The Falkirk FC Thread

[Guest]

Not for one minute do I believe this to be a collective “Patrons v FSS” power play. I know enough Patrons to know that there was no consultation on this.

It feels as if there has been an attempt to push this through in stealth mode, and thankfully, that hasn’t worked.

No-one should entertain a Patrons v FSS narrative. This is purely down to the BoD, and which group they subscribe to is totally irrelevant………but what the BoD is trying to do here is hugely relevant and impactful. This feels very much like the tail trying to wag the dog.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Do we know if the patrons group would be allowed to invite new patrons or buy new shares?  

Not sure but if you deny them purchasing shares will they give that money regardless?

That seems to be the point where we’re at with FSS but the club expect our contributions to just be handed over with nothing in return and the FSS have unwisely accepted this. 

Disco Duck has said he will leave the FSS. I’d rather people stay to use their voice however if this matter is not resolved then I’m tempted to leave too. Will stand by the results of any vote but think it’s wrong we don’t have a say. I may be 1/720th of the pot and shareholders but it’s still my money and not going towards what I expected it to. 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Van_damage

[Enigma]

I do wonder where the Government money has actually gone.

[Reggie Perrin]

1 minute ago, Enigma said:

I do wonder where the Government money has actually gone.

Floodlights and new pitch.

[RC_Bairn]

4 minutes ago, falkirkzombie said:

I'd always assumed the aim was just to get to 25% - which makes the clubs decision to not allow this to happen when we are so close very strange. After the 25% was reached I think it makes sense to continue as a donation based scheme - with FSS having authority on how they money is spent

In my humble view there should be no limit on the shareholding that FSS can have.  If others (such as the Patrons, MR and SA, Rawlins etc) are worried about dilution then they should be afforded a similar opportunity to buy more shares to maintain their percentage - thus keeping all three legs of the stool as close to even as they can be.  I'm personally uncomfortable with the idea that the FSS continues to pump money into the club, but its influence in the boardroom does not grow.  I'm equally uncomfortable that the Patrons can maintain their level of influence in the boardroom but not offer up further investment.

[Baggio]

1 minute ago, Enigma said:

I do wonder where the Government money has actually gone.

Probably on a holiday home. You should look into it. 

[Guest]

Just now, Van_damage said:

Not sure but if you deny them purchasing shares will they give that money regardless?

That seems to be the point where we’re at with FSS but the club except our contributions to just be handed over with nothing in return and the FSS have unwisely accepted this. 

Disco Duck has said he will leave the FSS. I’d rather people stay to use their voice however if this matter is not resolved then I’m tempted to leave too. Will stand by the results of any vote but think it’s wrong we don’t have a say. I may be 1/720th of the pot and shareholders but it’s still my money and not going towards what I expected it to. 

Is that really the case? Have the FSS Committee actually committed to hand over member’s money in exchange for nothing? Seriously?

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

Well, I am sure one of the BoD recently increased their personal shareholding. I think the club will accept near enough any new buyer of unsold shares (provided it’s not FSS of course).

That would be completely contradictory to their argument. If a director increases their shareholding then is that not just denying money that could have went to the club from fresh investors? Why not just donate to Falkirk Forever and leave the shares available to purchase? 

The whole reasoning is flawed on the basis on how FSS was sold and its independent position if the club can apparently dictate what FSS do with their money. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Baggio said:

Probably on a holiday home. You should look into it. 

A camper van?

[LatapyBairn.]

15 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

Not sure but if you deny them purchasing shares will they give that money regardless?

That seems to be the point where we’re at with FSS but the club except our contributions to just be handed over with nothing in return and the FSS have unwisely accepted this. 

Disco Duck has said he will leave the FSS. I’d rather people stay to use their voice however if this matter is not resolved then I’m tempted to leave too. Will stand by the results of any vote but think it’s wrong we don’t have a say. I may be 1/720th of the pot and shareholders but it’s still my money and not going towards what I expected it to. 

For me I always presumed when joining the FSS after the 25% was reached it would be a form of monthly donation however ideally i’d like a mechanism in place where members have a say in how that money is then spent, I liked the idea of the FSS perhaps having direct involvement with the academy for example and taking control of funding that. 

Edited August 7, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

That would be completely contradictory to their argument. If a director increases their shareholding then is that not just denying money that could have went to the club from fresh investors? Why not just donate to Falkirk Forever and leave the shares available to purchase? 

The whole reasoning is flawed on the basis on how FSS was sold and its independent position if the club can apparently dictate what FSS do with their money. 

