The Falkirk FC Thread

[Reggie Perrin]

6 hours ago, Bigbrbairn said:

What would happen if we got 4500 season ticket sales? It would not leave a lot for PATG

Remember that these new season ticket sales are coming from former PATG fans.

 

[ffcowboy]

1 hour ago, JS_FFC said:

That’s fine if the stadium is selling out but that’s not going to happen very often. The club would rather sell a main stand ticket for full price than get half the cost of a KM ticket. 
 

 

True, but if, for example, the young team / ultra numbers are expanding, it's likely the only place they would want to be is the KM stand. The club could pocket some extra cash they otherwise wouldn't get with the 50/50 scheme - probably should be under consideration.

[Hank von Hell]

All this talk about budgets and maximizing money in with things like reselling season tickets I got to wondering when we last sold a player for money as that used to be one of our biggest sources of income. 

According to Transfermrkt which could be wrong of course it's 2017/18 with academy graduate Tony Gallagher sold for a couple of hundred grand, how that kind of money would be welcome these days. 6 years though without any of that income is a shock. 

Hopefully with the youth set up returning again albeit slowly and cautiously after arch FFC villains Campbell & Lang stupidly & arrogantly destroyed it we may get back to selling players once more.   

 

[Harry Kinnear]

10 hours ago, gav-ffc said:

What you could do is get whoever is wanting to buy your ticket, donate what they would have paid towards FSS as a one of payment and pass on your card ( if you know them that is)

I usually just give it to family/friends but I would love it if the club could come up with a scheme. I’m going to hospitality say for a Pars game, I contact the club and they void our two seasons for that specific game and they make the tickets available for fans who have fallen on hard times and maybe can’t afford to go anymore. I don’t know how easy this would be to do though for the club.

Edited May 31 by Harry Kinnear

[gav-ffc]

1 minute ago, Harry Kinnear said:

I usually just give it to family/friends but I would love it if the club could come up with a scheme. I’m going to hospitality say for a Pars game, I contact the club and they void our two seasons for that specific game and they make the tickets available for fans who have fallen on hard times and maybe can’t afford to go anymore. I don’t know how easy this would be to do though for the club.

Think it’s something the club are looking in to. 

[Harry Kinnear]

Just now, gav-ffc said:

Think it’s something the club are looking in to. 

It would be a good idea, mind you if we are doing well in the Championship, I can think of quite a few folk that might want our tickets who don’t buy ST’s due to work commitments. Funnily enough when we were shite in the League one banter years no one was interested in them

[PedroMoutinho]

3 hours ago, Hank von Hell said:

All this talk about budgets and maximizing money in with things like reselling season tickets I got to wondering when we last sold a player for money as that used to be one of our biggest sources of income. 

According to Transfermrkt which could be wrong of course it's 2017/18 with academy graduate Tony Gallagher sold for a couple of hundred grand, how that kind of money would be welcome these days. 6 years though without any of that income is a shock. 

Hopefully with the youth set up returning again albeit slowly and cautiously after arch FFC villains Campbell & Lang stupidly & arrogantly destroyed it we may get back to selling players once more.   

 

We have a number of players currently on the squad who are or could become sellable assets, so it’s not totally reliant on having an academy.

I think the board are taking exactly the right approach on restarting the academy in a very gradual way (e.g. not having a reserve team next season). Tbh I don’t see where the hundreds of thousands to fund a setup similar to previously is going to come from until we are in the premiership.

[Div]

Seems I've been tagged in a number of posts in this thread recently so I thought I'd respond.

I'm a SMiSA member, have been from day one, so I was part of the recent vote, and like the vast majority of members I voted in support of the resolution.

So, suggesting that I've "changed my tune" because of the outcome of that vote is completely incorrect.

It's worth noting that SMiSA actually have a red line in the agreement that saw us take ownership of the majority shareholding of the club which states that our club cannot switch to an artificial pitch without the consent of SMiSA members. Source; https://www.smisa.net/buythebuds/kibble-vote

St.Mirren fans have almost universally disliked artificial pitches for the last decade. Granted, that dislike is based on the pitches we've been competing on the majority of that time, so likes of Hamilton/Livingston/Kilmarnock. I completely accept that pitches have developed since then and the likes of Falkirk's pitch, and the one at Airdrie look far better.

