The Falkirk FC Thread

[LatapyBairn.]

2 hours ago, BPM Again said:

I even called you to tell you I was not on P&B but you keep throwing the accusation on here. Well here I am you now know who I am. 

You are well aware that the Rawlins option has lapsed. It was mentioned more than once at Patron meetings which you probably attended and as someone else on here said it was on the FD podcast that it was lapsed. 

Why are you continuing to peddle this line? If it bothers you that much why did you now ask for it in writing? Why not raise it at the AGM of a few weeks ago? 

As we have discussed privately the FSS has more than enough shares to block anything. The 25%+1 whilst important in the cosmetics of it all the reality is that the safety of this club is assured now as the FSS and Patrons can easily block anything we don’t like.

The FSS and Patrons have 4 Board members. Do you really think that if there was outside investment available that they wouldn’t consult? 

FWIW I believe that the club does need the major shareholder part of the mix to take more active interest in the club. If that means that party spending money on Rawlins and former MSG shareholding to get a seat at the table so be it. If they are good people and good investors the club will get a long term benefit as their investment will continue to come in. 

Where I do agree is that the supporters have to continue to have an active part to play and have the ability to maintain their shareholding % at a healthy level, north of 20% for sure. What that level is I would guess would be down to any deal any new investor wishes to make. 
 

The story about the Rawlins using an option they had to buy more shares Zbairn has been pushing confused me as well, it really does seem like a complete non story going on the information available and I’m not sure what he is trying to achieve howling at the moon on an anonymous online forum anyway, there are perfectly legitimate avenues and straightforward means he could ask the question officially. I was at the meeting you refer to also and remember it being discussed, previous to that it had also been explained at an AGM by the previous club board then I’m told it was also explained by Kenny Jamison on an FD podcast that the option the Rawlins had to extend they’re shareholding had since expired. It’s old news and isn’t going to happen so I am a bit confused as to why someone all of us sudden keeps pushing this, the question has been asked and actually answered on here but if the reply’s on here don’t suffice (which is fair enough) then maybe the poster should ask the question directly to the reps from either the patrons group or FSS, going by the transparent nature of the clubs current leadership I’m 100% certain he’ll get a full and comprehensive reply. 

Edited November 14, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[Bairn in Exile]

47 minutes ago, BPM Again said:

I even called you to tell you I was not on P&B but you keep throwing the accusation on here. Well here I am you now know who I am. 

You are well aware that the Rawlins option has lapsed. It was mentioned more than once at Patron meetings which you probably attended and as someone else on here said it was on the FD podcast that it was lapsed. 

Why are you continuing to peddle this line? If it bothers you that much why did you now ask for it in writing? Why not raise it at the AGM of a few weeks ago? 

As we have discussed privately the FSS has more than enough shares to block anything. The 25%+1 whilst important in the cosmetics of it all the reality is that the safety of this club is assured now as the FSS and Patrons can easily block anything we don’t like.

The FSS and Patrons have 4 Board members. Do you really think that if there was outside investment available that they wouldn’t consult? 

FWIW I believe that the club does need the major shareholder part of the mix to take more active interest in the club. If that means that party spending money on Rawlins and former MSG shareholding to get a seat at the table so be it. If they are good people and good investors the club will get a long term benefit as their investment will continue to come in. 

Where I do agree is that the supporters have to continue to have an active part to play and have the ability to maintain their shareholding % at a healthy level, north of 20% for sure. What that level is I would guess would be down to any deal any new investor wishes to make. 
 

 

Back for keeps BPM?

Edited November 14, 2023 by Bairn in Exile

[Bigbrbairn]

2 hours ago, Reggie Perrin said:

Don’t agree with your misogynistic theory.

FSS was set up to support the club ie the first team primarily, anything else with possible exception of academy is peripheral and a wee bit of a luxury given our current situation.

Neither do i but we know what the enlightened press can be like!

[Guest]

Went off here for my own good and can see not much has changed regarding certain topics being shouted down. Not sure why Zbairn trying to clear up the Rawlins option should attract any criticism when he’s purely trying to establish whether there is a back door for any potential investor to take advantage of. 

Also don’t know why AJ has been shot down for mentioning a potential investment rumour. If that’s true then it’s the kind of thing that these forums should be for.

As for agendas then maybe it would be better if people are more honest about who they are. Might also make them less prone to abusing others under the guise of anonymity. 
 
Anyway just to clear up some apparent confusion in the Rawlins chat. The option that passed was not the one in the resolution. Listen back from 1:03:00. There was no time limit on the resolution and it would take many more shares to buy a 45% stake than 500,000.

The option Kenny is referring to was the option to maintain their 26% once all of the new 40p shares had been bought. The club offered this to them and when they weren’t interested they divided them between the ringfenced shares for the Patrons and FSS. The shares that they would need to get to 45% would be 50p shares that would need to be issued to them and would require over £1.3m worth of shares to get to 45%. 

As the 45% option was made on a resolution, I can only presume that it has to be removed by a similar resolution however none has been made yet.

As far as I can tell the 45% option still exists. If you have any evidence as to it not then I genuinely would be relieved to see it. 

