The Falkirk FC Thread

[Forever_Blue_]

23 minutes ago, Zbairn said:

Rock and a hard place with this one.

I agree that reducing subscriptions may increase number of participating fans, which is a good thing. However, I also agree with KJLK that reducing from the current £10 level may also result in fans reducing their subs meaning the club gets less cash in, which is a bad thing. 

No right or wrong here and I'm not sure which is the best for everyone. 

Yeah that's a fair point. That being said though, I still think it's worth the risk of making the cost more accessible. The flip side is fans might come in at a lower cost and then consider upping their contribution if/when economic circumstances allow it. Someone much smarter than me may have more creative idea to safeguard the current subscriptions but offer a route in for fans who may be struggling to afford the current cost. The bottom line is I think FSS is doing not too bad at the moment, and we need to give it time but the more fans that join the stronger it will become. 

[GMBairn]

In relation to the fss I'll wait and see what comes out of the meeting at the start of next month.

I have to say though that I was under the impression that once we got to the required level of share Holdings that the money would be used to invest in the club, with lots of chat about this money specifically being used to support the academy or capital projects etc. (now with the loan payback).

In that sense I'm happy to continue my contributions but feel there should be an agreement made with the club that the money is for the longer term support of the club and not just to give managers money to spunk up the wall each year on someone's wages. 

Edited August 7, 2023 by GMBairn

[RC55 FFC]

My plan was (& I suppose still is) to wait and see what’s said at the upcoming meeting, but it sounds like the FSS have already signed an agreement with the club to give all funds (bar the govt loan repayment) to the club for no further shares or agreement on what the funds are used for, as far as I’ve read on here? 

Edited August 8, 2023 by RC55 FFC

[Brockers61]

50 minutes ago, RC55 FFC said:

My plan was (& I suppose still is) to wait and see what’s said at the upcoming meeting, but it sounds like the FSS have already signed an agreement with the club to give all funds (bar the govt loan repayment) to the club for no further shares or agreement on what the funds are used for, as far as I’ve read on here? 

If your summary is correct we need to know from the FSS Committee why this agreement was signed without the matter being referred to FSS members for discussion and a vote.   

[Blame Me]

13 minutes ago, Brockers61 said:

If your summary is correct we need to know from the FSS Committee why this agreement was signed without the matter being referred to FSS members for discussion and a vote.   

Looks like this was the announcement of the agreement: https://falkirksupporters.org/2023/05/31/formal-agreement-with-falkirk-football-club-to-assure-a-future-for-our-fans-voices/

Does read that it's a donation or purchase of shares. However, as there are notionally no more shares to buy then it's the former, if correct.

[RC55 FFC]

1 hour ago, Blame Me said:

Looks like this was the announcement of the agreement: https://falkirksupporters.org/2023/05/31/formal-agreement-with-falkirk-football-club-to-assure-a-future-for-our-fans-voices/

Does read that it's a donation or purchase of shares. However, as there are notionally no more shares to buy then it's the former, if correct.

Yeah, that’s how I’ve taken it too. 

[LatapyBairn.]

18 minutes ago, RC55 FFC said:

Yeah, that’s how I’ve taken it too. 

I’m actually more than happy with a situation like this so long as the FSS are able to purchase the required shares to meet the 25% +1 target. I’d also think the members should be canvased on how they’d like to see the funds used going forward after that so this can be communicated to the club. I never really expected the club to continue with infinite share issues but the 25% +1 threshold is important and should be facilitated. Going forward after that point the knowledge that my monthly debit is helping support the club and hopefully giving me some sort of democratic say as a fan as to how that money is spent is enough for me personally, most members I speak to do seem to think along those lines as well to be honest and I’ve always presumed that form of set up to be the case in the longer term but here and now the issue of meeting the targeted share threshold needs to be sorted and the club should be actively helping the society reach that goal not blocking it in my opinion so it will be interesting to hear the boards reasoning for not allowing those final unsold shares to be purchased. I’m not quite ready to line them up in front of a firing squad until all the reasoning and thinking behind these decisions taken are communicated to us from both the FSS committee and the club board. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[Shodwall cat]

I'd have thought a far more formal agreement should really have been put in place other than

'The club in turn is willing to let FSS suggest how such funds might be used within the club’s budget.'

