The Falkirk FC Thread

[Blame Me]

11 minutes 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. 

That's why I added notionally . There are shares but they're not available to the FSS.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Blame Me said:

That's why I added notionally . There are shares but they're not available to the FSS.

They should be available to the FSS though and as they are still there, no money should be sent to the club till the members meet up.

As I said before I would think the clubs  refusal to sell shares seems against the agreement that was made. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Van_damage

[Blame Me]

I agree @Van_damage but they can't be forced to sell them and it's within their gift to do what it is alleged is happening.

Will watch with interest the reasoning and outcome. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Blame Me said:

I agree @Van_damage but they can't be forced to sell them and it's within their gift to do what it is alleged is happening.

Will watch with interest the reasoning and outcome. 

 

Yeh I understand that but they shouldn’t automatically expect the money to be donated to them instead. FSS have as much right to withhold that if that is the boards position. 

[Blame Me]

11 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

Yeh I understand that but they shouldn’t automatically expect the money to be donated to them instead. FSS have as much right to withhold that if that is the boards position. 

That's where the agreement has potentially left the FSS on a sticky wicket.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Blame Me said:

That's where the agreement has potentially left the FSS on a sticky wicket.

Should be straight forward enough. No more money till we consult members on the appropriate action to take going forward. 26% was always communicated as the goal so when so close and shares available to do that, they can’t just hand over the money when the club seem to have shifted the goal posts. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Van_damage

[LatapyBairn.]

34 minutes ago, Blame Me said:

I agree @Van_damage but they can't be forced to sell them and it's within their gift to do what it is alleged is happening.

Will watch with interest the reasoning and outcome. 

 

Do you think the club may have an alternative buyer for the remaining unsold shares? This would make sense as it would bring in additional funds over and above what the FSS will already be contributing. It may also bring a potential additional skill set into the clubs ownership structure.  I’m happy to wait and see what the reasoning from both the FSS and the club board is before flinging a tantrum, if it’s going into the club and I’m content the money is being spent relatively wisely the FSS will keep getting my monthly debit regardless of whether it gains more shares or not.  

Edited August 8, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

To you think the club may have an alternative buyer for the remaining unsold shares? This would make sense as it would bring in additional funds over and above what the FSS will already be contributing. It may also bring a potential addition skill set into the clubs ownership structure. 

I would imagine that to be the intent but the reasoning is flawed as FSS has always set out to buy shares to reach 26%(although now converted to 25%+1). There are shares to do that and the FSS has the money but the club won’t sell them to FSS, as they expect the money from them to be handed over regardless. 

If there are any new patrons wanting to buy shares then issue new ones so FSS can retain 25% and the patrons can get there. 

[LatapyBairn.]

Do you think the club may have an alternative buyer for the remaining unsold shares? This would make sense as it would bring in additional funds over and above what the FSS will already be contributing. It may also bring a potential additional skill set into the clubs ownership structure.  I’m happy to wait and see what the reasoning from both the FSS and the club board is before flinging a tantrum, if it’s going into the club and I’m content the money is being spent relatively wisely the FSS will keep getting my monthly debit regardless of whether it gains more shares or not.  

[FFC 1876]

Having listened to the last Falkirk FC podcast with Jamie Swinney it really does seem like what we've got just now is going to be our lot. If MacIver or Spencer get injured McGlynn's one way of playing is completely fucked, which is very worrying.

He also said we've decided to only take part in the reserve cup this year and not the reserve league so some of our youngsters will go out on loan again this season.

Goalkeeper
Nicky Hogarth
Sam Long - On loan from Lincoln City
Owen Hayward (A)

Defender
Tom Lang
Coll Donaldson
Liam Henderson
Sean Mackie
Brad Mckay
Leon Mccann
Logan Sinclair (A)

Midfielder
Brad Spencer
Stephen McGinn
Finn Yeats
Ola Lawal
Aidan Nesbitt
Gary Oliver
Callumn Morrison
Calvin Miller
Alfredo Agyeman
Pearse Carroll (A)
Scott Honeyman (A)
Rhys Walker (A)

Striker
Jordan Allan
Ross MacIver

[Right turn Clyde]

17 hours ago, FalkirkBairn2021 said:

If there's a club in world football less suited to fan ownership than us, I'd be amazed  

prepare to be amazed....Clyde

[Guest]

Just heard that the Patrons group are being asked to hoover up the remaining shares. 

This isn’t an FSS vs Patrons thing but about the principle of denying one group to buy shares with the money they have in the bank and expect them to donate money anyway, whilst the other group can buy shares whenever they like.

I would like to hope the Patrons would rather the shares go to the FSS and if wanting to give the club a cash boost, do so anyway as the shares won’t matter a jot to them but can’t be vital for the FSS getting to the shareholding it sought out. 

As I said, the simple solution is to issue new shares to allow X amount more patrons to get to the 25% and shares to let FSS retain 25%. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Van_damage

[Jimmy1876]

Have taken a few days to read over all of this. I have to say I am surprised by this recent action.

There seems to be a lot of conversation about once all shares are bought we go to a donation scheme but really this is not the issue with what has happened. There was always going to have to be a democratic decision about the next steps once the shares were bought and how that money continued being put into the club so there is no issue with this simply happening faster.

For me the big concern is that the club has seemingly blocked FSS from reaching its 25%+1 target. And fss seem to have agreed to this with no consultation? So far everyone joined FSS knowing the target was to get to a point where they could block special resolutions. From day 1 this has been the selling point. It has also been repeated time and time again by the board themselves that this is why we need fan ownership. And suddenly we have a complete U-turn at the last minute to prevent this very important power being put into the hands of the fans. I don't understand the sentiment of saying maybe someone else is buying the shares either because it actually does not matter. What matters is the foundations of the FSS membership joined on the premise of fan ownership with a target of reaching a percentage that could block special resolutions. This has effectively been a promise from the club to the fans being broken.

