The Falkirk FC Thread

[LatapyBairn.]

45 minutes ago, Roboccop said:

The Board has to stop telling people that they can only go on if they can work 20 hrs plus for nothing. That stops anyone but moderately wealthy or retired older people to stand. FSS needs indépendant voices on the Board who represent the fans. That is crucial forst and foremost. 

I remember the 15 to 20 hours thing being quoted when the initial directors were voted on but haven’t seen it mentioned the last couple times, although in an ideal world it would be preferable I don’t think that is a pre requested anymore. At the time it was most probably needed with the mess the club was left in however that may have changed now that some infrastructure is in place and things are more stable /organised behind the scenes. Pretty certain anybody who flings their hat in will be up for election anyway! There was only a single candidate put themselves forward the last time from the FSS and only 2 the time before. I really hope Kenny and Keith stand to be re-elected as directors from the PG, they’ve both been pretty solid and I don’t think there is much appetite from any others in the group to take the job on.

Edited September 7, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[ShaggerG]

31 minutes ago, Bainsfordbairn said:

Not sure I agree. Being there only to represent the fans is fine when it was just one FSS rep and the rest of the BOD was made up of MSG appointees. (historical example, albeit in those days it was Bairnstrust rather than FSS). 

That's no longer the case. The fans ARE the board and the FSS is almost half of it. (or 2/5 to be precise) Every single board member bar one is a fan rep and should be taking the wishes of the fanbase  into account when making decisions. Ironically, the only "independent" guy is the one who represents nobody but presumably has skills which are valued. 

I can think of a few people over the years who promoted themselves as "the voice of the fans". They criticised everything but offered nothing. We don't need those type of people now. We need ones with skills who're willing to roll their sleeves up for the betterment of the club. 

I have no idea what the board members do on a daily / weekly basis. Perhaps with the improvements that have been made in the running of the club, the 20+ hrs requirement could be reduced to 15 or 10. That might be a conversation worth having if it resulted in more people becoming involved. 

 

Sounds very familiar that.

[Shodwall cat]

51 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

I remember the 15 to 20 hours thing being quoted when the initial directors were voted on but haven’t seen it mentioned the last couple times, although in an ideal world it would be preferable I don’t think that is a pre requested anymore. At the time it was most probably needed with the mess the club was left in however that may have changed now that some infrastructure is in place and things are more stable /organised behind the scenes. Pretty certain anybody who flings their hat in will be up for election anyway! There was only a single candidate put themselves forward the last time from the FSS and only 2 the time before. I really hope Kenny and Keith stand to be re-elected as directors from the PG, they’ve both been pretty solid and I don’t think there is much appetite from any others in the group to take the job on.

That said you can't continually have the same people in post ad infinitum.  It's important that there is a constant change in posts to bring in new ideas and skills and to keep things fresh. I'd have thought it would be great if one rep from the patron's and one from fss changed on a semi regular basis . The issue though again is getting people with the time to do the work.

[ebobsboy]

2 hours ago, Van_damage said:

Hamilton game now on Alba with 5:30pm KO. Not surprising to be honest. 

Should be a cracker, watched the highlights of their game v Stirling and going forward they look a decent side, create chances and miss them with equal aplomb. Defence didn't look to clever especially with the second Stirling goal but I see they re signed Dylan McGowan this week. 

[Blame Me]

3 hours ago, Bigbrbairn said:

I think paying people to do some of the behind the scenes stuff and allowing reps/directors time to concentrate on development of the club not the humdrum day to day stuff would be an idea

 

6 hours ago, StuartA said:

Ideally, yes, but I think the club needs to shed its toxicity before more of the right people are prepared to step forward. We’re a long way towards achieving that - fan ownership is progressing, stability and improvement on the park, competence off the park, fans less murderous and directors who aren’t seen as arrogant hee-haws or dodgy nest featherers.* We need to get away from the times where anyone involved with the club ended up leaving with the smell of torches and sound of pitchforks clattering behind them. 
 

(*Nb definitely NOT applying that description to each of the dozens of directors who have served the club in the previous decade or two) 

 

2 hours ago, Bainsfordbairn said:

Not sure I agree. Being there only to represent the fans is fine when it was just one FSS rep and the rest of the BOD was made up of MSG appointees. (historical example, albeit in those days it was Bairnstrust rather than FSS). 

That's no longer the case. The fans ARE the board and the FSS is almost half of it. (or 2/5 to be precise) Every single board member bar one is a fan rep and should be taking the wishes of the fanbase  into account when making decisions. Ironically, the only "independent" guy is the one who represents nobody but presumably has skills which are valued. 

I can think of a few people over the years who promoted themselves as "the voice of the fans". They criticised everything but offered nothing. We don't need those type of people now. We need ones with skills who're willing to roll their sleeves up for the betterment of the club. 

