Hearts AGM

[Francis Albert]

In her 24th November Update, Ann said a dedicated email address would be provided from 5th December for people to post questions for the AGM. Has this happened? I can't find anything on the website.

[Disco Dave]

• Phone the club and ask them.

[Generic Username]

[Francis Albert]

 

• Phone the club and ask them.

 

Thanks. I tend to use this site first because others usually provide an answer without me bothering the club. Since that hasn't worked I have just emailed the club.

[King Of The Cat Cafe]

Thanks. I tend to use this site first because others usually provide an answer without me bothering the club. Since that hasn't worked I have just emailed the club.

Do you use your real name on emails? If not, that could really blow your cover.

[Disco Dave]

Thanks. I tend to use this site first because others usually provide an answer without me bothering the club. Since that hasn't worked I have just emailed the club.

I dont think a simple question like yours would have crashed the switchboard and shut down departments whilst they handled your freedom of information request.

 

Once again, a sly dig dressed up as an innocuous question. You really need to change the record.

 

It seems to me that the majority of your posts are dressed up like this.

[Francis Albert]

I dont think a simple question like yours would have crashed the switchboard and shut down departments whilst they handled your freedom of information request.

 

Once again, a sly dig dressed up as an innocuous question. You really need to change the record.

 

It seems to me that the majority of your posts are dressed up like this.

It was an honest and  straightforward question based on the assumption I might have missed something others might have picked up. Why do you think it was dressed up as a sly dig? I am continually told "why don't you ask FoH/the Club?" (as in this thread!) and when I try to find out how to do so I am accused of making sly digs.

 

Why are people so extraordinarily sensitive about questions? What are they frightened of exactly?

 

As it is (statement of fact not a sly dig or complaint - I realise people are busy which is why I try not to bother them unnecessarily) my lunch  time email hasn't produced a prompt reply and I have no reason a phone call would have worked any better.

[Disco Dave]

It was an honest and straightforward question based on the assumption I might have missed something others might have picked up. Why do you think it was dressed up as a sly dig? I am continually told "why don't you ask FoH/the Club?" (as in this thread!) and when I try to find out how to do so I am accused of making sly digs.

 

Why are people so extraordinarily sensitive about questions? What are they frightened of exactly?

 

As it is (statement of fact not a sly dig or complaint - I realise people are busy which is why I try not to bother them unnecessarily) my lunch time email hasn't produced a prompt reply and I have no reason a phone call would have worked any better.

I'm not about to go raking through all of your previous posts to quote examples but whenever I read a thread about AGM's or FOH, you seem to be there and have a unique way of turning an innocuous question into what I perceive to be a sly dig. In my opinion, it almost always appears like you are trying to trip up Ann Budge or FOH for the most trivial of things.

 

If it was anyone else, I'd think it was an innocent question but when its you, I always get the feeling you are trying to mix things up a bit. If I'm wrong then I apologise but I dont think i'm alone in thinking this.

[Francis Albert]

I'm not about to go raking through all of your previous posts to quote examples but whenever I read a thread about AGM's or FOH, you seem to be there and have a unique way of turning an innocuous question into what I perceive to be a sly dig. In my opinion, it almost always appears like you are trying to trip up Ann Budge or FOH for the most trivial of things.

 

If it was anyone else, I'd think it was an innocent question but when its you, I always get the feeling you are trying to mix things up a bit. If I'm wrong then I apologise but I dont think i'm alone in thinking this.

You are wrong and I accept your apology.

[Disco Dave]

You are wrong and I accept your apology.

Ha ha. Fair play

[Francis Albert]

It may have been a simple question but it seems to have stumped HMFC. Glad I didn't phone and hang on for an answer.

 

My two questions would be

 

1. Can you give a broad breakdown of how the ?1.4m per annum FoH subsidy is planned to be spent in the business plan?

 

2. You were quoted after the FoH AGM as saying without the ?1.4m FoH subsidy Hearts would be lossmaking. A back of the envelope sum on the basis of ST sales and walk ups suggests forecast revenue must be at least ?1.4m ahead of the "worst case" budget assumptions so why would we be loss making in the absence of the FoH money? (Supplementaries assuming reference is made (as at the FoH AGM) to unexpected stadium costs and Academy costs) - Can you give a feel for the nature and scale of the unforecast  stadium costs. And presumably the Academy costs are ongoing "revenue" costs (wages and expenses for scouts for example) and should in principle be met out of "normal" revenue streams not the FoH subsidy.

