The FOH Vote - the case against

[Francis Albert]

I don't think it should go by default.

 

First forget the spin about the change to the FoH/Bidco agreement possibly not delaying fan ownwership. The whole point of the proposal is to divert FoH donations from repayment of Ann's loan and delivering fan ownership to funding the new stand. This will probably delay fan ownership by over two years. The FoH spin suggests that it might just (on optimistic assumptions) not delay it beyond the "original timetable" of May 2019 - but this was only a backstop in the current agreement. Under the current agreement we are on schedule to repay Ann's loan and achieve fan ownership by around the end of next year.

 

The claim that this is not a change to the original objectives of FoH when we pledged is nonsense.

 

The required ?3m towards funding the new stand could be met by raising finance through a bigger scale "500 club"-type scheme. Fans have already simply donated ?4m

(over ?5m if you include the 2012 share issue) . An alternative financing scheme (offering say 5% return) would obviously cost more than relying on charity ... but the club could certainly afford it. And could fund it through continued FoH subsidy.

 

I think we are being bumped into a fundamental change without much real debate or consultation.

[Diadora Van Basten]

I think it's an opportunity we couldn't have dreamed about a couple of years ago.

[Pants Shaton]

Looks like a much weaker case than 'the case for'.

[davemclaren]

I don't think it should go by default.First forget the spin about the change to the FoH/Bidco agreement possibly not delaying fan ownwership. The whole point of the proposal is to divert FoH donations from repayment of Ann's loan and delivering fan ownership to funding the new stand. This will probably delay fan ownership by over two years. The FoH spin suggests that it might just (on optimistic assumptions) not delay it beyond the "original timetable" of May 2019 - but this was only a backstop in the current agreement. Under the current agreement we are on schedule to repay Ann's loan and achieve fan ownership by around the end of next year.The claim that this is not a change to the original objectives of FoH when we pledged is nonsense.The required ?3m towards funding the new stand could be met by raising finance through a bigger scale "500 club"-type scheme. Fans have already simply donated ?4m(over ?5m if you include the 2012 share issue) . An alternative financing scheme (offering say 5% return) would obviously cost more than relying on charity ... but the club could certainly afford it. And could fund it through continued FoH subsidy.I think we are being bumped into a fundamental change without much real debate or consultation.

I think you are correct in what you say. However, I also think that most people are comfortable with the change and believe it to be in the best interest of the club. Personally, I think a new stand is a higher priority than fan ownership and we need to capitalise on where we are at present in terms of goodwill and financial backing from supporters.

[Texia]

I can see where the argument against is coming from but I voted for as I felt that it would be better to take over a club with the necessary facilities in place than one where we have the baggage of having to sort out the stadium straight away.

[Buffalo Bill]

I don't think it should go by default.

 

First forget the spin about the change to the FoH/Bidco agreement possibly not delaying fan ownwership. The whole point of the proposal is to divert FoH donations from repayment of Ann's loan and delivering fan ownership to funding the new stand. This will probably delay fan ownership by over two years. The FoH spin suggests that it might just (on optimistic assumptions) not delay it beyond the "original timetable" of May 2019 - but this was only a backstop in the current agreement. Under the current agreement we are on schedule to repay Ann's loan and achieve fan ownership by around the end of next year.

 

The claim that this is not a change to the original objectives of FoH when we pledged is nonsense.

 

The required ?3m towards funding the new stand could be met by raising finance through a bigger scale "500 club"-type scheme. Fans have already simply donated ?4m

(over ?5m if you include the 2012 share issue) . An alternative financing scheme (offering say 5% return) would obviously cost more than relying on charity ... but the club could certainly afford it. And could fund it through continued FoH subsidy.

 

I think we are being bumped into a fundamental change without much real debate or consultation.

 

 

FoH members are getting the chance to vote on it. There were consultation evenings at the Gorgie Suite recently.

 

Almost every Hearts fan on a recent thread about this backed the idea.

