The Falkirk FC Thread

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Forever_Blue_ said:

FSS doing well but not taking off as we'd hoped and keep comparing to similarly sizes clubs. In reality FSS represents probably less than 15% of the fan base.. If external investment is an option I don't have an issue with it (given the latest supporter update). We can't keep hoping and relying on FSS.. How long do we give it? How long can we afford to give it? 

I understand where you’re coming from but in response to that I would say we can’t just abandon fan ownership at the first sign of trouble and bear no responsibility for it. Once fan ownership is gone it’s very difficult to get back.

The FSS isn’t even 2 years old yet but has reached around 33% of adult Season Ticket holders in a time, as stated, where we’ve had our worst ever season and in the middle of a cost of living crisis. That’s a great achievement.

Also to answer the point about similar sized clubs then we are doing brilliantly. 

The long running, successful, and often cited, Well Society contribute £156k/year.

We currently supply over £100k/year however an extra £56k still won’t bridge the gap for the budgets that the board have signed off.

Say there was someone mad enough to pay £550k-£1.7m to invest in the club, would you honestly expect them to constantly put in £400k every year to keep the club running at current levels? Even so it’s no guarantee of success(as the Rawlins discovered) so what happens if we fail again and they decide enough is enough. Who do they sell to and then what happens to the club? 

There is a lot a stake here if we continue to run the club this way and expect fans to contribute far more than they are already. 

Ofcourse we can still grow but we have to get real about where are and perhaps away from this mantra of acting like a bigger club than we can afford to be. 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Van_damage

[Rob1885]

Wheres the cash going though? Certainly not on this year's team (on paper). Not being wide here either.

[Juan Sheet]

3 hours ago, AlloaAdam said:

So let me get this straight, you make a 400k loss every year based on your current spending, and if you get promoted you still make this amount of a loss even in the championship. You can only stay full time this season because of a cup run last season that’s kept you going, and yet you have spent big money on Brad Spencer and Tom Lang to drop a division while having an unbalanced squad and no natural right back. And this is just normal?? What a shambles that sounds like. Amusing right enough.

We run with a playing budget that most championship clubs would envy, yet folk are happy to give Mcglynn more time because he’s underachieved less than the underachievers that have gone before him since Houston.
 

We’re only full time because of the government scheme and cup run, so basically if we don’t get the same money again one way or another it’s conceivable we’ll be part time even if we get promotion because the 400k deficit is the same regardless according to the board.

[PedroMoutinho]

4 minutes ago, Rob1885 said:

Wheres the cash going though? Certainly not on this year's team (on paper). Not being wide here either.

The continual issuing of extended contracts on inflated wages to bang average players will not be helping 

[Blame Me]

3 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

... we have to get real about where are and perhaps away from this mantra of acting like a bigger club than we can afford to be

On the playing side at least.

Inversely clubs with smaller resources than ours seem to do a lot more off-field than we do with less.

I'm in agreement with @Van_damagethat living within our means shouldn't somehow equate to lesser outcomes. We've clearly blown a huge amount of cash to become average, at best, so I can't see how with the resources we do have we'll end up much worse off in comparison to others at our level.

[Harry Kinnear]

2 minutes ago, Rob1885 said:

Wheres the cash going though? Certainly not on this year's team (on paper). Not being wide here either.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we are paying stupid wages to try and get players to drop down from the championship.

My one worry with the way we are currently running is we are going to the same well all the time. It will be the same fans who are buying ST’s, merchandise, doing hospitality, paying into the FSS etc etc.  I have to wonder how sustainable it is. The way things are with the stadium and the rent we pay on stands isn’t great as it’s like we are struggling each season before we even start.

That statement today says for me if McGlynn doesn’t succeed this season then we are fucked, I hope I am wrong here.

[Blame Me]

1 minute ago, PedroMoutinho said:

The continual issuing of extended contracts on inflated wages to bang average players will not be helping 

As much as the announcement is startling I don't think one contract to Aidan Nesbitt is the problem here as much as you wish it were. 

