The Falkirk FC Thread

[SteveB1961]

3 minutes ago, bairn88 said:

The main difference being we now have a 400 strong (and growing) fan group who now get to anonymously vote who 2 board members are. It will never be as bad as the old pals act, because of this fact. In many ways, we now get the board we deserve, as fans need only pledge the fairly small amount of £10 a month to have a meaningful say.

Hi,

 

Completely correct and don't disagree with that at all. The issue is 100% clarity and disclosure. There is no reason not to disclose it in the ballot.

 

Also to be clear, I'm compeltely behind the FSS - all I want is it's integrity to be protected at this early stage and for full transparency.

Edited March 12, 2022 by SteveB1961

[Dawson Park Boy]

19 minutes ago, SteveB1961 said:

Never posted here before but long time lurker. With the FSS AGM on monday, I’m a bit concerned where this is all heading, and had not realised (possibly missed this previously?) that the current FSS representative is a Patron and also one of the new prospective FSS board representatives is also a patron (but for some reason, this was not mentioned on the ballot, which was a bit of a kick in the teeth when I saw this on the old patrons announcement on the official website, AFTER voting). It is my understanding that the patrons group, quite rightly so, has two board positions as things stand. As far as I am aware, the FSS and patrons group are separate, but I am sure many if not all patrons will be members of the FSS. In reality, we could end up with 4 patrons having board positions and no truly independent representation of the FSS.

On the 21st of November 2021, this statement was published on the FSS website the following:

“The club will also announce exciting news about how all supporters can help increase fan ownership and participate in the democratic governance of the club. Working with the Patrons Group, the Falkirk Supporters Society aims to bring about balanced ownership, where no single group has an overall majority and decisions must be made by collaboration and consensus.”

Again, I completely understand that the groups will work together and have overlap. However, the patrons views are already on the board. I cannot understand how having potentially another two patron members, also representing the FSS, can be truly independent. This feels like it’s starting to follow a similar pattern with the Deans regime; hiring pals and people they know (which to be fair, was a much, much bigger deal than this is). To be clear, I’m absolutely not against more patron board members – they have made a huge financial contribution to the club and should have a major say. Maybe an overreaction and not that important, but it just feels a little misleading to have FSS board members also being patrons, without that being made very clear.

The thing is, there was nothing to stop any number of non-patron FSS members putting themselves forward for election.

Where are those people?

That’s democracy!

[SteveB1961]

Just now, Dawson Park Boy said:

The thing is, there was nothing to stop any number of non-patron FSS members putting themselves forward for election.

Where are those people?

That’s democracy!

All true again and I imagine there are limited personel, but misses the issue - transparency.

[bairn88]

I do wonder if, in the future, we will implement a rule that no one who wants to represent FSS is also a patron. Obvious pro and con to this is -

Pro - Balance. Far cleaner having 2 pure FSS members than 2 guys who could be accused of being unbiased, given they’re patrons and potentially know the other 2 patron board members fairly closely 

Con - Potentially missing out on 2 guys who would’ve done a good job as FSS board representatives. Maybe they’re a better fit than 2 guys who FSS have put forward that year who aren’t patrons. 

[SteveB1961]

4 minutes ago, bairn88 said:

I do wonder if, in the future, we will implement a rule that no one who wants to represent FSS is also a patron. Obvious pro and con to this is -

Pro - Balance. Far cleaner having 2 pure FSS members than 2 guys who could be accused of being unbiased, given they’re patrons and potentially know the other 2 patron board members fairly closely 

Con - Potentially missing out on 2 guys who would’ve done a good job as FSS board representatives. Maybe they’re a better fit than 2 guys who FSS have put forward that year who aren’t patrons. 

It might well be, but even then I don't know if it's needed to go that far. You're absolutely right and as Dawson Park Boy said, it could be due to limited personel and we would risk missing out on excellent people. I just think you shouldn't have to dig through old website posts to find what is very relevant information.

[LatapyBairn.]

10 minutes ago, bairn88 said:

I do wonder if, in the future, we will implement a rule that no one who wants to represent FSS is also a patron. Obvious pro and con to this is -

Pro - Balance. Far cleaner having 2 pure FSS members than 2 guys who could be accused of being unbiased, given they’re patrons and potentially know the other 2 patron board members fairly closely 

Con - Potentially missing out on 2 guys who would’ve done a good job as FSS board representatives. Maybe they’re a better fit than 2 guys who FSS have put forward that year who aren’t patrons. 