[Meadows]

If i may answer on behalf of Dr Budge.

1. The monies are being used for and not exclusively to install a much needed up to date IT system to allow the club to operate seamlessly for the nest 5 to 10 years. The Ticket office,web-site ,accounts department,media department and youth academy will all benefit greatly from this. As well as the added benefit of improving our fans customer satisfaction.

2. Our initial accounts / forecasts have obviously been overtaken by the 'feel good' factor coupled with best case scenario's, allowing us to invest even more heavily in our playing squad and coaching structure. This investment is being carefully managed however to ensure past mistakes are not repeated.

 

it is wonderful that you ask the questions you do Francis Albert, may i also wish you a belated Happy birthday .

[jambali]

If i may answer on behalf of Dr Budge.

1. The monies are being used for and not exclusively to install a much needed up to date IT system to allow the club to operate seamlessly for the nest 5 to 10 years. The Ticket office,web-site ,accounts department,media department and youth academy will all benefit greatly from this. As well as the added benefit of improving our fans customer satisfaction.

2. Our initial accounts / forecasts have obviously been overtaken by the 'feel good' factor coupled with best case scenario's, allowing us to invest even more heavily in our playing squad and coaching structure. This investment is being carefully managed however to ensure past mistakes are not repeated.

 

it is wonderful that you ask the questions you do Francis Albert, may i also wish you a belated Happy birthday .

Well said, Meadows & in plain English too!

[JamboAl]

It may have been a simple question but it seems to have stumped HMFC. Glad I didn't phone and hang on for an answer.

 

My two questions would be

 

1. Can you give a broad breakdown of how the ?1.4m per annum FoH subsidy is planned to be spent in the business plan?

 

2. You were quoted after the FoH AGM as saying without the ?1.4m FoH subsidy Hearts would be lossmaking. A back of the envelope sum on the basis of ST sales and walk ups suggests forecast revenue must be at least ?1.4m ahead of the "worst case" budget assumptions so why would we be loss making in the absence of the FoH money? (Supplementaries assuming reference is made (as at the FoH AGM) to unexpected stadium costs and Academy costs) - Can you give a feel for the nature and scale of the unforecast  stadium costs. And presumably the Academy costs are ongoing "revenue" costs (wages and expenses for scouts for example) and should in principle be met out of "normal" revenue streams not the FoH subsidy.

1. I'd be surprised, if only for reasons of commercial sensitivity, if a shareholder got a reply from any company about planned expenditure in the detail you seem to crave.

2. Mrs B did say we would be making a loss but for the FoH subsidy but I think we all knew that was a likely scenario given that we only exited a traumatic financial period culminating in administration.  Following that we brought in several new faces which were necessary as our squad was inadequate and a little threadbare.  The alternative would have been to carry on with what we had and my guess is that we would sink down a division or two.  Which would you prefer? 

For my part, and I am sure I speak for a great majority, I trust in Mrs Budge who seems to be a fairly wealthy lady, no doubt by dint of her shrewd business acumen.

I would suggest you let her do things her way and in time relevant accounts will be produced which will allow you and us to seek any clarifications/explanations necessary.

[brownkg]

1. I'd be surprised, if only for reasons of commercial sensitivity, if a shareholder got a reply from any company about planned expenditure in the detail you seem to crave.

2. Mrs B did say we would be making a loss but for the FoH subsidy but I think we all knew that was a likely scenario given that we only exited a traumatic financial period culminating in administration.  Following that we brought in several new faces which were necessary as our squad was inadequate and a little threadbare.  The alternative would have been to carry on with what we had and my guess is that we would sink down a division or two.  Which would you prefer? 

For my part, and I am sure I speak for a great majority, I trust in Mrs Budge who seems to be a fairly wealthy lady, no doubt by dint of her shrewd business acumen.

