The Falkirk FC Thread

[Mr Grimsdale]

29 minutes ago, CoveRangers1922 said:

Going by the majority of our signings our budget is much lower than many expect but I agree for the right player it will flex. I did think we could push the boat out for Hester, McLennan, Dean Campbell, Cammy Smith, Peter Pawlett etc. All ties to Aberdeen/Grampian area or thereabout but got none of them.

You look at who we are taking in; majority young lads who have been released and will be willing to get paid peanuts to see if they can kick start their career and move on. Nearly all of them wont find another FT club after this and it will be PT and job hunting. They will have likely no family or financial commitments 

I'd put all of the below in that bracket;

Aaron Darge

Tyler Mykyta

Balint Demus

Mark Gallagher

Will Gillingham*

Kyle Connell*

Luke Strachan 

Rio Davidson-Phipps 

Dayshonne Golding 

 

That's 9 and the 3 kids make 12 of 21 on "low" wages. The other 9 will be on varying salaries but nothing extreme.

I feel we been cautious in our switch to FT which is understandable given our infancy in the SPFL and our currently low revenue streams (outside directors/sponsors etc). 

I'd still likely someone else doing the recruiting as clearly Hartley couldn't build a sandcastle let alone a squad

Average FT contract will be higher at Falkirk and Hamilton. Accies under new ownership are clearly punting in some money with a view to bouncing right back. 

* These have some promise and if they develop might have a career in the lower depths of the FT Scottish game

I thought Gillingham was lumbering mess at the weekend. Slower than a week in the jail  

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Mr Grimsdale said:

We don’t have a scout.

No idea but my guess theirs is bigger purely down to numbers even if they are paying slightly less. Probably have 6 or 7 more players than us at let’s say £800/week including accommodation (conservative). That’s 250k+ more in player wages and accommodation alone. We must have some size of back room staff on daft money to be spending more than Cove. 

Was just talking overall playing budget. Cove will have that to spend too. If you don’t contest the £1.4m I said then what do you think their overall playing budget will be? 

Also read at what CoveRangers is saying. They have a lot of PT players, unknowns and youngsters. 

I don’t get the point regarding accommodation too. If they are having to spend on accommodation as well then surely that eats in to their budget more than ours too? Same goes if they have a scout. 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Van_damage

[CoveRangers1922]

12 minutes ago, Mr Grimsdale said:

I thought Gillingham was lumbering mess at the weekend. Slower than a week in the jail  

Gillingham isn't that slow. Not lightening quick obviously but name me a current Scottish L1 centre back that is? Run rings round Brad MacKay (our version of Jason Naismith). 

[CoveRangers1922]

12 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

Was just talking overall playing budget. Cove will have that to spend too. If you don’t contest the £1.4m I said then what do you think their overall playing budget will be? 

Also read at what CoveRangers is saying. They have a lot of PT players, unknowns and youngsters. 

I don’t get the point regarding accommodation too. If they are having to spend on accommodation as well then surely that eats in to their budget more than ours too? Same goes if they have a scout. 

I'm guessing but maybe our directors, sponsors, people associated with the club have rental properties in Aberdeen and can give low rates to some of our players. As I said I don't know but rich folk tend to have multiple properties all over the place.

Edited August 14, 2023 by CoveRangers1922

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, CoveRangers1922 said:

I'm guessing but maybe our directors, sponsors, people associated with the club have rental properties in Aberdeen and can give low rates to some of our players. As I said I don't know but rich folk tend to have multiple properties all over the place.

Just thinking if Cove have to fork out on accommodation on top of wages then that would give us more advantage to attract players from the central belt. 

[Mr Grimsdale]

23 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

Was just talking overall playing budget. Cove will have that to spend too. If you don’t contest the £1.4m I said then what do you think their overall playing budget will be? 

Also read at what CoveRangers is saying. They have a lot of PT players, unknowns and youngsters. 

I don’t get the point regarding accommodation too. If they are having to spend on accommodation as well then surely that eats in to their budget more than ours too? Same goes if they have a scout. 

Utterly shocked if ours is £1.4m but if that is what you are saying fair enough.

If our 19 players are on average £750 that is just over 720k per year. If we are spending nearly the same again on coaches and bibs and cones then someone needs to get a grip at the club. 

Personally think you are miles off. But you seem to be in the know. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Mr Grimsdale said:

Utterly shocked if ours is £1.4m but if that is what you are saying fair enough.

If our 19 players are on average £750 that is just over 720k per year. If we are spending nearly the same again on coaches and bibs and cones then someone needs to get a grip at the club. 

Personally think you are miles off. But you seem to be in the know. 

I’ve no idea to be honest mate. Certainly not in the know. 

Remember by playing budget, it involves everything including equipment, coach travel and overnight stays. 