 

[Forever_Blue_]

7 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

I understand where you’re coming from but in response to that I would say we can’t just abandon fan ownership at the first sign of trouble and bear no responsibility for it. Once fan ownership is gone it’s very difficult to get back.

The FSS isn’t even 2 years old yet but has reached around 33% of adult Season Ticket holders in a time, as stated, where we’ve had our worst ever season and in the middle of a cost of living crisis. That’s a great achievement.

Also to answer the point about similar sized clubs then we are doing brilliantly. 

The long running, successful, and often cited, Well Society contribute £156k/year.

We currently supply over £100k/year however an extra £56k still want bridge the gap for the budgets that the board have signed off.

Say there was someone mad enough to pay £550k-£1.7m to invest in the club, would you honestly expect them to constantly put in £400k every year to keep the club running at current levels? Even so it’s no guarantee of success(as the Rawlins discovered) so what happens if we fail again and they decide enough is enough. Who do they sell to and then what happens to the club? 

There is a lot a stake here if we continue to run the club this way and expect fans to contribute far more than they are already. 

Ofcourse we can still grow but we have to get real about where are and perhaps away from this mantra of acting like a bigger club than we can afford to be. 

I'm not saying we abandon fan ownership. I'm saying its not taken off as well as initially hoped, given the state of the club financially and the obvious worries the club has to post about it several times in a short period of time.. I don't have an issue with other forms of investment (assuming there must be some in the pipeline). 

I personally, like many others, am not happy with the way the club has been run in the past. Fans were unhappy with the lack of transparency and communication.. I feel the club are trying to be more transparent here but still getting a lot of stick. All I'm trying to say is I'm not against the club considering other options just incase FSS continues to struggle. 

[Harry Kinnear]

1 minute ago, Blame Me said:

As much as the announcement is startling I don't think one contract to Aidan Nesbitt is the problem here as much as you wish it were. 

 

I agree but we could probably all list a decent number of players who we have signed, that have dropped down from Championship sides on full time wages that haven’t been any better than part time players in other L1 teams. I’ve said for years that we are scraping the barrel of the full time world and we seem to give out longer contracts to entice these players.

[Dunning1874]

1 hour ago, Proudtobeabairn said:

I think we'd be shocked if we saw what we pay v most teams in the championship.   Not in all cases but certainly for the likes of Morrison, McGinn, Lang, Spencer

To some extent, this makes sense. Falkirk have a large enough fanbase to sustainably pay higher wages than a few Championship teams even accounting for the considerably smaller prize money in League One, and if you're going to attract players who have Championship offers you need to pay a premium for them to be willing to drop a level. You can debate whether all the players you've done so for have been worth it, but that will certainly be the case with Lang and Spencer as it has been previously for McGinn, Nesbitt and others. Your crowds should make doing this for a select number of players affordable and sustainable.

What gets me though is Falkirk seem to spend unnecessary sums on players who don't even have the Championship interest which necessitates an inflated wage. Craig McGuffie was released by a crap Morton team who'd stayed in the Championship via the playoffs. Not only did he have no other Championship or full-time sides interested, but no SPFL offers at all at the time. Falkirk still swept in and gave him an increase on what he (or anyone else) was earning at Morton.

That's just colossal stupidity, and is the kind of thing which leads to the claim it's simply impossible to build a team capable of winning promotion from the third tier on crowds of 3500+ without making a £400K loss. That is quite frankly risible bollocks, as proven by every single team who've been promoted in your time in this division.

That statement seems to suggest Falkirk have a straight choice between maintaining spending at current levels or going wholly part-time, which is again bollocks. You evidently can't pay the £1K+ weekly wages you've shelled out to Championship players over the years without making that loss, but there's not a binary choice between outspending half the Championship and not being able to afford full-time players at all - this is how Airdrie could and Queen of the South can still attract full-time players in League One. There's a debate to be had about whether a hybrid model would be more effective in that scenario, but the idea that being full-time is impossible without your current level of spending is transparently nonsense.

