The FOH Vote - the case against

[Don Dan]

Some people just cant see a good deal when it's laid in front of them. It's not like we can't afford it.

This time!!! The finances are there they could well NOT be in th future. Let's not be blinkered or suffer from tunnel vision let's instead remove the blinkers and take the opportunity to buil a new stand round the tunnel and look at what will ultimately be ours.

[RobboM]

I welcome the arguments being rehearsed but don't find the case against very convincing at all.

I subscribed to the 500 Club and the New 500 Club back in the day, bought shares and subscribed to FoH. If the club had come out with yet another 500 club style offering on top of all that I doubt very much whether I'd have signed up. For me funding towards the new stand via FoH makes a lot of sense in terms of timing, striking while the iron is hot and the structure is in place to raise and administer our contribution.

 

Fwiw I've upped my FoH sub on the back of the stand announcement and voted FOR. 

[Cade]

So let me get this straight......we've to vote against because we're being asked to vote?

 

[Drewboy]

This is a good point.

I agree but I would also be wary of a FoH board who changed the original aims without any consultation. I'm not suggesting they are here but it's healthy to have different views on any proposals which allow FoH members to make an informed decision.

[Bungalow Bill]

I agree but I would also be wary of a FoH board who changed the original aims without any consultation. I'm not suggesting they are here but it's healthy to have different views on any proposals which allow FoH members to make an informed decision.

 

But there were consultations, and now the members are being asked to vote.

[XB52]

Why haven't you mentioned this before now?

I know, you would think someone with such strong opinions would have made them known before

[Pistol1874]

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.

To you maybe and I don't think we have an official FOH spokesman on here, that's misleading and we would t want that.

You say 'evasive and misleading'. Who do you see as the ultimate beneficiary/ies of this behaviour? Who gains from it?

No-one makes any money from it (including you, which clearly irks), we gain control, ultimately, of a greatly enhanced asset and the person running the club day-to-day is the person who would win a landslide victory were she willing to stay on after either the original date, an earlier date or a later date were it put to a vote.

I'll tell you, by outlining what's proposed and putting it to a vote they aren't very good at whatever you suspect them of.

You have gone way beyond an informative Devil's advocate and your motives are becoming increasingly suspicious, far more so than those of FOH.

[Jamboelite]

 'evasive and misleading'

 

Im all for asking questions but as was noted in the other thread you have gone passed that and taken it as some personal mission to highlight this grossly misleading and offensive comments on the Q&A, without you no one could grasp the concepts of what is being asked of us as FOH members and the changes this will mean.

 

Thanks for keeping them in check FA......really thanks.

[BelgeJambo]

Onwards and Upwards - just upped my pledge to 51

[Buffalo Bill]

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.

 

 

"misreading of the dates" :D 

 

I'm pretty sure 2019 (year five) was the year we were all given as to when the handover would likely take place.

 

But please feel free to use me as part of your platform of truth

[Fxxx the SPFL]

To you maybe and I don't think we have an official FOH spokesman on here, that's misleading and we would t want that.

You say 'evasive and misleading'. Who do you see as the ultimate beneficiary/ies of this behaviour? Who gains from it?

No-one makes any money from it (including you, which clearly irks), we gain control, ultimately, of a greatly enhanced asset and the person running the club day-to-day is the person who would win a landslide victory were she willing to stay on after either the original date, an earlier date or a later date were it put to a vote.

I'll tell you, by outlining what's proposed and putting it to a vote they aren't very good at whatever you suspect them of.

You have gone way beyond an informative Devil's advocate and your motives are becoming increasingly suspicious, far more so than those of FOH.

Possibly FA is Sergey trying to disrupt the masses, have them cancelling our FoH pledges in the hope that we go down the tubes. We do require balanced views/opinions etc but sorry to start another thread when all these same points were being discussed on another thread smacks of look at me attention seeking. Provided FoH/Bidco consult with the members I am happy with that. I may not always vote in favour but as long as I am consulted I have no issues/gripes.

