The Falkirk FC Thread

[scottsdad]

Tickets booked for the Alloa game now. 

[scottsdad]

13 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

Gary Deans and Gary fucking Holt has the sheer fucking audacity to come on here even under a pseudonym

I missed this completely!

I'm hoping they were outed, tarred and feathered. 

[ShaggerG]

51 minutes ago, gav-ffc said:

Writing off his south stand loan would do more for the club than lending 40k and also receiving 80k every year. 

The guy was good enough to build it for us in the first place so we can't really expect him to write it off, however, there's no doubt that doing so would make a massive difference to us. Saving 80k together with the FSS subs would meet almost half of the 400k every year. 

[Reggie Perrin]

12 hours ago, Long Suffering Bairn said:

Forgive my naïvety, I don't claim to know much about this, but, there are a fair number of teams above us in the pyramid that have a noticeably smaller fan base and income that seem to operate more efficiently that we do, achieve a higher league status than we do and have better players than we do.

How they do this I don't know, but it can't be a closely guarded secret as a good few teams seem to be able to do it.  So, the question is, is there something fundamentally wrong with the way our club is run?  Surely with an average crowd of 4000 a game we could at LEAST break even.  I just don't get it.

We are far from alone in having financial difficulties it’s just our board are being open about the situation.

Do a wee bit research (if you can be bothered) into other clubs and the precarious state of many of them will become apparent.

Certainly true that not actually owning the Bairnabeu is a huge issue.

[gav-ffc]

22 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

The guy was good enough to build it for us in the first place so we can't really expect him to write it off, however, there's no doubt that doing so would make a massive difference to us. Saving 80k together with the FSS subs would meet almost half of the 400k every year. 

Yeah of course at the time it was great but we are 13/14 years down the line paying 80k each year and another 40k to be paid back while FSS and patrons are making donations via shares.

[Reggie Perrin]

12 hours ago, Sarcastic Bairn said:

I'm not sure why some cannot get this and keep dredging up the begging crap.

Possibly because they have an agenda.

[Bairnardo]

You have to wonder, given the reaction of some to the honesty of the board, whether they have any thoughts on whether more honesty from previous boards would have given us a chance to nip the shortfall before it got as big 

[Mr Grimsdale]

2 hours ago, Zbairn said:

Some other clubs don't have benefactors and seem to manage OK.

We also have benefactors in SA and those who agreed to give a loan to the club last season. 

I agree that some like Ross Co. would not survive without their sugar daddy, but watch them implode when it all goes pear shaped a la Gretna. 

I would wager All the below have benefactors pumping in money

Ross County, Hibs, Aberdeen, Ayr Utd, Dundee Utd, Raith, Queens Park, Dunfermline, Kilmarnock, Dundee, Livingston, Hamilton, Cove

up till this season you could have added Edinburgh City and Kelty. 

To think this is isolated to one or two clubs is naive 

[LatapyBairn.]

2 hours ago, Mr Grimsdale said:

I would wager All the below have benefactors pumping in money

Ross County, Hibs, Aberdeen, Ayr Utd, Dundee Utd, Raith, Queens Park, Dunfermline, Kilmarnock, Dundee, Livingston, Hamilton, Cove

up till this season you could have added Edinburgh City and Kelty. 

To think this is isolated to one or two clubs is naive 

Also looks as though Hamiltons new owner is putting in a fair bit and until very recently add Inverness to your above list as well. Inverness are now needing to run on their own steam, cup run helped them out big style going into this season similar to ourselves. 

Edited October 17, 2023 by LatapyBairn.

[Zbairn]

1 hour ago, gav-ffc said:

Writing off his south stand loan would do more for the club than lending 40k and also receiving 80k every year. 

Absolutely !

Ever since we have been demoted, the North Stand has stood largely empty, apart from the occasional match.  A stand we actually own. 

However, we have to stump up for the KM Stand irrespective...... a stand we don't own.

SA has done more for our club than anyone else and I can't thank him enough for that. We also cannot deny that the KM Stand was required when we needed it, but it has been millstone around our necks for a good few seasons now. 

[Zbairn]

33 minutes ago, Mr Grimsdale said:

I would wager All the below have benefactors pumping in money

Ross County, Hibs, Aberdeen, Ayr Utd, Dundee Utd, Raith, Queens Park, Dunfermline, Kilmarnock, Dundee, Livingston, Hamilton, Cove

up till this season you could have added Edinburgh City and Kelty. 

To think this is isolated to one or two clubs is naive 

We got lucky last season with the Cup run and the FSS Govt. donation. If not, our benefactors would have been called upon to pump in even more cash to keep us afloat...... albeit some did with another series of soft loans. 