The claim that you would also need to keep making a £400K loss in the event of promotion to the Championship to compete is also utter shite. It is absolutely possible to assemble a competitive Championship squad with a break even budget on crowds of Falkirk's size (even half their size as Morton and Arbroath prove): they just don't want to.

Running at a £400K loss is a choice being made by your board because they don't trust any management team to succeed without doing so, even though a break even budget would probably still give you the largest budget in the division and certainly still a larger one than some in the Championship. It's not a necessity forced upon them, which makes it extremely grating that they plead poverty and complain they can't compete with clubs with wealthy backers, so fans simply must put their hands in pockets.

That's a board budgeting in the exact same way as those clubs with wealthy backers plugging gaps, not one trying build sustainable fan ownership. They're just expecting the fans to cough up over and over again to cover their inability to budget properly, in the exact same way a club with a sugar daddy will hand managers a fortune in the belief that white knight owner will always cover it. I'd be livid at that statement if I was putting money into FSS.

Edited July 17, 2023 by Dunning1874

[bairn88]

14 minutes ago, Rob1885 said:

Wheres the cash going though? Certainly not on this year's team (on paper). Not being wide here either.

Up until this statement I thought I knew, now not so much. Large payoffs for managers basically every season, saddled with Holt 3 year contracts only just running out, no cup run until last year for ages, sponsorship non existent. All those have been at least partially corrected (add in a large “loan” (donation) by the snp), and yet the hole is the same? The squad is small this year. I honestly don’t claim to know where the money is going anymore 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Forever_Blue_ said:

I'm not saying we abandon fan ownership. I'm saying its not taken off as well as initially hoped, given the state of the club financially and the obvious worries the club has to post about it several times in a short period of time.. I don't have an issue with other forms of investment (assuming there must be some in the pipeline). 

I personally, like many others, am not happy with the way the club has been run in the past. Fans were unhappy with the lack of transparency and communication.. I feel the club are trying to be more transparent here but still getting a lot of stick. All I'm trying to say is I'm not against the club considering other options just incase FSS continues to struggle. 

The point I was making is that the hope put on FSS numbers by the board was completely unrealistic and with no basis other than calculating our wider fan base and assuming how many should contribute. There are so many other factors to consider and it seems to be common ground that pretty much all of the membership schemes run to about 50% or adult ST holders. That doesn’t mean we can’t opt for more but have to be realistic.

I know what you mean regarding stick and for what it’s worth I think the board have done a great job however I was sold on fan ownership and the commitment to run the club within its means so disappointed how that statement reads. 

Again though I just don’t know how external investment will manifest itself if not for wanting a stake and control of the club therefore putting a nail in fan ownership? 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Van_damage

[Juan Sheet]

Regardless of fan ownership, or whatever ownership the club are running at -400k a year. Cup runs can’t be assumed and neither can be transfer fees, but here’s a question, when was the last transfer fee we received? Off the top of my head it’d be Tony Gallacher and that was 6 years ago! Before that probably Will Vaulks. It shows how terribly we’ve performed in terms of managers and recruitment that we’ve not commanded a transfer fee since. At one point we were doing pretty well signing and selling the likes of Lyle Taylor and Higginbotham on top of the academy players who commanded decent fees going down south and obviously helping the club compete well above where we find ourselves now.
 

[Blame Me]

2 minutes ago, Forever_Blue_ said:

...

I feel the club are trying to be more transparent here but still getting a lot of stick...

Only in so much as saying that the biggest investors in the club need to invest more! 

The analogy I have is a boat continually taking on water as the captain sails it ever closer to the rocks. Every time the crew use a bucket to bail out the water and get it buoyant again the captain sails into deeper water then complains the crew need bigger buckets!

5 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

To some extent, this makes sense. Falkirk have a large enough fanbase to sustainably pay higher wages than a few Championship teams even accounting for the considerably smaller prize money in League One, and if you're going to attract players who have Championship offers you need to pay a premium for them to be willing to drop a level. You can debate whether all the players you've done so for have been worth it, but that will certainly be the case with Lang and Spencer as it has been previously for McGinn, Nesbitt and others. Your crowds should make doing this for a select number of players affordable and sustainable.

