The Falkirk FC Thread

[Brockers61]

3 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Agree it’s not a great move by the club board (partly made up of FSS reps remember and I believe all are also paid up FSS members) at least from an optics point of view but also don’t see it as in insurmountable problem if everyone gets around the table. Without being sure of the exact logistics in share transfer I think you are right in that the club in theory could veto this however I doubt they actually would, failing that it’s surely not beyond the means of man to organise a more informal means of bringing a number of the smaller shareholdings under one umbrella? 

If I transfer my small shareholding to FSS does that mean I lose the right to attend the Clubs AGM?

[PedroMoutinho]

Quite concerning I have to say that the FSS are now apparently being blocked from purchasing more shares in the club by the patrons. 

I have always said that the patrons and FSS are not one and the same and will not always have the same interests despite a lot of claims otherwise. Just another reason why there needs to be a separation of the board representation in my view.

[PedroMoutinho]

Just now, Brockers61 said:

If I transfer my small shareholding to FSS does that mean I lose the right to attend the Clubs AGM?

Yes

[falkirkzombie]

surely the plan was always that FSS subs would eventually just become a donation based scheme in the long term? but as we reached the required amount of shares (or almost) due to the money from the fan bank it just happen a bit sooner than expected. Going forward monies handed to the club should possibly be conditioned with what it is spent on.

[Brockers61]

Just now, PedroMoutinho said:

Yes

Thanks, I thought that might be the case but just wanted to confirm.

[falkirkzombie]

Just now, Brockers61 said:

Thanks, I thought that might be the case but just wanted to confirm.

Just keep 1 share

[Brockers61]

Just now, falkirkzombie said:

Just keep 1 share

Would the Club entertain that, hundreds of small shareholders with only 1 share? The administration of the share register would multiply tenfold.

[falkirkzombie]

Just now, Brockers61 said:

Would the Club entertain that, hundreds of small shareholders with only 1 share? The administration of the share register would multiply tenfold.

Possibly could be a limit, may have to keep 200 shares. I have no idea

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Agree it’s not a great move by the club board (partly made up of FSS reps remember and I believe all are also paid up FSS members) at least from an optics point of view but also don’t see it as in insurmountable problem if everyone gets around the table. Without being sure of the exact logistics in share transfer I think you are right in that the club in theory could veto this however I doubt they actually would, failing that it’s surely not beyond the means of man to organise a more informal means of bringing a number of the smaller shareholdings under one umbrella? 

Regardless of all of that, it doesn’t address the massive undercurrent that is “no more shares” for your cash. That is not how FSS or the club sold this to the support. If they had wanted this, then FF would be bigger than FSS (and I would bet it’s tiny compared to FSS).

This appears to be an undeclared, undiscussed attempt to turn FSS into FF…..a donation system. It’s not a good look. You mention that one of the BoD is an FSS rep. Has he backed this? 

[RC_Bairn]

6 minutes ago, Brockers61 said:

Would the Club entertain that, hundreds of small shareholders with only 1 share? The administration of the share register would multiply tenfold.

The reality is that the admin involved in dealing with a shareholder who has 1 share, and a shareholder who has 2,000 shares is exactly the same.  That being said, I believe there was a minimum share purchase of £400 at the last share issue - but that obviously applies to new shares purchased and not people with an existing shareholding.

What FSS would probably be looking at is not a transfer of shares, but an agreement that individual shareholders would pool together and vote alongside the FSS in a bloc.  Similar to how the MSG and Patrons work/worked.

Edited August 7, 2023 by RC_Bairn

[LatapyBairn.]

1 minute ago, Duncan Freemason said:

Regardless of all of that, it doesn’t address the massive undercurrent that is “no more shares” for your cash. That is not how FSS or the club sold this to the support. If they had wanted this, then FF would be bigger than FSS (and I would bet it’s tiny compared to FSS).

This appears to be an undeclared, undiscussed attempt to turn FSS into FF…..a donation system. It’s not a good look. You mention that one of the BoD is an FSS rep. Has he backed this? 