I would suggest you let her do things her way and in time relevant accounts will be produced which will allow you and us to seek any clarifications/explanations necessary.

are you seriously saying lets just  not question anything and hope it all works out for the best? I don't think FA's questions are unreasonable especially as we are told all budgets are being surpassed in a positive manner. I do not see that beating your budgets means you are still running at a loss unless the original budget was to run at a far bigger loss than the FOH season ticket surcharge ( hmmmmm we see where that got us in the past)

It could of course just be political to stop complacency and us all stopping our DDs coz the job is done but playing politics with fan loyalty is a dangerous game

[CJGJ]

are you seriously saying lets just  not question anything and hope it all works out for the best? I don't think FA's questions are unreasonable especially as we are told all budgets are being surpassed in a positive manner. I do not see that beating your budgets means you are still running at a loss unless the original budget was to run at a far bigger loss than the FOH season ticket surcharge ( hmmmmm we see where that got us in the past)

It could of course just be political to stop complacency and us all stopping our DDs coz the job is done but playing politics with fan loyalty is a dangerous game

The reasons why we would be running at a loss but for the contributions are pretty simple

 

We had football debts of ?500,000 plus to pay, we had repairs and upkeep of the stadium and facilities to pay involving a fairly large sum well into the six figure range, we had agreements to keep with companies who had allowed us temp arrangements in the hope they would receive full compensation which they now have.

Most of those were one off costs and but for the funding would have meant we could not have the playing budget we have now hence with that budget and one off costs but for the funding we would have been running at a loss this season.

[Francis Albert]

1. I'd be surprised, if only for reasons of commercial sensitivity, if a shareholder got a reply from any company about planned expenditure in the detail you seem to crave.

2. Mrs B did say we would be making a loss but for the FoH subsidy but I think we all knew that was a likely scenario given that we only exited a traumatic financial period culminating in administration.  Following that we brought in several new faces which were necessary as our squad was inadequate and a little threadbare.  The alternative would have been to carry on with what we had and my guess is that we would sink down a division or two.  Which would you prefer? 

For my part, and I am sure I speak for a great majority, I trust in Mrs Budge who seems to be a fairly wealthy lady, no doubt by dint of her shrewd business acumen.

I would suggest you let her do things her way and in time relevant accounts will be produced which will allow you and us to seek any clarifications/explanations necessary.

On 1. I'd be surprised if many companies get a gift of 20% of turnover without giving some information to the providers of the gift on what it's for. I don't think my questions ("broad breakdown", "a feel for") suggest an excessive craving for detail. Just a wee bit more than "stabilising" and "look what a mess we have inherited". On 2, I don't think you have understood my question.

[Francis Albert]

The reasons why we would be running at a loss but for the contributions are pretty simple

 

We had football debts of ?500,000 plus to pay, we had repairs and upkeep of the stadium and facilities to pay involving a fairly large sum well into the six figure range, we had agreements to keep with companies who had allowed us temp arrangements in the hope they would receive full compensation which they now have.

Most of those were one off costs and but for the funding would have meant we could not have the playing budget we have now hence with that budget and one off costs but for the funding we would have been running at a loss this season.

So if revenue wasn't running on my back of the envelope sum at least ?1.4m per annum above budget/ forecast we would have been making very substantial losses?

[CJGJ]

So if revenue wasn't running on my back of the envelope sum at least ?1.4m per annum above budget/ forecast we would have been making very substantial losses?

Sorry FA but it's not difficult to do the sums this time.

 

The club was aware that there would be a substantial sum coming in from FOH..........they budgeted for that income knowing there were large one off payments in the first year.

Had the money not been coming in from FOH then had the rest of the budget stayed the same we would have been running at a loss given we would have had to pay those one off costs..........hence Ann being able to declare without the FOH money the club would have been running at a loss.

 

It really is not difficult and this time your questioning is unfounded...it's simple maths.

 

I know you have 'issues' with some of the FOH involvement but what was said was correct and fairly simple to understand.

[JamboAl]

are you seriously saying lets just  not question anything and hope it all works out for the best? I don't think FA's questions are unreasonable especially as we are told all budgets are being surpassed in a positive manner. I do not see that beating your budgets means you are still running at a loss unless the original budget was to run at a far bigger loss than the FOH season ticket surcharge ( hmmmmm we see where that got us in the past)

It could of course just be political to stop complacency and us all stopping our DDs coz the job is done but playing politics with fan loyalty is a dangerous game

I am saying exactly that.  In an ideal world we (shareholders) should be able to ask questions and find out what is going on but questioning in-year expenditure etc at the drop of a hat is simply impractical and farcically uneconomic.  Imagine we have 10,000 shareholders who each exercise their right and ask just 1 question per week: that is an average of 200 answers per week that have to be given.  Consider the research time and wage cost, the cost of paper/postage etc and you will find an absolutely ridiculously stupid waste of money and resources which could saved or utilised more positively and effectively.