The use of artificial pitches in the lower leagues is completely sensible. The finances in those leagues are horrific and the use of artificial pitches both to generate additional revenue, and to reduce costs, is totally understandable.

For the record I don't buy the "artificial pitches generate more injuries" line - it makes little sense to me - and I completely agree that you get good games on astro, bad games on astro, good games on grass, bad games on grass. However...............

My view is that in the top flight of our professional game, we should be striving to be the very best we can be. I'm sure everyone would agree that football on a good grass pitch is preferable to any artificial pitch. We haven't always had good quality grass pitches in the top flight, as we saw last season, and that is an important part of the new resolution which seems to have been missed in the whole furore about banning the plastic.

This resolution aims to ensure that all top flight clubs have grass pitches that comply with a high minimum standard and that pitch consultants will be brought in to help clubs get and stay there. That means all twelve clubs, all playing on good quality grass, all competing on an even playing field if you will.

The finances in the top flight are not brilliant but they are night and day to the lower leagues. The financial penalty for failure, and the financial bounty for success, are relatively huge, so for me it makes sense to remove one of the possible complaints that clubs playing on an artificial pitch have any sort of advantage.

That might or might not be the case but is it a coincidence that much smaller clubs like Hamilton and Livingston punched miles above their weight in the top flight for many years whilst playing on plastic? Some would argue not.

So, le'ts take that away, give our best players the best possible surfaces on which to entertain in front of our biggest crowds, in our most televised league. I cannot see how that is construed as being a bad thing?

Now in terms of getting there, my own personal view is that a central pot of money needs to be set aside to be used for any club gaining promotion that need to transition to grass. I do not want the shop to be any more closed than it is. I do not want to see any club denied promotion because they cannot afford or are unwilling to switch their pitch. The league as a whole needs to ensure that the transtiion to grass is affordable, taking a leaf out of the Dutch book.

And talking of the Dutch, it's surely also worth considering the possible health issues around artificial pitches that have led to them being banned in the Netherlands top league?

 

[Harry Kinnear]

I agree with a lot of your post but Livingston playing in the top flight due to artificial pitches I don’t. They played in the top flight due to artificial something else, artificial finances i.e they are a bunch of cheating b*****ds who have never honoured a debt in their puff and have continually just spent their way to the top flight without a care for the consequences.

[Shodwall cat]

42 minutes ago, Div said:

Seems I've been tagged in a number of posts in this thread recently so I thought I'd respond.

I'm a SMiSA member, have been from day one, so I was part of the recent vote, and like the vast majority of members I voted in support of the resolution.

So, suggesting that I've "changed my tune" because of the outcome of that vote is completely incorrect.

It's worth noting that SMiSA actually have a red line in the agreement that saw us take ownership of the majority shareholding of the club which states that our club cannot switch to an artificial pitch without the consent of SMiSA members. Source; https://www.smisa.net/buythebuds/kibble-vote

St.Mirren fans have almost universally disliked artificial pitches for the last decade. Granted, that dislike is based on the pitches we've been competing on the majority of that time, so likes of Hamilton/Livingston/Kilmarnock. I completely accept that pitches have developed since then and the likes of Falkirk's pitch, and the one at Airdrie look far better.

The use of artificial pitches in the lower leagues is completely sensible. The finances in those leagues are horrific and the use of artificial pitches both to generate additional revenue, and to reduce costs, is totally understandable.

For the record I don't buy the "artificial pitches generate more injuries" line - it makes little sense to me - and I completely agree that you get good games on astro, bad games on astro, good games on grass, bad games on grass. However...............

My view is that in the top flight of our professional game, we should be striving to be the very best we can be. I'm sure everyone would agree that football on a good grass pitch is preferable to any artificial pitch. We haven't always had good quality grass pitches in the top flight, as we saw last season, and that is an important part of the new resolution which seems to have been missed in the whole furore about banning the plastic.

This resolution aims to ensure that all top flight clubs have grass pitches that comply with a high minimum standard and that pitch consultants will be brought in to help clubs get and stay there. That means all twelve clubs, all playing on good quality grass, all competing on an even playing field if you will.