I have no idea what the board members do on a daily / weekly basis. Perhaps with the improvements that have been made in the running of the club, the 20+ hrs requirement could be reduced to 15 or 10. That might be a conversation worth having if it resulted in more people becoming involved. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Shodwall cat said:

That said you can't continually have the same people in post ad infinitum.  It's important that there is a constant change in posts to bring in new ideas and skills and to keep things fresh. I'd have thought it would be great if one rep from the patron's and one from fss changed on a semi regular basis . The issue though again is getting people with the time to do the work.

What does the club/FSS actually require in terms of skills and what manifesto - beyond majority - do the FSS want to achieve?

I'm not in the FSS (although aspire to) so apologise if this is widely known to the membership.

I think having clear goals to articulate for the term and understanding what the club needs in the short/medium term off the park would be helpful to anyone considering standing. 

If it's known what priorities are from both sides it's surely easier to align the skills and commitment than an open ended, all encompassing remit.

I can point to instances of where an FSS champion has said if you don't like X advocate for Y but when has that been canvassed and made an aim?

Appreciate the rep has to act on their own and in best interest but they need some form of framework to work toward and they might not achieve it but at least try and advance a position which affects the FSS membership (and shows the benefit of being a member beyond funding a budget and to wider group).

Edited September 7, 2023 by Blame Me

[StuartA]

33 minutes ago, Blame Me said:

 

 

 

What does the club/FSS actually require in terms of skills and what manifesto - beyond majority - do the FSS want to achieve?

I'm not in the FSS (although aspire to) so apologise if this is widely known to the membership.

I think having clear goals to articulate for the term and understanding what the club needs in the short/medium term off the park would be helpful to anyone considering standing. 

If it's known what priorities are from both sides it's surely easier to align the skills and commitment than an open ended, all encompassing remit.

I can point to instances of where an FSS champion has said if you don't like X advocate for Y but when has that been canvassed and made an aim?

Appreciate the rep has to act on their own and in best interest but they need some form of framework to work toward and they might not achieve it but at least try and advance a position which affects the FSS membership (and shows the benefit of being a member beyond funding a budget and to wider group).

FSS’s job is to protect the club from predators and poor decision making; promote the fans’ voice in the club; and progress the club via its funding and other involvement. As such, I’d say it needs people with the energy and skills to help it grow and develop policies it wants the club to pursue. 

The board needs people to run the club successfully. Folk prepared to show some vision, take tough decisions and run the business. I’d say a lot of that is interchangeable with what the FSS needs and would suggest that’s a good thing. 
 

[Rocco]

Haven’t posted much recently but delighted with how we are playing. 
 

It really is funny how so many of our fans are absolute idiots. I wasn’t sitting my normal seat for the Dundee UTD cup game and there were guys behind me talking absolute shit the whole game. One guy in particular said Miller was useless because a centre half overpowered him and then went on to say later on that Miller would be his hate figure this seasons. Pleasing to see Miller has went on to be one of our better players. 
 

Long may the good results continue and we get wins against Queens and Accies.

[Disco Duck]

4 hours ago, Roboccop said:

The Board has to stop telling people that they can only go on if they can work 20 hrs plus for nothing. That stops anyone but moderately wealthy or retired older people to stand. FSS needs indépendant voices on the Board who represent the fans. That is crucial forst and foremost. 

Nonsense.  They’re being realistic about the amount of time it needs to commit to it. 

[Blame Me]

48 minutes ago, StuartA said:

FSS’s job is to protect the club from predators and poor decision making; promote the fans’ voice in the club; and progress the club via its funding and other involvement. As such, I’d say it needs people with the energy and skills to help it grow and develop policies it wants the club to pursue. 

The board needs people to run the club successfully. Folk prepared to show some vision, take tough decisions and run the business. I’d say a lot of that is interchangeable with what the FSS needs and would suggest that’s a good thing. 
 

Agree with all of that but parts I've highlighted, I feel, need something to underpin them.

Knowing the "why" makes the how and what consequences of whatever is being pursued.

Definitely an interesting one to ponder.

[Springfield]

It’s been a long time since we’ve started the season playing some real decent football. I’ve said in previous posts, get the spine of the team correct, and we won’t be far away. So far with Long Lang Spencer MacIver we don’t look far away. The additions of Miller & Alfie adds a different dimension we’ve lacked since Houstie.

The real test starts next Saturday with teams I would expect to challenging for the top/promotion spots. Feet on the ground and let’s see where we are after these games. The Ayr result/performance albeit a Mickey Mouse cup, and against a weakened Ayr side, felt like we’ve got something different this season, feelings I’ve not had for god knows, a long bloody time. 