[Footballfirst]

Sorry FA but it's not difficult to do the sums this time.

 

The club was aware that there would be a substantial sum coming in from FOH..........they budgeted for that income knowing there were large one off payments in the first year.

Had the money not been coming in from FOH then had the rest of the budget stayed the same we would have been running at a loss given we would have had to pay those one off costs..........hence Ann being able to declare without the FOH money the club would have been running at a loss.

 

It really is not difficult and this time your questioning is unfounded...it's simple maths.

 

I know you have 'issues' with some of the FOH involvement but what was said was correct and fairly simple to understand.

 

The club's accounts have confirmed that the ?1M paid up front wasn't primarily used for immediate working capital, as was the general expectation, but to pay off the one off costs of the  football creditors and Bidco's (not insignificant) expenses.

[brownkg]

I am saying exactly that.  In an ideal world we (shareholders) should be able to ask questions and find out what is going on but questioning in-year expenditure etc at the drop of a hat is simply impractical and farcically uneconomic.  Imagine we have 10,000 shareholders who each exercise their right and ask just 1 question per week: that is an average of 200 answers per week that have to be given.  Consider the research time and wage cost, the cost of paper/postage etc and you will find an absolutely ridiculously stupid waste of money and resources which could saved or utilised more positively and effectively.

So far, given the evidence on here, there are only a handful of people asking questions so your extrapolation is not valid in that context. I still think the statement that but for FOH we would be running at a loss is a tad suspect given how every budget target has been exceeded in a positive manner (source also the club). A simple statement saying "becuase things are going so well we have brought forward some palans and expenditure we didn't origionally budgeted for" would allay a lot of these questions.Will wait and see what Wednesday brings

[CJGJ]

The club's accounts have confirmed that the ?1M paid up front wasn't primarily used for immediate working capital, as was the general expectation, but to pay off the one off costs of the  football creditors and Bidco's (not insignificant) expenses.

Whose expectation ?

 

 

What you mean is your expectation not the majority who understand a budget.........everyone who attends matches that I know fully understands that the money goes into a budget pot from which the expenses are paid not to some specific cost that you would like just to make some sort of antI FOH point.

It was and is perfectly clear that the contributions are for the overall running of the club not for specific expenses that would make you happy.

 

There comes a point where those questioning need to be questioned and asked to explain what insignificant point they are trying to make

 

So I expect to see you at the AGM asking those questions ...................put up or shut up as they say.

 

If you don't turn up and ask the questions then there is only one conclusion that can be made.

[Francis Albert]

I am saying exactly that.  In an ideal world we (shareholders) should be able to ask questions and find out what is going on but questioning in-year expenditure etc at the drop of a hat is simply impractical and farcically uneconomic.  Imagine we have 10,000 shareholders who each exercise their right and ask just 1 question per week: that is an average of 200 answers per week that have to be given.  Consider the research time and wage cost, the cost of paper/postage etc and you will find an absolutely ridiculously stupid waste of money and resources which could saved or utilised more positively and effectively.

So far we know of two questions. (Not including the one about what happened to the dedicated email address for questions which Ann promised when inviting questions!)

[Francis Albert]

Whose expectation ?

 

 

What you mean is your expectation not the majority who understand a budget.........everyone who attends matches that I know fully understands that the money goes into a budget pot from which the expenses are paid not to some specific cost that you would like just to make some sort of antI FOH point.

It was and is perfectly clear that the contributions are for the overall running of the club not for specific expenses that would make you happy.

 

There comes a point where those questioning need to be questioned and asked to explain what insignificant point they are trying to make

 

So I expect to see you at the AGM asking those questions ...................put up or shut up as they say.

 

If you don't turn up and ask the questions then there is only one conclusion that can be made.

Maybe Ann should be questioned about her temerity in inviting questions!

 

This is just absurd.

[topcat]

Accounts are now on the website

 

That should hopefully answer some questions

[JamboAl]

So far, given the evidence on here, there are only a handful of people asking questions so your extrapolation is not valid in that context. I still think the statement that but for FOH we would be running at a loss is a tad suspect given how every budget target has been exceeded in a positive manner (source also the club). A simple statement saying "becuase things are going so well we have brought forward some palans and expenditure we didn't origionally budgeted for" would allay a lot of these questions.Will wait and see what Wednesday brings

Yes, SO FAR. 