 

The slight delay in fan ownership will be offset by a magnificent new stand which is something we desperately need.

 

I'm just as comfortable with Ann ownership as I am with fan ownership.

 

I voted 'For'.

 

.

[Jammy T]

Delay fan ownership you say?

 

****ing good reason to vote for it IMO.

[Oneneilberry]

No doubt the goalposts have been moved but I genuinely believe the majority of FOH subscribers are putting there cash in and as long as it's benefiting the club wether it be stands player budgets or something else they couldn't give a toss.Thats the way I see it and as for fan ownership when it happens it happens I'm in no rush

[Pistol1874]

I don't think it should go by default.

 

First forget the spin about the change to the FoH/Bidco agreement possibly not delaying fan ownwership. The whole point of the proposal is to divert FoH donations from repayment of Ann's loan and delivering fan ownership to funding the new stand. This will probably delay fan ownership by over two years. The FoH spin suggests that it might just (on optimistic assumptions) not delay it beyond the "original timetable" of May 2019 - but this was only a backstop in the current agreement. Under the current agreement we are on schedule to repay Ann's loan and achieve fan ownership by around the end of next year.

 

The claim that this is not a change to the original objectives of FoH when we pledged is nonsense.

 

The required ?3m towards funding the new stand could be met by raising finance through a bigger scale "500 club"-type scheme. Fans have already simply donated ?4m

(over ?5m if you include the 2012 share issue) . An alternative financing scheme (offering say 5% return) would obviously cost more than relying on charity ... but the club could certainly afford it. And could fund it through continued FoH subsidy.

 

I think we are being bumped into a fundamental change without much real debate or consultation.

Why haven't you mentioned this before now?

[SwindonJambo]

Delay fan ownership you say?

******* good reason to vote for it IMO.

100% agreed. I want Queen Ann at the helm for as long as possible. These ?2.5m of donations from anonymous benefactors are probably only possible with the reassuring stability she provides. Would these benefactors be as willing to stump up if a committee of elected directors was in charge ? I'm Not convinced. As I've said before, a brand new shiny main stand for 2 years of FoH subs is an absolute bargain and no brainer.

[Bowmans_Boot]

No doubt the goalposts have been moved but I genuinely believe the majority of FOH subscribers are putting there cash in and as long as it's benefiting the club wether it be stands player budgets or something else they couldn't give a toss.Thats the way I see it and as for fan ownership when it happens it happens I'm in no rush

 

Would you accept further delays, then, if you felt they were for the benefit of the club? I am not having a dig, by the way, I am just interested to know if other fans would be happy that their monthly contributions to buy the club were going to be used to fund the playing squad (for example) in the future, which would probably mean that fan ownership would never be achieved. 

[Bowmans_Boot]

Why haven't you mentioned this before now?

 

 

[Jambos1983]

If that's the case against then its no surprise nearly everyone is for it

[Guest jonesy]

I voted no. I think fan ownership should be the priority. Can understand why folk are voting yes, but think there are things even more important than the stand.

[Oneneilberry]

Would you accept further delays, then, if you felt they were for the benefit of the club? I am not having a dig, by the way, I am just interested to know if other fans would be happy that their monthly contributions to buy the club were going to be used to fund the playing squad (for example) in the future, which would probably mean that fan ownership would never be achieved.

Fan ownership will happen ,let's be clear about that but I'm happy for the timescale to be altered IF it benefited the club so yes

[Jambof3tornado]

Well put argument.

 

But a very small minority will vote against this proposal.

[Buffalo Bill]

Would you accept further delays, then, if you felt they were for the benefit of the club? I am not having a dig, by the way, I am just interested to know if other fans would be happy that their monthly contributions to buy the club were going to be used to fund the playing squad (for example) in the future, which would probably mean that fan ownership would never be achieved. 

 

If there was to be another equally worthwhile proposition that delayed fan ownership then I'm sure Ann would put the case to the FoH members and I'm sure the FoH members would consider it and pass their judgement.

