Jump to content
graygo

FOH Governance Proposal

Recommended Posts

Mikey1874

Good stuff

 

Been waiting for this 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hughesie27

Someone turn on the Footballfirst signal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren

👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boab

You a speed reader, mate ?

Give us a chance to peruse the thing !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo, Goodbye
10 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Someone turn on the Footballfirst signal.

 

2eqhu4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
2 minutes ago, Jambo, Goodbye said:

 

2eqhu4.jpg

😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scott herbertson
4 minutes ago, Jambo, Goodbye said:

 

2eqhu4.jpg

:laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambof3tornado

Waiting on the opinion of a few key posters to decide whether to like it or not. Save me reading it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
graygo
18 minutes ago, Boab said:

You a speed reader, mate ?

Give us a chance to peruse the thing !

 

I  might have been involved in the writing of it.  ;) 

 

Nah, I'm not putting my name to anything that includes the word concomitant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
graygo
9 minutes ago, Jambo, Goodbye said:

 

2eqhu4.jpg

 

:rofl: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fabienleclerq
10 minutes ago, Jambo, Goodbye said:

 

2eqhu4.jpg

Superb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boab
11 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

I  might have been involved in the writing of it.  ;) 

 

Nah, I'm not putting my name to anything that includes the word concomitant. 

 

I see what you done there !

👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
graygo

In keeping with the theme.

 

 

Capture.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874

First Key point from my reading is

 

- subs to go to general funds not earmarked for specific purposes but

 

"Foundation funding should be over and above the income required to meet the Club's running costs...(so) unlikely...would go into general working capital. There will be transparency in how the funds are used and members will be able to give us their ideas about hiw they would like the funding spent" p5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874

Some more points (doesn't cover everything) from the responses to the consultation last year.

 

- 90% majority needed to sell shares p6

 

- nearly all suggestions to change composition of Board proposals rejected. Increased number of directors from 6 to 7 to reflect concerns re workloads. p6/7

 

- stadium naming rights to be decision of Board (not put to vote) due to money involved / other key decisions eg sale of stadium to be 50% or 75% vote p7/8

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874

On the membership structure p11-13

 

- no change to original proposal of current pledgers only have voting rights (detailed reasons given p 11/12)

- People support 1 member 1 vote (as opposed to based on amount of contributions) p13

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874
Posted (edited)

As I read it they have basically stuck with their original proposals albeit clarifying that effectvely FoH funds are extra. 

Edited by Mikey1874

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874
Posted (edited)

Final proposals will be published after this consultation to be approved at AGM in December.

Edited by Mikey1874

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rudy T
1 hour ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Waiting on the opinion of a few key posters to decide whether to like it or not. Save me reading it.

 

Likewise! Shouldn't be too long now.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst
1 hour ago, Jambo, Goodbye said:

 

2eqhu4.jpg

Just picked it up. Been out of signal range for most of the day.

 

A quick scan suggests that the proposals are barely changed from the original draft which is, from my point of view, hugely disappointing.

 

I'll take a more detailed look at the proposals over the next couple of days and give a more considered reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
Posted (edited)

Some good some bad. That the self selected "specialist directors" won't have a controlling position is good. That those who saved the club cease to have any meaningful say if they cease to pay (while latecomers contributing a lot less do) bad.

That Ann (with her 13.2% virtual freebie) and her successor shareholders have a veto on future ownership change bad.

Will amplify after having done more than skim.

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rudy T
3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Some good some bad. That the self selected "specialist directors" won't have a controlling position is good. That those who saved the club cease to have any meaningful say if they cease to pay (while latecomers contributing a lot less do) bad.

That Ann and her successor shareholders have a veto on future ownership change bad.

Will amplify after having done more than skim.

 

Surely without a shareholding they have no say regardless of any document?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RobNox
2 minutes ago, Rudy T said:

 

Surely without a shareholding they have no say regardless of any document?

 

Ann will retain some shares, not sure how many, but >10%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
12 minutes ago, Rudy T said:

 

Surely without a shareholding they have no say regardless of any document?

It depends what the document says. In my mind the original concept that those who saved the club had an ownership interest through FoH. "fan ownership" having been achieved. Since then the "pledge for life " principle has apparently become over-riding. No-one in FoH has a shareholding as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

Ann will retain some shares, not sure how many, but >10%

17.5%

 

FOH will have 75.1%, plus the 0.25% gifted to them by HYDC.

Edited by Footballfirst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oliver Twist

Read it and it's quite clear and transparent which is all I really care about.

Nobody will agree about everything and a few will criticise no matter what's written and there are some with self interest clouding their opinions. 

 

As long as there's cash in the bank and we can never go down the pan then I'm sure the majority will be more than happy and will be pledging for life.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

Ann will retain some shares, not sure how many, but >10%

13.2% bought for about £20000 as part of the CVA process or £1500 per percent.

FoH members will have paid about £9m for 75.1% or £120,000 per percent and have to keep paying for life to retain any meaningful ownership interest.

 

Them that's got ...

 

 (17.4% according to FF who is usually right).

 

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Oliver Twist said:

Read it and it's quite clear and transparent which is all I really care about.

