Jump to content

The Falkirk FC Thread


Recommended Posts

Guest Back Post Misses
Just now, Jimmy1876 said:

Yeah for the operating loss. But this operating loss was based on a budget that included a planned income which was 600k higher in revenue than what was made last season. 

As in last year our income was 1.2million, spending was 2.2million. this year the planned income is 1.8 million (600k more than last year) with a spending budget of 2.2 million. Meaning we need to increase revenue by 600k on last year (which was on target as t date of podcast) and additionally cover the operating loss of 400k. 

That's what I wrote immediately after the podcast so please correct if that is wrong.

The cash gap, which is all that really matters, is/was 400k 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Trump said:


Definitely isn’t good enough if to win a league, but couldn’t care less as long as we get promoted out of this hellhole, which is still more than possible.

I think it’s no more than possible. It certainly isn’t probable. I am sure the bookies wouldn’t have us anywhere close to being odds on to be promoted this season. At a guess, I would reckon we’d be something like 4/1 at best, but in truth, probably longer than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Over and above that gates have been above the average budgeted for and we progressed in the league cup also. The figure I’m guessing is still roughly 400k (this was the figure quoted only last month so that’ll be the correct number I presume!) which hopefully they’ve been able to raise via the means indicated in the podcast. (Soft loans from shareholders, new investment, increased investment from patrons and FSS, share buy back scheme.) We will get an update at the AGM how the fund raising has progressed and I’m sure all fans are hoping for good news on that front! 

The extra cash was given to mcglynn on the understanding that it would be recouped by moving players on. That has never happened. Supposedly mcglynn didn't want to upset the morale in the camp by doing that which has unfortunately left us with a bigger  hole in the budget and still too much of last year's strugglers in the squad even though he's got more out of the majority of them.

Edited by Shodwall cat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

The cash gap, which is all that really matters, is/was 400k 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bairn88 said:

Did enjoy the Falkirk tv co commentator screaming whos that tae when Nesbitt did his usual in the first half 

And Lewis's it's neither a cross or shot he was aiming for the top right hand corner. Well if he was trying to cross it into the top right hand corner I'd be surprised.😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:

The extra cash was given to mcglynn on the understanding that it would be recouped by moving players on. That has never happened. Supposedly mcglynn didn't want to upset the morale in the camp by doing that which has unfortunately left us with a bigger  hole in the budget and still too much of last year's strugglers in the squad even though he's got more out of the majority of them.

That may have been the case but some money has obviously been made up else where as I explained, the cash gap is 400k as was stated only weeks ago! 

Edited by LatapyBairn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

The money has obviously been made up else where as I explained, the cash gap is 400k as was stated only weeks ago! 

Then perhaps they've had to use any increased cash brought in to cover that instead and get us back to the stated 400k. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes 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.

My understanding was that a large part of the gap would be covered by soft loans from Martin Ritchie and Sandy Alexander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

My understanding was that a large part of the gap would be covered by soft loans from Martin Ritchie and Sandy Alexander.

When was this announced? They said on the podcast they were due to meet with them regarding potential soft loans but that was in amongst a raft of other measures, I presumed we wouldn’t find out the finalised detail until the AGM. 

Edited by LatapyBairn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

When was this announced? They said on the podcast they were due to meet with them regarding potential soft loans but that was in amongst a raft of other measures, I presumed we wouldn’t find out the finalised detail until the AGM. 

It hasn’t been announced anywhere as far as I know. However given that one of the other measures was increasing FSS membership to 3000, which clearly we aren’t anywhere near, I would assume the soft loans have been pursued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

It hasn’t been announced anywhere as far as I know. However given that one of the other measures was increasing FSS membership to 3000, which clearly we aren’t anywhere near, I would assume the soft loans have been pursued.

They also suggested selling shareholding to new investment, additional investment via the patrons group taking a bigger shareholding and spoke about some sort of share buy back scheme over and above the soft loans and simply increasing FSS membership. The 25 season tickets made available for 10 seasons at 5k each is obviously another initiative despite it not being mentioned on the podcast, that in itself could potentially raise 125k. At I guess I’m going to presume if the 400k gap is to be closed it’ll be a combined effort rather than a heavy reliance on one initiative alone.

Edited by LatapyBairn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Have they agreed to that?

No idea but it was heavily implied in my view on the Falkirk daft podcast that soft loans from those two was the most likely route to filling the black whole.

Personally if I were those 2, I’d have doubts about committing any further sums given the past acrimony with some patrons and abuse they’ve both taken more widely.

Edited by PedroMoutinho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PedroMoutinho said:

No idea but it was heavily implied in my view on the Falkirk daft podcast that soft loans from those two was the most likely route to filling the ball whole.

Personally if I were those 2, I’d have doubts about committing any further sums given the past acrimony with some patrons and abuse they’ve both taken more widely.

Who within the patrons group has “past acrimony” with SA or MR? I wasn’t aware of this, presumed relations were good. Even if true I don’t imagine a personal issue regarding a person or persons within a larger fans group should detract from the main objective, the club is more important than any single fan or shareholder. 

Edited by LatapyBairn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Who within the patrons group has “past acrimony” with SA or MR? I wasn’t aware of this, presumed relations were good. Even if true I don’t imagine a personal issue with an individual within a larger fans group should detract from the larger objective, the club is more important than any single fan or shareholder. 

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.

Edited by PedroMoutinho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes 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.

Were SA and MR not already out of the picture by then, they’ve both been hands off for a while now? They’d diluted their shareholding’s and Rawlins had already invested placing himself and wife on the BOD as the clubs largest shareholders at the point of the NB bid. Surely any acrimony would have been with the BOD who were sitting at that point in time? The acrimony I remember was more with the Deans, Mcfarlane, Coburn BOD ect who have now all moved on. 

Edited by LatapyBairn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Were SA and MR not already out of the picture by then, they’ve both been hands off for a while now? They’d diluted their shareholding’s and Rawlins had already invested placing himself and wife on the BOD as the clubs largest shareholders at the point of the NB bid. Surely any acrimony would have been with the BOD who were sitting at that point in time? 

I think the navy blue bid was in the running when Mark Campbell was selected instead as preferred bidder (before the bod stoped talks with him).

I believe MR is on record as saying that the navy blue’s behaviour and attitude made their bid very difficult to accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

I think the navy blue bid was in the running when Mark Campbell was selected instead as preferred bidder (before the bod stoped talks with him).

I believe MR is on record as saying that the navy blue’s behaviour and attitude made their bid very difficult to accept.

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.

Edited by LatapyBairn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...