The Falkirk FC Thread

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jimmy1876 said:

Wonder if there is a potential option to keep a percentage of the monthly money by FSS. Say 10% is kept in the bank. So that if shares are issued in the future there is a reserve of cash that the FSS can use to purchase the shares. The club would still get 70% with the other 20% going to the loan as a donation but FSS have a safety net? 

There was a proposal about a convertible loan whereby any future money paid by FSS is essentially handed as a loan that can they be paid back in shares in the event of a future share issue. 

[Bairn in Exile]

The Binos have equalised. Pleasing.

[roman_bairn]

Just now, Bairn in Exile said:

The Binos have equalised. Pleasing.

That would put us top as things stand

[Zbairn]

2 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

That was an important point that maybe got lost in the debate. Take my own point of principle aside, getting to 25% and maintaining it is important so any future share issue should at least ensure there are 25% of shares ringfenced for FSS and that any money paid in is converted in exchange for some or all of those shares(depending the amount).

I was actually thinking the other night too about why we’re so tied to this 3 legged stool model. One leg was/is the Rawlins who aren’t involved and quite frankly I wouldn’t want them to be.

The other 2 legs are the FSS and the patrons. The FSS however will be the only leg to continuously put money in to the club and in 3 years time could have put in 2/3 times as much as the other legs yet still have the same percentage. 

Would it be such a bad thing to allow FSS to continue to buy shares to get more of a percentage in the club. At the end of the day if you external investment was needed then wouldn’t matter what each leg had as more shares would have to be issued anyway. At least if the FSS owned all the shares then they could sell for whatever price and put the money back in the club as capital. 

The 3rd leg is major shareholders......i.e Rawlins, Sandy A, Martin R and Willie Moffat. Not sure if anyone else is included in that group ????

[grumpyoldman]

5 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

That was an important point that maybe got lost in the debate. Take my own point of principle aside, getting to 25% and maintaining it is important so any future share issue should at least ensure there are 25% of shares ringfenced for FSS and that any money paid in is converted in exchange for some or all of those shares(depending the amount).

I was actually thinking the other night too about why we’re so tied to this 3 legged stool model. One leg was/is the Rawlins who aren’t involved and quite frankly I wouldn’t want them to be.

The other 2 legs are the FSS and the patrons. The FSS however will be the only leg to continuously put money in to the club and in 3 years time could have put in 2/3 times as much as the other legs yet still have the same percentage. 

Would it be such a bad thing to allow FSS to continue to buy shares to get more of a percentage in the club. At the end of the day if you external investment was needed then wouldn’t matter what each leg had as more shares would have to be issued anyway. At least if the FSS owned all the shares then they could sell for whatever price and put the money back in the club as capital. 

Surely 25% is a four legged stool

Edited September 2, 2023 by grumpyoldman

[Guest]

Just now, grumpyoldman said:

Surely 25% is a four sided stool

Yeh but they’ve been including other small shareholders as part of that leg. Just important for FSS alone to have the 25% block. A four sided stool would be a bit sturdier right enough! 

[grumpyoldman]

2 minutes ago, Zbairn said:

The 3rd leg is major shareholders......i.e Rawlins, Sandy A, Martin R and Willie Moffat. Not sure if anyone else is included in that group ????

That’s a pretty long leg. 
If FSS are the largest shareholder with 25%, add that to the patrons shares and there’s not a majority 

[Bairn in Exile]

3 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

Yeh but they’ve been including other small shareholders as part of that leg. Just important for FSS alone to have the 25% block. A four sided stool would be a bit sturdier right enough! 

A three legged stool is actually more stable than a four legged stool.  It is easier to find three points at the same height level than four points.

Q: why has a milking stool only got three legs?

A: Cos the cow has the udder.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Bairn in Exile said:

A three legged stool is actually more stable than a four legged stool.  It is easier to find three points at the same height level than four points.

Q: why has a milking stool only got three legs?

A: Cos the cow has the udder.

Haha.

Anyway we’ll maybe need a big stool now we’re top of the table.

[Big chungus]

Kev Ohara missing a pen for accies  

[Big chungus]

Top of the league looking down on the accies 

[Zbairn]

Good results all round 

Also, nice to see our Max K get 2 for St Johnstone to stop Dundee (boo hiss) from winning. Once a Bairn always a Bairn  

 

Edited September 2, 2023 by Zbairn

[Bairnardo]

Top. Now let's fucking stay there. 

[Zbairn]

5 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Top. Now let's fucking stay there. 

2 horse race..... let hope Hamilton fall at the next hurdle and it turns into a stroll. 

 

[ShaggerG]

Nesbitt starting to look like a decent squad player. Who would have thought?

[Bigbrbairn]

12 minutes ago, Big chungus said:

Kev Ohara missing a pen for accies  

Once a bairn

[Bairnardo]

1 minute ago, Zbairn said:

2 horse race..... let hope Hamilton fall at the next hurdle and it turns into a stroll. 

 

I would love nothing more than a boring, unopposed stroll to the title. It's sign of the times though, that I'm desperately worried still. I can remember back in the day, with my oft mentioned favourite team of all time, in Jobbys season. I fucking KNEW we were winning the league. Knew it. No space for doubts. Just enjoying the weekly houndings 

[Bairnardo]

1 minute ago, ShaggerG said:

Nesbitt starting to look like a decent squad player. Who would have thought?

Yeah should make sure he's signed up on a long term deal

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

I would love nothing more than a boring, unopposed stroll to the title. It's sign of the times though, that I'm desperately worried still. I can remember back in the day, with my oft mentioned favourite team of all time, in Jobbys season. I fucking KNEW we were winning the league. Knew it. No space for doubts. Just enjoying the weekly houndings 

Knew it that first game away at Ayr United!

[AJ1981]

4 hours ago, Van_damage said:

I’m commenting on your version of events, not attacking you. 

You said it was made clear that a massive rift occurred because of one person. I’m only saying if that’s true that was brought to light at the meeting then it’s unfair. 

As far as I understand from previous posts you weren't there, so you're not really in a position to comment on what happened, are you? If I'm wrong then hands up, my mistake. The impression I got was from what the former committee member forcefully said was he acknowledged in his opening remarks that he resigned because he fundamentally disagreed with the committee, their version of events and had no faith in them, or words to that effect. So, to be fair, reading it back my post was quite understated and neutral. I don't know what your beef is with almost everybody on here mate, but my advice, for what it's worth, as somebody who left OneF all those years ago when I got caught up in it, get the f**k off SM like this, don't get wound up people who don't agree with you (and are probably winding you up because they know they can) and accept there are things you cannot change., sìth agus gràdh as my highland granny used to say.