BPM Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 2 minutes ago, Disco Duck said: It may have been the plan, but was that communicated to the ordinary members? I thought it was however it is not rocket science of a group of shares are sectioned off for each leg and once they are sold they were sold. The FSS was not going to fold at that point. I thought that was pretty obvious. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 1 minute ago, LatapyBairn. said: And when the “large tranche” of shares are eventually sold what happens the? Another share issue, then they are sold so then another ……..Where does it end. I like the model as it is and if there’s to be any further share issues in the near future I’d hope it would be to encorporate a new “third leg” investor with the FSS have shares ring fenced to keep us at 25% as has already been agreed. Yes, you issue more if you need to. Why not? Because it’s a bit of admin? Otherwise those that put in their money are doing so to increase the size of the balance sheet so gives something to the other 75% shareholders for nothing. “Hope”. Whilst you can actually do something sensible to stop FSS being taken advantage of. Has anyone stated how that 25% maintenance will work? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy1876 Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Just now, BPM said: But so do the FSS members. They do all that and more with their subs. The club absolutely needs all its supporters but it also more supporters to join the FSS or donate that £10 via other means. We will get there I am sure in time. The progress has been remarkable so far As I said I don't deny FSS members put in more, that would be dim. I'm pointing out your phrasing of financial burden not being fair is unjust. Burden is proportional. And saying its unfair that non members get the benefits of a well run club is frankly wild. FSS or not if you pay to watch your team, you're entitled to have a good experience and trust your money is going into a well run club. Fan ownership or not. FSS just gives us and those interested an excellent vehicle to have more say in that running. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 11 minutes ago, BPM said: I thought it was however it is not rocket science of a group of shares are sectioned off for each leg and once they are sold they were sold. The FSS was not going to fold at that point. I thought that was pretty obvious. It’s not obvious at all. It’s taking advantage of FSS members to the benefit of the other 75% shareholders. I would have thought it “obvious” that you put in money in a supporters shareholding scheme and actually get shares in return. Edit - and if it wasn’t communicated at the outset, the scheme has been missold - unless members are given a chance to vote on what happens post-receipt of the loan. Edited February 7 by Disco Duck 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatapyBairn. Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Disco Duck said: Yes, you issue more if you need to. Why not? Because it’s a bit of admin? Otherwise those that put in their money are doing so to increase the size of the balance sheet so gives something to the other 75% shareholders for nothing. “Hope”. Whilst you can actually do something sensible to stop FSS being taken advantage of. Has anyone stated how that 25% maintenance will work? “The size of the balance sheet” ……you think any fans or shareholders look at they’re share purchase putting money into Falkirk FC as some kind of sound financial investment where we get a return or increase in our share price? It’s a football club where we as fans invest mostly on an emotional basis because we love the club and want the club to succeed, it’s not the stock exchange. Have you looked at how other fan owned clubs operate? Ones that make a success of it? Edited February 7 by LatapyBairn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 1 minute ago, LatapyBairn. said: “The size of the balance sheet” you think any of the remaining shareholders look at their share purchase as some kind of sound financial investment?! It’s a football club where fans invest more in an emotional basis because they want the club to succeed, it’s not the stock exchange. So if it doesn’t matter to the other shareholders, issue the shares. It is a limited company and basic financial sense applies. I joined for fan ownership of shares. If I just wanted to throw money to FFC I’d just buy 50/50 tickets. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyoldman Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Disco Duck said: So if it doesn’t matter to the other shareholders, issue the shares. It is a limited company and basic financial sense applies. I joined for fan ownership of shares. If I just wanted to throw money to FFC I’d just buy 50/50 tickets. Don’t see any of the other legs of the stool donating money on a monthly basis. Said it before the current monies being donated by FSS should have been a loan against future shares Edited February 7 by grumpyoldman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatapyBairn. Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Disco Duck said: So if it doesn’t matter to the other shareholders, issue the shares. It is a limited company and basic financial sense applies. I joined for fan ownership of shares. If I just wanted to throw money to FFC I’d just buy 50/50 tickets. Raise it with the FSS committee then, I’m sure if there’s an appetite for it that is voiced by enough members it’ll be looked at however I reckon most are very happy with how things are at present (steadily growing membership numbers would suggest that) and IMO your suggestion does not make much practical sense, continuous share issues would not be good for the club or at least has no obvious benefit to the club. I was always of the belief when the target shareholding was met my contributions would simply go towards running and helping the club and that’s exactly how it’s played out. I joined the supporters society to help the club first and foremost , the evidence so far is that our monthly contributions are successfully doing that. Edited February 7 by LatapyBairn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Just now, LatapyBairn. said: Raise it with the FSS then, I’m sure if there’s an appetite for it that is voiced by enough members it’ll be looked however I reckon most are very happy with how things are at present and IMO your suggestion does not make sense and would not be good for the club. I was always of the belief when the target shareholding was met my contributions