Was just going by what was said at the AGM. Could be mistaken but sure it was said the footballing budget is around 65% of turnover and the reason for our deficit is that to sustain the squad we had and give McGlynn a fresh injection of players we would have to be bringing in around £2.3m which was still £300k or so above the projected turnover of around £2m with the commercial team meeting and exceeding their raised targets.

Ofcourse I could(and most likely) be completely wrong. 

What is known is we made a turnover of £2m though and still had an operational loss of about £300k going by figures so if the majority is not spent on the football side then where does it go?

Edited August 14, 2023 by Van_damage

[Big chungus]

15 minutes ago, Mr Grimsdale said:

Utterly shocked if ours is £1.4m but if that is what you are saying fair enough.

If our 19 players are on average £750 that is just over 720k per year. If we are spending nearly the same again on coaches and bibs and cones then someone needs to get a grip at the club. 

Personally think you are miles off. But you seem to be in the know. 

You’ve also got to remember we will need to pay national insurance and pension contributions so you could easy add another 300-400k to that.

[Jimmy1876]

3 hours ago, Mr Grimsdale said:

Utterly shocked if ours is £1.4m but if that is what you are saying fair enough.

If our 19 players are on average £750 that is just over 720k per year. If we are spending nearly the same again on coaches and bibs and cones then someone needs to get a grip at the club. 

Personally think you are miles off. But you seem to be in the know. 

I wouldn't be surprised if those costs add up. The mangement team, physios, club doctor, kitman and playing/goalkeeping/striking coaches are expensive. I also think that sum included the academy as well (although fund raisers cover a lot) but that's all the coaches needed for that too. Add in any equipment requirements, training ground hire (to play on grass occasionally) and accommodation for players is definitely a thing that is part of some contracts outwith pay. Its probably not far off. 

[Mr Grimsdale]

9 hours ago, Jimmy1876 said:

I wouldn't be surprised if those costs add up. The mangement team, physios, club doctor, kitman and playing/goalkeeping/striking coaches are expensive. I also think that sum included the academy as well (although fund raisers cover a lot) but that's all the coaches needed for that too. Add in any equipment requirements, training ground hire (to play on grass occasionally) and accommodation for players is definitely a thing that is part of some contracts outwith pay. Its probably not far off. 

Fair enough don’t see it being the same size of wages though

Edited August 15, 2023 by Mr Grimsdale

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Mr Grimsdale said:

Fair enough don’t see it being the same size of wages though

Cove will have all of those costs to pay as well plus accommodation, as you suggested. 

I think Cove will be paying some decent wages for some players but not convinced they will have a bigger budget. What do you think Cove’s overall budget will be though if you think it is more? 

[KiwiDB]

I’ve only just watched the highlights from the weekend… how did we not win that game.

[Mr Grimsdale]

1 hour ago, Van_damage said:

Cove will have all of those costs to pay as well plus accommodation, as you suggested. 

I think Cove will be paying some decent wages for some players but not convinced they will have a bigger budget. What do you think Cove’s overall budget will be though if you think it is more? 

I am doing fag packet stuff, unlike you seem to be. They actually have ten players more than us and their travel and accommodation costs (if you are including in ours) will be greater than us. I can’t see their budget being less than ours simply because of numbers and accommodation. They would have to be pay way less than us. 10 players is a big number.  

[LatapyBairn.]

1 hour ago, Mr Grimsdale said:

I am doing fag packet stuff, unlike you seem to be. They actually have ten players more than us and their travel and accommodation costs (if you are including in ours) will be greater than us. I can’t see their budget being less than ours simply because of numbers and accommodation. They would have to be pay way less than us. 10 players is a big number.  

Unfortunately I think Cove probably are spending a bit more than we can at the moment and if push came to shove would probably be able to offer a player a better financial package on current levels of spending. I was told even of the 5 part time players still remaining, guys like Reynolds and Vigurs have part time contracts on considerably better money than any of our full time guys earn, considering they both dropped down from premier league teams at the time whilst still being under contract it would make sense. How Cove can eventually make that spending sustainable I’ve no idea , surely whoever is bankrolling them can’t do it indefinitely. 

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[Jimmy1876]

Have listened to the podcast which as always is great. Specifically the bit about the shares: with what Ross has said that he hears the board are committed to getting the FSS to the 25%+1 I am feeling a bit more positive about the situation. It seems the board are perhaps veering towards the "misguided" decision rather than malicious or power grab and happy to go with that until we hear otherwise. Still do not know why this decision would be made public without that clarification though and risk the massive disappointment and mistrust in the board that has resulted for a lot of fans. 

I still have a few concerns however and would like that to be clarified and confirmed, hopefully with a board statement. 

1) Confirmation from the board that they do intend to get the FSS to the required shareholding. 

2) Confirmation that the remaining shareholding won't be sold until FSS have aquired the 25%+1. 