 

I very much doubt your 'playing squad' example would ever be considered, but further stadium development could well prove acceptable, in theory of course.

[Pistol1874]

I'm really hoping that JKB isn't representative of our fanbase and really don't believe it is.

Trying to blame RN for yesterday tells me that some of our support is simply stupid, whilst FA's continued agenda against FOH (unless he can get 5% return out of the club too, in which case everything is fine) is obvious.

Hopefully the rest of us are made of sterner and smarter stuff.

[Bowmans_Boot]

If there was to be another equally worthwhile proposition that delayed fan ownership then I'm sure Ann would put the case to the FoH members and I'm sure the FoH members would consider it and pass their judgement.

 

I very much doubt your 'playing squad' example would ever be considered, but further stadium development could well prove acceptable, in theory of course.

 

It was "Oneneilberry" who used the example of using funds to support the playing squad. I would see that as a definite non starter but wondered if everybody felt like this. 

[Bowmans_Boot]

Fan ownership will happen ,let's be clear about that but I'm happy for the timescale to be altered IF it benefited the club so yes

 

If we use the funds to support the playing squad then fan ownership will not happen, as it would be very, very difficult to stop doing so. Fans rarely accept their team becoming worse and so any funds used for that would, at the absolute minimum, have to carry on at the same level. 

[indianajones]

I'm really hoping that JKB isn't representative of our fanbase and really don't believe it is.

Trying to blame RN for yesterday tells me that some of our support is simply stupid, whilst FA's continued agenda against FOH (unless he can get 5% return out of the club too, in which case everything is fine) is self-explanatory.

Hopefully the rest of us are made of sterner and smarter stuff.

 

You only just noticed this? 

 

Its quite worrying how many idiots we have to share this club with! 

[Pistol1874]

You only just noticed this?

 

Its quite worrying how many idiots we have to share this club with!

No, but talk about opening your mouth and removing any doubt!

[Buffalo Bill]

I voted no. I think fan ownership should be the priority. Can understand why folk are voting yes, but think there are things even more important than the stand.

 

The stand is incredibly important. But by your reckoning, not as important as getting Ann oot the door A.S.A.P?

 

It boils down to two scenarios.

 

Fan ownership in 2019 > then start the planning and funding process for ?12M worth of stadium improvements (inc new Main Stand) 

 

or

 

Fan ownership in say 2020/21, but with ?12M of stadium improvements already in place (inc new Main Stand).

 

 

It just seems glaringly obvious to me that we're better getting the stand done now.

 

 

.

[socrates82]

I voted no. I think fan ownership should be the priority. Can understand why folk are voting yes, but think there are things even more important than the stand.

 

Why, out of interest? I could understand that argument if we were owned by a shady customer but Budge is doing a fantastic job. What's the rush? I would much rather own a club with a solid stadium than takeover something that needs a lot of work.

[Fxxx the SPFL]

I voted no. I think fan ownership should be the priority. Can understand why folk are voting yes, but think there are things even more important than the stand.

I couldn't care less when we get fan ownership, if it is delayed by a couple of years so what I'm happy to see a new stand which will hopefully increase our annual turnover significantly. Not sure why the OP started a new thread on this subject as he has done it to death on other threads. Voted yes and look forward to our new stand in 16 months.

[Buffalo Bill]

It was "Oneneilberry" who used the example of using funds to support the playing squad. I would see that as a definite non starter but wondered if everybody felt like this. 

 

 

Ok, but seeing as you asked the question, yes, I would be very open to another proposal if Ann felt it was best for the club. However, I feel this (highly crucial) Main Stand project will be a one-off in terms of amending the Bidco/Fanco agreement. 

[Buffalo Bill]

I couldn't care less when we get fan ownership, if it is delayed by a couple of years so what I'm happy to see a new stand which will hopefully increase our annual turnover significantly. Not sure why the OP started a new thread on this subject as he has done it to death on other threads. Voted yes and look forward to our new stand in 16 months.