I have absolutely no issue with a fan being a paid up member of both groups and standing for election, in fact I’d actually see it as a bonus somebody is prepared to stump up and pay into both the FSS while also contributing a minimum  10k to the club via the patrons group. I think it shows a level of commitment , as long as the elections are democratic then members of the FSS  (myself included) should be allowed to vote for which ever candidate they want, patron or non patron. Please remember any member can put themselves forward for these positions and it appears we only had two willing to do so in this case, I don’t think we should be excluding any well meaning fan prepared to both invest cash and also put themselves forward for potential election. We could miss out on a potentially talented and willing candidate not being able to stand if we start to narrow the pool we can chose from.  

Edited March 12, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[HopeStreetWalker]

15 hours ago, LatapyBairn. said:

No, the seats, ground story and pitch doesn’t cost the club a penny. It’s the facilities on the internal of the main stand the club pay to use. Over and above this we pay SA rent for the south stand. 

FFC own the seats but not the grandstand they sit on.

FFC own the pitch but not ground it sits on.

The grandstand and the ground are council property and that is what FFC pays the council for every year call it a lease or rent whatever its all the same with the same outcome. FFC sends them a nice fat cheque every year.

Have you ever seen a more contrived, complicated shared ownership farce in your life. The club were stitched up like a kipper by the council and they know it.

The long term aim should be to buy outright the stadium and surrounding land and become the sole owner. Then sort out all the wrong in the design like roofs that keep the weather out.

Until that is done the fans should look on it with no more affinity and affection than a rented premises.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SteveB1961 said:

Never posted here before but long time lurker. With the FSS AGM on monday, I’m a bit concerned where this is all heading, and had not realised (possibly missed this previously?) that the current FSS representative is a Patron and also one of the new prospective FSS board representatives is also a patron (but for some reason, this was not mentioned on the ballot, which was a bit of a kick in the teeth when I saw this on the old patrons announcement on the official website, AFTER voting). It is my understanding that the patrons group, quite rightly so, has two board positions as things stand. As far as I am aware, the FSS and patrons group are separate, but I am sure many if not all patrons will be members of the FSS. In reality, we could end up with 4 patrons having board positions and no truly independent representation of the FSS.

On the 21st of November 2021, this statement was published on the FSS website the following:

“The club will also announce exciting news about how all supporters can help increase fan ownership and participate in the democratic governance of the club. Working with the Patrons Group, the Falkirk Supporters Society aims to bring about balanced ownership, where no single group has an overall majority and decisions must be made by collaboration and consensus.”

Again, I completely understand that the groups will work together and have overlap. However, the patrons views are already on the board. I cannot understand how having potentially another two patron members, also representing the FSS, can be truly independent. This feels like it’s starting to follow a similar pattern with the Deans regime; hiring pals and people they know (which to be fair, was a much, much bigger deal than this is). To be clear, I’m absolutely not against more patron board members – they have made a huge financial contribution to the club and should have a major say. Maybe an overreaction and not that important, but it just feels a little misleading to have FSS board members also being patrons, without that being made very clear.

It is temporary till the end of the season is it not? Why don’t you stand yourself if you feel you have something to offer and the time to help? Or if not wishing to stand for the Board put yourself forward for the FSS committee.  

The members can only elect who puts themselves forward. I really wish people we stop looking for division or try and create tension that is just not there. It seems the Patrons reps and FSS are working well together. Give it sometime to settle down. 

Edited March 12, 2022 by Back Post Misses

[bairn88]

5 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

It is temporary till the end of the season is it not? Why don’t you stand yourself if you feel you have something to offer and the time to help? Or if not wishing to stand for the Board put yourself forward for the FSS committee.  

The members can only elect who puts themselves forward. I really wish people we stop looking for division or try and create tension that is just not there. It seems the Patrons reps and FSS are working well together. Give it sometime to settle down. 

I think he was seeking clarity and it is definitely worth the debate. As you said this is all very new so questions should be asked and deserve fair answers. 

[SteveB1961]

1 minute ago, Back Post Misses said:

It is temporary till the end of the season. Why don’t you stand yourself if you feel you have something to offer and the time to help? Or if not wishing to stand for the Board put yourself forward for the FSS committee.  

The members can only elect who puts themselves forward. I really wish people we stop looking for division or try and create tension that is just not there. It seems the Patrons reps and FSS are working well together. Give it sometime to settle down. 

I do not have the skills required to do so and would not pretend that I do. I'm genuinley 100% not looking for division and I do not want it to be taken in that way (although I can understand why it would seem that way) - I've raised the issue, and again apologies for repeating myself, of transparency.

 

A summary - a candidate was a patron and did not disclose it. That's the main issue I have and it can appear to be misleading. I fully support the patrons and very much hope they get more say on the board. Patrons running for FSS positions is not ideal (perhaps my original post was harsher than I intended on this front), but not the end of the world and in reality probably not a huge issue. It is a democratic decision and the facts should be easily available.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, SteveB1961 said:

I do not have the skills required to do so and would not pretend that I do. I'm genuinley 100% not looking for division and I do not want it to be taken in that way (although I can understand why it would seem that way) - I've raised the issue, and again apologies for repeating myself, of transparency.

