The Falkirk FC Thread

[gav-ffc]

4 hours ago, FFC 1876 said:

How are the youth teams coming along and when does the reserve league start?

Would be good if the club got back to putting out news on the youth teams a bit more like they did with the match reports previously.

Quote

The 2023/24 cinch Reserve Cup will begin on Tuesday 19 September.

A total of 13 clubs are taking part – they have been split into three groups on a broadly regional basis.

Clubs will play each other once and the winner of each group will progress to the semi-finals. The runners-up in the group of five will also qualify for the semi-finals. 
Kilmarnock defeated Dunfermline Athletic at The BBSP Stadium, Rugby Park in front of nearly 1,000 fans to win last season’s cinch Reserve Cup.
 

Reserve Cup Group 2
Dundee
Dundee United
Dunfermline Athletic
Falkirk

 

[LatapyBairn.]

2 hours ago, Duncan Freemason said:

I take it any soft loans from last season have been repaid? Can’t imagine us declaring any sort of profit if they they haven’t been repaid.

QUOTE

 

At an average donation of £3 per week this requires around 2500 contributors, or roughly 3.5 times the number of fans currently participating. At present, net donations via FSS and the Forever Falkirk Fund are a little over £80,000, meaning we’ll still have an operating loss of around £320,000. Our ability to cover this loss (and thereby remain full-time this season) is only made possible by last season’s cup run and the FSS investment. Neither of such incomes can be guaranteed every season, so we are still operating with an unsustainable business model.

Nevertheless, we remain committed to trying to make fan ownership work for our club and to moving towards the operating model outlined above. UNQUOTE

For me, there’s no financial warm and fuzzy feeling in any of those key messages. If the only way to become sustainable is to increase FSS contributors from 720 or so to 2,500, and to also increase average subs from £120 per annum to £156 (£3 per week), then we are going to operate with an unsustainable business model for a good while yet (or choose to take alternate action).

Interesting too that the phrase “crowd funding” has raised its head. FF might be considered as crowd funding, but FSS certainly isn’t…….it’s about fan ownership.

Last I asked the intention was to repay the soft loans in full when it became clear the club was out of the woods and no longer needed them thanks to the cup run and Scottish Government money.

Edited August 3, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[ShaggerG]

2 hours ago, Duncan Freemason said:

I take it any soft loans from last season have been repaid? Can’t imagine us declaring any sort of profit if they they haven’t been repaid.

QUOTE

 

At an average donation of £3 per week this requires around 2500 contributors, or roughly 3.5 times the number of fans currently participating. At present, net donations via FSS and the Forever Falkirk Fund are a little over £80,000, meaning we’ll still have an operating loss of around £320,000. Our ability to cover this loss (and thereby remain full-time this season) is only made possible by last season’s cup run and the FSS investment. Neither of such incomes can be guaranteed every season, so we are still operating with an unsustainable business model.

Nevertheless, we remain committed to trying to make fan ownership work for our club and to moving towards the operating model outlined above. UNQUOTE

For me, there’s no financial warm and fuzzy feeling in any of those key messages. If the only way to become sustainable is to increase FSS contributors from 720 or so to 2,500, and to also increase average subs from £120 per annum to £156 (£3 per week), then we are going to operate with an unsustainable business model for a good while yet (or choose to take alternate action).

Interesting too that the phrase “crowd funding” has raised its head. FF might be considered as crowd funding, but FSS certainly isn’t…….it’s about fan ownership.

Surely the average sub is £3 per week currently given that the minimum figure is £10 monthly and some folk will obviously be paying more?

[Reggie Perrin]

2 hours ago, HopeStreetWalker said:

No! there is another way.

Smaller squad - Hybrid Full time-Part time set up. Not what anybody want's but if it keeps the club viable then it should be seriously looked at as an option while we are in this division.

Interest Rates have gone up again and will go up further eroding peoples disposable income and it will reduce the amount fans can contribute.

If there is a shortfall then the club is in big trouble

Not at all sure that there is much to be saved by some of the squad being part time.

Top part time rates will not be far behind average full time salaries in this league.

Also the hassle and inconvenience this model would create for training and team meetings would be a big negative.

[LatapyBairn.]

30 minutes ago, Reggie Perrin said:

Not at all sure that there is much to be saved by some of the squad being part time.

