The Falkirk FC Thread

[PedroMoutinho]

2 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Wasn’t aware the NB group was even a thing back then, can only remember the BtB bid where we all pledged a monthly subscription(think it was fronted by Kenny Jamison) the Allan Gow fronted bid and the Mark Campbell bid which the club inexplicably decided to opt for of the 3 despite warnings and obvious red flags many pointed out.

You may well be correct- I can’t remember what the name of the group at that time was called but I think quite a number of people who are now patrons were involved.

[Shodwall cat]

As I've said before Kenny J was certainly very outspoken in his criticism of the majority share group and Ritchie and Alexander at a lot of the meetings etc.

[Reggie Perrin]

13 hours ago, bejazz1 said:

 

Couldn’t agree more and thought that when I read it initially. Most of us listen to McGlynn’s interview on Friday night on FTV and he tries to keep his ‘cards closed to his chest’ regarding team selection and injuries etc.
I really can’t understand what planet some of our fans are on that allows them to pass “privileged” information like that on? it beggars belief, some time it’s better to say nothing rather than coming across like a “billy bigbaws” trying to impress and show how much they are in the know. It’s just plain ridiculous.
I thought the leaks had stopped???

 

This.

I was in the cafe on Friday morning and the blinds were drawn down at about 11 because of something happening on the pitch (according to the waitress) so clearly the management want to play things very close to their chest.

Then you get some desperate to be relevant brain donor announcing the team a full day before the match!

Just ridiculous.

[PedroMoutinho]

37 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:

As I've said before Kenny J was certainly very outspoken in his criticism of the majority share group and Ritchie and Alexander at a lot of the meetings etc.

Exactly- you can understand why MR and SA would be sceptical when people who’ve publicly slated you for years then turn up cap in hand asking for hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Personally in their position I’d be looking for the right to nominate at least one director in return. That may be no bad thing mind you wrt a better balanced board.

[Reggie Perrin]

8 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

Exactly- you can understand why MR and SA would be sceptical when people who’ve publicly slated you for years then turn up cap in hand asking for hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Personally in their position I’d be looking for the right to nominate at least one director in return. That may be no bad thing mind you wrt a better balanced board.

Aye bring back someone who thought Mark Campbell was a genuine businessman.

[Guest Back Post Misses]

3 hours ago, Jimmy1876 said:

Yeah. My point in mentioning the 600k was to address the fact that McGlynns increased budget was covered by a planned increased revenue. And that the higher gate sales and sponsorship are going in to the increased revenue target, not eating away at the 400k operating loss. So only really investment from the patrons, FSS or externally can cover the 400k.

Where ever it is from and how it is structured the cashflow gap we were told was 400k. That I am sure will be smaller now, how small I am sure that AGM will tell us. 

[PedroMoutinho]

13 minutes ago, Reggie Perrin said:

Aye bring back someone who thought Mark Campbell was a genuine businessman.

The bod seem quite happy if not desperate to take money from MR and SA so if I was in their shoes I think it would be fair to expect some sort of representation in return 

[LatapyBairn.]

17 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

The bod seem quite happy if not desperate to take money from MR and SA so if I was in their shoes I think it would be fair to expect some sort of representation in return 

SA still owns more than 10% of the club entitling him to a place on the BOD, he could sit on or place somebody on the board at any time he wanted, however both him and MR have rightly taken a step back from the day to day running of the club with the rest of the former MSG moving on completely. Regardless of that I’m not sure why loaning a company money which will be re-paid (probably with interest as was done previously) would give a person a place on said company’s board. It would be different if that person was buying a significant shareholding obviously but that’s not what’s happening here. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[Guest Back Post Misses]

1 hour ago, PedroMoutinho said:

My understanding is that there is acrimony dating back to the failed navy blue group bid for a stake in the club relating to the way that was approached by the NB’s negotiating stance with them allegedly immediately demanding removal of directors etc.

Well since either MR or SA were not involved in any discussions between the club or the NB Group your understanding is utter nonsense.  In fact MR would have been delighted if a deal could have been struck. 
If you are going to post get your facts together first. 

[Guest Back Post Misses]

24 minutes ago, Reggie Perrin said:

Aye bring back someone who thought Mark Campbell was a genuine businessman.

Not convinced either MR or SA ever wanted MC anywhere near the place. 

