The FOH Vote - the case against

[socrates82]

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. 

 

That's not what it looks like on here. People are being invited to give arguments against - and are then being questioned when their arguments don't make all that much sense.

[iainmac]

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

I've no idea whether it upsets FoH or not but it's boring the tits off me. You just keep saying the same lines about 100 fans putting in ?30K for a 5% return and "FoH spin". Not so much "an interesting discussion" as Groundhog Day.

[Bowmans_Boot]

That's not what it looks like on here. People are being invited to give arguments against - and are then being questioned when their arguments don't make all that much sense.

 

Hmmm, not really for me.  I have raised questions about it (basically because it is such a fundamental change of the original plan and the one it was sold to everybody upon) and have been told, "It is best for Hearts, that's why yes, don't you get it?": effectively calling me thick, "read the small print - the money was for anything to support the club": making me feel that they have been a little underhand about it, as I didn't sign up thinking I was doing anything than being part of a great group of supporters who were saving and buying their club.

 

I would question where open debate and the welcoming of questions have been. 

[Primavera]

I've been paying my money to save the club, not because I love the concept of fan ownership. Making the club better by improving the stadium I'm 100% behind. I get the feeling that would summarise how 80% of FOH subscribers feel. This is the first management team that seems to know what its doing that we've had for decades so the longer it stays in place the better. The OP seems to be a thoughtful and intelligent poster but I don't grasp the reason behind the continuous subtle sniping at FoH/Budge type posts. Do you see a practical & winning alternative to this (so far) extremely successful setup?

[socrates82]

Hmmm, not really for me.  I have raised questions about it (basically because it is such a fundamental change of the original plan and the one it was sold to everybody upon) and have been told, "It is best for Hearts, that's why yes, don't you get it?": effectively calling me thick, "read the small print - the money was for anything to support the club": making me feel that they have been a little underhand about it, as I didn't sign up thinking I was doing anything than being part of a great group of supporters who were saving and buying their club.

 

I would question where open debate and the welcoming of questions have been. 

 

It doesn't say that in bold. It clearly says it's to help rebuild the club not "anything to help support the club". The below is pretty clear: Initial aim - get the club back on a strong footing (stadium to me undoubtably meets that aim) with the ultimate aim being fan ownership.

 

The current priority of the Foundation is to work in partnership with Ann Budge and her team to ensure that the rebuilding of the club can proceed effectively, supported by the vital financial contribution of Foundation members.  Within the agreed (with Bidco) schedule, we aim to see the ownership of the club transferring from Ann Budge to the Foundation, thus delivering the central objective of fan ownership at Hearts.

 

We are now voting to change the agreed schedule for meeting the aims, not the aims themselves.

[DavyH]

I've no idea whether it upsets FoH or not but it's boring the tits off me. You just keep saying the same lines about 100 fans putting in ?30K for a 5% return and "FoH spin". Not so much "an interesting discussion" as Groundhog Day.

We must apologize for boring you Ian but after Romanov and Robinson I applaud anyone who questions the governance of or beloved team, debate is crucial in all walks of life

[Bowmans_Boot]

We must apologize for boring you Ian but after Romanov and Robinson I applaud anyone who questions the governance of or beloved team, debate is crucial in all walks of life

 

Very, very much this. Perhaps I am a little overly paranoid, and I do trust Ann Budge, but absolutely everything has to be open and honest at all times. 

[socrates82]

Very, very much this. Perhaps I am a little overly paranoid, and I do trust Ann Budge, but absolutely everything has to be open and honest at all times. 

 

Hence the vote...

[Bowmans_Boot]

It doesn't say that in bold. It clearly says it's to help rebuild the club not "anything to help support the club". The below is pretty clear: Initial aim - get the club back on a strong footing (stadium to me undoubtably meets that aim) with the ultimate aim being fan ownership.

