The Falkirk FC Thread

[LatapyBairn.]

9 minutes ago, grumpyoldman said:

So how do they pay for these shares on day one so that they maintain the 25% shareholding 

They don’t pay for them, they simply get them. While the remaining shares are then sold in this hypothetical share issue. 

Edited February 7 by LatapyBairn.

[grumpyoldman]

Just now, LatapyBairn. said:

They don’t pay for them, they simply get them. 

For nothing, really 

[Bairn to Believe]

As has been communicated on here multiple times and on the latest FSS newsletter - they are looking at various mechanisms to protect their share holding in the event of a share issue. This is a large chunk of work being undertaken which takes time. Like everything all options will have pros and cons. 

Bearing in mind the FSS are years ahead of where they initially projected they’d be - expectations should be tempered slightly, as said previously this acceleration has given rise to some issues which are currently being addressed - as well as everything else that is being done.

Also worth keeping in mind that had the original route (without the fan bank loan) been taken - there’d be no veto and a much lower shareholding would be currently held etc. Also saying you haven’t gotten shares back isn’t necessarily true - The FSS essentially got a load in advance due to the fan bank loan. 

My own understanding from early on was it would always turn to a subscription based model - I’m sure I have an email and it was definitely communicated at a fans forum. Fans do have additional benefits as well - there are various comps, early access and certain discounts. The main benefit though is getting a say on big decisions which will shape our club. 
 

Edited February 8 by Bairn to Believe

[BPM]

8 hours ago, PedroMoutinho said:

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.

It is not nonsensical at all. FSS members do all of those things on top of their monthly subs. 
Without FSS subs the hole is bigger so of course they contribute more. I am merely pointing that out it is a matter of fact. 
Someone pointed out earlier, correctly that fan ownership is not just the FSS. So if people have not joined how does the club encourage them to contribute a little bit more? There is about 1500 ST holders and 1500 PATG (granted some are children).
If the large shareholders bit was contributing that would help of course.  

Edited February 8 by BPM

[Bairnardo]

9 days till we play again. 

[Bairney The Dinosaur]

8 hours ago, Disco Duck said:

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.

 

8 hours ago, grumpyoldman said:

Surely It only upsets the balance of the model if other shareholders don’t pony up for their shares in the new issue.

I guess I think it just looks a bit messy...dare I say it a bit "rangersy"...to be continually issuing shares. It could actually lead to FSS rarely holding the 25% shareholding too. If a share issue had been agreed by shareholders the day after all shares had been bought, and the others 'legs of the stool' all immediately bought, then the FSS shareholding would be temporarily diluted until we 'caught up'. Then the next batch of shares is released and the whole process happens again.

No, I definitely much prefer the model where FSS has a mechanism to quickly secure their current shareholding in the event of a share issue, rather than continually issuing shares.

[LatapyBairn.]

8 hours ago, grumpyoldman said:

For nothing, really 

Not for nothing, they are given the shares upfront to secure the 25% while the monthly direct debits continue. 

[ShaggerG]

9 hours ago, PedroMoutinho said:

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.

I don't like using the word 'burden' because it's not a burden to those that are contributing to the FSS. It is, however, a commitment and it is very valuable to the club because we know how much (near enough) that is going to be raised each month. The purchase of merchandise, sponsorship etc is, of course, extremely valuable to the club too, our budget would be severely impacted without it, however, I think that if the club could magically convert all of that income into something that they knew was going to come in every month they would jump at the chance.

I also had the understanding that my subs would become donations once the share target was reached and have no problem with that at all. 

[Blame Me]

19 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

The purchase of merchandise, sponsorship etc is, of course, extremely valuable to the club too, our budget would be severely impacted without it, however, I think that if the club could magically convert all of that income into something that they knew was going to come in every month they would jump at the chance.

Been reading with interest since late last night and have attempted not to post in haste in response to BPM's original statements.

You sum it up quite succinctly yet inadvertently highlight that what the club require is a new membership based model instead of the traditional season ticket or sponsor.

Again I go back to when the ST rises were planned and suggested that the price + FSS should be announced and it was derided. However, that is exactly the position BPM argues fans should take to lessen the "burden" on the 25% who want to be members not fans, I assume.

