  

Or, we live within our means .

Or, find another model / approach  

We’re lucky to have the choice after the last few years and all credit to everybody who has played their part in giving us this chance  

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

It’s too simplistic a view. Yes, there is a common aim, but remember, there are two Board members appointed by the Patrons, and I guess they are accountable to the Patrons group just as the two FSS Board members will have some degree of accountability to the FSS subscribers.

That one group or the other might have differing views on how certain things can be achieved is a perfectly normal piece of business I would have thought.

Football isn’t like most other businesses. My only wish is to see my club do well on the pitch, be properly run and it is still there for future generations. I don’t see many fans, if any that have a view that is different. Because of that I don’t think agendas are any different no matter the cash injection 

[Springfield]

3 minutes ago, Brockvillenomore said:

As it stands, we have progressed some way from the depths of where we were at the end of last season. Squad manager potential for promotion and a shot at a Scottish Cup Semi Final.

Our choice is simple. We have the opportunity to become a club, fully owned by our community and a support ideally in their thousands,  putting in what they can to push for 2 promotions and ultimately make us competitive and established in the premiership  

Or, we live within our means .

Or, find another model / approach  

We’re lucky to have the choice after the last few years and all credit to everybody who has played their part in giving us this chance  

 

 

With all due respect, and without stating the obvious, what is “living within our means” for Falkirk Football Club ? No sarcastic comments please….. 

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

2 minutes ago, Springfield said:

With all due respect, and without stating the obvious, what is “living within our means” for Falkirk Football Club ? No sarcastic comments please….. 

If you can’t state the obvious I’m not sure I can. Maybe what accountants consider to be a going concern is the best answer. 
 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/goingconcern.asp

 

A bit out of my comfort zone this tbh. 

[LatapyBairn.]

24 minutes ago, Springfield said:

With all due respect, and without stating the obvious, what is “living within our means” for Falkirk Football Club ? No sarcastic comments please….. 

crudely speaking while in this division I’d presume it means cutting most of that 400k from the playing budget as this was the initial predicted over spend for the current year. We were told at the AGM the club is basically running on a skeleton staff and depends a lot on its volunteers so there is no more fat left to trim elsewhere. Presuming the average wage (and I’m guessing here) for one of or players is 25 or 30k a year then you can do the math yourself on how badly loosing 400k from the current playing budget would effect us on the park which in turn indirectly effects every other revenue stream the club has. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[Shodwall cat]

4 hours ago, Hughsie said:

There hasn’t been a RvC Scottish Cup Final in 21 years and only four since 1980, so not that predictable. 

Surely there won't ever be another one though.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

Football isn’t like most other businesses. My only wish is to see my club do well on the pitch, be properly run and it is still there for future generations. I don’t see many fans, if any that have a view that is different. Because of that I don’t think agendas are any different no matter the cash injection 

Yes, everyone wants the same thing, but differing views on how that can be achieved is perfectly normal. The agenda / desired outcome is the same, the roadmap might have differences along the way.

If FSS are being charged with not bringing in enough cash, then perhaps it could be done better by people other than the current volunteers. Something tells me there wouldn’t be too many volunteers for that gig.

[Donathan]

Every time we play Airdrie the lad Gabby McGill impresses me. We should sign him.

[Springfield]

26 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

crudely speaking while in this division I’d presume it means cutting most of that 400k from the playing budget as this was the initial predicted over spend for the current year. We were told at the AGM the club is basically running on a skeleton staff and depends a lot on its volunteers so there is no more fat left to trim elsewhere. Presuming the average wage (and I’m guessing here) for one of or players is 25 or 30k a year then you can do the math yourself on how badly loosing 400k from the current playing budget would effect us on the park which in turn indirectly effects every other revenue stream the club has. 

Do we have any credible information on what % to turnover for players salaries ?

[LatapyBairn.]

6 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Do we have any credible information on what % to turnover for players salaries ?

These figures were all made clear as well. 65% was quoted but I can’t actually remember if that was the target percentage or the actual player wages to turnover ratio. Maybe somebody else who was there has a better memory than me? The numbers will all be in the papers sent out as well so shouldn’t be to difficult to work out a rough figure if you wanted to 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

These figures were all made clear as well. 65% was quoted but I can’t actually remember if that was the target percentage or the actual player wages to turnover ratio. Maybe somebody else who was there has a better memory than me? The numbers will all be in the papers sent out as well so shouldn’t be to difficult to work out a rough figure if you wanted to 

But that was last season on a horrific turnover of 1.3m 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Back Post Misses

[LatapyBairn.]

That’s true, probably no point in looking at last years accounts in that respect, they won’t provide an accurate gauge as to this years numbers. Regardless of that I’m sure they said the playing budget should be approximately 65% of turnover in this year. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

That’s true, probably no point in looking at last years accounts in that respect, they won’t provide an accurate gauge as to this years numbers. Regardless of that I’m sure they said the playing budget should be approximately 65% of turnover in this year. 

Can’t see it being that big TBH. Turnover heading to min £2m we won’t be spending over £1.2m on the player budget