The Falkirk FC Thread

[PedroMoutinho]

2 hours ago, CapitalDiamond said:

Well done on your win yesterday. Falkirk looking like a proper footballing team now compared to the shambles you’ve had to endure in recent seasons.

Was reading through your AGM comments (and trying to ignore the usual tribal nonsense that followed).

I dip in and out of the Falkirk Daft podcast when FSS and the club reps come on (I make an Airdrie podcast so it’s always good to see what you guys are up to).

I’ve got a lot of respect for Falkirk fans. You’ve had a shocking run of it, but as a fan base you have stuck by your team through a rotten spell. 

The one thing which intrigues me most at the moment is that there seems to be a lack of critical thought. Everything seems a bit too cozy. Your club announce a £1.2 million loss and then at the same AGM are calling the response to FSS Luke warm.

I’d be losing it if I was in your position being spoken to like that. You’ve done your bit. Is there any more militant element of the Falkirk support who just want the decks cleared? After Hearts had all the nonsense with Romanov they had to take the hit of an administration and a points deduction to get on a more solid footing from which to build.

I really like the FFS model. For Falkirk I think it’s ideal. But, are the underlying finances of the club holding you back from being able to rebuild? It feels to me like the fans who weren’t the ones who made the terrible decisions which the board have made over the years are now being asked to carry the can for them (whatever the model was which has ended up with you not owning your main stand, making a £1.2 million loss, appointing inexperienced managers, signing Griffiths, evening signing Jordan Allan for cash - I know he scored against Kelty, but I don’t think he has any impact in the Championship if you do go up.)

The downside of FFS in my opinion is they seem to be wholly aligned with the board. On the last appearance on Falkirk Daft they glibly mentioned a short fall and that “soft loans” had to be put in. What is a soft loan? does it have to be paid back? They then call out the Council as being the problem because the rent is too high. The rent may well be high, but historically you entered into a partnership to build what looks a very high spec main stand (ours is all brick and galvanised steel where as the back of yours looks like a spaceship) and the rent is probably the clawing back of the Council’s initial investment/the result of deals done by previous boards down the years.

There are people on here saying that Falkirk don’t have any debt. Is that true after all these loss making years? I’m assuming that you didn’t have £1.2 million in the coffers to cover last year (or the £600k the year before or the £400k for this year) and so someone should be asking how you ensure long term viability rather than a room full of people nodding that the fans need to pay more under Option 4.

Option 5 might be that “Falkirk Forever” is about understanding how bad the financial predicament really is just now? With crowds of 4,000 you should be higher in the pyramid than the likes of Livi, Hamilton, Ross County and Inverness. Can someone explain to the fans how with 4000 fans, a handful of patrons chucking in 5 figures and 600 FSS contributors the club is still making hefty losses? Is there a whole load of debt which needs to be restructured via an administration in order to put you on a footing to properly compete? Is short term pain long term gain a better approach than assuming that the diehards will buy season tickets, sponsor players, join FSS and join Falkirk Forever so that more money is going in?

I’d back the Falkirk fans to do a better job after a clean break. Despite his role in the demise of my club, where is Blair Nimmo these days? He would be the perfect man to go in on behalf on a supporters group an objective view on why it’s such a disaster financially.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One point I do agree with is the closeness of the FSS to the Patrons/board. In my view a fans’ organisation is there to represent and advocate for the interests of the supporters. Those will not always align with the board/patrons. 

There have clearly been some issues in the relationship- I.e. the FSS rep stepping down and now the board’s statements at the AGM. The FSS were perhaps right not to go out all guns blazing publicly on these but in not convinced they would be willing to challenge a more serious issue sufficiently.

The other point I think will need to be looked at is the reluctance for political reasons to launch some sort of share save scheme to allow fans to hold shares in their names.

There is clearly a concern that these individuals may not always vote as the FSS leadership would like them to, but at some point getting money in the door will need to take priority in my opinion.

[Jimmy1876]

13 minutes ago, CapitalDiamond said:

2 of you have mentioned Airdrie when responding to my OP when this was intended to stay away from the tribal nonsense which went before.