The finances in the top flight are not brilliant but they are night and day to the lower leagues. The financial penalty for failure, and the financial bounty for success, are relatively huge, so for me it makes sense to remove one of the possible complaints that clubs playing on an artificial pitch have any sort of advantage.

That might or might not be the case but is it a coincidence that much smaller clubs like Hamilton and Livingston punched miles above their weight in the top flight for many years whilst playing on plastic? Some would argue not.

So, le'ts take that away, give our best players the best possible surfaces on which to entertain in front of our biggest crowds, in our most televised league. I cannot see how that is construed as being a bad thing?

Now in terms of getting there, my own personal view is that a central pot of money needs to be set aside to be used for any club gaining promotion that need to transition to grass. I do not want the shop to be any more closed than it is. I do not want to see any club denied promotion because they cannot afford or are unwilling to switch their pitch. The league as a whole needs to ensure that the transtiion to grass is affordable, taking a leaf out of the Dutch book.

And talking of the Dutch, it's surely also worth considering the possible health issues around artificial pitches that have led to them being banned in the Netherlands top league?

 

There's far more important  thjngs that could be done to improve Scottish football and how it's perceived than this though which will do very little. Why not a bigger league, why not distribute the money better instead of the top two places getting far too high a percentage of the prize money. Why not ditch the playoffs format for either one far less in favour of the top flight club or get back to two up two down.  No let's force clubs into tearing up excellent artificial pitches at great cost to the clubs and tax payer instead just to pretend that Scottish football all is better instead of doing things that would really make a big difference.

[SouthStander1876]

52 minutes ago, Div said:

 

Now in terms of getting there, my own personal view is that a central pot of money needs to be set aside to be used for any club gaining promotion that need to transition to grass. I do not want the shop to be any more closed than it is. I do not want to see any club denied promotion because they cannot afford or are unwilling to switch their pitch. The league as a whole needs to ensure that the transtiion to grass is affordable, taking a leaf out of the Dutch book.

 

 

In regards to this, I dont think many fans would be as opposed to it as we are currently if there was a central pot of money to help out, but thats not part of the proposal and it wont be.

[Div]

1 minute ago, Shodwall cat said:

There's far more important  thjngs that could be done to improve Scottish football and how it's perceived than this though which will do very little. Why not a bigger league, why not distribute the money better instead of the top two places getting far too high a percentage of the prize money. Why not ditch the playoffs format for either one far less in favour of the top flight club or get back to two up two down.  No let's force clubs into tearing up excellent artificial pitches at great cost to the clubs and tax payer instead just to pretend that Scottish football all is better instead of doing things that would really make a big difference.

I mean there's a lot to unpack in that single paragraph, which we could discuss for days, weeks, months.

Sticking to the point about artificial pitches, as I said, my own personal view is that clubs coming up who need to transition should get financial help from a central pot to do so.

 

[Shodwall cat]

And this whole proposal should be put to a vote of all the football league clubs and not just those in the top flight.  

[Shodwall cat]

Just now, Div said:

I mean there's a lot to unpack in that single paragraph, which we could discuss for days, weeks, months.

Sticking to the point about artificial pitches, as I said, my own personal view is that clubs coming up who need to transition should get financial help from a central pot to do so.

 

So will that include returning the 230k of tax payers money that will be wasted?

[Harry Kinnear]

1 minute ago, Shodwall cat said:

And this whole proposal should be put to a vote of all the football league clubs and not just those in the top flight.  

I 100% agree with this, it should be put to a vote of all clubs and not just the top 12.

[51 Bairn]

37 minutes ago, Div said:

Now in terms of getting there, my own personal view is that a central pot of money needs to be set aside to be used for any club gaining promotion that need to transition to grass. I do not want the shop to be any more closed than it is. I do not want to see any club denied promotion because they cannot afford or are unwilling to switch their pitch. The league as a whole needs to ensure that the transtiion to grass is affordable, taking a leaf out of the Dutch book.

 

@Div, appreciate you clarifying the background to the SMiSA and their recent vote. The quoted points above are exactly the frustration held by many fans of lower league clubs.
It would appear however that the SMiSA feedback is .. get Astro in the bin for the top flight and maintain the closed shop… rather than ….We believe astro has no place in the top flight, however as a fan owned club and understanding the value it brings to the wider communities and revenues to football clubs/ foundations/ local authorities, a transitional fixed value payment should be available to the promoted side(s) towards the replacement of Astro with grass.