[Jambof3tornado]

I'm assuming that the majority using this forum have a certain level of reading ability.

 

Not sure at that point we need a champion to help guide us and protect us from so called misleading statements.

[jambali]

I'm not totally confident in FOH. I think there has often been a lack of clarity. It took some time to get an answer to what legal status FOH has, for example. Still not sure who holds the shares but may have missed something.

 

I've valued FAs interventions to attempt to ensure openness and clarity.

 

In the current situation, however, we are being asked to vote on a set of proposals. That's quite a normal event. Voting on proposals either means voting for something entirely new or an amendment to a previous one. In this case both apply. A new proposal(s) to upgrade the facilities and an amendment to the existing plan for transfer to fan ownership. I don't see the problem. So having considered the options when I got the email, I voted for.

 

P.S. I have doubts about fan ownership - I read Kickback!

[Watt-Zeefuik]

As others have said on here, if that's the case against, it wasn't worth starting a thread over.

 

As much as I appreciate people keeping a skeptical eye on organizations like FoH, the very comprehensive documents released before the vote answer the questions I have very directly.

 

With community organizations, financing capital expenditures is one of the absolute hardest things to achieve.  You basically need some kind of "angel" investor or donor to spot you the funds on good faith and little else.  Commercial banks won't touch it because the collateral is a mess, and small-bore community investment notes can raise considerable funds, but they're an immense amount of work to raise and administer in the long haul, so finding someone willing to take a big financial risk without much financial gain is critically important.

 

In the proposal, fan ownership will be delayed, but proportionally so to effectively stretch the Bidco loan repayment and share transfers from three to five years.  As an additional bonus, Budge has waived her right to interest payments over those years.

 

What we've effectively been given is two years of free financing from Ann Budge in return for a two-year delay in fan ownership.  

 

That's an offer of immense financial value to the club with effectively no financial benefit to Ms Budge, and the response from the fans to this should be, and thankfully has been, "hell yes, thank you very much."  The fact that this does not sit well with Francis's affect of cynicism is understandable, but this thread is absolutely making a mountain out of a molehill, and at some point he should take the message that others have examined the deal closely and are very happy with it.

[Footballfirst]

 

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.

 

The club may well have a five year plan, as may FoH, however just to make clear, the original agreement was not a five year plan.

 

The "Term" of the agreement was the earlier date of either the repayment of the loan and acquisition of the shares, or the end of any "grace period" that Bidco allowed if FoH was struggling to pay off the loan. FoH was obliged to use 95% of contributions to pay off the loan once the working capital target had been met, hence the potential Oct/Nov 2017 ownership date.

 

Five Years was the "long-stop date" of the agreement i.e. the latest date by which the contracted repayment schedule could be met without defaulting (if pledges dropped).

 

If Bidco and FoH had stuck to the letter of the agreement, then FoH would already have raised ?375,000 towards repayment of the Loan. Thus the ?3M FoH has been asked to raise over the next two years is in reality ?3.375M, following on from the ?3.8M working capital already handed over.

 

That said, you are correct to ask what is the better deal for FoH. I was unable to attend the club's presentations, but I did attend the FoH one. As far as FoH is concerned the new deal adds risk to the achievement of fan ownership and that is recognised by the FoH Board. The one question I would have for the Club (Bidco) is what they assess to be the financial benefit and risks from doing the build sooner rather than later.  Someone within the club must have done such an analysis. I'd like to think that the figures are well into positive territory, e.g. say ?1M per annum increase to turnover from ticket and hospitality sales, plus a reduction in maintenance costs, set against possible increased insurance costs and rates bill if the RV goes up.

[CJGJ]

It is right that we debate the issues so well done for bringing this subject to a wider audience.

 

There should be no fear from anyone responding to questions raised by those who care.

 

There is good and bad in the proposals and it is all about the weight each individual places on those.

 

Personally I will vote yes but that is simply because so far I have no reason to doubt those running things at present and until they abuse my trust I'll stick with them...but I'd like all the details up front as well re funding.

 

I want us to strike whilst the club is on the up and this new stand and redevelopment can make us sound for the next decade at least.