[PedroMoutinho]

4 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

Well since either MR or SA were not involved in any discussions between the club or the NB Group your understanding is utter nonsense.  In fact MR would have been delighted if a deal could have been struck. 
If you are going to post get your facts together first. 

If you read Martin Ritchie’s book he is very critical of the way the group headed by Kenny Jamieson at the same time as the Mark Campbell bid conducted themselves. That is the group I was referring to. I believe many of those involved in that bid are now patrons, if not on the bod.

The fact is MR and SA were considered persona non grata not long ago (rightly in some eyes) yet we now have the same individuals who publicly slated then for years having to go cap in hand looking for cash.

[Guest Back Post Misses]

3 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

If you read Martin Ritchie’s book he is very critical of the way the group headed by Kenny Jamieson at the same time as the Mark Campbell bid conducted themselves. That is the group I was referring to. I believe many of those involved in that bid are now patrons, if not on the bod.

The fact is MR and SA were considered persona non grata not long ago (rightly in some eyes) yet we now have the same individuals who publicly slated then for years having to go cap in hand looking for cash.

Martin Ritchie’s book was published long before the Navy Blue Group was formed. Kenny Jamieson was not involved in the NB Group, he and David White ran Back the Bairns. Yet again your facts are incorrect other than two of the NB Group being on the Board and in total there are 7 who are Patrons. 

[PedroMoutinho]

9 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

Martin Ritchie’s book was published long before the Navy Blue Group was formed. Kenny Jamieson was not involved in the NB Group, he and David White ran Back the Bairns. Yet again your facts are incorrect other than two of the NB Group being on the Board and in total there are 7 who are Patrons. 

The back the bairns group is what I was referring to as being mentioned in the book- I couldn’t recall the exact names of the different groups that have existed over the years.

Edited November 20, 2022 by PedroMoutinho

[Guest Back Post Misses]

1 minute ago, PedroMoutinho said:

The back the bairns group is what I was referring to as being mentioned in the book- I couldn’t recall the exact names of the different groups that have existed over the years.

It would be hard to deny that there has not been conflict over the years. That, from both sides seems to have been parked for the best of the club.  From the limited conversations I have had with MR in the last year or so he and SA are supportive of what the new Board are trying to achieve. 

[FK1Bairn]

1 hour ago, Reggie Perrin said:

This.

I was in the cafe on Friday morning and the blinds were drawn down at about 11 because of something happening on the pitch (according to the waitress) so clearly the management want to play things very close to their chest.

Then you get some desperate to be relevant brain donor announcing the team a full day before the match!

Just ridiculous.

Agreed. I'm sure the blinds being down in the cafe has been a thing dating back to at least Houstie being in charge time. It's obvious to anybody why it has to be that way, for somebody to come on here the night before the match and release the starting 11 is moron behaviour 

[LatapyBairn.]

Trying to pretend there was never any animosity between various fan led organisations and the former MSG would be crazy, fans were rightly angry at how the club was being ran which ultimately led to the the loss of our youth academy and us being relegated to league one. Change had to happen and we eventually got there, it certainly feels like all parties are on the same page now(or at least they should be) and the club does appear to be starting to turn the corner, I’m relatively confident that come the AGM a package of measures will have been put in place to address the short term funding gap. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by LatapyBairn.

[Springfield]

Anyone ITK what Rawlings stance/are planning with the club. After a fairly heavy investment, all very quiet.

[brokeville]

27 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Anyone ITK what Rawlings stance/are planning with the club. After a fairly heavy investment, all very quiet.

They’ve no plans for any involvement or investment in the Club. I’d imagine they’d like to sell their shares. 

[Springfield]

11 minutes ago, brokeville said:

They’ve no plans for any involvement or investment in the Club. I’d imagine they’d like to sell their shares. 

Thanks 

[Dawson Park Boy]

The really important thing here is the AGM.

Someone mentioned December 15th but whether that is authoritative, Ive no idea.

The longer it’s delayed, the more concerned I become as to give the Accounts a clean bill of health, the Auditors will need to be convinced that the necessary funding is in place for the company to be rated ‘a going concern’.

They can, of course, qualify the Accounts but that would be a very retrograde step and would signal to creditors and the Football Authorities that things are desperate and, I would imagine we would be put on a ‘watch’ list of some sort.

I am, of course, just surmising here, but the consequences of not having the requisite financing in place are serious.