The Falkirk FC Thread

[unused sub]

I joined the FSS to do my little bit to help achieve the 26% share target as I was keen on fan ownership idea. 

I've read the email from FSS quite few times now and can't get my head round the clubs reasoning for not making anymore shares available to FSS. 

The reasoning behind this decision (according to the email) is to keep the remaining 1% available for future potential investors. I think 1% of the shares is around 5175 at 40p a share that's around 20k, is that worth potentially pi**ing off and possibly losing some of the FSS membership that are currently contributing 102k to the club annually. 

I think bod have done a good job since taking over but I'm not seeing the benefit of this decision. 

 

 

[Hughsie]

Someone more clued up than me can possibly answer this but what’s the point of keeping aside 1% for future investment. 
 

If FSS buy the remaining shares and get to 26%, then, in five years time, an investor comes in looking to invest £500k, couldn’t more shares just be issued at that point provided the board (including FSS and their members) voted for it?

Edited August 8, 2023 by Hughsie

[Grangemouth Bairn]

I’ve read the last few pages and seen several fans who currently make regular contributions to FSS saying they are now stopping them.

Given the reaction to the announcement on here, which albeit is a small sample size, It will interesting to see in a few months what the impact on monthly contributions has been.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Chinatoon Bairn said:

Can't be the only one thinking that this is being massively blown out of proportion here.. FSS have acquired a controlling stake in the club and at the moment have the most say in how it is run? Any subscriptions from this point onwards will go towards whatever the FSS see fit, whether that be repayment of the government loan or investment into the infrastructure of the club.

Controlling interest? How do you work that out? The whole point was to reach 25%+1. It was initially set out as 26% by both parties, and repeated many times over. 25%+1 is the magic number to block nonsense, but that is now being reneged on.

This is all about p-o-w-e-r. I am sure there were shares ring fenced for the Patrons too, but a % has been sold to FSS. Why? Altruism? Not really. Uptake wasn’t forthcoming from the Patrons, and the club wanted the money.….so sell them to FSS, but not enough to reach 25%+1……..and that is a deliberate move.

Fan ownership? Is this really what it looks like?

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Hughsie said:

Someone more clued up than me can possibly answer this but what’s the point of keeping aside 1% for future investment. 
 

If FSS buy the remaining shares and get to 26%, then, in five years time, an investor comes in looking to invest £500k, couldn’t more shares just be issued at that point provided the board (including FSS and their members) voted for it?

The point is that it prevents the FSS from reaching 25%+1, and therefore having a real influence.

As to your second point, yes that can be done provided 75% of shareholders (shareholding really) agree. That might offer up a clue as to why the BoD are blocking the FSS from reaching that long standing and well publicised goal.

If the FSS Committee and their nominated Director have signed up to no more shares, for me personally, they have gone way beyond their remit.

[PedroMoutinho]

32 minutes ago, unused sub said:

I've read the email from FSS quite few times now and can't get my head round the clubs reasoning for not making anymore shares available to FSS. 

If it is true that the remaining shares are to go to patrons, it is unfortunately clearly about power.

[ShaggerG]

The main reason for me in joining the FSS was to achieve fan ownership to the point that we could stop the Mark Campbells of this world from running the club into the ground. That means getting 25%+1 of shares into FSS ownership (our ownership). Having said that we obviously can't simply keep buying shares so the cash raised beyond this will need to be donated to the club at some point and I'm happy to continue paying my cash to achieve this.

However, like most, I'm not very impressed by these latest revelations but I will not be cancelling my subscription and I would urge all members to continue to pay until we can get some clarification on the situation. If you stop, it may be forever, and we don't want that! I would rather that no more monies are paid to the club until this is sorted out. Hopefully this can be sorted before the meeting in September but, if not, both the FSS and the BOD better have some big answers for us when the meeting comes around!

[Guest FFC1965]

By a coincidence I resumed my FSS monthly payment earlier today after a brief gap. 

Id still have gone ahead had I known about this recent development

As I understand it the ScotGov loan was to FSS who then used it to buy shares in the club.  Therefore repaying the ScotGov loan isn't the clubs issue and FSS will have to decide how they use future revenues.  That becomes difficult if the originally intended purpose (buying shares) isn't available.  Equally it doesn't automatically follow that FSS should hand over future subs to the club with no conditions attached. 

It does strike me as a rather cuntish and short sighted move from the club even if they are acting within their rights.  FSS members are the folk who go to games, buy hospitality, sponsor players, buy jerseys etc etc and pissing off your customers isn't generally a great strategy in any walk of life.     

[Guest]

5 hours ago, LatapyBairn. said:

I don’t think this is true, it’s certainly misrepresentative. An email went out to the group last week from a non board member who is a patron with a proposal to raise funds that could then possibly be ring fenced to help boost the playing budget. There was no official contact from the club , the guys on the BOD probably don’t even know about it as they weren’t included in the email and I’m not sure the proposal even got off the ground in the first place for them to be informed. It was definitely before the FSS released they’re statement anyway and there was certainly no chat along the lines of “hoovering up shares”

I was given further detail since sending the post so although it doesn’t change what was said, it does change the context.