Ah, but it seems the assumption now is that FSS money is for free, but if you are not FSS, you can have shares.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Duncan Freemason

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, falkirkzombie said:

I'd always assumed the aim was just to get to 25% - which makes the clubs decision to not allow this to happen when we are so close very strange. After the 25% was reached I think it makes sense to continue as a donation based scheme - with FSS having authority on how they money is spent

I agree to an extent but maybe not as to how the money is used within the club. Think there could be caveats as discussed before about FSS retaining a small percent that members choose to vote on how it is spent in the club like SMISA do. 

The FSS should also have a protection in place, as stated by others, so that any money spent in the future is a loan in exchange for future shares should there be another share issue and that if not enough to maintain 25% there will be enough shares ringfenced so that they can get back to that amount. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Duncan Freemason said:

Is that really the case? Have the FSS Committee actually committed to hand over member’s money in exchange for nothing? Seriously?

As far as I’m aware the agreement has been made and the last few months money which could buy the remaining shares is set to be handed to the club for nothing in return. I sincerely hope they will reconsider.. 

[LatapyBairn.]

Just now, Van_damage said:

I agree to an extent but maybe not as to how the money is used within the club. Think there could be caveats as discussed before about FSS retaining a small percent that members choose to vote on how it is spent in the club like SMISA do. 

The FSS should also have a protection in place, as stated by others, so that any money spent in the future is a loan in exchange for future shares should there be another share issue and that if not enough to maintain 25% there will be enough shares ringfenced so that they can get back to that amount. 

This seems sensible and covering all angels, also very possible to be put in place, something along these lines really needs written up and voted on by members with an agreement from the club board. I’m also pretty certain knowing a few of the people involved with discussion that agreement would be found for a proposal along these lines. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Van_damage said:

I agree to an extent but maybe not as to how the money is used within the club. Think there could be caveats as discussed before about FSS retaining a small percent that members choose to vote on how it is spent in the club like SMISA do. 

The FSS should also have a protection in place, as stated by others, so that any money spent in the future is a loan in exchange for future shares should there be another share issue and that if not enough to maintain 25% there will be enough shares ringfenced so that they can get back to that amount. 

Don’t know about anyone else, but I feel rather misled. I now start to wonder if this has been an undeclared plan from the get go by the BoD (given that there has been nothing to force the BoDs hand in this matter).

Trust is hard earned, but very easily lost.

[Senor Bairn]

Leigh Griffiths 

[Guest]

Just to add to the belief of the FSS this is what I’ve extracted from their constitution:

OBJECTS, 4.2 Achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running and ownership of the club

 

On the policy documents it says:

 

This function(board structure) exists to ensure the FSS maintains its independence and has influence with the football club.

 

And of the board representative:

 

This role should be focused on representing the investment on the board and focal points of communication between the club and its support.

 

I sent that within a larger email to the FSS along with the following…

 

From the above and in light of recent news, I would question whether the FSS is set on achieving the greatest possible ownership by not acquiring these shares; whether it is set on maintaining its independence, by allowing the board to dictate that the FSS cannot spend its money to buy these shares and whether the board representative is effectively representing the investment if supportive of the decision to not sell more shares to the FSS, therefore resulting in the shares to be diluted further.

 

More so, I am aggrieved that these large decisions have been made without consultation amongst the societies shareholders: being that of the membership.

 

Personally, I have great objection to the money I have paid in to the society, in recent months, being handed to the club without exchange for shares currently available for purchase. This goes against any communications about where that money was going whilst there are still shares available.

 

If anyone feels the need to contact FSS then please email subscriptions@falkirksupporters.org

 

You should make your feelings known either way as I do think members should have been consulted on this but if you are considering quitting then please don’t do so without trying to seek a resolution first. 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Van_damage

[GeordieBairn]

Danijel Marceta 

[scottsdad]

I remember a time when we signed an international player. He played 99 times for his country, including at the World Cup...and never made a first team appearance for us. 

[Shodwall cat]

I thought there was a planned meeting to decide on the way ahead for fss. If that's the case then surely no decision has been made as of yet.  I was always of the opinion that once the FSS had arrived at it's 25 percent then the money would be used for investment in various things to be decided between the members. Surely the 3 legged stool wouldn't work if one leg had far more shares than the other two anyway.I would suggest that if you are a member then you go to the up coming meeting and find out what's happening before spitting the dummy . Anyway I suppose after a good result on Saturday some folk had to have something to moan about.