As regards targets being exceeded I think the situation is being handled well.  I ask you to examine your own finances over the years and put your hand on your heart and say you've always been within budget.  I salute you if indeed you have.  So long as any overspend is within manageable limits there is no real problem.

What must be borne in mind is that this club has risen from the ashes after a period of decay and is being run (largely) by people giving their services for free and still we get dissatisfied customers seeking to bore down to the nth degree to satisfy their curiosity or caress their ego.

Would you rather be where we are today or where we were last year?

In accordance with the law and SPFL requirements, accounts will be produced at the end of the company's financial year.  These accounts will show the financial state of the club, give reasons and explanations for key account entries and will also elaborate with sub accounts.  Shareholders then will have a right to seek clarification of whatever bothers them but to answer questions during the accounts year would, if accurate responses are to be given, require accounts to be made up every week or month which is utterly farcical.

[Creepy Lurker]

Accounts are now on the website

 

That should hopefully answer some questions

Good username m8

[CJGJ]

Maybe Ann should be questioned about her temerity in inviting questions!

 

This is just absurd.

FA read the last couple of lines............you can ask a question or two at the AGM............indeed I would be delighted if you did and received an answer that could allay your fears.

 

There is nothing in the statement I made that states no one should not ask questions but it is not unreasonable to ask questions of them and try to establish just what point it is they are trying to make...which is not often clear

 

Hope to see you and FF there and I for one will listen carefully to your questions and the replies.

[brownkg]

Yes, SO FAR. 

As regards targets being exceeded I think the situation is being handled well.  I ask you to examine your own finances over the years and put your hand on your heart and say you've always been within budget.  I salute you if indeed you have.  So long as any overspend is within manageable limits there is no real problem.

What must be borne in mind is that this club has risen from the ashes after a period of decay and is being run (largely) by people giving their services for free and still we get dissatisfied customers seeking to bore down to the nth degree to satisfy their curiosity or caress their ego.

Would you rather be where we are today or where we were last year?

In accordance with the law and SPFL requirements, accounts will be produced at the end of the company's financial year.  These accounts will show the financial state of the club, give reasons and explanations for key account entries and will also elaborate with sub accounts.  Shareholders then will have a right to seek clarification of whatever bothers them but to answer questions during the accounts year would, if accurate responses are to be given, require accounts to be made up every week or month which is utterly farcical.

Again with the asking questions is bad routine . No it is not neither is it invalid just as your blind acceptance that all is OK is too. It should also be noted that your rhetorical question re where we find ourselves does not and should not preclude questions either. I am with FA re the board asking for questions then a "cast of thousands" shouting down anyone who does

[Francis Albert]

FA read the last couple of lines............you can ask a question or two at the AGM............indeed I would be delighted if you did and received an answer that could allay your fears.

 

There is nothing in the statement I made that states no one should not ask questions but it is not unreasonable to ask questions of them and try to establish just what point it is they are trying to make...which is not often clear

 

Hope to see you and FF there and I for one will listen carefully to your questions and the replies.

I am not making an 800 mile round trip to attend the AGM. I would have asked the questions (which I am sorry you can't understand) if the promised dedicated email facility had been provided. Maybe you could ask them for me. Thanks in anticipation.

 

Do you really believe people asking questions should be questioned about why they are asking questions? It will be interesting if Ann adopts this approach on Wednesday.

[CJGJ]

I am not making an 800 mile round trip to attend the AGM. I would have asked the questions (which I am sorry you can't understand) if the promised dedicated email facility had been provided. Maybe you could ask them for me. Thanks in anticipation.

 

Do you really believe people asking questions should be questioned about why they are asking questions? It will be interesting if Ann adopts this approach on Wednesday.

Check what was said...I stated there is nothing wrong in asking questions of those who want answers of just what the point they are trying to make is........can't see that there is anything unreasonable in that.........................unless it's all a conspiracy of course 

 

Send a pm and I'll take them to the AGM for you or you could e mail  [email protected] who is the head of PR and communications to help you with your quest re the e mail box for questions.

[Jambof3tornado]

So am I right in thinking everyone but FA got Anns email regarding the address any questions can be emailed to?

[Footballfirst]

Whose expectation ?

 

 

What you mean is your expectation not the majority who understand a budget.........everyone who attends matches that I know fully understands that the money goes into a budget pot from which the expenses are paid not to some specific cost that you would like just to make some sort of antI FOH point.