 

The current priority of the Foundation is to work in partnership with Ann Budge and her team to ensure that the rebuilding of the club can proceed effectively, supported by the vital financial contribution of Foundation members.  Within the agreed (with Bidco) schedule, we aim to see the ownership of the club transferring from Ann Budge to the Foundation, thus delivering the central objective of fan ownership at Hearts.

 

We are now voting to change the agreed schedule for meeting the aims, not the aims themselves.

 

I do get all of that, I posted what was posted to me. When FOH was launched and "sold" it was pretty clear about its aims, and those did not include "anything at all to support the club and at some point we may well own the club". 

[redm]

I don't really understand why moving the goalposts should be such a big deal. The best arrangements are fluid and dynamic and adapt to meet the needs at any given time. What we needed 3 years ago is a little different from what we need now. Nothing is hidden, it's not complex, we have a subscription system in place that can help us achieve more than just one of the goals we are aiming for and that's pretty amazing, but they could never have predicted or relied upon that at the outset of FOH. Now that they've seen the level of commitment they're able to reassess and adapt accordingly.

 

Know what would worry me more? If we had people in charge who stuck doggedly and blindly to a set of out of date aims and objectives and didn't take progress or the ongoing needs of the club business into account. That would be truly worrying. That's not the kind of sluggish approach I want to see. Not at all. Moving with the times, diversifying, adapting, flexibility. That's what I want, personally speaking.

 

I love the fact that we've built something which, as we go along, is turning out to be so much more than we ever hoped for. This way we don't just get fan ownership, we also get a new stand. What's not to like?

[Bowmans_Boot]

Hence the vote...

 

And hence the need for open debate about it, not those who question something being put down. 

[Bowmans_Boot]

I don't really understand why moving the goalposts should be such a big deal. The best arrangements are fluid and dynamic and adapt to meet the needs at any given time. What we needed 3 years ago is a little different from what we need now. Nothing is hidden, it's not complex, we have a subscription system in place that can help us achieve more than just one of the goals we are aiming for and that's pretty amazing, but they could never have predicted or relied upon that at the outset of FOH. Now that they've seen the level of commitment they're able to reassess and adapt accordingly.

 

Know what would worry me more? If we had people in charge who stuck doggedly and blindly to a set of out of date aims and objectives and didn't take progress or the ongoing needs of the club business into account. That would be truly worrying. That's not the kind of sluggish approach I want to see. Not at all. Moving with the times, diversifying, adapting, flexibility. That's what I want, personally speaking.

 

I love the fact that we've built something which, as we go along, is turning out to be so much more than we ever hoped for. This way we don't just get fan ownership, we also get a new stand. What's not to like?

 

This is a good point. 

[socrates82]

I do get all of that, I posted what was posted to me. When FOH was launched and "sold" it was pretty clear about its aims, and those did not include "anything at all to support the club and at some point we may well own the club". 

 

I don't remember the wording. All I remember is we were in the shit and this was the only way to get out of the shit.

[Bowmans_Boot]

I don't remember the wording. All I remember is we were in the shit and this was the only way to get out of the shit.

 

I agree and that is why I signed up. That was also the reason why I purchased worthless shares before then.

 

As I said before, perhaps I am a little overly critical or sceptical but having contributed a fair amount of money (in addition to season tickets etc) I see that as being fair enough, whereas I feel the general view is that whatever Queen Ann says should be accepted as fact and gospel.

[iainmac]

I agree and that is why I signed up. That was also the reason why I purchased worthless shares before then.

 

As I said before, perhaps I am a little overly critical or sceptical but having contributed a fair amount of money (in addition to season tickets etc) I see that as being fair enough, whereas I feel the general view is that whatever Queen Ann says should be accepted as fact and gospel.

 

She's not asking you to accept anything as fact & gospel - she's asking you to vote on a proposal.

[socrates82]

I agree and that is why I signed up. That was also the reason why I purchased worthless shares before then.

 

As I said before, perhaps I am a little overly critical or sceptical but having contributed a fair amount of money (in addition to season tickets etc) I see that as being fair enough, whereas I feel the general view is that whatever Queen Ann says should be accepted as fact and gospel.