There also need to be clear guidelines/definitions and sanctions/fines to all top flight clubs on what constitutes unacceptable grass surfaces for any game.

Can you clarify whether the points, if not addressed would result in St. Mirren voting not to ban artificial surfaces? After all we all know the resolution would be brought back to the table in a revised format for further votes, in order for them to get their way.

Ref the Dutch point you raise, surely as a fan owned club if this was a genuine concern and reason for stopping Astro in the top flight, then all first team training, academy and juvenile football and training activities should also be included in the top flight vote to ban Astro?

[NavyBlueArmy1876]

1 minute ago, Div said:

I mean there's a lot to unpack in that single paragraph, which we could discuss for days, weeks, months.

Sticking to the point about artificial pitches, as I said, my own personal view is that clubs coming up who need to transition should get financial help from a central pot to do so.

 

Whilst many of the points you've made are fair, would you still support the ban if there is no central pot of money for replacement?

Asking clubs to rip up perfectly good pitches (ours is first class and I would argue as good as any grass pitch in the country) at great expense, who as you state have installed them due to being starved of cash because of the distribution of prize money, is surely morally wrong? 

 

This is an absolute carbon copy of the 10,000 seater fiasco from 20 years ago. It will cost a huge amount of money (which let's be honest, Scottish football doesnt have a lot of) for absolutely no benefit to our game. 

My final point is that quite simply the Scottish climate is not conducive to good quality grass pitches. No 'pitch consultant' in the world is going to be able to save a game when you have a month of rainfall in 36 hours. Postponed games are what pisses sky of and makes our league look tinpot more than anything else. Under soil heating also kills grass at an alarming rate. 

As others have said, of all the battles the Premiership could have picked to try and move Scottish football forward, to go for this is absolutely pathetic 

[Harry Kinnear]

Other club fans accuse us of paranoia but I would ask when ever have the powers that be in Scottish football done anything for our benefit. We always seem to be on the wrong end of shitey decisions and anything we do get as a club is done by us fans. 

Edited May 31 by Harry Kinnear

[Div]

Just now, 51 Bairn said:

@Div, appreciate you clarifying the background to the SMiSA and their recent vote. The quoted points above are exactly the frustration held by many fans of lower league clubs.
It would appear however that the SMiSA feedback is .. get Astro in the bin for the top flight and maintain the closed shop… rather than ….We believe astro has no place in the top flight, however as a fan owned club and understanding the value it brings to the wider communities and revenues to football clubs/ foundations/ local authorities, a transitional fixed value payment should be available to the promoted side(s) towards the replacement of Astro with grass.

There also need to be clear guidelines/definitions and sanctions/fines to all top flight clubs on what constitutes unacceptable grass surfaces for any game.

Can you clarify whether the points, if not addressed would result in St. Mirren voting not to ban artificial surfaces? After all we all know the resolution would be brought back to the table in a revised format for further votes, in order for them to get their way.

Ref the Dutch point you raise, surely as a fan owned club if this was a genuine concern and reason for stopping Astro in the top flight, then all first team training, academy and juvenile football and training activities should also be included in the top flight vote to ban Astro?

 

SMiSA members were simply asked their opinion as to whether or not they supported the SPFL resolution. Yes or No.

That feedback was passed to the club board and it will be they who cast the vote on behalf of the club. As SMiSA members we were not given any further information or detail as to the resolution other than what was published by the SPFL in their press release, which was to be fair very skimpy on detail.

The SMiSA vote is not binding, it does not necessarily mean the club board will vote the same way, and it does not mean the club board won't come back to SMiSA with more information and ask the members to vote again.

I totally agree with the financial support argument, and I also agree that we need firm guidelines on what is and is not acceptable as a grass surface with penalties applied for failure to deliver those.

Per the Dutch point, again I agree. If there are genuine health and safety concerns about rubber crumb then that should be an issue to be considered at every level of the game.

 

[Div]

8 minutes ago, NavyBlueArmy1876 said:

Whilst many of the points you've made are fair, would you still support the ban if there is no central pot of money for replacement?

 

I wouldn't. No.

I don't think the resolution can be delivered without central support.