Some keep saying to wait and see what comes out at the meeting but I am not sure what justification can be provided either from the board or even the FSS committee for agreeing or at least not warning and then consulting about this. The only thing that can really be clarified is what will happen next but the action of preventing these final shares being bought is done already. As I said, I am really surprised and disappointed as it just seems so contradictory to everything that has been said before. I will wait for the meeting to hear if there is indeed any viable justification but in the mean time I will think long and hard about my current membership. Not sure what the point of FSS will be if that crucial share holding is blocked. And if it is blocked now what assurances are there it is not continually blocked? I "donate" to the club in many other ways but I joined FSS for fan ownership. 

[HopeStreetWalker]

2 hours ago, MulsonFFC said:

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.  

The club have no tangible assets full stop what we do have is worthless on the open market, a pitch on land we don't own and seats on a stand we don't own so nothing to borrow against.

FFC should see what they can get from the council for it and grab it £50k - £100k - £200k you never know till you ask and the council own the whole stadium outright. Which will work for them as a council asset that they can borrow against so they would be interested. Let them repair / replace the seats, pitch and roof.  FFC will never own the stadium so be shot of it make a clean break and get a one-off cash injection.

 

[FFC 1876]

The three-legged stool seems to be a bit imbalanced. 

Would be good to hear the boards reasoning behind not allowing the FSS to buy more shares in the club given that was the reason the FSS was created in the first place.

We all need to work together we were told...

[LatapyBairn.]

25 minutes ago, Van_damage said:

Just heard that the Patrons group are being asked to hoover up the remaining shares. 

This isn’t an FSS vs Patrons thing but about the principle of denying one group to buy shares with the money they have in the bank and expect them to donate money anyway, whilst the other group can buy shares whenever they like.

I would like to hope the Patrons would rather the shares go to the FSS and if wanting to give the club a cash boost, do so anyway as the shares won’t matter a jot to them but can’t be vital for the FSS getting to the shareholding it sought out. 

As I said, the simple solution is to issue new shares to allow X amount more patrons to get to the 25% and shares to let FSS retain 25%. 

For me it’s simply about maximising the money going into the club, no need to try and pit one group of fans against another, that’s an extremely unfair reflection of the situation and also not an accurate character reflection of the people involved across all the supporters groups, most have gone above and beyond as far as time, money and effort are concerned. Especially when both groups have members in both organisations, in fact I think all the patrons are FSS members. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[Jimmy1876]

1 minute ago, LatapyBairn. said:

For me it’s simply about maximising the money going into the club, no need to try and pit one group of fans against another. Especially when both groups have members in both organisations, in fact I think all the patrons are FSS members. 

LatapyBairn I have often agreed with you on many topics and I admire your positivity but if blocking FSS from buying a very important number of shares which were promised time and again to them and instead offering it to the Patrons is not pitting one group against the other I'm not sure what is. I really am confused and do not understand the reasoning behind it but honestly I don't think there is any reasoning justifiable for this action. 

[LowerLeagueFC]

looks as if the board/club are taking the FSS money for granted. If monies withheld from the FSS could end up causing lasting damage to the club and they know people won't allow/want that to happen

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said:

For me it’s simply about maximising the money going into the club, no need to try and pit one group of fans against another, that’s an extremely unfair reflection of the situation and also not an accurate character reflection of the good people involved across all the supporters groups. Especially when both groups have members in both organisations, in fact I think all the patrons are FSS members. 

You’ve misread me mate. I’m not trying to pit one group against another. This is about as the principle of the matter. I know several patrons and have nothing but respect for the investment they all made. 

What you have is 2 organisations. Both of whom were sold on the basis on fan ownership and getting to a 26% shareholding. Only one was likely to do it with the available shares and if there were many more patrons willing to put in the cash to get there first, I wouldn’t have expected the club to deny it.

The situation we have is that one organisation is on a subscription basis and the other is not. The club expects this subscription organisation, which was sold on the basis of continued acquisition of shares(whilst available) to hand over its subs whilst the other organisation is still able to acquire shares.

That isn’t fair. It’s not what I was led to believe and I don’t appear to be the only one.

The FSS has the money to buy the shares and should not be denied. The club and the FSS have to rethink this. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Van_damage

[LatapyBairn.]

12 minutes ago, Jimmy1876 said:

LatapyBairn I have often agreed with you on many topics and I admire your positivity but if blocking FSS from buying a very important number of shares which were promised time and again to them and instead offering it to the Patrons is not pitting one group against the other I'm not sure what is. I really am confused and do not understand the reasoning behind it but honestly I don't think there is any reasoning justifiable for this action. 

If this is the case. I’d rather wait and see the reasoning when / if it is explained. For example could it be 30k of new money via the PG or another investor is seen as new money and un budgeted for as opposed to the ongoing money from the FSS which is already built into the clubs budget? There may also be another mechanism being discussed to help the FSS get to 25% via some form of share transfer as some on here talked about earlier? If the PG or a third party are indeed buying up the remaining 1% or so of shares it will still leave the FSS in a very strong position as the clubs largest shareholder anyway and I’m sure the will is there to get the society that final push to the 25% +1 mark one way or another. Let’s just wait and see what both the FSS and club board come out with, I certainly don’t need to feel my monthly FSS debit is going towards accruing more and more shares indefinitely to make me keep contributing. In reality all I need to know is the money is going to the club, being spent wisely and in some way helping us kick on. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by LatapyBairn.