 

I don't see that. She's been very open and has presented very obviously well thought-out rationale for what she's done at every stage - for example Budgement Day. If she hadn't done that you might have a point. Some folk are just naturally cynical I suppose.

[redm]

I agree and that is why I signed up. That was also the reason why I purchased worthless shares before then.

 

As I said before, perhaps I am a little overly critical or sceptical but having contributed a fair amount of money (in addition to season tickets etc) I see that as being fair enough, whereas I feel the general view is that whatever Queen Ann says should be accepted as fact and gospel.

Or, maybe she's just consistently talking a whole load of sense and people are impressed and see no need to place obstacles in her way? The fact that a clear majority support her doesn't necessarily indicate blind and misplaced faith. She has earned trust.

[Bowmans_Boot]

She's not asking you to accept anything as fact & gospel - she's asking you to vote on a proposal.

 

I said "the general view is that...." - open debate about this proposal isn't widely welcomed. Which has been further proven on this thread, as people cannot take a step back, accept others reservations and respect them, they get caught up with the wording etc. 

[socrates82]

I said "the general view is that...." - open debate about this proposal isn't widely welcomed. Which has been further proven on this thread, as people cannot take a step back, accept others reservations and respect them, they get caught up with the wording etc. 

 

To be honest I've read this thread and others and still don't understand exactly what these reservations are or why they are justified. So those people need to up their debating game if their aim is to convince the people For spending on the stand.

 

Their reservations seem to boil down to FoH saying one thing at the start and now wanting to change to something else. I can't see a single thing wrong with that (especially as they are using a democratic process to make their change). There seems to be a very few Against people who are acting frustrated because they know they are vastly outnumbered. I hesitate to call them contrarians, but... there are always a few who are

[Hackney Hearts]

open debate about this proposal isn't widely welcomed. 

 

I welcomed open debate on the other thread, as did many others. I welcomed the scrutiny from FF and FA (my only quibble being with the 'Stalinist' reference).

 

However, there now seems to be another thread on the subject - making exactly the same points all over again. Perhaps that would explain why some people are getting a bit irritated? A weak case doesn't get any stronger by repeating it ad infinitum. And if the OP is voting 'for' as he claims, it just makes it all the more weird.

[cosanostra]

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.

 

This. It's important that we consider both sides of this and FA seems to be one of the only posters on here willing to ask us to do that.

I don't agree with him but I'm happy to read his opinions. They are usually thought out and respectful.

I agree with Jammy as well that anything that postpones fan ownership for longer and means AB stays with us is positive as well.

[Guest jonesy]

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.

 

 

.

Not at all, to be honest. In fact, I really hope that AB will remain in a similar capacity once fan ownership is achieved.

 

FoH are doing a fantastic job, and I trust all parties involved. But the events of the last few years have made me very wary of anything to do with ownership structures of football clubs, especially the one whose badge I have tattooed on my arm and I'd like my sons to grow up supporting.

[Haken]

I don't really understand why moving the goalposts should be such a big deal. The best arrangements are fluid and dynamic and adapt to meet the needs at any given time. What we needed 3 years ago is a little different from what we need now. Nothing is hidden, it's not complex, we have a subscription system in place that can help us achieve more than just one of the goals we are aiming for and that's pretty amazing, but they could never have predicted or relied upon that at the outset of FOH. Now that they've seen the level of commitment they're able to reassess and adapt accordingly.

Know what would worry me more? If we had people in charge who stuck doggedly and blindly to a set of out of date aims and objectives and didn't take progress or the ongoing needs of the club business into account. That would be truly worrying. That's not the kind of sluggish approach I want to see. Not at all. Moving with the times, diversifying, adapting, flexibility. That's what I want, personally speaking.

I love the fact that we've built something which, as we go along, is turning out to be so much more than we ever hoped for. This way we don't just get fan ownership, we also get a new stand. What's not to like?

This. Was just going to post something about the best plans being flexible and adaptable depending on circumstances.