 

A summary - a candidate was a patron and did not disclose it. That's the main issue I have and it can appear to be misleading. I fully support the patrons and very much hope they get more say on the board. Patrons running for FSS positions is not ideal (perhaps my original post was harsher than I intended on this front), but not the end of the world and in reality probably not a huge issue. It is a democratic decision and the facts should be easily available.

TBF if anyone wanted to do any homework on the Candidates they would know that one was a Patron as the names were in a club announcement 2/3 months ago. 

[SteveB1961]

Just now, Back Post Misses said:

TBF if anyone wanted to do any homework on the Candidates they would know that one was a Patron as the names were in a club announcement 2/3 months ago. 

TBF there is no reason to not disclose it. You should not have to go to an archived page on the Falkirk FC website to find a patrons post for a FSS election.

[PedroMoutinho]

1 hour ago, SteveB1961 said:

Never posted here before but long time lurker. With the FSS AGM on monday, I’m a bit concerned where this is all heading, and had not realised (possibly missed this previously?) that the current FSS representative is a Patron and also one of the new prospective FSS board representatives is also a patron (but for some reason, this was not mentioned on the ballot, which was a bit of a kick in the teeth when I saw this on the old patrons announcement on the official website, AFTER voting). It is my understanding that the patrons group, quite rightly so, has two board positions as things stand. As far as I am aware, the FSS and patrons group are separate, but I am sure many if not all patrons will be members of the FSS. In reality, we could end up with 4 patrons having board positions and no truly independent representation of the FSS.

On the 21st of November 2021, this statement was published on the FSS website the following:

“The club will also announce exciting news about how all supporters can help increase fan ownership and participate in the democratic governance of the club. Working with the Patrons Group, the Falkirk Supporters Society aims to bring about balanced ownership, where no single group has an overall majority and decisions must be made by collaboration and consensus.”

Again, I completely understand that the groups will work together and have overlap. However, the patrons views are already on the board. I cannot understand how having potentially another two patron members, also representing the FSS, can be truly independent. This feels like it’s starting to follow a similar pattern with the Deans regime; hiring pals and people they know (which to be fair, was a much, much bigger deal than this is). To be clear, I’m absolutely not against more patron board members – they have made a huge financial contribution to the club and should have a major say. Maybe an overreaction and not that important, but it just feels a little misleading to have FSS board members also being patrons, without that being made very clear.

I agree- from a governance perspective, it’s totally inappropriate imo to have directors who are technically representing one organisation while those same directors are themselves members of another organisation which also has board representation. 

It’s not a balanced structure at all and there is huge potential for conflict of interest. Even with the best of intentions, how on earth can an FSS director be considered an independent representative of of one ‘stool’ of the ownership structure when they’ve paid minimum £10k to be a member of another?

We were sold the new structure as a ‘three legged stool’ approach with no one group having overall control, but this can’t be the case if members of one group have total control of the board of directors.

[LatapyBairn.]

15 minutes ago, SteveB1961 said:

TBF there is no reason to not disclose it. You should not have to go to an archived page on the Falkirk FC website to find a patrons post for a FSS election.

Why would you have an issue with somebody from both groups standing for election? Remember these people aren’t just handed the position, they need to be democratically elected by the fans. (as I said previously I actually see it as a plus point as it shows a level of commitment from the candidate investing in both fans groups)  Surely it’s up to the FSS members to elect whoever they want? I don’t think we should exclude anybody from putting themselves forward helping ensure we have the best possible candidates to vote for, it would appear it’s hard enough to find suitable people as it is with only two putting themselves forward. 

Edited March 12, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[LatapyBairn.]

22 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

I agree- from a governance perspective, it’s totally inappropriate imo to have directors who are technically representing one organisation while those same directors are themselves members of another organisation which also has board representation. 

It’s not a balanced structure at all and there is huge potential for conflict of interest. Even with the best of intentions, how on earth can an FSS director be considered an independent representative of of one ‘stool’ of the ownership structure when they’ve paid minimum £10k to be a member of another?

We were sold the new structure as a ‘three legged stool’ approach with no one group having overall control, but this can’t be the case if members of one group have total control of the board of directors.

Again, I don’t see the issue here. It’s making something out of nothing, if fans and members for some reason don’t want a person/candidate investing in both groups(personally I have no issue) they don’t have to vote for that candidate. It’s pretty simple, the fans will get the representation they democratically vote for. The model the club now has is something that’s been needed for a long long time.