To clarify, the email asking patrons to buy the remaining shares tried to get sent on Friday, before this all kicked off, but after realising it didn’t go through properly, was sent today. 

It was made with the best of intentions but in light of the situation that we’ve been discussing, I would like to hope some stock will be taken about whether to buy those shares rather than provide money to help the club, which was the original aim of the email. 

[FalkirkBairn2021]

3 hours ago, LatapyBairn. said:

FSS are the single largest shareholder in the club.  

A controlling interest that doth not make.

[FalkirkBairn2021]

2 hours ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Did I say it did? 

The poster above who i quoted did say that. Incorrectly.

[FalkirkBairn2021]

2 hours ago, unused sub said:

 

The reasoning behind this decision (according to the email) is to keep the remaining 1% available for future potential investors. 

 

 

It would seems obvious they don't want to 'burden' future Rawlings/Campbell types with a pesky supporters group who can actually do something. 

Which is an utter disgrace.

I suspect this is a board panicking about the financial situation at the club and wanting to keep the option open of abandoning fan ownership. Which may not be palatable to the fans (many of whom to be fair won't have sleepless nights about black holes in budgets)

Democracy is tough sometimes. As is being on a board.

Edited August 8, 2023 by FalkirkBairn2021

[Hughsie]

I’d say at the very least, the situation needs addressing by FSS and the club. Preferably sooner rather than later to avoid potentially folk jumping to conclusions and rashly stopping subs when that might ultimately prove to be an overreaction

On the face of things, this does not look good and I’d really like to hear the reasons why this measure has been taken before deciding how to respond personally.

[Jimmy1876]

55 minutes ago, Hughsie said:

I’d say at the very least, the situation needs addressing by FSS and the club. Preferably sooner rather than later to avoid potentially folk jumping to conclusions and rashly stopping subs when that might ultimately prove to be an overreaction

On the face of things, this does not look good and I’d really like to hear the reasons why this measure has been taken before deciding how to respond personally.

Happy to wait before cancelling to hear out FSS. The board action of blocking the shares in my eyes is unjustifiable and can only be resolved by reversing the decision. I will wait to hear what FSS have done or plan to do: have they fought this and been ignored etc? I will decide from there. I hope it is clarified as soon as possible. 

[FalkirkBairn2021]

9 hours ago, Jimmy1876 said:

Happy to wait before cancelling to hear out FSS. The board action of blocking the shares in my eyes is unjustifiable and can only be resolved by reversing the decision. I will wait to hear what FSS have done or plan to do: have they fought this and been ignored etc? I will decide from there. I hope it is clarified as soon as possible. 

Think this is a pretty responsible attitude. Worth giving the FSS guys a hearing to understand what action they have taken already and will be taking in the coming days. 

Gary Deans would be proud of the board here by the way.  This move is right out of his playbook. 

 

[Chinatoon Bairn]

Was of the understanding that the FSS acquired a controlling stake in the club back at the end of May but appears not to be the case after re-reading the newsletter from that time, latest one hasn't appeared in my inbox either for whatever reason so haven't had the chance to read that in full either.

Can understand the want for clarity on it and agree that the FSS/club themselves need to provide that but talk of halting subscriptions before giving both parties sufficient time to do so seems a bit daft. If there are still doubts afterwards then fair enough but until then I'm staying put, after all there has been a tendency at times for things to be blown massively out of proportion on here with FalkirkTV directly funding Dunfermline being the latest that I can think of.

[FalkirkBairn2021]

29 minutes ago, Chinatoon Bairn said:

Was of the understanding that the FSS acquired a controlling stake in the club back at the end of May but appears not to be the case after re-reading the newsletter from that time, latest one hasn't appeared in my inbox either for whatever reason so haven't had the chance to read that in full either.

Can understand the want for clarity on it and agree that the FSS/club themselves need to provide that but talk of halting subscriptions before giving both parties sufficient time to do so seems a bit daft. If there are still doubts afterwards then fair enough but until then I'm staying put, after all there has been a tendency at times for things to be blown massively out of proportion on here with FalkirkTV directly funding Dunfermline being the latest that I can think of.

Can understand you want to give a good hearing here but I'm not sure what clarity you're expecting?

It's already clear. There's literally no good explanation for this decision. None. Zip. Nada.

All that matters I'd say is 

A) What FSS members want to do now? Ie How many cancel subs v those who don't care and will carry on anyway

B) What the FSS reps on the board have done since this betrayal was mooted

B) How tenable the FSS reps on the board feel their continuing in role is given this Et Tu Brutus behaviour 

Edited August 9, 2023 by FalkirkBairn2021

[Stainrod123]

Reading through these posts is exactly why I never signed up to the FSS.  The structure of it and the relationship with the patrons group was always going to be an issue in the future.