[Footballfirst]

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.

 

The date of your first scenario is wrong, as ownership would be achieved in 2017 at current pledging levels.

 

There is also no suggesting of getting Ann "oot the door ASAP". I'm sure it's within the FoH Board's wherewithal to actually invite Ann to stay on as CEO after ownership is achieved, even on a paid basis.

[Section Q]

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'm really happy to see there's an against argument in all this. And it's being made in a plausible way with genuine reasons why we should vote against the proposal. It shows we won't be led or talked into something without due thought or discussion, and it warns against blind obedience when it comes to following recommendations from our present powers that be. Personally though I'm in favour of of the proposals and have voted yes.

[Buffalo Bill]

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

 

 

 they have been a little underhand about it,

 

 

Perhaps I am a little overly paranoid

 

 

 

[Buffalo Bill]

But the events of the last few years have made me very wary of anything to do with ownership structures of football clubs

 

 

Surely jonesy, you can see the difference between Ann Budge and Vladimir Romanov?

[Buffalo Bill]

The date of your first scenario is wrong, as ownership would be achieved in 2017 at current pledging levels.

 

There is also no suggesting of getting Ann "oot the door ASAP". I'm sure it's within the FoH Board's wherewithal to actually invite Ann to stay on as CEO after ownership is achieved, even on a paid basis.

 

 

As far as I'm aware, Bidco was going to remain at the helm until 2019 regardless, but if you know different, that's fair enough.

 

 

I was responding to jonsey specifically, who wanted fan ownership a.s.a.p and didn't want to know about the new Main Stand proposal.

[The Treasurer]

After pages and pages of FA's "debate" I think I've finally grasped what he is trying to achieve.

It appears he's not against what FoH are doing/trying to do, as such, he just want to know "what's in it for me" (ie 5% on his investment).

Personally, and I'm sure I speak for 99.9% of FoH pledgers, the only return I want is a well run club to support.

I see nothing from either FoH or Ann Budge to suggest I'm not getting anything other than my full money's worth

[The Treasurer]

We must apologize for boring you Ian but after Romanov and Robinson I applaud anyone who questions the governance of or beloved team, debate is crucial in all walks of life

There's a fine line between "questioning" (which absolutely must take place) and nit-picking.

Sadly FA has strayed way over that line

[Pistol1874]

After pages and pages of FA's "debate" I think I've finally grasped what he is trying to achieve.

It appears he's not against what FoH are doing/trying to do, as such, he just want to know "what's in it for me" (ie 5% on his investment).

Personally, and I'm sure I speak for 99.9% of FoH pledgers, the only return I want is a well run club to support.

I see nothing from either FoH or Ann Budge to suggest I'm not getting anything other than my full money's worth

This is where I have gotten to. I also suspect he may have history with those on the FoH board or perhaps wanted to go down a different route altogether.

Nothing would stop me pledging faster than FA, or people like FA, making money from the club simply by lending it money. Not when there is an alternative I can be part of. The inclusiveness of FoH is what I like, we are in it together for no return other than the health and stability of our football club. A new stand, which we can pay for, makes the club healthier and stronger.

Ann, on the other hand, has earned every penny and more that she will make from her initial investment already.

[Victor Meldrew]

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 agree that it's sensible to have a reasoned debate about things.

 

I also agree that what is proposed represents a fundamental shift in the objectives of FoH and will in all likelihood delay fan ownership. To suggest otherwise is, I think nonsense.

 

However, the change is one I welcome. I think that if FoH can be used as a vehicle for us help fund worthwhile projects and help us to protect the future of the club, then that is all to the good. I'm sure there are other financing schemes, but given that we will ultimately own the club, FoH funding seems to be sensible to me. The 500 Club scheme worked well (I would say that, as my father thought up the idea) but there wasn't the FoH alternative available at the time.

 

So, I'll be voting for it. In fact, I may look to increase my contribution as well.

[Sooperstar]

Shocked when I opened this thread and was able to see who started it.

