roman_bairn Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Just now, ShaggerG said: This obviously sounds like sour grapes-but it's not. I don't think Bonnyrigg's pitch should be allowed at all in the professional game. There are fewer slopes on the Ochils and their team will obviously know how it plays better than any visiting team. It’s the Scottish Cup. The variations in surfaces and teams is what makes it special. It was an awful surface which I can understand our frustration with, but the truth is that it’s the same surface they use for their league games. Unless they are guilty of doing specific damage to make it worse for the game then we should really just accept that we did not deal with it and move on…… 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPM Again Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 2 hours ago, Dave McInally said: Maybe they could appoint representatives on the board to act in their interest and help out? Maybe if they were interested they would have already 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 12 minutes ago, BPM Again said: Maybe if they were interested they would have already You said you wanted them to be more interested though so surely an option? Most of them are getting on in years now so would be a bit unfair to expect them to have much direct involvement. If it’s not cash and just extra help required then can the board not appoint other directors to help with the workload? Edited January 25 by Dave McInally 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaggerG Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 23 minutes ago, roman_bairn said: It’s the Scottish Cup. The variations in surfaces and teams is what makes it special. It was an awful surface which I can understand our frustration with, but the truth is that it’s the same surface they use for their league games. Unless they are guilty of doing specific damage to make it worse for the game then we should really just accept that we did not deal with it and move on…… Aye, but most pitches tend to be flat. I'm not making excuses for our defeat or performance - we should have been able to overcome the conditions. I've seen (and played on) pitches in much worse condition, but I've never seen a pitch that slopes up and down, side to side and has wee occasional dips the way that Bonnyrigg's does. It's 2024, not 1964. Things have moved on and there are all sorts of rules and regulations re grounds, I don't think it's too much to ask to be able to play on a level pitch. I wonder why they haven't installed plastic? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopeStreetWalker Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 20 hours ago, Bairney The Dinosaur said: 25% secured and another one of the building blocks of fan-ownership in place. Great chance to keep pushing this forward. Just keep in mind that any further share issue not bought by the Fans Consortium dilutes the 25%. This is not a permanent figure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ1981 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Just now, HopeStreetWalker said: Just keep in mind that any further share issue not bought by the Fans Consortium dilutes the 25%. This is not a permanent figure. https://falkirksupporters.org/fss-policy-documents/ Check under partnership agreement - what is absolutely permanent is your negativity. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, ShaggerG said: Aye, but most pitches tend to be flat. I'm not making excuses for our defeat or performance - we should have been able to overcome the conditions. I've seen (and played on) pitches in much worse condition, but I've never seen a pitch that slopes up and down, side to side and has wee occasional dips the way that Bonnyrigg's does. It's 2024, not 1964. Things have moved on and there are all sorts of rules and regulations re grounds, I don't think it's too much to ask to be able to play on a level pitch. I wonder why they haven't installed plastic? Dumbartons pitch is exactly the same. Various slopes on it which you can see in the link. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatapyBairn. Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) Owners who still have such a significant shareholding in the club (SA, MR and the Rawlins) should definitely be more directly involved in some capacity in a perfect world. It’s not ideal to have such a large shareholding essentially laying dormant, if they wanted to appoint somebody on they’re behalf to the board they could and already would have so the fact that they haven’t bothered in itself speaks volumes. As BPM says it would be good if the right investor existed to bring them in to take over that “3rd leg” shareholding, the bonus is the fans are now in control so we shouldn’t be jumping at the first investor that suggests flinging a few quid around and if that means being cautious and waiting indefinitely to seek the right person or people then so be it. Edited January 25 by LatapyBairn. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaggerG Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 2 minutes ago, Dave McInally said: Dumbartons pitch is exactly the same. Various slopes on it which you can see in the link. It's not great, that's for sure, and it often feels like players taking a corner at our end of the park are on the same level as the crossbar! (Nowhere near it of course), but it's nowhere near as bad as Bonnyrigg. Hypothetical question: let's say that Bonnyrigg managed to gain promotion to the Premier, do you think they'd be allowed in with a pitch like that, or would the rules magically be changed to stop them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatapyBairn. Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 12 minutes ago, HopeStreetWalker said: Just keep in mind that any further share issue not bought by the Fans Consortium dilutes the 25%. This is not a permanent figure. The 25% + 1 shareholding is ring fenced for the FSS in the contract between the society and the club I believe. So there is no reason the FSS shareholding should ever fall below that figure regardless of hypothetical share issues you speak of that may never happen. Edited January 25 by LatapyBairn. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Just now, ShaggerG said: It's not great, that's for sure, and it often feels like players taking a corner at our end of the park are on the same level as the crossbar! (Nowhere near it of course), but it's nowhere near as bad as Bonnyrigg. Hypothetical question: let's say that Bonnyrigg managed to gain promotion to the Premier, do you think they'd be allowed in with a pitch like that, or would the rules magically be changed to stop them? Your latter point possibly but I have seen Premiership grounds look dreadful, maybe not quite as bad as Bonnyriggs. Definitely should be an onus to keep the pitch to a high standard but they are a lowland club and having seen us playing in some awful conditions at Brockville, I’m less inclined to condemn the pitch. This man had no problem playing on a poor surface anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPM Again Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 29 minutes ago, Dave McInally said: You said you wanted them to be more interested though so surely an option? Most of them are getting on in years now so would be a bit unfair to expect them to have much direct involvement. If it’s not cash and just extra help required then can the board not appoint other directors to help with the workload? I didn’t say it wasn’t cash. I said it needs to be MORE than just cash. Long and short of it is we need Major shareholders who are interested in investing BOTH money and time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 15 minutes ago, BPM Again said: I didn’t say it wasn’t cash. I said it needs to be MORE than just cash. Long and short of it is we need Major shareholders who are interested in investing BOTH money and time. But if the MSG are still willing to provide soft loans then why do you need them to be involved? Surely can just appoint anyone on the board who can help fill any skill shortage or bring in more investment? Edited January 25 by Dave McInally 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaggerG Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 9 minutes ago, Dave McInally said: Your latter point possibly but I have seen Premiership grounds look dreadful, maybe not quite as bad as Bonnyriggs. Definitely should be an onus to keep the pitch to a high standard but they are a lowland club and having seen us playing in some awful conditions at Brockville, I’m less inclined to condemn the pitch. This man had no problem playing on a poor surface anyway. I'm not complaining at the state of the pitch on Saturday, as I said, I've seen much worse. I'm talking specifically about the sloping issues. It could be like a carpet but I still wouldn't agree with it being allowed. I've only been once, at a pre-season friendly a couple of seasons ago. The pitch was fine then but I still said as much at the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebobsboy Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 hour ago, roman_bairn said: Should I be worried that Morrison is out injured just ahead of the transfer deadline or am I just reading too much into that? Your reading too much into that. Start worrying if we bring in a winger as the next signing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairney The Dinosaur Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 47 minutes ago, HopeStreetWalker said: Just keep in mind that any further share issue not bought by the Fans Consortium dilutes the 25%. This is not a permanent figure. Any further share issue would dilute the shareholding - true. But, under the partnership agreement (provided by AJ1981) the FSS would have a percentage of these newly issued shares held to allow it to build back to it's shareholding position at time of issue. Now there is a debate as to how quickly FSS could purchase these shares to retain it's shareholding and there are many mechanisms being explored to find the best way forward. It's not permanent, but it's about as close as you can get. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roboccop Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Why are all new payments from FSS not going as a loan which will only be repaid if the shareholding elsewhere is expanded and in the form of shares thus protecting the FSS shareholding? We were promised this would be looked at at one of the members meetings and it’s conveniently been forgotten because the Board don’t want it. FSS need to be more indépendant and represent the supporters not just be part of the club admin. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroMoutinho Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 11 minutes ago, Roboccop said: Why are all new payments from FSS not going as a loan which will only be repaid if the shareholding elsewhere is expanded and in the form of shares thus protecting the FSS shareholding? We were promised this would be looked at at one of the members meetings and it’s conveniently been forgotten because the Board don’t want it. FSS need to be more indépendant and represent the supporters not just be part of the club admin. For better or worse, a decision has been taken that the FSS is to be aligned at all times with the Patrons and board of directors (at least publicly) rather than acting as a representative body for supporters. That is all well and good when things are going well on and off the pitch, but will not be tenable in my view should that cease to be the case. There may well come a point where the interests of the supporters are contrary to that of the Patrons/board and the FSS needs to be able to raise the supporters’ views on such an issue. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairney The Dinosaur Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 12 minutes ago, Roboccop said: We were promised this would be looked at at one of the members meetings and it’s conveniently been forgotten because the Board don’t want it. What a bizarre thing to say when it's been included in every FSS newsletter since the members meeting that an accountant is exploring all the available options for quickly securing the FSS shareholding in the event of a share issue. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roboccop Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 6 minutes ago, Bairney The Dinosaur said: What a bizarre thing to say when it's been included in every FSS newsletter since the members meeting that an accountant is exploring all the available options for quickly securing the FSS shareholding in the event of a share issue. How long has that been? Has there been any other update? seriously it’s being ignored as an issue and hoped it’ll be forgotten about Lets not forget I was told at a meeting by the FSS chair that FSS should never put forward any policy that the Board would not pass. That’s craven. And in time will be an issue, not now when things are going well but that won’t last forever and I support this Board they’ve got most things right but it doesn’t mean FSS should just do as they want forever 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.