[Don Dan]

 

Those out with the doubters think Ann is the bees knees.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fxxx the SPFL]

The club may well have a five year plan, as may FoH, however just to make clear, the original agreement was not a five year plan.

 

The "Term" of the agreement was the earlier date of either the repayment of the loan and acquisition of the shares, or the end of any "grace period" that Bidco allowed if FoH was struggling to pay off the loan. FoH was obliged to use 95% of contributions to pay off the loan once the working capital target had been met, hence the potential Oct/Nov 2017 ownership date.

 

Five Years was the "long-stop date" of the agreement i.e. the latest date by which the contracted repayment schedule could be met without defaulting (if pledges dropped).

 

If Bidco and FoH had stuck to the letter of the agreement, then FoH would already have raised ?375,000 towards repayment of the Loan. Thus the ?3M FoH has been asked to raise over the next two years is in reality ?3.375M, following on from the ?3.8M working capital already handed over.

 

That said, you are correct to ask what is the better deal for FoH. I was unable to attend the club's presentations, but I did attend the FoH one. As far as FoH is concerned the new deal adds risk to the achievement of fan ownership and that is recognised by the FoH Board. The one question I would have for the Club (Bidco) is what they assess to be the financial benefit and risks from doing the build sooner rather than later.  Someone within the club must have done such an analysis. I'd like to think that the figures are well into positive territory, e.g. say ?1M per annum increase to turnover from ticket and hospitality sales, plus a reduction in maintenance costs, set against possible increased insurance costs and rates bill if the RV goes up.

to answer one small part of your point possibly one of the benefits would be steel and other materials are very cheap at present and therefore probably only one way to go upwards, you have probably answered most of your own question i.e. increase in turnover and savings on maintaining the old stand, not sure how much the rates are likely to go up by but obviously a larger footprint would see an increase.

[Disco Dave]

I think we all know deep down a big reason for doing the stand first is keeping the carrot on the end of a long stick. If we went straight to fan ownership, I'd be fairly certain there would be a drop off of direct debits the minute ownership was achieved. I've no idea how many but even if it was 10%, that would be a significant dent in the coffers. Forget about all the PHM stuff, it would happen to some extent or another

 

Doing the stand first makes so much sense. As soon as there was something concrete to announce and subsequently put to a vote, AB and FOH did. I'm not sure how anyone is being mislead. There is an option to vote either for or against.

 

FOH will inherit a well run club, no bank debt and a new stand with better year round income opportunities which will help the club avoid going cap in hand to the fans time and time again in the future.

 

I do really wonder what you are trying to achieve FA, especially given you have stated you will back the case for this approach!

 

Can we please end this "debate"?

[ivanhoe]

I view FOH like a jambo trade union.

 

We elect a committee and mandate them to act in our interests.

 

If Bidco want to discuss a potential change then fine. Go and hear what they have to say.

 

If they have proposal for us then put it to us in a ballot.

 

While I have a lot of time for those who keep FOH on their toes, I think it is a bit naive to think that we have to have ballot on:

 

Whether we should have Bidco talks

What the talks should be and how they should be constructed

 

And involve 8000 people at every stage.

 

Yes this is a change to the original set up but we will decide if that is what we want in the ballot.

[Francis Albert]

I think we all know deep down a big reason for doing the stand first is keeping the carrot on the end of a long stick. If we went straight to fan ownership, I'd be fairly certain there would be a drop off of direct debits the minute ownership was achieved. I've no idea how many but even if it was 10%, that would be a significant dent in the coffers. Forget about all the PHM stuff, it would happen to some extent or another

 

Doing the stand first makes so much sense. As soon as there was something concrete to announce and subsequently put to a vote, AB and FOH did. I'm not sure how anyone is being mislead. There is an option to vote either for or against.

 

FOH will inherit a well run club, no bank debt and a new stand with better year round income opportunities which will help the club avoid going cap in hand to the fans time and time again in the future.

 

I do really wonder what you are trying to achieve FA, especially given you have stated you will back the case for this approach!