The issue for me is that the patrons never thought for one minute the FSS would get close to 26%, certainly not as quick as they have, the wording of the agreement of the FSS document is very fluffy which backs that up.  25% + gives the FSS the right to block any move by the board, release of shares, strategic direction, appointment of directors etc.

Reports I have heard first hand is that one of the patrons, possibly two, are driving everything and see the FSS as nothing more than an income source despite having some experienced individuals who volunteer their time to help run the club.  I have no doubt the FSS reps have resigned as they see no point on being on the board whilst they are railroaded by the patrons - I know this is the case with one of them and suspect it with the others despite the party line of ‘not having the time etc’.  That was arguably ok when the FSS had made a small investment but at 25% + the FSS could make things very difficult for the board and have much more influence on the way things are done and the patrons don’t want this.

One way is to release more shares and allow the FSS to purchase new shares, collect their investment but to keep them below the magical 26%, the patrons would be required to pro rata purchase more shares to keep the shareholding balance the same.  They clearly don’t have the appetite to do that.

The keeping of one share for future investment is nothing but a smokescreen. The board know the wording in the FSS now reverts to 'donations' and consideration of what the money is spent on, without any real recourse, they are delighted with this and why wouldn't they be.  Get the cash, protect the patrons influence.

Add in the years of being told this model was ideal, the old MSG was evil etc only to go cap in hand for soft loans off them when things got tight last year I am far from convinced the model we have at present will work.

The guys at board level are obviously fans and you could argue they are doing a decent job in some areas, however, now I think they are now focussing on protecting their own position rather than supporting the fans ownership model which they coveted for years.  I'm not necessarily having a go at the patrons, they put their cash in up front but equally, they have sold this model and need to support it.

[grumpyoldman]

19 minutes ago, Stainrod123 said:

Reading through these posts is exactly why I never signed up to the FSS.  The structure of it and the relationship with the patrons group was always going to be an issue in the future.

The issue for me is that the patrons never thought for one minute the FSS would get close to 26%, certainly not as quick as they have, the wording of the agreement of the FSS document is very fluffy which backs that up.  25% + gives the FSS the right to block any move by the board, release of shares, strategic direction, appointment of directors etc.

Reports I have heard first hand is that one of the patrons, possibly two, are driving everything and see the FSS as nothing more than an income source despite having some experienced individuals who volunteer their time to help run the club.  I have no doubt the FSS reps have resigned as they see no point on being on the board whilst they are railroaded by the patrons - I know this is the case with one of them and suspect it with the others despite the party line of ‘not having the time etc’.  That was arguably ok when the FSS had made a small investment but at 25% + the FSS could make things very difficult for the board and have much more influence on the way things are done and the patrons don’t want this.

One way is to release more shares and allow the FSS to purchase new shares, collect their investment but to keep them below the magical 26%, the patrons would be required to pro rata purchase more shares to keep the shareholding balance the same.  They clearly don’t have the appetite to do that.

The keeping of one share for future investment is nothing but a smokescreen. The board know the wording in the FSS now reverts to 'donations' and consideration of what the money is spent on, without any real recourse, they are delighted with this and why wouldn't they be.  Get the cash, protect the patrons influence.

Add in the years of being told this model was ideal, the old MSG was evil etc only to go cap in hand for soft loans off them when things got tight last year I am far from convinced the model we have at present will work.

The guys at board level are obviously fans and you could argue they are doing a decent job in some areas, however, now I think they are now focussing on protecting their own position rather than supporting the fans ownership model which they coveted for years.  I'm not necessarily having a go at the patrons, they put their cash in up front but equally, they have sold this model and need to support it.

Good post, pretty much how I see it as well 

[Chinatoon Bairn]

2 minutes ago, FalkirkBairn2021 said:

Can understand you want to give a good hearing hete that but I'm not sure what clarity you're expecting?

It's already clear. There's literally no good explanation for this decision. None. Zip. Nada.

All that matters I'd say is 

A) What FSS members want to do now? Ie How many cancel subs v those who don't care and will carry on anyway

B) What the FSS reps on the board have done since this betrayal was mooted

B) How tenable the FSS reps on the board feel their continuing in role is given this Et Tu Brutas behaviour 

If the club are to ringfence the remaining 1% of shares for other potential investors as is mentioned within the newsletter then how are the FSS to proceed in acquiring the remaining .4X% of shares taking us to the desired 25%+1 (aside from donations) and since it since it has been raised as an area of potential concern given the posts over the last couple of days then clarity on the plans in the immediate future of where the subscription money will be going otherwise if not towards shares.

Seen various people mentioning about a meeting scheduled for September 1st, so I'll be waiting to hear what is said there before deciding any further.