I say the second point because asking current small shareholders to simply hand over their shares when they have put their hard earned cash in to buy them (at a minimum £400!!!) Is a hard ask. I don't know many people, even the biggest supporters of fan ownership who are happy to just give away (effectively) thousands of £s for nothing in return in this case. Its a very different request to £10 per month and I know even one share gets an AGM invite but people buy shares for more reasons than that, in the end it is ownership of a piece of the club and I find it unfair to ask people to give that up. So if this is what the board is hoping to do, they absolutely MUST make sure it can be done before the unsold shares are sold to anyone else. Otherwise we end up in the situation where the shares are sold and FSS might not get the required shareholding. In which case its still effectively an active block of fan ownership regardless of what the intention is. I'm sure there are fans who have pockets deep enough to hand over portions of their shares so have every hope its possible. But I think that needs to be confirmed first to be safe.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Mr Grimsdale said:

I am doing fag packet stuff, unlike you seem to be. They actually have ten players more than us and their travel and accommodation costs (if you are including in ours) will be greater than us. I can’t see their budget being less than ours simply because of numbers and accommodation. They would have to be pay way less than us. 10 players is a big number.  

Do you mind if I ask where you got those numbers from?

I just tallied up the football staff plus the players using both of the player/staff profiles on their websites and presuming they are up to date(and I can count), they have 32 in total and we have 36.

They have Cameron Stewart and Scott Williamson on loan whereas we just have Sam Long.

They also still have several players that are on part time contracts such as Megginson, Scully, Yule, Reynolds, Naismith and Vigurs(according to @CoveRangers1922).

Also if they do have to pay more in accommodation then that would cut more in to their overall budget and give them even less to spend on wages. If they are already on higher wages, as you believe then their overall budget must be quite a bit more to cover those extra costs.

They also have more travelling to do and potential overnights, with the nearest team to them being 50 minutes away and over 2 hours for every team beyond. 

Sorry, I don’t think they’re short of money by any means but I just fail to see any evidence that suggests they will have a higher budget than us. 

[tokyo bairn]

So funny that you can actually HEAR McGlynn flapping in the interview on the podcast

[Springfield]

46 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Unfortunately I think Cove probably are spending a bit more than we can at the moment

They are 

[LatapyBairn.]

4 minutes ago, Springfield said:

They are 

Yea, it’s not the first time I’ve heard that. Some of the figures rumoured to be being paid to players even on part time contracts is quite incredible. 

Edited August 15, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy1876 said:

Have listened to the podcast which as always is great. Specifically the bit about the shares: with what Ross has said that he hears the board are committed to getting the FSS to the 25%+1 I am feeling a bit more positive about the situation. It seems the board are perhaps veering towards the "misguided" decision rather than malicious or power grab and happy to go with that until we hear otherwise. Still do not know why this decision would be made public without that clarification though and risk the massive disappointment and mistrust in the board that has resulted for a lot of fans. 

I still have a few concerns however and would like that to be clarified and confirmed, hopefully with a board statement. 

1) Confirmation from the board that they do intend to get the FSS to the required shareholding. 

2) Confirmation that the remaining shareholding won't be sold until FSS have aquired the 25%+1. 

I say the second point because asking current small shareholders to simply hand over their shares when they have put their hard earned cash in to buy them (at a minimum £400!!!) Is a hard ask. I don't know many people, even the biggest supporters of fan ownership who are happy to just give away (effectively) thousands of £s for nothing in return in this case. Its a very different request to £10 per month and I know even one share gets an AGM invite but people buy shares for more reasons than that, in the end it is ownership of a piece of the club and I find it unfair to ask people to give that up. So if this is what the board is hoping to do, they absolutely MUST make sure it can be done before the unsold shares are sold to anyone else. Otherwise we end up in the situation where the shares are sold and FSS might not get the required shareholding. In which case its still effectively an active block of fan ownership regardless of what the intention is. I'm sure there are fans who have pockets deep enough to hand over portions of their shares so have every hope its possible. But I think that needs to be confirmed first to be safe.

I can see where this is going with how it will be played but the reality is, this solution was all borne from the discussions on here and not sought out when the initial decision was made by the board. As far as I’m aware, it was left with the FSS to acquire 38,000 shares from the estates of fans that have since passed or other shareholders.

As far as I’m concerned, there are still a lot of unanswered questions as to how this all came about in the first place. I just think it really needs some honesty to why decisions were made and a reflection as to how the board respects the FSS and its representatives.

I know there has been a lot of hard work that has been done by the board but feel like the very people who sold us on the fans ownership model are potentially undermining its very premise. 

Lastly, worth saying huge appreciation must go to all patrons who have pledged to give up some of their shareholding to resolve this. It’s a fantastic gesture and if they cobble together all of the shares required then great credit to them. 

Would be great to hear from either the club or FSS regarding this situation though. Been a week now with nothing said on the matter.