OK if the previous board burned through £800k cash reserves then that is criminal. Why did no one at Falkirk look at the likes of Montrose or ourselves last year and see what could be done even under a “cut cut cut” approach. 
 

With your attendances that should have been (and should still be) easy to do on a bigger scale (e.g. by appointing Ian Murray 2 years ago).

If you are all comfortable that all is fine even if you don’t go up this year then who am I to comment?

I think you seem to be looking for an outrage from fans about the 1.2 million announcement. The reason it's not happening is because we have known about it since before the season started, in fact that was why I made a P&B account for the first time because those finances absolutely shocked me. 

The cash reserves from previous player sales, investment and soft loans from shareholders are what allowed the 800k build up of cash. During the COVID years with no real income, no player sales anymore because of disastrous academy closure years before, and a breakdown of sponsorship management meant the 1.2 million loss. 800k of that was cash and the rest was covered by an ousting of that disastrous board which allowed that to happen with the patrons and fss investment. 

I think you are fair to question why there is not outrage, the problem is there was and it has been ongoing for a good year now. But the board which is now composed of the two fans groups which effectively saved the club from having to go into debt is incredibly open about the finances (which is why we already knew about the 1.2mill) and have presented a very concrete plan for this season (reducing that 1.2 loss to 400k with investment/softloans covering the rest) to mean we can do everything possible to simultaneously be promoted (by not reducing playing budget) as well as fixing the other business in the club. Including restructuring. 

I think overall the clarity with which all of that has been consistently communicated is why there is not shock and horror at the loss. 

Your other point about the criticism of a lack in uptake of fss membership I understand and partially agree with. The fans have done amazing and the people who set up fss have managed to bring in around 100k a year for the club, not even that far off some other fan associations which have been around far longer. And the fact that the fans who maybe can't afford it or are contributing in tickets, merch and hospitality are being subtly criticised (or outright criticised in that awful email) is pretty shoddy imo. But I also see the boards side, they are trying to push for a fan ownership model, a model I fundamentally support and think should be the future of football but it only works if enough people sign up to it and support it to. I think the board are just trying everything they can to get fans to back this model, because we have been so dreadfully mismanaged in the past by other models. And I get that desire too. I think though there is a different way of doing it. Rather than criticising and asking for money for nothing (like this FF thing???) The club should be working closely with FSS to deliver some good benefits that won't affect the VAT issue. I don't actually know if that is happening so maybe someone else can advise. 

Anyway the point is, the comments you are making are valid, but they have just already been covered over several months to be honest. 

[latapythelegend]

5 hours ago, GeordieBairn said:

Donaldson’s play for the 2nd and 3rd goals was very good. For me our most important player at the moment.

It was but it got him out of jail for horrendous first half. 

Mackie wasn't much better in the 2nd half though.

[Reggie Perrin]

24 minutes ago, CapitalDiamond said:

2 of you have mentioned Airdrie when responding to my OP when this was intended to stay away from the tribal nonsense which went before.

OK if the previous board burned through £800k cash reserves then that is criminal. Why did no one at Falkirk look at the likes of Montrose or ourselves last year and see what could be done even under a “cut cut cut” approach. 
 

With your attendances that should have been (and should still be) easy to do on a bigger scale (e.g. by appointing Ian Murray 2 years ago).

If you are all comfortable that all is fine even if you don’t go up this year then who am I to comment?

You are perfectly entitled to comment but take on board the context of our issues.

[Hughsie]

8 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

The same final in both cups would be as depressingly tin pot as it would be predictable. 

There hasn’t been a RvC Scottish Cup Final in 21 years and only four since 1980, so not that predictable. 

[Bairnardo]

11 minutes ago, Hughsie said:

There hasn’t been a RvC Scottish Cup Final in 21 years and only four since 1980, so not that predictable. 

The way I see it, its only us that can really stand in the way. 

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

58 minutes ago, Blame Me said:

Umm. When did that happen?