[Roboccop]

10 hours ago, Disco Duck said:

Nonsense.  They’re being realistic about the amount of time it needs to commit to it. 

That’s not my point. FSS has two fan reps who should be putting the fans’ views over. You should not make restrictions in that case as to who can stand. So far there’s been a struggle to find people to take on the role and two FSS directors have quit only months after taking the position. If you restrict who can stand by arbitrary made up rules then you restrict who CAN stand to more or less only well off or retired/old fans. 
 

The truth is that representation is FSS’s real role; it’s not just to raise money although that is clearly important. The debate as to how the form that future money is passed over to the club is important in that respect and let’s hope the FSS committee get this right. 
 

I get no-one really cares at the moment as things are doing so well on the pitch  but when things turn then (as they always will eventually) suddenly this aspect of a fans’ organisation will become very important  

 

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Roboccop

[Disco Duck]

9 minutes ago, Roboccop said:

That’s not my point. FSS has two fam rep who should be putting the fans’ views over. You should not make restrictions in that case as to who can stand. So far there’s been a struggle to find people to stand and two FSS directors have quit mid-role. If you restrict who can stand by arbitrary made up rules then you restrict who CAN stand to well off or retired/old fans. 
 

The truth is that is FSS’s real role; it’s not just to raise money although that is clearly important. 
 

I get no-one really cares at the moment as things are doing so well on the pitch  but when things turn then suddenly this aspect of a fans’ organisation will become very important  

 

 

It’s not a restriction or a rule.  It’s just pointing out how demanding it can be on your time so go into it with your eyes open.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Disco Duck

[Roboccop]

1 minute ago, Disco Duck said:

It’s not a restriction or a rule.  It’s just pointing out how demanding it can be in your time so go into it with your eyes open.

Really? I’ve seen it used as a de facto restriction in the past when people have been asked to stand and they have refused citing it as the reason. This current election has no one standing so far (although FSS failed to promote it in the way they had previously) and there’s a mad scramble behind the scenes trying to find someone. 

[Roboccop]

1 minute ago, Disco Duck said:

It’s not a restriction or a rule.  It’s just pointing out how demanding it can be in your time so go into it with your eyes open.

Really? I’ve seen it used as a de facto restriction in the past when people have been asked to stand and they have refused citing it as the reason. This current election has no one standing so far (although FSS failed to promote it in the way they had previously) and there’s a mad scramble behind the scenes trying to find someone. 

[Disco Duck]

I’ve done a couple of non-Exec roles in the past and given them up because of demands on my time - I work full time and have a family.  It just makes it difficult.  The last organisation I was at said the same - they struggle to get people who have both the capability and the time.  It’s just the way it is.

If you feel that strongly about it, giving up a weekend day plus a couple of evenings is doable, but it’s clearly going to be difficult for people.  But if you can’t put in appropriate time, there’s no point in doing the role surely?

[Springfield]

49 minutes ago, Disco Duck said:

I’ve done a couple of non-Exec roles in the past and given them up because of demands on my time - I work full time and have a family.  It just makes it difficult.  The last organisation I was at said the same - they struggle to get people who have both the capability and the time.  It’s just the way it is.

If you feel that strongly about it, giving up a weekend day plus a couple of evenings is doable, but it’s clearly going to be difficult for people.  But if you can’t put in appropriate time, there’s no point in doing the role surely?

That’s the problem. Similar circumstances for many people. I suspect that the role is a bit more time consuming than the times mentioned.

[scottsdad]

18 hours ago, Van_damage said:

Hamilton game now on Alba with 5:30pm KO. Not surprising to be honest. 

Bollocks. 

[Anthony Fitzgerald]

2 hours ago, scottsdad said:

Bollocks. 

No, it’s true.

[scottsdad]

32 minutes ago, Trump said:

No, it’s true.

Just means there's a chance I can't go now. 

[Mr Grimsdale]

20 hours ago, LatapyBairn. said:

I remember the 15 to 20 hours thing being quoted when the initial directors were voted on but haven’t seen it mentioned the last couple times, although in an ideal world it would be preferable I don’t think that is a pre requested anymore. At the time it was most probably needed with the mess the club was left in however that may have changed now that some infrastructure is in place and things are more stable /organised behind the scenes. Pretty certain anybody who flings their hat in will be up for election anyway! There was only a single candidate put themselves forward the last time from the FSS and only 2 the time before. I really hope Kenny and Keith stand to be re-elected as directors from the PG, they’ve both been pretty solid and I don’t think there is much appetite from any others in the group to take the job on.

At the last AGM they were formally elected on. That means, I think, they are there for another two years as they will have served one year post the AGM. Of course they could wish to resign before that. I may have that wrong of course but pretty sure this is the where their tenure sits.