 

 

I've said this on other threads but I feel as if we're 'fan owned' now anyway. I'm delighted with Ann Budge as owner.

[Oneneilberry]

If we use the funds to support the playing squad then fan ownership will not happen, as it would be very, very difficult to stop doing so. Fans rarely accept their team becoming worse and so any funds used for that would, at the absolute minimum, have to carry on at the same level.

i never suggested indefinitely using all the money so once again fan ownership WILL happen.I pointed out that I don't think many subscribers are really bothered about what the money's used for as long as it benefits the club.Incidentally when we do pay back AB then if you choose to continue subscribing then player wages will be exactly one of the things we are paying for

[Jammy T]

The more reasoned response is that voting for means that when fans do own the club they own a much better asset.

 

It's called investment.

 

Sometimes when you invest to grow you have to take an extra couple of years to get there.

 

I think stupidity and/or stubbornness might see a tiny number of people vote against this. I don't see any justifiable reason.

[fabienleclerq]

It's six and half a dozen. Fan ownership then figure out how to pay for a new stand, build a new stand then fan ownership. This way we get Ann longer too.

Think you're being daft FA tbh.

[Francis Albert]

Why haven't you mentioned this before now?

I have.

[Jammy T]

I have.

Indeed. Lol.

 

[iainmac]

I have.

So, if I've got this right, - you're making the case against but you're actually voting for?

[Bowmans_Boot]

i never suggested indefinitely using all the money so once again fan ownership WILL happen.I pointed out that I don't think many subscribers are really bothered about what the money's used for as long as it benefits the club.Incidentally when we do pay back AB then if you choose to continue subscribing then player wages will be exactly one of the things we are paying for

 

I get that, but that will be an individual choice for those who signed up thinking that the money would be used to buy the club, not pay for players wages. I would imagine many people signed up to save, and buy the club (given that is what it was sold as) rather than a lifetime commitment, which would be their season ticket money/merchandise purchases etc etc.

 

If I am honest, I see it as a lifetime commitment and will continue to pay once the club is fan owned, I just dont like fundamental principles being changed and fundamental promises being broken. 

[Bowmans_Boot]

So, if I've got this right, - you're making the case against but you're actually voting for?

 

I don't think he said that, Iain, he said that he had raised the issues before.

 

That said, I don't think there would be anything wrong whatsoever with someone voting for the proposal but raising doubts and concerns about it. It appears to me that anyone who questions it is either told, "well cancel your subscription, then" or treated as being somewhat thick. As a fanbase we have raised a hell of a lot of money for our club and I believe that it is only right that absolutely everything is clear, honest, open and debated.

[socrates82]

I've said this on other threads but I feel as if we're 'fan owned' now anyway. I'm delighted with Ann Budge as owner.

 

This is where I am. We have a fan as owner. And she got there because of the support of Hearts fans.  I hope she stays at the head of the club for many years beyond fan ownership.

[iainmac]

I just dont like fundamental principles being changed and fundamental promises being broken.

 

That will only happen if the pledgers vote for it. It's a democratic process despite all the "Stalinist" claptrap.

[Pistol1874]

I get that, but that will be an individual choice for those who signed up thinking that the money would be used to buy the club, not pay for players wages. I would imagine many people signed up to save, and buy the club (given that is what it was sold as) rather than a lifetime commitment, which would be their season ticket money/merchandise purchases etc etc.

 

If I am honest, I see it as a lifetime commitment and will continue to pay once the club is fan owned, I just dont like fundamental principles being changed and fundamental promises being broken.

They aren't being broken. They are giving us a choice.

If people feel the proposal is not what they signed up for, they'll vote against. If they don't like the outcome of the vote, they may cancel their pledge.

I get the feeling some on here would like that.

[iainmac]

I don't think he said that, Iain, he said that he had raised the issues before.