[Allowayjambo1874]

After pages and pages of FA's "debate" I think I've finally grasped what he is trying to achieve.

It appears he's not against what FoH are doing/trying to do, as such, he just want to know "what's in it for me" (ie 5% on his investment).

Personally, and I'm sure I speak for 99.9% of FoH pledgers, the only return I want is a well run club to support.

I see nothing from either FoH or Ann Budge to suggest I'm not getting anything other than my full money's worth

Well said though I think the constant referencing to 5% return is regards the interest rate that was levied on the initial AB loan.

 

A new 500 club as mentioned in the op is asking the fans a hell of a lot given most would be FOH pledgers and have st's.

 

FA out of interest have you ever considered that your 'return' from pledging to FOH is given in a roundabout way by the freeze on season ticket prices? Doubt anyone would have missed a beat if the prices had increased by 5-6%. The prices are frozen due to increased income coming into the club and FOH contributions is main reason.

[kila]

I think you are making some assumptions about finances and you have a 'hope for the best' scenario that enough fans would donate to a 500 style scheme. If that failed, we'd be screwed and the FoH would then inherit the mess that is the current main stand (the expensive maintenance, lack of UEFA compliant facilities, less capacity, less hospitality) and it'll cost us a lot more in the long run.

 

Ann's proposal is low risk and I think it's in the best interests of the FoH. If our existing main stand wasn't crumbling and losing us so much money, then fan ownership would get priority, but the reality is we need a new stand now and any other methods of financing are much higher risk.

 

Also, if everyone keeps their donations the same, we'll only be delaying fan ownership by 8 months, not 2 years.

[Don Dan]

Having read and participated in the other thread and gladly voted "for" Ann's proposal to enhance my club and what I've put into it. I've now read this remarkably similar thread and I'm glad that I voted the way I did.

[Footballfirst]

Also, if everyone keeps their donations the same, we'll only be delaying fan ownership by 8 months, not 2 years.

Ownership is being delayed by two years and three months at current pledging levels. (Two years financing the stand and three months extra working capital already handed over)

 

I think that it is that sort of spin that FA and myself take issue with.

[kila]

Ownership is being delayed by two years and three months at current pledging levels. (Two years financing the stand and three months extra working capital already handed over)

 

I think that it is that sort of spin that FA and myself take issue with.

 

Here's a snippet from the FoH Q&A:

 

"The original agreement had years 3, 4 and 5 (ending May 2019) available to buy out the ?2.5M Bidco loan. The new proposal defers the buy-out and redirects FoH funds to Stadium funding during years 3 and 4. After achieving the ?3M target or from June 2018 (whichever is earlier), the loan to Bidco will start to be bought out. While we would still have a three-year period in which to complete the loan buy-out, at current pledge levels, the ?2.5M would be paid to Bidco as early as eight months after the original May 2019 end-date. If levels of donations increased, then the loan could potentially be bought out within the original five-year period."

 

FoH will be gaining shares as we donate towards the new stand. FoH will gain a 20% shareholding in the club after ?1.5m raised for the new stand, increasing to 35% once the full ?3m been raised.

[jambali]

Delay fan ownership you say?

 

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

Yup!

[Francis Albert]

Here's a snippet from the FoH Q&A:

 

"The original agreement had years 3, 4 and 5 (ending May 2019) available to buy out the ?2.5M Bidco loan. The new proposal defers the buy-out and redirects FoH funds to Stadium funding during years 3 and 4. After achieving the ?3M target or from June 2018 (whichever is earlier), the loan to Bidco will start to be bought out. While we would still have a three-year period in which to complete the loan buy-out, at current pledge levels, the ?2.5M would be paid to Bidco as early as eight months after the original May 2019 end-date. If levels of donations increased, then the loan could potentially be bought out within the original five-year period."

 

FoH will be gaining shares as we donate towards the new stand. FoH will gain a 20% shareholding in the club after ?1.5m raised for the new stand, increasing to 35% once the full ?3m been raised.