If you were having a pop at ZBairn for putting out misinformation then at least have the humility to admit that what Kenny talked about on Falkirk Daft was not the 45% option. 
 

 

Edited November 14, 2023 by Dave McInally

[BPM Again]

28 minutes ago, Bairn in Exile said:

 

Back for keeps BPM?

See how it goes.

[BPM Again]

24 minutes ago, Dave McInally said:

Went off here for my own good and can see not much has changed regarding certain topics being shouted down. Not sure why Zbairn trying to clear up the Rawlins option should attract any criticism when he’s purely trying to establish whether there is a back door for any potential investor to take advantage of. 

Also don’t know why AJ has been shot down for mentioning a potential investment rumour. If that’s true then it’s the kind of thing that these forums should be for.

As for agendas then maybe it would be better if people are more honest about who they are. Might also make them less prone to abusing others under the guise of anonymity. 
 
Anyway just to clear up some apparent confusion in the Rawlins chat. The option that passed was not the one in the resolution. Listen back from 1:03:00. There was no time limit on the resolution and it would take many more shares to buy a 45% stake than 500,000.

The option Kenny is referring to was the option to maintain their 26% once all of the new 40p shares had been bought. The club offered this to them and when they weren’t interested they divided them between the ringfenced shares for the Patrons and FSS. The shares that they would need to get to 45% would be 50p shares that would need to be issued to them and would require over 1.3m shares to get to 45%. 

As the 45% option was made on a resolution, I can only presume that it has to be removed by a similar resolution however none has been made yet.

As far as I can tell the 45% option still exists. If you have any evidence as to it not then I genuinely would be relieved to see it. 

If you were having a pop at ZBairn for putting out misinformation then at least have the humility to admit that what Kenny talked about on Falkirk Daft was not the 45% option. 
 

 

How can Rawlins have an option to buy shares when they are all sold? Surely he must have waived his option or the time on them ran out for the club to be able to sell elsewhere?
Anyway I repeat it was discussed at a Patron meeting and we were told his option had lapsed as he had a time limit to take this up. 

Edited November 14, 2023 by BPM Again

[Blame Me]

22 minutes ago, Dave McInally said:

Also don’t know why AJ has been shot down for mentioning a potential investment rumour. If that’s true then it’s the kind of thing that these forums should be for.

I'm all for transparency @Dave McInally - I might even follow your lead and "out" myself - but when I derided AJ's post it was because it seems far-fetched. 

Martin Rennie's tenure was an unmitigated disaster and to suggest him in any credible role going forward was bound to draw scepticism.

Couple that with SA and MR's previous "due-diligence" which ended in farce and you can see why "ITK" and "local-businessman" rumours got short shrift. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, BPM Again said:

How can Rawlins have an option to buy shares when they are all sold? Surely he must have waived is option or the time on them ran out for the club to be able to sell elsewhere. 
Anyway I repeat it was discussed at a Patron meeting and we were told his option had lapsed as he had a time limit to take this up. 

They have an option to gain 45% with the club issuing them new shares at 50p each. This is what ZBairn shared. How else would you interpret it?

Really don’t understand how can you be so matter of fact to ZBairn but not be aware of the mechanisms of that option. I tried it clear this up with you last time we spoke on FB messenger but you didn’t reply. 

As I said, I am genuinely curious to have it put to rest but there has been a bit of misinformation regarding what was said regarding this specific option. 

The January deadline was for maintaining 26% buying 500,000 of the 40p shares which would have just been under what is required to take them back to 26% when all of those shares were bought. 

Obviously I am not a Patron however I do know that when the deadline was passed they split the shares ringfenced for the Rawlins to the FSS and Patrons. 

Is it possible you were getting mixed up and can you least admit they weren’t referencing the 45% option on Falkirk Daft?

[BPM Again]

6 minutes ago, Dave McInally said:

They have an option to gain 45% with the club issuing them new shares at 50p each. This is what ZBairn shared. How else would you interpret it?

Really don’t understand how can you be so matter of fact to ZBairn but not be aware of the mechanisms of that option. I tried it clear this up with you last time we spoke on FB messenger but you didn’t reply. 

As I said, I am genuinely curious to have it put to rest but there has been a bit of misinformation regarding what was said regarding this specific option. 

The January deadline was for maintaining 26% buying 500,000 of the 40p shares which would have just been under what is required to take them back to 26% when all of those shares were bought. 

Obviously I am not a Patron however I do know that when the deadline was passed they split the shares ringfenced for the Rawlins to the FSS and Patrons. 

Is it possible you were getting mixed up and can you least admit they weren’t referencing the 45% option on Falkirk Daft?

It is that long ago I don’t remember exactly when the option was up. Pretty sure it was the Christmas just after the new board arrived but I may have that wrong. Deans rambled on about it too. Categorically the Patron were told the option had lapsed. 

[Bigbrbairn]

My much preferred option is total fan ownership but if an outside investor with clout wants to come in and work with us without hidden motives then i would support that if it helps the club sustainability. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BPM Again said:

It is that long ago I don’t remember exactly when the option was up. Pretty sure it was the Christmas just after the new board arrived but I may have that wrong. Deans rambled on about it too. Categorically the Patron were told the option had lapsed. 