That basically says yeah you can say what you want it to be spent on but we can continue to say naw.

Obviously this leaves it up to the two FSS reps on the board to ensure that the wishes of the FSS and it's members are carried out.  Whilst the FSS is an independent group from the club it is also part of the club surely through its representatives on the board. If the club continues to ignore how the FSS wants the money to be spent and what if anything it receives back from the club then you have to start asking what the point is of having two reps on the bod and being the biggest shareholder. The two board reps must represent the views of the people who put them on the bod and if the other three bod members just continually vote against the two FSS bod reps then that completely makes a mockery of the whole set up.

 

[One off poster]

The statement put out by the club states that as well as 2 seats on the board, the FSS will receive support in growing its membership and shareholding.  If that is in-line with what's in the formal agreement then it seems as though the club may not be adhering to it and therefore FSS could be within their rights to withhold donations.

https://www.falkirkfc.co.uk/2023/05/31/fss-to-become-major-shareholder-in-ffc-after-succcessful-application-to-scottish-government/

At the very least it would seem sensible for any funds provided to the club to be made via a mechanism that allows for a conversion to shares in the future to prevent dilution should other investment be raised. 

My suspicion, from the clubs perspective, is that they possibly think that

FSS effectively holding a veto over any resolution that requires a shareholder vote (with 75% support) could deter other investors.  I'm in favour of fan ownership so personally think the board should allow FSS to hold 25% + 1 share in the club and work harder to find an investor who is comfortable with the arrangement,  albeit they will be far rarer.

Anyway, that's my tuppenceworth here because I can't attend the meeting on the 1st. Do I need to change my username now that I've posted for a second time?

[18BAIRN76]

Josh Wagenaar.

[Forever_Blue_]

1 minute ago, One off poster said:

The statement put out by the club states that as well as 2 seats on the board, the FSS will receive support in growing its membership and shareholding.  If that is in-line with what's in the formal agreement then it seems as though the club may not be adhering to it and therefore FSS could be within their rights to withhold donations.

https://www.falkirkfc.co.uk/2023/05/31/fss-to-become-major-shareholder-in-ffc-after-succcessful-application-to-scottish-government/

At the very least it would seem sensible for any funds provided to the club to be made via a mechanism that allows for a conversion to shares in the future to prevent dilution should other investment be raised. 

My suspicion, from the clubs perspective, is that they possibly think that

FSS effectively holding a veto over any resolution that requires a shareholder vote (with 75% support) could deter other investors.  I'm in favour of fan ownership so personally think the board should allow FSS to hold 25% + 1 share in the club and work harder to find an investor who is comfortable with the arrangement,  albeit they will be far rarer.

Anyway, that's my tuppenceworth here because I can't attend the meeting on the 1st. Do I need to change my username now that I've posted for a second time?

Don't think you need to change your username. Just sign back into your other account to continue pushing the same topic. 

 

[HopeStreetWalker]

3 minutes ago, One off poster said:

The statement put out by the club states that as well as 2 seats on the board, the FSS will receive support in growing its membership and shareholding.  If that is in-line with what's in the formal agreement then it seems as though the club may not be adhering to it and therefore FSS could be within their rights to withhold donations.

https://www.falkirkfc.co.uk/2023/05/31/fss-to-become-major-shareholder-in-ffc-after-succcessful-application-to-scottish-government/

At the very least it would seem sensible for any funds provided to the club to be made via a mechanism that allows for a conversion to shares in the future to prevent dilution should other investment be raised. 

My suspicion, from the clubs perspective, is that they possibly think that

FSS effectively holding a veto over any resolution that requires a shareholder vote (with 75% support) could deter other investors.  I'm in favour of fan ownership so personally think the board should allow FSS to hold 25% + 1 share in the club and work harder to find an investor who is comfortable with the arrangement,  albeit they will be far rarer.