Thanks. That's exactly the spin I am talking about. To a question of whether the change will delay fan ownership, instead of a direct response a contrived attempt to deny there will be much if any delay. 8 months after the "original end date" is over two years after the Bidco loan would be repaid if the current agreement was unchanged.

[Pistol1874]

Thanks. That's exactly the spin I am talking about. To a question of whether the change will delay fan ownership, instead of a direct response a contrived attempt to deny there will be much if any delay. 8 months after the "original end date" is over two years after the Bidco loan would be repaid if the current agreement was unchanged.

Is what is being said untrue?

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

Thanks. That's exactly the spin I am talking about. To a question of whether the change will delay fan ownership, instead of a direct response a contrived attempt to deny there will be much if any delay. 8 months after the "original end date" is over two years after the Bidco loan would be repaid if the current agreement was unchanged.

Pedantic clap trap when clearly the motion is for building a better Hearts and long term stability. Fan ownership can follow meantime we have a superb group of people who saved the club who you are attempting to undermine...poorly

[Francis Albert]

Is what is being said untrue?

It is misleading to suggest that fan ownership will only be delayed by 8 months (or possibly not at all). The wording seems to me clearly to invite that interpretation, and it has clearly worked. To the extent that it is welcomed as an example of open-ness and honesty!

[Pistol1874]

It is misleading to suggest that fan ownership will only be delayed by 8 months (or possibly not at all). The wording seems to me clearly to invite that interpretation, and it has clearly worked. To the extent that it is welcomed as an example of open-ness and honesty!

So not untrue then.

[Diego10]

I've voted for. However, I agree with FA that the massive likelihood of delay has been underplayed. There is also an expectation clearly that anyone voting no still continues to pledge which may or may not be the case. If even a few hundred decided against this then the delay could be even longer.

[primrose]

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.

 

 

If this is the sum of the case against then I am pretty glad I voted FOR. The alternatives or negatives you highlight may well be valid, but the positives and the case for voting yes far far outweigh them. 

[jock _turd]

I've voted for. However, I agree with FA that the massive likelihood of delay has been underplayed. There is also an expectation clearly that anyone voting no still continues to pledge which may or may not be the case. If even a few hundred decided against this then the delay could be even longer.

 

I have been following the two debates of this subject with interest. In the course of reading I have not read of anyone threatening to cease their payment to FoH... I have read of several saying they are going to increase their own contribution on the back of the proposal so going buy simple laws of proportion I, rightly .. or wrongly, conclude the chances are the delay will be shortened.

[Bungalow Bill]

I'm 100% behind fan ownership, it's the way forward for us. Where else would we find an owner who'd be willing to pump in > ?1 million per year in personal funding.

 

But, I know a good deal when I see one, and the one on the table by FoH and Ann Budge is a good deal. I'm happy with the delay.

[Francis Albert]

So not untrue then.

No, just evasive and misleading.

 

Slightly disappointed that the unofficial FoH spokesman on here didn't step in to correct (for example) Kila's misinterpretation in post #85 or Buffalo Bill's earlier misreading of the dates.

[kila]

Thanks. That's exactly the spin I am talking about. To a question of whether the change will delay fan ownership, instead of a direct response a contrived attempt to deny there will be much if any delay. 8 months after the "original end date" is over two years after the Bidco loan would be repaid if the current agreement was unchanged.

 

I see what you mean now. Assuming donations remained the same, we could be fan owned 2 years early if we didn't fund the new stand, or we could be 8 months behind the original 5 year plan with a new stand.

 

If we went down the route of saying no to the vote, then we'll take on debt to fund the new stand (as we won't get donations any other way). Which, the FoH will ultimately have to pay for!

 

So in the long term, which is a better deal to the FoH? To fund the new stand prior to ownership and inherit a stable club with no work needed on the stadium nor any debt, or to own the club in 2 years time but either inherit debt on the new stand or have to come up with a plan for a new stand as there'll be all the hurdles to cross again if there's a delay in financing now.