 

Can we please end this "debate"?

It's clear from this thread that a number of intelligent people who are interested enough to read about the topic didn't understand the change in timing of fan ownership being proposed. So a few have been enlightened. It won't change the way they vote but that wasn't my intention with this thread. As for the complaints about "yet another thread", someone has just started what must be about the hundredth thread on Robbie's management. I think a second thread on the further contribution of ?3m of our money is not OTT.

[Paolo]

I am with FA. He has made some valid points, as has FF.

 

I voted in favour, and I am still happy with that decision.

 

I have no qualms about someone raising the 'spin' of FOH, and spin is what it is, and is something many organisations use to their benefit. . They would pretty much fail, if they didn't. It is not exclusive to political parties.

 

I think both actually voted in favour of the proposal, but you can still do that whilst highlighting negatives, or simply playing devil's advocate.

[Space Mackerel]

I think the vast majority of the FoH pledgers, myself included, sort of see it as a lifetime pledge, something to be forgotten about as a monthly DD, bit like the gas, lecky and Council Tax.

 

While scrutinisation is good and healthly, I haven't heard any plans from the doubters how raise the necessary millions to get the main stand replaced, which IMO, is just as important as having an end product to watch on Saturdays.

[Smithian]

First off before I share my opinion, pardon my ignorance if I am totally off about something or am missing the forest through the tress. Although I think I follow the club a little more than the casual fan I am still across the Atlantic and at times I am confused by the business of European football compared to the franchising of teamd on this side of the pond.

 

Isn't this a tremendous opportunity for the Club and fans? When fan ownership is official shouldn't the hope be it is a big day emotionally but in actuality as little as possible changes and it is just business as usual? That such a good business model is in place that little needs to be changed other than to keep the train rolling and make small adjustments as needed.

 

Building the new stand will be the biggest expenditure and overall project this club will take on for quite a while (of course, until success requires more new stands!). Although the new stand does seem like a very good and safe idea with the increased revenue and attendance potential, there are always risks. The market could crash hard, on field failures could tank attendance, there may be significant overages on price, the construction itself could see massive delays or other issues, unforeseen scandals, so on and so on. If fan ownership were to be achieved it seems like the last thing this new ownership in its infancy would want to take on is a project of this size. If the project goes to shit it could send the club into a financial tailspin that the new management team may not be prepared for.

 

Again, apologies I'm just totally missing something here. I think the opening post is fair since any decision, even ones that appear easy, should be scrutinized and given due diligence. Overall though Budge willing to stay on through the building of the stand seems to be a big boost to the club.

[scott herbertson]

First off before I share my opinion, pardon my ignorance if I am totally off about something or am missing the forest through the tress. Although I think I follow the club a little more than the casual fan I am still across the Atlantic and at times I am confused by the business of European football compared to the franchising of teamd on this side of the pond.

 

Isn't this a tremendous opportunity for the Club and fans? When fan ownership is official shouldn't the hope be it is a big day emotionally but in actuality as little as possible changes and it is just business as usual? That such a good business model is in place that little needs to be changed other than to keep the train rolling and make small adjustments as needed.

 

Building the new stand will be the biggest expenditure and overall project this club will take on for quite a while (of course, until success requires more new stands!). Although the new stand does seem like a very good and safe idea with the increased revenue and attendance potential, there are always risks. The market could crash hard, on field failures could tank attendance, there may be significant overages on price, the construction itself could see massive delays or other issues, unforeseen scandals, so on and so on. If fan ownership were to be achieved it seems like the last thing this new ownership in its infancy would want to take on is a project of this size. If the project goes to shit it could send the club into a financial tailspin that the new management team may not be prepared for.

 

Again, apologies I'm just totally missing something here. I think the opening post is fair since any decision, even ones that appear easy, should be scrutinized and given due diligence. Overall though Budge willing to stay on through the building of the stand seems to be a big boost to the club.

 

 

I don't think you're missing anything there

[RobNox]

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. 

