The Falkirk FC Thread

[Reggie Perrin]

Can anyone clarify why the Rawlins are maintaining their shareholding?

 

[Forever_Blue_]

3 minutes ago, Disco Duck said:

can’t argue with any of that, but if we continue to put cash in we should continue to get more influence, no?  Or should we be insisting others match our funding (so everyone’s equity interest remains proportionate) and the club gets even more money?

It's difficult because I understand your argument. I guess all I can say is Im happy to donate my subscription to the club. Aslongs it's clear where its going (player budget /academy /whatever the majority of FSS members vote for). I do understand there are a number of people here who feel differently, and continually tell us so. I don't know how we unite? 

[Disco Duck]

5 minutes ago, Forever_Blue_ said:

It's difficult because I understand your argument. I guess all I can say is Im happy to donate my subscription to the club. Aslongs it's clear where it’s going (player budget /academy /whatever the majority of FSS members vote for). I do understand there are a number of people here who feel differently, and continually tell us so. I don't know how we unite? 

Like most people, I contribute what I do because I want to help the club and it’s an affordable amount, so I’m unlikely to stop mine.  But it does worry me that FSS are being taken for granted.

[Forever_Blue_]

1 minute ago, Disco Duck said:

Like most people, I contribute what I do because I want to help the club and it’s an affordable amount, so I’m unlikely to stop mine.  But it does worry me that FSS are being taken for granted.

What i took from the podcast is that the club need us... And in more numbers. Whether that's viewed as being taken for granted or desperately needed to keep the club afloat whilst we linger down in the depths of L1 then it comes down to a difference of opinion I guess. 

[LatapyBairn.]

Just listened to the podcast and it’s the first time I’ve heard from the two committee members who were on, both spoke very well and it was reassuring to hear there are ideas being floated to continue driving up the membership numbers. On the subject of the monthly subs I’d always presumed when the required shareholding was reached my money would become more of a donation to the club than anything else and I continue to be perfectly happy with that in the knowledge it’s helping the club, it does seem to be the case that’s how most other successfully fan owned clubs operate. Also liked the idea being floated that perhaps the FSS money could eventually be ring fenced to fund the academy, it’s quite an emotive thing most fans could easily get behind and potentially become more involved in helping raise additional revenue through events and such like over and above just the monthly subs, it would also help take the financial burden of funding and growing the academy away from the club hopefully allowing us to be more competitive with our spending at first team level. Getting out of this league sounds like it’s been prioritised for the right now but longer term the new academy is still a bit of a blank canvas and could eventually become an entity the FSS members could help shape, view as they’re own and take pride in. 

Edited September 11, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, Disco Duck said:

Like most people, I contribute what I do because I want to help the club and it’s an affordable amount, so I’m unlikely to stop mine.  But it does worry me that FSS are being taken for granted.

That’s why I had to stop but I would be open to returning if I feel things change.

The FSS committee are all good people and with the best of intentions so it’s nothing personal but it’s just a point of contention for me. Till I feel some of the issues have been addressed I’ll put my money in the club via other means(definitely not Forever Falkirk though). 

[BountyBairn]

Ballot the membership, but I’d hazard a guess that given the option our support would largely support additional funds targeting increased investment in academy rebuild. I’ve not met many fans who don’t lament the loss of this once proud facet of the club. If we keep increasing membership many investment opportunities could be possible. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BountyBairn said:

Ballot the membership, but I’d hazard a guess that given the option our support would largely support additional funds targeting increased investment in academy rebuild. I’ve not met many fans who don’t lament the loss of this once proud facet of the club. If we keep increasing membership many investment opportunities could be possible. 

The only thing is with that agreement in place, it wouldn’t really matter what members voted for as it would  ultimately be up to the club to decide how it is spent. 

The other issue with the agreement is that it has no protection that future monies will be converted to shares.

For an example, in 1 years time the FSS should have provided the club with at least another £115k of donations. If the Rawlins then decide they would like to up their 16% shareholding back to 25% then the club could issue new shares for the Rawlins to pay £285k(at 40p/share) to regain a blocking vote. That would then dilute the FSS to about 20% and require roughly £115k to buy the required shares to get it back to over 25%.