 

That said, I don't think there would be anything wrong whatsoever with someone voting for the proposal but raising doubts and concerns about it. It appears to me that anyone who questions it is either told, "well cancel your subscription, then" or treated as being somewhat thick. As a fanbase we have raised a hell of a lot of money for our club and I believe that it is only right that absolutely everything is clear, honest, open and debated.

This is what FA said on the other thread.

 

So it's always been part of FoH's core objective to cooperate with Ann to make Tynecastle  "a stadium with world class facilities"? Must have missed that when I pledged. Far from ploughing a lone furrow I will be contributing to the Stalinist majority. Could do without the spin though.

I'm reading that as he was going to vote for.

[Francis Albert]

So, if I've got this right, - you're making the case against but you're actually voting for?

If so is that a problem? Are you worried about actually having a debate?

[socrates82]

100% agreed. I want Queen Ann at the helm for as long as possible. These ?2.5m of donations from anonymous benefactors are probably only possible with the reassuring stability she provides. Would these benefactors be as willing to stump up if a committee of elected directors was in charge ? I'm Not convinced. As I've said before, a brand new shiny main stand for 2 years of FoH subs is an absolute bargain and no brainer.

 

Not just that but our future secured at Tynecastle for the forseeable future. Considering moving from Tynecastle has been the main issue for most Hearts fans over the last decade or so since Robinson started talking about selling the ground, it is definitely a bargain. With the ground issue sorted we can focus on the youth academy and team.

[iainmac]

If so if that a problem? Are you worried about actually having a debate?

There was a debate on the other thread but you were having a car crash. Is this why you started another thread?

[Bowmans_Boot]

This is what FA said on the other thread.

 

 

I'm reading that as he was going to vote for.

 

Fair enough   I still think if someone votes for something they are entitled to question it fully, particularly given the sums of money and the basis upon people gave these. 

[scott herbertson]

I don't disagree with your analysis of the factual aspects of the proposal FA, but I am happy with the proposed change and think the alternative scheme you propose would be problematic (how sure could ewe be that people would come forward) and  would feel like an us and them scenario - with a clique of wealthy funders taking us forward rather than the whole community chipping in

 

So I'm for.

[Bowmans_Boot]

That will only happen if the pledgers vote for it. It's a democratic process despite all the "Stalinist" claptrap.

 

I have never used that term at all, I am just not 100% happy about how this has been done. I also feel that the general feeling on here, the principle online debating forum for our club, is that if you question it, then you are either overly negative, hate Ann Budge or thick. I am not crazy on that, either, as I like open, honest debates. 

[iainmac]

Fair enough   I still think if someone votes for something they are entitled to question it fully, particularly given the sums of money and the basis upon people gave these.

 

He questioned it fully on the other thread & the OP is nothing more than a regurgitation of his points from there minus the Stalinist & CPR comparisons.

 

I find it strange that he should "make the case" for voting against whilst personally intending to vote for. Weird!

[iainmac]

I have never used that term at all, I am just not 100% happy about how this has been done. I also feel that the general feeling on here, the principle online debating forum for our club, is that if you question it, then you are either overly negative, hate Ann Budge or thick. I am not crazy on that, either, as I like open, honest debates.

 

 

You didn't use the term.

[Francis Albert]

There was a debate on the other thread but you were having a car crash. Is this why you started another thread?

No. I started another thread because it might have an initiated an interesting discussion. Which it has. Sorry if that upsets FoH.

[DavyH]

I applaud FA for raising questions, it is only right.  I agree with the plan to fund the stand then buy ownership but we need people like FA and FF to remind us to consider all avenues.   It's only a short while ago that we wasted ?1m on delaying our admin.

[Bowmans_Boot]

No. I started another thread because it might have an initiated an interesting discussion. Which it has. Sorry if that upsets FoH.

 

s.

 

Although I do not agree with everything you say, I do agree with you here. I sometimes feel that FOH, and a hell of a lot of fans simply want everybody to vote for it and shut up.