[Blame Me]

18 minutes ago, Mr Grimsdale said:

I would wager All the below have benefactors pumping in money

Ross County, Hibs, Aberdeen, Ayr Utd, Dundee Utd, Raith, Queens Park, Dunfermline, Kilmarnock, Dundee, Livingston, Hamilton, Cove

up till this season you could have added Edinburgh City and Kelty. 

To think this is isolated to one or two clubs is naive 

Everyone makes very salient, contrary points as to how the club is funded but @Zbairn , who I don't think has any agenda, get's closest to the nub of the problem for me.

Putting aside the funding models of those clubs listed they might rely on benefactors to various degrees because they don't have the advantages we do; yet we have a fanbase some of those can only dream of who are backing the team. The club does not find itself in it's current predicament due to a lack of interest from the town as some of those other clubs in Scotland do.

I also find it annoying that this is painted as either being for or opposed to fan-ownership which to me isn't the case. That argument chooses to ignore that FFS outcompeted FF - identical schemes in reality now - showing that there is an obvious appetite. 

That the club in conjunction with the FSS is artificially accelerating this is where some dissent stems from and poses questions about the achievements of a project that is still in it's infancy. 

Overall where the clubs and fans find themselves is not as clear cut as is being portrayed.

[Jimmy1876]

I haven't made any comments up until now since the share issue but quietly reading what people are saying on all sides is interesting and seems a matter of perspective.

I understand the desperate need to drive more money in. Whether we have FSS or not, or a benefactor or not there is £400k that we need above our current earnings if we want to be full time in league one or have a top end championship budget. The board  have to explore every opportunity to fill that gap - its their absolute fundamental responsibility. This might be exploring external investment, soft loans or otherwise but they would also be remiss and not doing their job if they weren't asking their biggest shareholders for cash. One of these is FSS. And I can only assume the only reason we hear these conversations more often is because of FSS. If we had a different shareholder who was a benefactor its likely the same conversations would be happening with them in private. Its just that now we are that shareholder. 

But on the other hand I can see that there are elements that might feel patronising in other ways. The over inflated member target makes it feel like the almost 800 people and 100k joining are either being taken for granted or have failed because its still not enough. Rather than praising and highlighting the fact this is over 100k that didn't exist a couple of years ago. At the same time we are only one leg and we don't necessarily hear the other two legs being asked for this money  (which I'm sure is happening and this is why I say its a matter of perspective) but as a result the responsibility of filling the whole 400k falls heavy on the shoulders of the average fan. Finally, for those who are not interested in fan ownership for whatever reason but give money in hospitality, tickets, season tickets, events, kits and merchandise this also feels like its being taken for granted and you're a "bad fan" if you're not also part of FSS. I think people might rightly decide that their hard earned cash go on something else. Maybe they already spend £50 per month and want that £10 to go on some treats for the kids on a day out. So this "its only x per week if you can afford it" rubs people the wrong way when they are already putting far more in per month that £10 but it partly seems ignored, or not enough. 

I see both sides here. The board have to do what they have to do and these comms have driven about 60 new fans in a week to join up. Other fans can rightly feel like it's a bit annoying. It's just a matter of which perspective you are coming in from. Having a 400k gap to fill just means this is never going to be a situation where everyone is happy. 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Jimmy1876
Didn't mean to quote

[AJ1981]

13 minutes ago, Blame Me said:

That the club in conjunction with the FSS is artificially accelerating this is where some dissent stems from and poses questions about the achievements of a project that is still in it's infancy. 

I agree with 99% of these comments and in particular the fact it's not as clear cut as it's been portrayed, the reason for this lack of clarity is people using language like begging bowls and blame to divide and enflame the discussion, if not why would they use emotive and divisive terms to explain honesty and transparency about the clubs current position?

This sentiment is the polar opposite of what I saw and heard at the AGM and is actually in the f'ing announcements put out by the club, as proved by people on here only last night.

I don't agree with the words highlighted, we are trapped in league 1 and need to get promoted and be challenging at the top of the championship, we need to be financially stable and have a youth development programme. This takes money and the objective of being in the premiership by our 150th anniversary was made clear nearly two years ago. The fans want all this, I assume....... unless I'm wrong of course, but I doubt it.

[ilostmyself]

Are we paying the KM stand off? Or is it rent we pay? If we're paying it off when will it be finally paid? 

[Shodwall cat]

12 minutes ago, ilostmyself said:

Are we paying the KM stand off? Or is it rent we pay? If we're paying it off when will it be finally paid? 

Has anyone ever actually answered this? It's been raised on many an occasion but still gets asked as noone has come up with a definitive answer. I'd like to think we are paying it off as otherwise it's just dead money to the club.  If we are paying it off then I'd prefer we kept going and paid it off rather than people expecting SA just to hand it over when an agreement has been put in place by the club. If we rent it though then it's time SA was asked about future plans as to what will happen with it or the club could be paying it from now to eternity.