What gets me though is Falkirk seem to spend unnecessary sums on players who don't even have the Championship interest which necessitates an inflated wage. Craig McGuffie was released by a crap Morton team who'd stayed in the Championship via the playoffs, not only did he have no other Championship or full-time sides interested, but no SPFL offers at all at the time. Falkirk still swept in and gave him an increase on what he (or anyone else) was earning at Morton.

That's just colossal stupidity, and is the kind of thing which leads to the claim it's simply impossible to build a team capable of winning promotion from the third tier on crowds of 3500+ without making a £400K loss. That is quite frankly risible bollocks, as proven by every single team who've been promoted in your time in this division.

That statement seems to suggest Falkirk have a straight choice between maintaining spending at current levels or going wholly part-time, which is again bollocks. You evidently can't pay the £1K+ weekly wages you've shelled out to Championship players over the years without making that loss, but there's not a binary choice between outspending half the Championship and not being able to afford full-time players at all - this is how Airdrie could and Queen of the South can still attract full-time players in League One. There's a debate to be had about whether a hybrid model would be more effective in that scenario, but the idea that being full-time is impossible without your current level of spending is transparently nonsense.

The claim that you would also need to keep making a £400K loss in the event of promotion to the Championship to compete is also utter shite. It is absolutely possible to assemble a competitive Championship squad with a break even budget on crowds of Falkirk's size (even half their size as Morton and Arbroath prove): they just don't want to.

Running at a £400K loss is a choice being made by your board because they don't trust any management team to succeed without doing so, even though a break even budget would probably still give you the largest budget in the division and certainly still a larger one than some in the Championship. It's not a necessity forced upon them, which makes it extremely grating that they plead poverty and complain they can't compete with clubs with wealthy backers, so fans simply must out their hands in pockets.

That's a board budgeting in the exact same way as those clubs with wealthy backers plugging gaps, not one trying build sustainable fan ownership. They're just expecting the fans to cough up over and over again to cover their inability to budget properly, in the exact same way a club with a sugar daddy will hand managers a fortune in the belief that white knight owner will always cover it. I'd be livid at that statement if I was putting money into FSS.

This

[Forever_Blue_]

1 minute ago, Van_damage said:

The point I was making that the hope put on it by the board was completely unrealistic and with no basis other than calculating our wider fan base and assuming how many should contribute. There are so many other factors to consider and it seems to be common ground that pretty much all of the membership schemes run to about 50% or adult ST holders. That doesn’t mean we can’t opt for more but have to be realistic.

I know you mean regarding stick and for what it’s worth I think the board have done a great job however I was sold on fan ownership and the commitment to run the club within its means so disappointed how that statement reads. 

Again though I just don’t know how external investment will manifest itself if not for wanting a stake and control of the club therefore putting a nail in fan ownership? 

I'd hope the current board would get the fans view on any new significant investment that may derail FSS. That might be wishful thinking right enough. 

I'm a ST holder and an FSS member. I want FSS to thrive as much as anyone, I've just felt for a while it's stagnated and understandably so given the cost of living crisis and the underperforming team on the pitch. 

The club can't afford to stand still. Hopefully we can get a win tomorrow and get a good cup run going again. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Forever_Blue_ said:

I'd hope the current board would get the fans view on any new significant investment that may derail FSS. That might be wishful thinking right enough. 

I'm a ST holder and an FSS member. I want FSS to thrive as much as anyone, I've just felt for a while it's stagnated and understandably so given the cost of living crisis and the underperforming team on the pitch. 

The club can't afford to stand still. Hopefully we can get a win tomorrow and get a good cup run going again. 