I’ve no idea which board members backed or did not back the decision, having asked a similar question on another issue in the past they tend not to let you know who voted for what. Only if a decision was unanimous or not but I’d certainly be asking the question anyway. 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

Agree it’s not a great move by the club board (partly made up of FSS reps remember and I believe all are also paid up FSS members) at least from an optics point of view but also don’t see it as in insurmountable problem if everyone gets around the table. Without being sure of the exact logistics in share transfer I think you are right in that the club in theory could veto this however I doubt they actually would, failing that it’s surely not beyond the means of man to organise a more informal means of bringing a number of the smaller shareholdings under one umbrella? 

There is one FSS rep on the board but all 4 are patrons. Was said before about a conflict of interest between the 2 which was disregarded by some, however this could be a case in point to those who mooted it previously by refusing to let the FSS buy more shares and potentially allowing the Patrons to buy more. 

It’s a terrible move by the club and similarly by the FSS to seemingly accept it without consulting members first. How can either one decide what to do with our collective money which we contributed in the belief they would be transferred for any shares remaining?

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Van_damage

[Disco Duck]

13 minutes ago, falkirkzombie said:

surely the plan was always that FSS subs would eventually just become a donation based scheme in the long term? but as we reached the required amount of shares (or almost) due to the money from the fan bank it just happen a bit sooner than expected. Going forward monies handed to the club should possibly be conditioned with what it is spent on.

If that was the case it wasn’t publicised very well.

I’m getting somewhat fed up with the “no more shares available” chat.  The directors and shareholders can issue new shares whenever they want.  FSS is giving them money and in return they should get shares.

I appreciate that one persons contribution doesn’t make a massive difference, but if this is turning into a donation and therefore effectively improving the value of others’ shares and absolving them of the need to put in cash, I’m going to stop donating.   I’ll find a different way of helping the club.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Disco Duck

[LatapyBairn.]

14 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

There is one FSS rep on the board but all 4 are patrons. Was said before about a conflict of interest between the 2 which was disregarded by some, however this could be a case in point to those who mooted it previously by refusing to let the FSS buy more shares and potentially allowing the Patrons to buy more. 

It’s a terrible move by the club and similarly by the FSS to seemingly accept it without consulting members first. How can either one decide what to do with our collective money which we contributed in the belief they would be transferred any shares remaining?

 

All members of the BOD are also FSS members, both the patrons and FSS organisations are entitled to two directors each so in that respect it’s balanced. Do we know if the patrons group would be allowed to invite new patrons or buy new shares?  

Edited August 7, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[Guest]

Well, I am sure one of the BoD recently increased their personal shareholding. I think the club will accept near enough any new buyer of unsold shares (provided it’s not FSS of course).

[Bairn in Exile]

Surely if enough FSS members were to threaten to cancel their subscriptions the club would quickly sit down to discuss? This needs to be made clear to the FSS representatives on the board. The club is in the shitter and needs the donations.

Not that I want that, last resort action to make sure the fans voices are heard.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Bairn in Exile

[Reggie Perrin]

12 minutes ago, Brockers61 said:

Would the Club entertain that, hundreds of small shareholders with only 1 share? The administration of the share register would multiply tenfold.

Why would the administration be any more difficult if the number of shareholders was the same only with a smaller holding?

[falkirkzombie]

2 minutes ago, Disco Duck said:

If that was the case it wasn’t publicised very well.

I’m getting somewhat fed up with the “no more shares available” chat.  The directors and shareholders can issue new shares whenever they want.  FSS Rae giving them money and in return they should get shares.

I appreciate that one persons contribution doesn’t make a massive difference, but if this is turning into a donation and therefore effectively improving the value of others’ shares and absolving them of the need to put in cash, I’m going to stop donating.   I’ll find a different way of helping the club.

I'd always assumed the aim was just to get to 25% - which makes the clubs decision to not allow this to happen when we are so close very strange. After the 25% was reached I think it makes sense to continue as a donation based scheme - with FSS having authority on how they money is spent

[Brockers61]

7 minutes ago, Reggie Perrin said:

Why would the administration be any more difficult if the number of shareholders was the same only with a smaller holding?

I was more thinking of the initial lump of work in transferring the shares of say, 200 shareholders, to FSS and issuing new certificates for one share. Take your point though that in the longer term it wouldn’t be too much of an issue particularly as the Club have been moving towards issuing AGM papers etc electronically.

[Reggie Perrin]

I can remember very few of all these random player names being posted, just demonstrates what a conveyor belt of dross we have had over recent years.

A bit harsh including The Handbag I would have to say.