Top part time rates will not be far behind average full time salaries in this league.

Also the hassle and inconvenience this model would create for training and team meetings would be a big negative.

I agree but I don’t think having a handful of part time players would be that difficult to incorporate. I’m guessing it’s hard to entice a top part time player into full time football who already has a decent paying job. It may well actually be a gross wage cut unless we as a club pay way over the odds. There’s definitely a place for a hybrid set up where it could work to our benefit if the training regimes could somehow be figured out. 

Edited August 3, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

I agree but I don’t think having a handful of part time players would be that difficult to incorporate. I’m guessing it’s hard to entice a top part time player to full time who has a decent paying job into signing for what may we’ll actually be a gross wage cut unless we pay way over the odds. There’s definitely a place for a hybrid set up where it could work to our benefit if the training regimes could somehow be worked out. 

I agree. I doubt Jordan Allan would have been on much more than £250/week at Clyde. For him to come to us then we’d need to pay that plus more than what he would earn on his other job so likely we will be paying him £600/week or so? As I said before, are we getting any extra benefit paying him that money and would it be likely we could have tempted him with £300/week part time wage? 

We’re a central belt team too so if we changed training on a Tuesday to night time then most part time players working within the central belt should still be able to stick to the same job whilst training with us.  

Think Crawford Baptie trained with us once a week then played on a Saturday. That didn’t work out so bad. Different circumstances I know but don’t see how we couldn’t make a hybrid system work either at much less the cost of running a Full time team and with no discernible drop in quality overall. 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Van_damage

[FFC 1876]

1 minute ago, Van_damage said:

I agree. I doubt Jordan Allan would have been on much more than £250/week at Clyde. For him to come to us then we’d need to pay that plus more than what he would earn on his other job so likely we will be paying him £600/week or so? As I said before, are we getting any extra benefit paying him that money and would it be likely we could have tempted him with £300/week part time wage? 

We’re a central belt team too so if we changed training on a Tuesday to night time then most part time players working within the central belt should still be able to stick to the same job whilst training with us.  

On the other side of the coin you'll lose out on full time players who don't want to train at night twice a week. Leon Mccann for example made a point of mentioning it in an interview before.

As long as we get out of this league this season I don't see any need for a club of our size(massive) to be going to a hybrid model.

[Blame Me]

1 minute ago, FFC 1876 said:

...

As long as we get out of this league this season I don't see any need for a club of our size(massive) to be going to a hybrid model.

I keep reading this but getting to the Championship is not going to alleviate this problem completely. This was called out in the recent update.

[Silvio Tattiescone]

Some years ago I approached the club with a view to sponsorship and/or a match box on behalf of the company I worked for at the time. Kieran came out and the conversation never went beyond a brief chat over the counter in the shop. There was no follow-up, no chasing - no real interest to be honest. 

 

Near the end of last season I approached the club again (I'm at a different company now). What a difference! I was taken seriously from the outset and within a week we'd done a deal. The commercial team couldn't have been more helpful and keen to do business. That hasn't been the end of it - their comms since have been excellent, allowing me to report back to my MD with useful information.

 

I see all the new advertising and initiatives and think back to when Kieran left and all the doom & gloom but have to say the new commercial team are knocking it out of the park! 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, FFC 1876 said:

On the other side of the coin you'll lose out on full time players who don't want to train at night twice a week. Leon Mccann for example made a point of mentioning it in an interview before.

As long as we get out of this league this season I don't see any need for a club of our size(massive) to be going to a hybrid model.

Fair point but sure there’d be a way to structure it around other work commitments without upsetting the other players. Just feels a little bit restrictive to have to pay a premium to host a full time squad or not have a facility to entertain having the quality players who may be unwilling to quit their other jobs or will cost too much to compensate them giving it up. 

[Bairnardo]

9 minutes ago, Newbornbairn said:

Some years ago I approached the club with a view to sponsorship and/or a match box on behalf of the company I worked for at the time. Kieran came out and the conversation never went beyond a brief chat over the counter in the shop. There was no follow-up, no chasing - no real interest to be honest. 

 

Near the end of last season I approached the club again (I'm at a different company now). What a difference! I was taken seriously from the outset and within a week we'd done a deal. The commercial team couldn't have been more helpful and keen to do business. That hasn't been the end of it - their comms since have been excellent, allowing me to report back to my MD with useful information.