It was and is perfectly clear that the contributions are for the overall running of the club not for specific expenses that would make you happy.

 

There comes a point where those questioning need to be questioned and asked to explain what insignificant point they are trying to make

 

So I expect to see you at the AGM asking those questions ...................put up or shut up as they say.

 

If you don't turn up and ask the questions then there is only one conclusion that can be made.

 

You have lost me.  My expectation was that we needed the ?1M up front to fund immediate working capital, i.e. to fund the close season wages and the immediate needs of the football creditors.  The accounts indicate that the ?1M was used to repay the football creditors but also to pay ?472K to Bidco to cover their expenses (approaching 20% on the amount loaned). 

 

There is nothing that is anti FOH in my post, nor have I ever been anti FOH.  I pledged to FOH to 1) save the club and 2) to facilitate fan ownership.  In my view the cost and time scales are greater than they could/should have been. Because of the extended timescales and the structure of the deal I feel that I am committed to also providing additional funding to the club, so that we can pay higher wages and achieve success on the park by speculating to accumulate.  It is the last point that I am uncomfortable with as it is the way that clubs got into financial problems in the past. There is only one guaranteed promotion place this season. If all 10 clubs in the league adopted that same approach, then 9 of them could find themselves in financial difficulties at the end of the season.

 

If people are happy to pay extra into the club beyond their STs and club merchandise, then fine, that is their choice. It's just not mine.

 

I will be at the AGM on Wednesday and will ask what questions I want, not what anyone else thinks I should ask.

[JamboAl]

Again with the asking questions is bad routine . No it is not neither is it invalid just as your blind acceptance that all is OK is too. It should also be noted that your rhetorical question re where we find ourselves does not and should not preclude questions either. I am with FA re the board asking for questions then a "cast of thousands" shouting down anyone who does

Could you tell where/when I said everything was OK?  How would I know?

My message is simply to trust them to get on with it and ask your questions at the AGM next year.  These accounts and accompanying explanations might render your suspicions unfounded.

Nor did I say questions should be precluded.  Indeed I admitted the opposite that in an ideal world one is entitled to ask questions but in practical terms, it is detrimental to the efficient working of the club if everyone exercised a right to make in-year queries. In addition commercial sensitivity could prevent a proper answer being given.

[CJGJ]

You have lost me.  My expectation was that we needed the ?1M up front to fund immediate working capital, i.e. to fund the close season wages and the immediate needs of the football creditors.  The accounts indicate that the ?1M was used to repay the football creditors but also to pay ?472K to Bidco to cover their expenses (approaching 20% on the amount loaned). 

 

There is nothing that is anti FOH in my post, nor have I ever been anti FOH.  I pledged to FOH to 1) save the club and 2) to facilitate fan ownership.  In my view the cost and time scales are greater than they could/should have been. Because of the extended timescales and the structure of the deal I feel that I am committed to also providing additional funding to the club, so that we can pay higher wages and achieve success on the park by speculating to accumulate.  It is the last point that I am uncomfortable with as it is the way that clubs got into financial problems in the past. There is only one guaranteed promotion place this season. If all 10 clubs in the league adopted that same approach, then 9 of them could find themselves in financial difficulties at the end of the season.

 

If people are happy to pay extra into the club beyond their STs and club merchandise, then fine, that is their choice. It's just not mine.

 

I will be at the AGM on Wednesday and will ask what questions I want, not what anyone else thinks I should ask.

Good .. no one told you what to ask but as usual you try to create an issue when there was none.........somewhat typical of your approach re many FOH issues but still there is always need for questioning if only to satisfy the doubters....and I'll defend anyones rights to ask questions

 

I hope you get the answers you require then we can stop all the tedious attempts at trying to blow up tiny issues into major ones .

 

PS I'm not surprised you are lost though.....get a tom tom for christmas.............EH11 2NL I think.

[Paolo]

Good .. no one told you what to ask but as usual you try to create an issue when there was none.........somewhat typical of your approach re many FOH issues but still there is always need for questioning if only to satisfy the doubters....and I'll defend anyones rights to ask questions

 

I hope you get the answers you require then we can stop all the tedious attempts at trying to blow up tiny issues into major ones .

 

PS I'm not surprised you are lost though.....get a tom tom for christmas.............EH11 2NL I think.