It’s actually been increasing fairly well since the loan was agreed. It was 600 at the start of the year and is now at 715. That’s an increase of about 16 members/month. That’s not a bad growth to where it is and if it continues that trend then in a years time we’ll be very close to matching Motherwell and contributing around £130k/year to the club. 
 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Van_damage

[HoBNob]

1 hour ago, Van_damage said:

IIRC, it was explained that most clubs normally give a budget of 65% of turnover for a playing budget and the rest serves for capital expenditure and commercial staff. Our deficit is merely because they believe the playing budget to sustain an FT team is more than 65% of our budget and for it to be at that level we need to have £400k more turnover. 

That is the worry and if it is the case, as it seems, then personally I’d rather see us look at a way of working within our means than potentially put the club at risk. Sure we took in around £2m last year so would like to hope a £1.3m is enough of a budget to get a squad capable of winning the league. 

What I don’t understand is how other clubs with much smaller supports and no membership scheme such as the FSS, manage to achieve success. Airdrie being the last example and ICT too. Surely we don’t need to be overspending to achieve what they have? 

 

ICT aren't financially viable either are they? Always running at a loss.

Theres allot to unpick from that statement. 

On the plus side the numbers from your fan membership are good, over 700 at a tenner at least is good going, with that though the target set by your board seems outrageous and quite frankly, unattainable. 

Throughout the statement though there's just weird bits, just after saying lower attendances are expected, it's said that matchday revenue is hoped to rise by 7%? Where does that figure come from? 

The talk of needing an extra 400k to compete against sides with wealthy backers would be fair, but when was the last time you were in a league with that? Your revenue will massively outstrip everyone in the league this year so could savings have been made? Last year we would've had similar revenues, maybe the issue isn't your budget, surely it's how your spending your money? 

Which brings us around to McGlynn and his wild transfer dealings, I get that there's been discussions on here in the past with regards to board inteferance in transfer dealings, but how on earth have you allowed him to bring in the players he has this summer, (with some positions being well stocked) and not bring in a right back? After he left Raith it emerged he hadn't done well with the budget, have the Falkirk board made the same mistake? 

[Latapy is god]

9 minutes ago, Juan Sheet said:

Regardless of fan ownership, or whatever ownership the club are running at -400k a year. Cup runs can’t be assumed and neither can be transfer fees, but here’s a question, when was the last transfer fee we received? Off the top of my head it’d be Tony Gallacher and that was 6 years ago! Before that probably Will Vaulks. It shows how terribly we’ve performed in terms of managers and recruitment that we’ve not commanded a transfer fee since. At one point we were doing pretty well signing and selling the likes of Lyle Taylor and Higginbotham on top of the academy players who commanded decent fees going down south and obviously helping the club compete well above where we find ourselves now.
 

The assets we had within the academy did keep the club afloat.  A potential player where we would gain a sell on fee would perhaps be Jay Fulton who is now the longest serving player at Swansea.

[Zbairn]

45 minutes ago, Harry Kinnear said:

I agree but we could probably all list a decent number of players who we have signed, that have dropped down from Championship sides on full time wages that haven’t been any better than part time players in other L1 teams. I’ve said for years that we are scraping the barrel of the full time world and we seem to give out longer contracts to entice these players.

Absolutely.  it's an unfortunate fact of life, that at our level, there are many a better part time player than what we have full time. if we had chosen to go to the hybrid model a couple of years back, there would have been a good chance that we could have been promoted by now. 

A full time team only makes sense when the financial structure permits and when you are playing in a league where full time players are the norm.

Being full time in our league against part time teams does not guarantee success.  

[scottsdad]

For all clubs, the train coming down the track is the state of the economy, specifically inflation. 

Fans will spend a bit less on luxuries like going to matches as they need to cut back. And the money going out will jump. Money for everything from bovril to floodlights. And of course players will want wages to rise with inflation too. 

This, I think, is where the 7% comes from. An extra 7% next year keeps is where we were last year, just about. 

Clubs in precarious financial positions will be the first to suffer. Reading the statement, we might well be in that boat. The fact is we have for years overspent relative to our position. Each time gambling that this will be the year we go up, and over and over again we have failed. That is unsustainable. 

Looks like the board realise this. The problem is identified. Not sure a solution is.