That’s what owners do. They support the business they invested financially and emotionally to make it better and successful. 

[Jimmy1876]

48 minutes ago, CapitalDiamond said:

2 of you have mentioned Airdrie when responding to my OP when this was intended to stay away from the tribal nonsense which went before.

OK if the previous board burned through £800k cash reserves then that is criminal. Why did no one at Falkirk look at the likes of Montrose or ourselves last year and see what could be done even under a “cut cut cut” approach. 
 

With your attendances that should have been (and should still be) easy to do on a bigger scale (e.g. by appointing Ian Murray 2 years ago).

If you are all comfortable that all is fine even if you don’t go up this year then who am I to comment?

Would also just add to that, the board saying the FSS uptake was not enough was in the context of the fact there are three options going forward - FSS gain enough of a following that any loss could be covered by that income. FSS don't gain enough following and more investment has to be found instead, potentially in sale of the club and giving up fan ownership. Or we slash the playing budget next season to be within our means. Out of those FSS getting the bigger following is most desirable and that's why it's being pushed for. 

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

One point I do agree with is the closeness of the FSS to the Patrons/board. In my view a fans’ organisation is there to represent and advocate for the interests of the supporters. Those will not always align with the board/patrons. 

There have clearly been some issues in the relationship- I.e. the FSS rep stepping down and now the board’s statements at the AGM. The FSS were perhaps right not to go out all guns blazing publicly on these but in not convinced they would be willing to challenge a more serious issue sufficiently.

The other point I think will need to be looked at is the reluctance for political reasons to launch some sort of share save scheme to allow fans to hold shares in their names.

There is clearly a concern that these individuals may not always vote as the FSS leadership would like them to, but at some point getting money in the door will need to take priority in my opinion.

The Board is the FSS and the Patrons FFS. These people are elected by the members. It is these organisations that are running the place. Why would groups want to fight with themselves. I despair 

[PedroMoutinho]

4 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

The Board is the FSS and the Patrons FFS. These people are elected by the members. It is these organisations that are running the place. Why would groups want to fight with themselves. I despair 

Not advocating them fighting each other. However, patently the interests of people who’ve ponied up £10k minimum will not always be the same as people contributing a tenner a month.

In my view, the FSS should be vocal in standing up for the interests of the wider support base when needed.

You can see for example they’re unhappy about comments at the AGM from some patrons. The FSS needs to be able to criticise the board/patrons when necessary. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

Not advocating them fighting each other. However, patently the interests of people who’ve ponied up £10k minimum will not always be the same as people contributing a tenner a month.

In my view, the FSS should be vocal in standing up for the interests of the wider support base when needed.

You can see for example they’re unhappy about comments at the AGM from some patrons. The FSS needs to be able to criticise the board/patrons when necessary. 

You are advocating division at a time when we should be pulling together. I am both a Patron and FSS member and don’t feel any superior to any fan who is either a FSS member, non shareholder, season ticket holder or PATG. I also don’t think the Board are working on behalf of my interest and more than my two sons who are not Patrons. As far as I see they are working on behalf of the best interests of the CLUB. 
I just want the club to punch at its weight, be run properly and be there for my kids and grand kids when they come along. The Board are all FSS members. Who do you think they are working on behalf of? 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Back Post Misses

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

Not advocating them fighting each other. However, patently the interests of people who’ve ponied up £10k minimum will not always be the same as people contributing a tenner a month.

In my view, the FSS should be vocal in standing up for the interests of the wider support base when needed.

You can see for example they’re unhappy about comments at the AGM from some patrons. The FSS needs to be able to criticise the board/patrons when necessary. 

What comments were they out of interest? 

[LatapyBairn.]

7 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

Not advocating them fighting each other. However, patently the interests of people who’ve ponied up £10k minimum will not always be the same as people contributing a tenner a month.

In my view, the FSS should be vocal in standing up for the interests of the wider support base when needed.

You can see for example they’re unhappy about comments at the AGM from some patrons. The FSS needs to be able to criticise the board/patrons when necessary. 