Your attitude to fellow Hearts and FoH supporters, who ask interesting and legitimate questions is an absolute disgrace.

[gashauskis9]

Your attitude to fellow Hearts and FoH supporters, who ask interesting and legitimate questions is an absolute disgrace.

I agree. Weird post and doesn't make any sense. FF is one of the last folk on here who I would paint that picture of.

[Francis Albert]

Check what was said...I stated there is nothing wrong in asking questions of those who want answers of just what the point they are trying to make is........can't see that there is anything unreasonable in that.........................unless it's all a conspiracy of course 

 

Send a pm and I'll take them to the AGM for you or you could e mail  [email protected] who is the head of PR and communications to help you with your quest re the e mail box for questions.

I also guessed Paul was the right person to email and did so (as I said above) on Friday. I got an instant response - an automatic message saying Paul was on leave until yesterday and giving "Phil"'s email address as an alternative, to which I forwarded my request. So two people have received my email. Ann was clearly keen for all shareholders to have the opportunity to ask questions because as she said  she recognised that the majority would not be able to attend. Like everyone else I fully approve of the job Ann is doing and it is IMO a pity that her wishes on this issue for whatever reason have not been met. It is not of course the biggest issue (as I have said before AGMs are a pretty inefficient means of communication with thousands of small shareholders) but since when was comment on JKB restricted to big issues? 

[pettigrewsstylist]

More melodrama from the usual

[brunoatemyhamster]

How the plan going Ann ? 

 

Excellent so far!

 

Thanks Ann, Keep up the good work.

 

I'm satisfied.

[Francis Albert]

More melodrama from the usual

Indeed. Asking a couple of simple straightforward questions looking for only broadbrush answers is "craving detail", looking for answers  "to the nth degree" and seeking "allaying of fears". Melodramatic it certainly is.

[Francis Albert]

The club's accounts have confirmed that the ?1M paid up front wasn't primarily used for immediate working capital, as was the general expectation, but to pay off the one off costs of the  football creditors and Bidco's (not insignificant) expenses.

At the risk of further inflaming the mob, did the ?472k costs included the ?110k "arrangement fee"? Either way, Bidco and FoH  may be "joined at the hip" in Ann's words, but it certainly wasn't achieved by an NHS operation. To pre-empt the seethe, I am not saying Ann benefitted, just that someone did. 

[XB52]

FF asks, IMO, legitimate questions although I do think he is too negative in the say he sees HMFC/FoH. The other one, really needs to be ignored by all on here. just wish people would stop quoting him as my blood pressure can't take it 

[The Treasurer]

At the risk of further inflaming the mob, did the ?472k costs included the ?110k "arrangement fee"? Either way, Bidco and FoH  may be "joined at the hip" in Ann's words, but it certainly wasn't achieved by an NHS operation. To pre-empt the seethe, I am not saying Ann benefitted, just that someone did. 

Who do you think benefited then FA.

You must have someone in mind so name names

[Footballfirst]

At the risk of further inflaming the mob, did the ?472k costs included the ?110k "arrangement fee"? Either way, Bidco and FoH  may be "joined at the hip" in Ann's words, but it certainly wasn't achieved by an NHS operation. To pre-empt the seethe, I am not saying Ann benefitted, just that someone did. 

 

No. Payment of the Arrangement fee was deferred and is not due to be paid until 31 December 2015.

[Francis Albert]

Who do you think benefited then FA.

You must have someone in mind so name names

I am guessing lawyers, accountants, financial advisers etc - the usual crowd.  I suppose we should be grateful arranging a mortgage doesn't usually cost up to 25% of the amount borrowed ... before interest payments. 

[Francis Albert]

No. Payment of the Arrangement fee was deferred and is not due to be paid until 31 December 2015.

Thanks.

[Paolo]

Thanks.

That is how simple it is. You ask a question, and someone answers, rather than abuses, and you are happy as you now know what you want to know (and entitled to).

 

Shame others do not understand that, and decide to abuse you and FF instead, though you both seem to cope.

[Thomaso]

That is how simple it is. You ask a question, and someone answers, rather than abuses, and you are happy as you now know what you want to know (and entitled to).

 

Shame others do not understand that, and decide to abuse you and FF instead, though you both seem to cope.

 

I am afraid this a trend from some on JKB - no real football opinions to express themselves, but right in at the first opportunity to abuse others who do.  Sad.