If there is no agreement in place to convert the £115k the FSS has spent back in to shares, then the FSS will have to start from scratch in raising another £115k. Meanwhile the Rawlins have 5% more shares than the FSS despite the FSS having contributed that amount. 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Van_damage

[Forever_Blue_]

53 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

The only thing is with that agreement in place, it wouldn’t really matter what members voted for as it would  ultimately be up to the club to decide how it is spent. 

The other issue with the agreement is that it has no protection that future monies will be converted to shares.

For an example, in 2 years time the FSS should have provided the club with another £225k of donations. If the Rawlins then decide they would like to up their 16% shareholding back to 25% then the club could issue new shares for the Rawlins to pay £315k(at 20p/share) to regain a blocking vote. That would then dilute the FSS to about 16% and require roughly £225k to buy the required shares to get it back to over 25%.

If there is no agreement in place to convert the £225k the FSS has spent back in to shares, then the FSS will have to start from scratch in raising another £225k. Meanwhile the Rawlins have 10% more shares than the FSS despite the FSS having contributed that amount. 

Who would make the decision to issue new shares? Would the two FSS board members get a vote to accept or reject the new share issue, or would the FSS itself get to veto the sale of new shares? 

I have little knowledge of how it works, so just trying to understand if we could block your hypothetical scenario, or if we're at the mercy of the club. 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Forever_Blue_
Typos

[Guest]

Just now, Forever_Blue_ said:

Who would make the decision to issue new shares? Would the two FSS get a vote to accept or reject the new shade issue, or would the FSS itself get to veto the sale of new shares? 

I have little knowledge of how it works, so just trying to understand if we could block your hypothetical scenario, or if we're at the mercy of the club. 

If the FSS had 25% then it would be able to block any new shares being issued so if such a scenario came in to play then they could use that as leverage to ensure they get the shares back. 

That’s part of why it was imperative to get the FSS up to 25% asap and important that the transfer of shares gets them to 25% and not a mixture of shares and proxies(that can be withdrawn). 

[RL10]

9 hours ago, Van_damage said:

That’s why I had to stop but I would be open to returning if I feel things change.

The FSS committee are all good people and with the best of intentions so it’s nothing personal but it’s just a point of contention for me. Till I feel some of the issues have been addressed I’ll put my money in the club via other means(definitely not Forever Falkirk though). 

Do you work for an airline by any chance as you’re announcing your departure every 20 minutes. 

[LatapyBairn.]

2 hours ago, Van_damage said:

The only thing is with that agreement in place, it wouldn’t really matter what members voted for as it would  ultimately be up to the club to decide how it is spent. 

The other issue with the agreement is that it has no protection that future monies will be converted to shares.

For an example, in 1 years time the FSS should have provided the club with at least another £115k of donations. If the Rawlins then decide they would like to up their 16% shareholding back to 25% then the club could issue new shares for the Rawlins to pay £285k(at 40p/share) to regain a blocking vote. That would then dilute the FSS to about 20% and require roughly £115k to buy the required shares to get it back to over 25%.

If there is no agreement in place to convert the £115k the FSS has spent back in to shares, then the FSS will have to start from scratch in raising another £115k. Meanwhile the Rawlins have 5% more shares than the FSS despite the FSS having contributed that amount. 

Not true. Either the FSS, small individual shareholders, patrons, other large shareholders or a combination of some / all of them could easily veto that. To issue new shares requires a special resolution needing a 75% vote. Given the size of the Rawlings shareholding it wouldn’t even take 25% to block such a resolution being passed. The scenario you’re trying to paint would just never unfold. 

Edited September 12, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[Springfield]

It’s all went very quiet with the Rawlings since the new BOD came in. It’s suspect that any plans they had for the club/future are dead and buried, and that they may simply sell up and move on.
Pity as there was talk of further investment at the time. Would good to hear from them on their plans if any going forward, especially considering this is a critical period for the club.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Not true, the FSS or patrons could easily veto that. To issue new shares requires a special resolution needing a 75% vote. 