Anyway, that's my tuppenceworth here because I can't attend the meeting on the 1st. Do I need to change my username now that I've posted for a second time?

New shares issued dilutes the % the individual or groupings hold at present.

So a grouping trying to get to a magic % have to consider share issues dilute the clout already held. 

[MulsonFFC]

No-one with a shred of sense would look to make a proper outside 'investment' in FFC for any reason other than a donation, and a grab at power/control.  Its never going to be an investment opportunity worth anything, we have no real tangible assets under own own control.  

[Blame Me]

44 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:

...

'The club in turn is willing to let FSS suggest how such funds might be used within the club’s budget.'

That basically says yeah you can say what you want it to be spent on but we can continue to say naw.

...

It's pretty clear where the club think the monies should be spent ...

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Blame Me said:

Looks like this was the announcement of the agreement: https://falkirksupporters.org/2023/05/31/formal-agreement-with-falkirk-football-club-to-assure-a-future-for-our-fans-voices/

Does read that it's a donation or purchase of shares. However, as there are notionally no more shares to buy then it's the former, if correct.

There are shares still available though. That’s what kicked off the debate with the FSS newsletter stating that the club will be retaining 1% of shares and not allowing the FSS to buy them. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Van_damage

[Bairnardo]

1 minute ago, Van_damage said:

There are shares still available though. That’s what kicked off the debate with the FSS newsletter stating that the club retaining 1% of shares and not allowing the FSS to buy them. 

If I had the money I'd buy the shares myself and allow FSS to buy them straight off me. Isn't that an option? Could a few folk get together and do that?  

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, One off poster said:

The statement put out by the club states that as well as 2 seats on the board, the FSS will receive support in growing its membership and shareholding.  If that is in-line with what's in the formal agreement then it seems as though the club may not be adhering to it and therefore FSS could be within their rights to withhold donations.

https://www.falkirkfc.co.uk/2023/05/31/fss-to-become-major-shareholder-in-ffc-after-succcessful-application-to-scottish-government/

At the very least it would seem sensible for any funds provided to the club to be made via a mechanism that allows for a conversion to shares in the future to prevent dilution should other investment be raised. 

My suspicion, from the clubs perspective, is that they possibly think that

FSS effectively holding a veto over any resolution that requires a shareholder vote (with 75% support) could deter other investors.  I'm in favour of fan ownership so personally think the board should allow FSS to hold 25% + 1 share in the club and work harder to find an investor who is comfortable with the arrangement,  albeit they will be far rarer.

Anyway, that's my tuppenceworth here because I can't attend the meeting on the 1st. Do I need to change my username now that I've posted for a second time?

This is what I can’t understand as all communication has led us to believe the target is 26%(although by company’s law only has to be just above 25%).

https://bairnsbusinessclub.org.uk/2022/09/27/update-from-the-patrons-group/

That is the 26% number repeated by Kenny but from the Patrons point of view. The Patrons can’t get anywhere near the required number even if they purchased all the remaining shares so why prevent FSS from getting there? 

[grumpyoldman]

38 minutes ago, HopeStreetWalker said:

New shares issued dilutes the % the individual or groupings hold at present.

So a grouping trying to get to a magic % have to consider share issues dilute the clout already held. 

Unless they match the funding by the FSS

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

If I had the money I'd buy the shares myself and allow FSS to buy them straight off me. Isn't that an option? Could a few folk get together and do that?  

It is an option but the board would have to sanction the transfer of shares in order for FSS to buy them off you. 

[Guest]

The simple solution to this is let FSS buy the remaining shares it needs to take it up to 25% +1, then issue enough new shares that will allow the patrons to reach that same shareholding. There will also be new shares ringfenced for the FSS so that when all are bought, the patrons and FSS will have 25%+1.

Edited August 8, 2023 by Van_damage