Edited March 12, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[SteveB1961]

Just now, LatapyBairn. said:

Why would you have an issue with somebody from both groups standing for election? (as I said previously I actually see it as a plus point as it shows a level of commitment from the candidate investing in both fans groups)  Surely it’s up to the FSS members to elect whoever they want? I don’t think we should exclude anybody from putting themselves forward to ensure we have the best possible candidates to vote for, it would appear it’s hard enough to find suitable people as it is with only two putting themselves forward. 

Why would you have an issue with somebody from both groups standing for election? -I don't believe this is the biggest overall issue and there will be overlap. The organisations for all intensive purposes, as far as I'm aware are separate. If they aren't, then this not clear and should be made so.  Of course, you can be a patron and be FSS member. And indeed, Patron FSS members have to be represented as well. I worry that it is impossible to be truly impartial when there are specific Patron board positions, but also "FSS" positions. Clearly, this is not an issue and will in all probablity, may not be, but should there ever be any opposing views, one organisation would be unequally represented. That's all hypothetical and so far I'm very impressed with everything the FSS and patrons have acheievd. I don't think this is the main issue although is something to bear in mind.

 

Surely it’s up to the FSS members to elect whoever they want? I don’t think we should exclude anybody from putting themselves forward to ensure we have the best possible candidates to vote for - You're absolutely right, people should rightly vote for whoever the want and indeed anyone should be able to volunteer themselves. As I've said repeatedly, people should be able to vote with all of the relevant information. In my opnion, being a patron is pretty relevant and this was not disclosed. This is my main issue.

 

[LatapyBairn.]

1 minute ago, SteveB1961 said:

Why would you have an issue with somebody from both groups standing for election? -I don't believe this is the biggest overall issue and there will be overlap. The organisations for all intensive purposes, as far as I'm aware are separate. If they aren't, then this not clear and should be made so.  Of course, you can be a patron and be FSS member. And indeed, Patron FSS members have to be represented as well. I worry that it is impossible to be truly impartial when there are specific Patron board positions, but also "FSS" positions. Clearly, this is not an issue and will in all probablity, may not be, but should there ever be any opposing views, one organisation would be unequally represented. That's all hypothetical and so far I'm very impressed with everything the FSS and patrons have acheievd. I don't think this is the main issue although is something to bear in mind.

 

Surely it’s up to the FSS members to elect whoever they want? I don’t think we should exclude anybody from putting themselves forward to ensure we have the best possible candidates to vote for - You're absolutely right, people should rightly vote for whoever the want and indeed anyone should be able to volunteer themselves. As I've said repeatedly, people should be able to vote with all of the relevant information. In my opnion, being a patron is pretty relevant and this was not disclosed. This is my main issue.

 

Think I’ve misunderstood, so provided a potential candidate makes clear they have invested in both groups(it was never a secret in this instance, the information is out there for public consumption) you have no issue with them standing for election? I think that’s fair enough in that case and will most likely be taken on board come the permanent elections at the end of the season. 

[Proudtobeabairn]

Remember the days when everyone was up in arms because the Rawlins were having a say despite only investing "the price of a new build in Larbert"?  

Now we have a board who each have invested the cost of a new patio in that new build garden (or less in any non patron FSS case). 

Of course it doesn't matter how deep your pockets are to have the capability to run the club well.  Some early mistakes made (including the almost catastrophic one) but the new guys deserve time to prove whether they're capable or not. 

The FSS appointments are temporary.  I voted but not knowing either it was 50/50 really.  If I'd known one was a patron I'd probably have voted for the other for nothing other than balance.  

[SteveB1961]

10 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Think I’ve misunderstood, so provided a potential candidate makes clear they have invested in both groups(it was never a secret in this instance, the information is out there for public consumption) you have no issue with them standing for election? I think that’s fair enough in that case and will most likely be taken on board come the permanent elections at the end of the season. 

I think in ideal world the organsiations would be completely indepdently represented, but that is unrealistic and you would miss out on excellent people with lots of skills. In that case, no, I don't have any particular issues with someone running who is a patron. However, that information must be easily available at the time of voting and finding an old official webiste post with a list of names from 3 months ago is not an acceptable substitute. In my case, I came across this after the fact by chance. I had not assumed that any candidate would have been a patron (maybe that was a mistake on my part).

Take home: Democractic decisions + full transparency required = the best for the club

Edited March 12, 2022 by SteveB1961

[Guest Ecosse83]

1 hour ago, Back Post Misses said:

It is temporary till the end of the season is it not? Why don’t you stand yourself if you feel you have something to offer and the time to help? Or if not wishing to stand for the Board put yourself forward for the FSS committee.  

The members can only elect who puts themselves forward. I really wish people we stop looking for division or try and create tension that is just not there. It seems the Patrons reps and FSS are working well together. Give it sometime to settle down. 

Really not allowed to question anything at all now are we?