[Bairney The Dinosaur]

31 minutes ago, Jimmy1876 said:

I haven't made any comments up until now since the share issue but quietly reading what people are saying on all sides is interesting and seems a matter of perspective.

I understand the desperate need to drive more money in. Whether we have FSS or not, or a benefactor or not there is £400k that we need above our current earnings if we want to be full time in league one or have a top end championship budget. The board  have to explore every opportunity to fill that gap - its their absolute fundamental responsibility. This might be exploring external investment, soft loans or otherwise but they would also be remiss and not doing their job if they weren't asking their biggest shareholders for cash. One of these is FSS. And I can only assume the only reason we hear these conversations more often is because of FSS. If we had a different shareholder who was a benefactor its likely the same conversations would be happening with them in private. Its just that now we are that shareholder. 

But on the other hand I can see that there are elements that might feel patronising in other ways. The over inflated member target makes it feel like the almost 800 people and 100k joining are either being taken for granted or have failed because its still not enough. Rather than praising and highlighting the fact this is over 100k that didn't exist a couple of years ago. At the same time we are only one leg and we don't necessarily hear the other two legs being asked for this money  (which I'm sure is happening and this is why I say its a matter of perspective) but as a result the responsibility of filling the whole 400k falls heavy on the shoulders of the average fan. Finally, for those who are not interested in fan ownership for whatever reason but give money in hospitality, tickets, season tickets, events, kits and merchandise this also feels like its being taken for granted and you're a "bad fan" if you're not also part of FSS. I think people might rightly decide that their hard earned cash go on something else. Maybe they already spend £50 per month and want that £10 to go on some treats for the kids on a day out. So this "its only x per week if you can afford it" rubs people the wrong way when they are already putting far more in per month that £10 but it partly seems ignored, or not enough. 

I see both sides here. The board have to do what they have to do and these comms have driven about 60 new fans in a week to join up. Other fans can rightly feel like it's a bit annoying. It's just a matter of which perspective you are coming in from. Having a 400k gap to fill just means this is never going to be a situation where everyone is happy. 

I think that sums up both sides pretty much perfectly. 

It shows just how hard it would be to get the messaging spot on to both increase the required fan-funding and not piss people off. 

Perhaps if the wider support had a better understanding of what was being asked of the PG and large shareholders (and I know things have been/are being asked) it would feel like less of the burden was on them. Saying that I know that the larger shareholders particularly don't like there names being mentioned even when linked positive news.

[Disco Duck]

34 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:

Has anyone ever actually answered this? It's been raised on many an occasion but still gets asked as noone has come up with a definitive answer. I'd like to think we are paying it off as otherwise it's just dead money to the club.  If we are paying it off then I'd prefer we kept going and paid it off rather than people expecting SA just to hand it over when an agreement has been put in place by the club. If we rent it though then it's time SA was asked about future plans as to what will happen with it or the club could be paying it from now to eternity.

As far as I’m aware it’s owned by SA and rented by the club.

[LatapyBairn.]

54 minutes ago, ilostmyself said:

Are we paying the KM stand off? Or is it rent we pay? If we're paying it off when will it be finally paid? 

It’s rent, rumours that SA has left it to the club in his will but I’ve no idea if that’s true or not. 

[Salvo Montalbano]

3 hours ago, Mr Grimsdale said:

I would wager All the below have benefactors pumping in money

Ross County, Hibs, Aberdeen, Ayr Utd, Dundee Utd, Raith, Queens Park, Dunfermline, Kilmarnock, Dundee, Livingston, Hamilton, Cove

up till this season you could have added Edinburgh City and Kelty. 

To think this is isolated to one or two clubs is naive 

While we now have German owners who have put some money in (mostly into the youth academy tbf although I dare they they've helped fund contract extensions and the like), immediately after administration and relegation we were pretty much fan owned in a similar way to Falkirk - several "Patrons" who had put most of the money in and the Supporters Trust who put in a fair few quid and who had a seat on the board. And whilst we didn't have to rent the ground from the council, we did have to pay costs for upkeep and also I think some rental fees to EEP Ltd, we managed to only make minimal losses in one of the seasons and small profits in the others. It still amazes me that losses of 400 grand are seen as fine. Big names on big money can't be helping, and I can't help but wonder if Falkirk had spent less on wages and brought through some young players on peanuts and grew organically things wouldn't have been so bad. It's easy to say in hindsight of course, and wanting to get up as quickly as possible was paramount in everyone's thoughts but short term pain could have led to long term gain. I don't know.