 

I see all the new advertising and initiatives and think back to when Kieran left and all the doom & gloom but have to say the new commercial team are knocking it out of the park! 

I've mentioned this before and that was without any first hand experience like what you had. I just think it's really obvious. The example I used at the time was that massive advert along the North Stand that remained as Imperial Cars long after they disappeared. Folk rabbitted on about KK and his connections but as it turns out, he was fiddling while Rome burned aswell. 

[Zbairn]

1 hour ago, Reggie Perrin said:

Not at all sure that there is much to be saved by some of the squad being part time.

Top part time rates will not be far behind average full time salaries in this league.

Also the hassle and inconvenience this model would create for training and team meetings would be a big negative.

Not sure on that.

I heard this week that some players (McGinn, Lang and Spencer e.g) are on a fairly decent wedge. Was surprised to hear how much and certainly much more than I was expecting. We could possibly have got 6 part time players in for the numbers quoted. 

Info came from a reasonable trustworthy source, but really need someone with a link to those at the top to confirm (highly unlikely) 

[Blame Me]

Begrudgingly you can credit the old board for seeing some of these issues and bringing Jamie in.

However, the rot had well and truly set in and fundamental change was necessary.

[Zbairn]

20 minutes ago, Newbornbairn said:

 

 

I see all the new advertising and initiatives and think back to when Kieran left and all the doom & gloom but have to say the new commercial team are knocking it out of the park! 

Have to agree. All the dealings I have had with the Commercial Dept. recently have been excellent in terms of return communication and feedback.

This may be due to the fact they now have extra bodies, but they still need to show "value for money" .... which, by all accounts they are doing ! 

[Reggie Perrin]

12 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

I've mentioned this before and that was without any first hand experience like what you had. I just think it's really obvious. The example I used at the time was that massive advert along the North Stand that remained as Imperial Cars long after they disappeared. Folk rabbitted on about KK and his connections but as it turns out, he was fiddling while Rome burned aswell. 

Without going over old ground the Commercial Dept was a complete shambles under KK the new guys have done remarkably well to turn things round so quickly.

[Silvio Tattiescone]

I love the fact that they'll sell every square inch! I saw the thing about the captain's armband being sponsored and thought "f**k, why didn't I think of that!"

[Zbairn]

7 minutes ago, Newbornbairn said:

I love the fact that they'll sell every square inch! I saw the thing about the captain's armband being sponsored and thought "f**k, why didn't I think of that!"

The Captains' armband has been available for sponsorship for a few years, on a game by game basis. Just that the Falkirk Daft guys have got in there and are  doing it for the whole season.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, ShaggerG said:

Surely the average sub is £3 per week currently given that the minimum figure is £10 monthly and some folk will obviously be paying more?

Not really. Not even close. Current membership is 720, so 720 members x £3 a week x 52 weeks a year = £112,000 a year rather than £80,000.

The number of individual members paying more than £10 is pretty small. The base case is £120 divided by 52 is £2.30 a week. To get to £3 would require an individual increase of something like 30% over the current base case.

Take it to the end of the rainbow (2500 paying £3 a week). That’s £390,000.

[Monkey Tennis]

25 minutes ago, Newbornbairn said:

I love the fact that they'll sell every square inch! I saw the thing about the captain's armband being sponsored and thought "f**k, why didn't I think of that!"

The price of everything; the value of nothing.

[Guest]

 

7 hours ago, Duncan Freemason said:

Not really. Not even close. Current membership is 720, so 720 members x £3 a week x 52 weeks a year = £112,000 a year rather than £80,000.

The number of individual members paying more than £10 is pretty small. The base case is £120 divided by 52 is £2.30 a week. To get to £3 would require an individual increase of something like 30% over the current base case.

Take it to the end of the rainbow (2500 paying £3 a week). That’s £390,000.

The average at the moment is actually £12/month but the club statement is completely flawed in its expectations based upon other clubs. Motherwell for instance may have 3500 members for but the average monthly contribution is actually £3.15 per member as they have a £5 minimum and kids option for £25 pa.

What was put in the statement was gaining 2,500 members with everyone paying an average £12. That just won’t happen. If we get 300-350 more members on £12/week then we’ll meet Motherwell’s monthly contributions but we’ll still be way way off filling the £400k deficit. 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Van_damage