If you can’t remember then how can you be so sure to say categorically, particularly if you were unaware the Rawlins option meant they would get new shares issued if they took it up? 

I’ve spoken to a couple of Patrons and neither of them can say for certain that it wasn’t the option to maintain 26% that they were discussing. 

Again, can you agree that was what was being discussed on FD to which was only recently informed as incorrectly discussing the 45% option? 
 

Edited November 14, 2023 by Dave McInally

[Bairney The Dinosaur]

28 minutes ago, Dave McInally said:

As I said, I am genuinely curious to have it put to rest

Don't think you'll get that on P&B.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Bairney The Dinosaur said:

Don't think you'll get that on P&B.

I doubt that either but there have been several purporting to do exactly that to ZBairn with some information that is incorrect. 

[BPM Again]

22 minutes ago, Dave McInally said:

If you can’t remember then how can you be so sure to say categorically, particularly if you were unaware the Rawlins option meant they would get new shares issues if they took it up? 

I’ve spoken to a couple of Patrons and neither of them can say for certain that it wasn’t the option to maintain 26% that they were discussing. 

Again, can you agree that was what was being discussed on FD to which was only recently informed as incorrectly discussing the 45% option? 
 

I didn’t bring FD podcast up. Someone else did. I merely referenced it 

[Guest]

Just now, BPM Again said:

I didn’t bring FD podcast up. Someone else did. I merely referenced it 

 

2 hours ago, BPM Again said:

and as someone else on here said it was on the FD podcast that it was lapsed. 
 

Doesn’t matter who brought it up but you supported it as a fact so why not at least say it wasn’t cleared up on Falkirk Daft? Then hopefully we can get to the bottom of  whether it does still exist as an option. 

[BPM Again]

13 minutes ago, Dave McInally said:

 

Doesn’t matter who brought it up but you supported it as a fact so why not at least say it wasn’t cleared up on Falkirk Daft? Then hopefully we can get to the bottom of  whether it does still exist as an option. 

It has lapsed. You know Kenny and Keith well enough to ask them. 

[One off poster]

6 hours ago, Harry Kinnear said:

I’d have no issue with this, once we are out of League One. At the moment for me all of our resources from the FSS have to be focused on that. Just a personal opinion but the first team getting higher up the food chain would bring benefits for the women’s team, academy etc etc.

 

2 hours ago, Reggie Perrin said:

Certainly agree with the principle of FSS supporting the women’s team but at the moment every penny is needed for the first team.

 

2 hours ago, LatapyBairn. said:

On the woman’s team I agree with the posters suggesting right at this moment all FSS funds are needed for the first team and at a push the academy, when we get out of this division it will kick the club on in a business sense as well. We’ll be in a far better situation to invest in things like woman’s football if we can ensure the success on the park happens first. ….. (Also welcome back from your wee holiday BPM, see your back with a bang! Lol) 

Mens first team.

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, BPM Again said:

It has lapsed. You know Kenny and Keith well enough to ask them. 

Sure they have other things on their plate so why I was hoping you would clear it up. You’re the only patron I know with this conviction. The others can’t remember that specifically and can only find reference to the 26% in any correspondence.

I would have thought that as it exists as a resolution it would require another resolution to remove it considering it had no apparent time limit. 

Will give up asking you to admit that the FD comments regarding the 26% were wrong though as seems you don’t want to suggest you could be mistaken. 

Edited November 14, 2023 by Dave McInally

[Double t]

5 hours ago, Zbairn said:

It’s been a long time coming, but women’s football is gaining in popularity with many more girls being actively involved. 
 

We can now see other clubs taking an interest in amalgamating the women’s team into club structures. It’s been happening for a good wee while in other countries and now starting here. If we keep our ladies team at arms length then there is a good chance we will fall behind the competition.

Time to change. There will be sponsorship out there to help finance, who have no interest in the man’s game, but possibly interested in the Women’s. We just need to go out and find it.

in terms of the FSS, my opinion only……but now that the shares are all gone, a small % of the monthly subs would go a long way for the Women’s team and should be supported by the FSS committee.

I like the idea but I may be wrong but I think the women's team come under the foundation and not the club. The main sponsor of the foundation teams is YES but the teams are allowed to go out and find other sponsors to help get away kits etc.

[BPM Again]

1 hour ago, Dave McInally said:

Sure they have other things on their plate so why I was hoping you would clear it up. You’re the only patron I know with this conviction. The others can’t remember that specifically and can only find reference to the 26% in any correspondence.

I would have thought that as it exists as a resolution it would require another resolution to remove it considering it had no apparent time limit. 

Will give up asking you to admit that the FD comments regarding the 26% were wrong though as seems you don’t want to suggest you could be mistaken. 

I will be wrong then? This is the position because I took it on myself to go check.

The Rawlins option was the 500k shares which have since been sold to PG and FSS. The shares all now gone and are now held by PG and FSS. The FSS wouldn’t be near 25% if they hadn’t received the bulk of those 500k shares. 

Edited November 14, 2023 by BPM Again