It's a non-starter for me too.  Playing squad should be funded from operational revenues and player sales.  FoH funding should only be used for capital projects.

[kila]

If fan ownership were to be achieved it seems like the last thing this new ownership in its infancy would want to take on is a project of this size. If the project goes to shit it could send the club into a financial tailspin that the new management team may not be prepared for.

 

Well put.

[davemclaren]

We got the timing badly wrong when we built the current main stand. Now is the right time to replace it imo.

[Mysterion]

Can someone tell me the subject and email address that the voting email uses?

 

Can't find it in my mailbox. :-(

[Independence]

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.

This. I haven't spoken to one single Hearts fan who would disagree with this post. Please FA gie it a rest. It is good to have debate but....your single stand is getting very boring. Please use your enthusiasm to attack something else.

[Guest jonesy]

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

Not really. They're both about the same height and age. Reckon AB is just VR in drag.

[scott herbertson]

Not really. They're both about the same height and age. Reckon AB is just VR in drag.

 

 

made me laugh out loud

[redm]

Can someone tell me the subject and email address that the voting email uses?

 

Can't find it in my mailbox. :-(

I'll forward it to you.

[THIRABHESES]

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 talking nonsense. We desperately need a new stand more than we need fan ownership . This way we get both , your way we get one maybe not the other . Utter daftness

[The Treasurer]

I think you are talking nonsense. We desperately need a new stand more than we need fan ownership . This way we get both , your way we get one maybe not the other . Utter daftness

This post has summed it up perfectly.

[XB52]

I view FOH like a jambo trade union.

 

We elect a committee and mandate them to act in our interests.

 

If Bidco want to discuss a potential change then fine. Go and hear what they have to say.

 

If they have proposal for us then put it to us in a ballot.

 

While I have a lot of time for those who keep FOH on their toes, I think it is a bit naive to think that we have to have ballot on:

 

Whether we should have Bidco talks

What the talks should be and how they should be constructed

 

And involve 8000 people at every stage.

 

Yes this is a change to the original set up but we will decide if that is what we want in the ballot.

Exactly, this one man campaign against FoH is just boring now (well it was boring a year ago actually). If you like what FoH have proposed vote for, if not vote against. Quite simple really. Anyway, I suspect the vast majority have already voted which makes this thread even more pointless.  

[Francis Albert]

Exactly, this one man campaign against FoH is just boring now (well it was boring a year ago actually). If you like what FoH have proposed vote for, if not vote against. Quite simple really. Anyway, I suspect the vast majority have already voted which makes this thread even more pointless.

It's not part of a campaign against FoH. It's a discussion about an FoH proposal. We are presumably allowed to discuss it as well as vote for or against it. The thread has resulted in a few people knowing better what they are voting for, which seems worthwhile.

 

I find the endless multi-page threads about Robbie's managerial qualities boring. I ignore them. I don't litter them with demands that the topic be shut down.

 

Anyway this one man "campaigner against FoH" is "For", with reservations. Assuming any sort of reservation is permitted of course.

[Drewboy]

But there were consultations, and now the members are being asked to vote.

Please read my post again!

[Bungalow Bill]

Please read my post again!

Re-read. I see you're not insinuating the FoH board have changed the aims of the foundation without consultation, so I stand corrected.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NRJ1966]

It's not part of a campaign against FoH. It's a discussion about an FoH proposal. We are presumably allowed to discuss it as well as vote for or against it. The thread has resulted in a few people knowing better what they are voting for, which seems worthwhile.

 

I find the endless multi-page threads about Robbie's managerial qualities boring. I ignore them. I don't litter them with demands that the topic be shut down.

 

Anyway this one man "campaigner against FoH" is "For", with reservations. Assuming any sort of reservation is permitted of course.

I was definitely For but I for one am always happy to read some insightful criticism and the debate that it sparks, although I don't concern myself too much about the inner workings of FoH.

I think like many the D/D is simply a top up of cash to help the club, I do however find the discussion useful and helps me to shape my own decisions.

Criticism is not negativity when it is a well reasoned point of view.