Sorry not sure how what I say isn’t true. I did say if the FSS has over 25% then it could block that or use it to amend the agreement but currently if there are new shares issued then the FSS would have to buy more to get back to its present shareholding. 

[gav-ffc]

4 minutes ago, Springfield said:

It’s all went very quiet with the Rawlings since the new BOD came in. It’s suspect that any plans they had for the club/future are dead and buried, and that they may simply sell up and move on.
Pity as there was talk of further investment at the time. Would good to hear from them on their plans if any going forward, especially considering this is a critical period for the club.

They never took up their option to buy more shares and left the country shortly after the infamous Q&A so I don’t see them being involved at all. 

[LatapyBairn.]

3 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

Sorry not sure how what I say isn’t true. I did say if the FSS has over 25% then it could block that or use it to amend the agreement but currently if there are new shares issued then the FSS would have to buy more to get back to its present shareholding. 

But the club can’t just issue new shares without the the FSS voting for it so it’s therefore a moot point.  The Rawlins only have around 15% of the club, how on earth are they going to be able to persuade another 60% of the shareholders given the make up we now have to vote with them unless it’s absolutely in the best interests of the club. The scenario just won’t happen. 

Edited September 12, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[LatapyBairn.]

12 minutes ago, Springfield said:

It’s all went very quiet with the Rawlings since the new BOD came in. It’s suspect that any plans they had for the club/future are dead and buried, and that they may simply sell up and move on.
Pity as there was talk of further investment at the time. Would good to hear from them on their plans if any going forward, especially considering this is a critical period for the club.

They turned out to be false prophets. 

[Forever_Blue_]

6 minutes ago, gav-ffc said:

They never took up their option to buy more shares and left the country shortly after the infamous Q&A so I don’t see them being involved at all. 

I wonder if they are just laying low until the storm passes? Would they resurface if we did manage to secure promotion? I can't remember if they were part of the problem, or just really unlucky we were a complete sh1tshow on and off the park when they bought into us? 

[Blame Me]

2 hours ago, BountyBairn said:

Ballot the membership, but I’d hazard a guess that given the option our support would largely support additional funds targeting increased investment in academy rebuild. I’ve not met many fans who don’t lament the loss of this once proud facet of the club. If we keep increasing membership many investment opportunities could be possible. 

 

1 hour ago, Van_damage said:

The only thing is with that agreement in place, it wouldn’t really matter what members voted for as it would  ultimately be up to the club to decide how it is spent. 

The other issue with the agreement is that it has no protection that future monies will be converted to shares.

For an example, in 1 years time the FSS should have provided the club with at least another £115k of donations. If the Rawlins then decide they would like to up their 16% shareholding back to 25% then the club could issue new shares for the Rawlins to pay £285k(at 40p/share) to regain a blocking vote. That would then dilute the FSS to about 20% and require roughly £115k to buy the required shares to get it back to over 25%.

If there is no agreement in place to convert the £115k the FSS has spent back in to shares, then the FSS will have to start from scratch in raising another £115k. Meanwhile the Rawlins have 5% more shares than the FSS despite the FSS having contributed that amount. 

Being honest, I do find it utterly bizarre that the FSS found itself in this position in the first place.

As I write I am still seeing members asking JS online if the FSS is now FF/BfL in all but name!

I paraphrase as I can't remember where I read that events had overtook the FSS and they achieved the main aim much quicker than expected, which is true, yet that shouldn't have stopped the committee from canvassing their members and understanding the demonstrably diverse views within and clarifying whether the agreement met those aims before it was agreed.

Sadly, votes on legends and quizzes isn't engaging the membership - That's a pat on the head.

To have no formulation of what happens next suggests there was - and still is - too much focus on bailing out the club and the messaging and perception is that rather than the being the fans voice it's the fans pocket.

I'd really like to hear some concrete views emanating from the FSS yet appreciating they won't all be enacted but certainly tangible outcomes. That there is no discernible difference between the FF and FSS to the layman should concern the committee.

[Guest]

Just now, LatapyBairn. said:

But the club can’t just issue new shares without the the FSS voting for it so it’s therefore a moot point. 

It’s not untrue and if a moot point then why don’t we have the shares back security as part of the agreement?