If the FSS were to criticise the board they’d be criticising themselves as they are the board! Your sounding borderline ludicrous , at time when everyone is on the same page and the club is moving in a positive direction why on earth would any fan try to manufacture some form of divide?

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

13 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

Not advocating them fighting each other. However, patently the interests of people who’ve ponied up £10k minimum will not always be the same as people contributing a tenner a month.

In my view, the FSS should be vocal in standing up for the interests of the wider support base when needed.

You can see for example they’re unhappy about comments at the AGM from some patrons. The FSS needs to be able to criticise the board/patrons when necessary. 

Directors, when registered at companies house, have legal responsibilities. 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/being-a-company-director

This is how democracy works. If you’re not happy, vote them off. There is no wider anything, their role is to safeguard the company. 

[PedroMoutinho]

14 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said:

What comments were they out of interest? 

I understand there were comparisons made to how many members other fans groups have without the context that many of these members pay lower contributions than FSS.

Another example would be the decisions to launch a competing fundraising scheme and increase ticket prices- I can’t see either of these helping to boost FSS numbers, so did the FSS support these?

In my view the FSS should not just be there to support the patrons at all times- there should be challenge when necessary.

Edited February 26, 2023 by PedroMoutinho

[PedroMoutinho]

17 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

If the FSS were to criticise the board they’d be criticising themselves as they are the board! Your sounding borderline ludicrous , at time when everyone is on the same page and the club is moving in a positive direction why on earth would any fan try to manufacture some form of divide?

So in your view it was wrong for previous fans groups to criticise previous boards when fans had representation on those boards for large spells?

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

I understand there were comparisons made to how many members other fans groups have without the context that many of these members pay lower contributions than FSS.

Another example would be the decisions to launch a competing fundraising scheme and increase ticket prices- I can’t see either of these helping to boost FSS numbers, so did the FSS support these?

In my view the FSS should not just be there to support the patrons at all times- there should be challenge when necessary.

The club needs finance to fill the hole we all know about. There are more than 1800 people who are ST holders who have not joined FSS. Why? Various reasons we all speculate about. So how does the club try to tap into that group of fans? You can’t blame the Board for trying to look at all options surely? 

You last paragraph is utter shite. FSS have as much say in this club as Patrons and as all the Board are FSS members i just can’t see WTF you are talking about. 

If you are insinuating the Patron group has influence over policy at the club I can tell you 100% not one decision made by the club since December 2021 have I or any other non Board members who are Patrons had input into, and nor do I want any. If I think the Patron reps are doing a poor job I will then vote the reps off. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Back Post Misses

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

So in your view it was wrong for previous fans groups to criticise previous boards when fans had representation on those boards for large spells?

We are in a completely different space now. The comparisons of the past are irrelevant as the structure the club now has totally changed 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Back Post Misses

[Guest Brockvillenomore]

12 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

I understand there were comparisons made to how many members other fans groups have without the context that many of these members pay lower contributions than FSS.

Another example would be the decisions to launch a competing fundraising scheme and increase ticket prices- I can’t see either of these helping to boost FSS numbers, so did the FSS support these?

In my view the FSS should not just be there to support the patrons at all times- there should be challenge when necessary.

Presumably you noticed (if you were there) that the comparison with other clubs schemes and the two new initiatives (Forever Falkirk and Season Tickets) were presented by both FSS directors? 
 

Common sense dictates that the more people who get involved and work together the best interests of club and fans will be aligned as owners. 

[LatapyBairn.]

21 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

So in your view it was wrong for previous fans groups to criticise previous boards when fans had representation on those boards for large spells?

A token fan rep on a board is completely different from the actual fan ownership structure we have now! Jesus wept!  We must now be one of the most democratically run clubs in the country FFS! If the BOD needs criticism the fans and members can now literally vote them out if we don’t think the 4 board members are performing their role correctly, thankfully up to this point the guys we all elected on our behalf have got far more right than wrong and the set up seems to be working. I see no reason to change anything at this point. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by LatapyBairn.