would simply go towards running and helping the club and that’s exactly how it’s played out. I joined the supporters society to help the club first and foremost , the evidence so far is that our monthly contributions are successfully doing that. In what way would it “not be good for the club”? It would be entirely neutral for the club. It would be a negative for the other shareholders who get diluted - but otherwise why would they put more money in, when those that have the least to give can plug the gap? As things stand there is no incentive for larger shareholders to put more money in - don’t worry, FSS will do it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 18 minutes ago, grumpyoldman said: Don’t see any of the other legs of the stool donating money on a monthly basis. Said it before the current monies being donated by FSS should have been a loan against future shares This. And unless there is the threat of being diluted, they won’t put anything in. I like the loan idea. Interest could be rolled up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Anyway I’m off to bed. I prefer it when we have football to discuss. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatapyBairn. Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 10 hours ago, Disco Duck said: This. And unless there is the threat of being diluted, they won’t put anything in. I like the loan idea. Interest could be rolled up. I doubt anybody who has bought shares in Falkirk would care much about a share issue possibly diluting a previous share purchase, most small and medium shareholdings buying into football clubs are essentially gifts anyway. Did we not just see recently people from the PG gifting a sizeable chunk of shares to the FSS? Were those people bothered about their shareholding being diluted? If the Rawlins were concerned about this why didn’t they take up their option to buy more shares when they had it to prevent their percentage being diluted? Do you think SA or MR care much about dropping a few percentage at their ages giving their lack of recent involvement? The question is about whether there is any benefit to the club to continually dilute and issue shares, IMO there isn’t however if you feel so strongly about it contact the FSS committee and if there are enough others like you it’s a members organisation so will most likely be looked at but I do doubt there is any appetite for it amongst the wider fan base. Which ever way it’s sliced my monthly contributions will continue regardless so long as I’m content it’s helping the club which at the moment I think it is, that’s the main thing for me and I reckon for most others. What percentage shareholding he, she or they has I don’t really care about, particularly now that the FSS has security over it’s 25% and the model seems to be functioning. Edited February 8 by LatapyBairn. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 4 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said: I doubt anybody who has bought shares in Falkirk would care much regarding a share issue diluting a shareholding IMO its a bad idea 1st point - good, then issue shares to FSS in return for their money if they won’t care. 2nd point - why? You’ve said that this is a bad idea a few times but never given a reason for it. Edited February 7 by Disco Duck 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairney The Dinosaur Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 54 minutes ago, Disco Duck said: It may have been the plan, but was that communicated to the ordinary members? It had always been my understanding as well that once the shareholding was secured that FSS turned to a contribution model. I think it's quite clear though that this wasn't well communicated as you're not the first to raise it as an issue. I wasn't on the Committee at the point of the Fans Bank initiative, but I think it's fair to say that (as fantastic as it was/is) this accelerated everything and started to raise issues that would otherwise have been ironed out in the 4/5 years it would have taken to slowly accure the shareholding. The issue itself around shares is quite a complicated one. FSS has always been considered as part of the 3 legged stool, therefore to be continually issuing shares would risk the balance of the model. I get the point that all other shareholders would have access to any issued shares, but something about it just doesn't quite feel right. I much prefer the suggestion that FSS seeks a mechanism for which it can purchase it's ringfenced shareholding quickly in the event of a future share issue...much like an individual large shareholder would do. There are more mechanisms (many many more) than just the loan option available to be explored and that is a piece of work ongoing at the moment. I think everybody is looking for the same outcome for the FSS - that is a fans organisations with a shareholding that ensures that the big decisions have the supporters backing, a vehicle for which fans voice can be gathered and amplified, and the chance to help fund the Club to a stronger position. It's just that there are varying directions to get to that end point. Bumps in the road sure, but I think everything is on the right track. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyoldman Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 29 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said: I doubt anybody who has bought shares in Falkirk would care much about a share issue possibly diluting a shareholding, most small and medium shareholdings to football clubs are essentially a gift anyway. Did we not just see recently people from the PG gifting a sizeable chunk of shares to the FSS? Were those people bothered about their shareholding being diluted? If the Rawlins were concerned about this why didn’t they take up their option to buy more shares when they had it to prevent their percentage being diluted? Do you think SA or MR care much about dropping a few percentage at their ages giving their lack of recent involvement? The question is about whether there is any benefit to continually issuing shares and IMO its a bad idea however if you feel so strongly about it contact the FSS committee and if there are enough others like you it’s a members organisation so will most likely be looked at but I do doubt there is any appetite for it amongst the wider fan base. Which ever way it’s sliced my monthly contributions will continue regardless so long as I’m content it’s helping the club which at the moment I think it is, that’s the main thing for me and I reckon most others, what percentage shareholding he, she or they has I don’t really care about, particularly now that the FSS has security over it’s 25% Is it not imperative that FSS maintain their 25% shareholding in the event of any future share issue. That could take years to achieve, meanwhile FSS is just donating monthly contributions Edited February 7 by grumpyoldman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatapyBairn. Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 6 minutes ago, grumpyoldman said: Is it not imperative that FSS maintain their 25% shareholding in the event of a future share issue. That could take years to achieve, meanwhile FSS is just donating monthly contributions Of course it is. I’m told there is or will be a mechanism in place where that 25% would be ring fenced and returned to the FSS in the event any future share issue should arise. Edited February 7 by LatapyBairn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 7 minutes ago, Bairney The Dinosaur said: It had always been my understanding as well that once the shareholding was secured that FSS turned to a contribution model. I think it's quite clear though that this wasn't well communicated as you're not the first to raise it as an issue. I wasn't on the Committee at the point of the Fans Bank initiative, but I think it's fair to say that (as fantastic as it was/is) this accelerated everything and started to raise issues that would otherwise have been ironed out in the 4/5 years it would have taken to slowly accure the shareholding. The issue itself around shares is quite a complicated one. FSS has always been considered as part of the 3 legged stool, therefore to be continually issuing shares would risk the balance of the model. I get the point that all other shareholders would have access to any issued shares, but something about it just doesn't quite feel right. I much prefer the suggestion that FSS seeks a mechanism for which it can purchase it's ringfenced shareholding quickly in the event of a future share issue...much like an individual large shareholder would do. There are more mechanisms (many many more) than just the loan option available to be explored and that is a piece of work ongoing at the moment. I think everybody is looking for the same outcome for the FSS - that is a fans organisations with a shareholding that ensures that the big decisions have the supporters backing, a vehicle for which fans voice can be gathered and amplified, and the chance to help fund the Club to a stronger position. It's just that there are varying directions to get to that end point. Bumps in the road sure, but I think everything is on the right track. I can’t argue with any of your first or third para - and absolutely agree with the aims. And I’m glad that read that alternative mechanisms are being examined. I really don’t like the response of “doesn’t quite feel right” though! Anyway, I’ve made my point enough, I got repetitive about 14 posts ago. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroMoutinho Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 2 hours ago, BPM said: I am not sure if their opinion is less valid if they are not a member of FSS or helping fund the club in other ways. However what seems a bit unfair to me is that about 25% of the fanbase are carrying the bulk of the financial burden of fan ownership and those who are not doing anything thing more than the ST or even PATG are getting the same in return as those who have stepped up financially. It is difficult one because there are various reason for that which a lot can be financial restraints but in any other business people who spend more tend to get better deals/service etc To me there is far too much focus on the FSS ‘needing’ to raise a particular amount. Now that the FSS isn’t buying shares, funds raised are effectively a donation to the club. To me it makes little difference whether this additional sum is raised via FSS, ticket sales, hospitality, merchandise or sponsorship. It is all going into the same pot. To say a fan contributing £10 a month is carrying more financial burden than another buying a season ticket, strip, programme and hospitality once or twice a season is just nonsensical. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyoldman Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 15 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said: Of course it is. I’m told there is or will be a mechanism in place where that 25% would be ring fenced and returned to the FSS in the event any future share issue should arise. So how do they pay for these shares on day one so that they maintain the 25% shareholding 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyoldman Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 29 minutes ago, Bairney The Dinosaur said: It had always been my understanding as well that once the shareholding was secured that FSS turned to a contribution model. I think it's quite clear though that this wasn't well communicated as you're not the first to raise it as an issue. I wasn't on the Committee at the point of the Fans Bank initiative, but I think it's fair to say that (as fantastic as it was/is) this accelerated everything and started to raise issues that would otherwise have been ironed out in the 4/5 years it would have taken to slowly accure the shareholding. The issue itself around shares is quite a complicated one. FSS has always been considered as part of the 3 legged stool, therefore to be continually issuing shares would risk the balance of the model. I get the point that all other shareholders would have access to any issued shares, but something about it just doesn't quite feel right. I much prefer the suggestion that FSS seeks a mechanism for which it can purchase it's ringfenced shareholding quickly in the event of a future share issue...much like an individual large shareholder would do. There are more mechanisms (many many more) than just the loan option available to be explored and that is a piece of work ongoing at the moment. I think everybody is looking for the same outcome for the FSS - that is a fans organisations with a shareholding that ensures that the big decisions have the supporters backing, a vehicle for which fans voice can be gathered and amplified, and the chance to help fund the Club to a stronger position. It's just that there are varying directions to get to that end point. Bumps in the road sure, but I think everything is on the right track. Surely It only upsets the balance of the model if other shareholders don’t pony up for their shares in the new issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.