On here it's created a two-tier fan base. May as well rename this the FSS thread since only their opinions matter.

Edited February 8 by Blame Me
Bloody there/their!!

[Latapy is god]

10 hours ago, PedroMoutinho said:

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.

Agreed with this.   Also, eventually the club is going to need additional investment.

[PedroMoutinho]

29 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

I don't like using the word 'burden' because it's not a burden to those that are contributing to the FSS. It is, however, a commitment and it is very valuable to the club because we know how much (near enough) that is going to be raised each month. The purchase of merchandise, sponsorship etc is, of course, extremely valuable to the club too, our budget would be severely impacted without it, however, I think that if the club could magically convert all of that income into something that they knew was going to come in every month they would jump at the chance.

I also had the understanding that my subs would become donations once the share target was reached and have no problem with that at all. 

I don’t see how there is any more certainty of income from the FSS than from other sources. FSS is simply a monthly donation mechanism. People could stop donating at any time- as they might for example if a managerial decision was made that they disagreed with.

The point is FSS should be seen as one income stream amongst many. I also think the idea that someone donating £10 a month to FSS is somehow morally superior to another donating the same via programmes or 50-50 tickets needs to be ditched.

[PedroMoutinho]

2 hours ago, BPM said:

It is not nonsensical at all. FSS members do all of those things on top of their monthly subs. 

Not necessarily- a hypothetical non-FSS member could easily contribute more to the club than an FSS over a season.

The point is that every fan is different and has different abilities and desires to contribute to the club. You therefore cannot say that those in the FSS are somehow superior and deserve more rights than others.

[SouthStander1876]

FSS, FSS, FSS

[Jimmy1876]

I don't remember anyone being derided for not buying the kit that season or deciding to buy PATG instead of ST in the past. They were certainly not made out to be lesser fans and guilted into taking on a bigger financial burden because its "unfair" that they get a good club with good football when they are not spending as much money as someone else.

If I wasn't an FSS member I don't think that kind of rhetoric would entice me to join knowing my current contribution was both taken for granted and undervalued. 

Edited February 8 by Jimmy1876

[Jimmy1876]

16 minutes ago, SouthStander1876 said:

FSS, FSS, FSS

Terribly repetitive isn't it. Can't wait to get back to all the formation examples and debate about Long vs Hogarth so we have something fresh to talk about

[SouthStander1876]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy1876 said:

Terribly repetitive isn't it. Can't wait to get back to all the formation examples and debate about Long vs Hogarth so we have something fresh to talk about

I suppose it's important, but jt feels like the same points getting regurgitated time and time again. I'd imagine the average FSS member is just happy putting money in because it helps the club (Myself included).

[Bairn to Believe]

The FSS has never derided anyone for not signing up. They have openly stated they understand financial constraints and that fans put in money in other forms. 
 

We all want the same - a healthy, well run club. We all contribute in some form whether it’s FSS, tickets, merchandise etc etc  

Can we drop this now

Edited February 8 by Bairn to Believe

[Jimmy1876]

2 minutes ago, Bairn to Believe said:

The FSS has never derided anyone for not signing up. They have openly stated they understand financial constraints and that fans put in money in other forms. 
 

We all want the same - a healthy, well run club. We all contribute in some form whether it’s FSS, tickets, merchandise etc etc  

Can we drop this now

Agreed, it wasnt the FSS I was referring to. FSS has had their communications on point imo.

[Bairn to Believe]

Just now, Jimmy1876 said:

Agreed, it wasnt the FSS I was referring to. FSS has had their communications on point imo.

Apologies for my misunderstanding. 

[Jimmy1876]

3 minutes ago, SouthStander1876 said:

I suppose it's important, but jt feels like the same points getting regurgitated time and time again. I'd imagine the average FSS member is just happy putting money in because it helps the club (Myself included).

I am too. But I get a bit defensive because I know people who couldn't justify an additional expense and when their contribution is devalued like it has been I get frustrated. I also can't imagine it helps recruit new people when that's the kind of rhetoric that floats about. Puts a sour taste in the mouth of non members to suggest they aren't doing enough and they are going to be less likely to join if they think that's what people who are related to the club are saying. 

Anyway I've made my points so I'll stop now so we can get back to the football.