Nobody will agree about everything and a few will criticise no matter what's written and there are some with self interest clouding their opinions. 

 

As long as there's cash in the bank and we can never go down the pan then I'm sure the majority will be more than happy and will be pledging for life.

 

 

Who has a self-interest?

 

But you are right - it will be go through with an overwhelming majority at the AGM.

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blairdin

Some good, some bad. 

 

I wasn't keen on the pledge for life thing. The initial purpose of FoH was for supporters to collectively own the club. When that happens, we're essentially paying a premium on our season tickets. For me, after purchase, the club should be run based on a football clubs normal revenue streams. I don't see pledges as normal.

 

Once the purchase has been completed and the FoH has achieved our stated goal, as a continuing pledger I'd probably expect something more back in addition to voting rights. Loyalty points, maybe a free strip, maybe a discount on a season ticket. Something akin Aberdeen's new DNA scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1971fozzy
53 minutes ago, Oliver Twist said:

Read it and it's quite clear and transparent which is all I really care about.

Nobody will agree about everything and a few will criticise no matter what's written and there are some with self interest clouding their opinions. 

 

As long as there's cash in the bank and we can never go down the pan then I'm sure the majority will be more than happy and will be pledging for life.

 

 

 

Good post and echos my thoughts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst

We always knew that the club was intended to be "fan owned" rather than "fan managed", with the club run at arms length, and allowed to carry out its day to day operations without interference. That is as it should be and was reflected in the original proposals.

 

Today's document suggests to me that "fan funded" is now FOH's mantra rather than "fan owned".  The "day to day" bit appears to have been dropped and a key element of the "working together" proposal is also missing, suggesting the FOH's opportunity for oversight is diminished.

 

The original working together document stated "This would set out policies, processes, guidance and protocols governing the relationship between the
Foundation and the Club"

 

The latest update however describes the the original proposal as follows "The Foundation and the Club would put in place a “working together” document, which would set out guidance, procedures and processes governing the relationship between them."

 

I might be looking for issues that aren't there, but if FOH has indeed dropped it's rights for oversight of the direction and policies adopted by the club (as its majority shareholder), then the club might as well just be privately owned and run.  What sort of club do we want in the future? One that is subservient to the green or blue pound? One that is willing to sacrifice sporting integrity by keeping its head below the parapet?  FOH needs to set the values that both itself and the club are run in the future.

 

A question for FOH, given that they keep a close eye on JKB. Did the club (through AB or anyone else) provide its own feedback (detailed or otherwise) on the FOH proposals and can you share this with the membership? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1971fozzy

Keep the head below the parapet. Never again must we have theses dark days.

Keep our subs and use them when needed. What a fantastic position to be in should we be able to fund a replacement stand straight off when it’s required

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davie1980

So, from what I'm reading, once the money has all been paid back and the fans own the club, they are expected to continue to contribute monthly to have any meaningful say in the running of the club that they already own (but won't really because it will be run by the board)

 

 

Where do these excess funds go once the stand is paid off and the club is fully owned by the fans?

Will they be fed directly into the running costs of the club or will they be held by the FoH to be used as and when directed by the fans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soonbe110
25 minutes ago, davie1980 said:

So, from what I'm reading, once the money has all been paid back and the fans own the club, they are expected to continue to contribute monthly to have any meaningful say in the running of the club that they already own (but won't really because it will be run by the board)

 

 

Where do these excess funds go once the stand is paid off and the club is fully owned by the fans?

Will they be fed directly into the running costs of the club or will they be held by the FoH to be used as and when directed by the fans?

There isn’t any plan for the club to be “fully” owned by the fans ie FoH   The current plan is for FoH to own just over 75%. The other 25% will be owned, in all probability, by fans eg MrsBudge and 4-500+ others but not by FoH. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst
12 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

There isn’t any plan for the club to be “fully” owned by the fans ie FoH   The current plan is for FoH to own just over 75%. The other 25% will be owned, in all probability, by fans eg MrsBudge and 4-500+ others but not by FoH. 

You understate the number of club shareholders, which is similar to FOH at around 8,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
13 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

There isn’t any plan for the club to be “fully” owned by the fans ie FoH   The current plan is for FoH to own just over 75%. The other 25% will be owned, in all probability, by fans eg MrsBudge and 4-500+ others but not by FoH. 

75.1% in most businesses means in effect "fully owned".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scnorthedinburgh
1 hour ago, davie1980 said:

So, from what I'm reading, once the money has all been paid back and the fans own the club, they are expected to continue to contribute monthly to have any meaningful say in the running of the club that they already own (but won't really because it will be run by the board)

 

 

Where do these excess funds go once the stand is paid off and the club is fully owned by the fans?

Will they be fed directly into the running costs of the club or will they be held by the FoH to be used as and when directed by the fans?

Have another read, explain where foh funds come into it. Over and above running costs.

If you want to sit on the board and have skills to help it, you can work to get on it.

The foh board is not a football board, more a business board, so specific skills will be required.

Hearts turn over 6 to 7 mill can't run every question past every member.

1 AGM a year if your not happy your vote counts and you could try and oust someone.

Nothing controversial in it at all, trying to set up good open governance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
georgiehearts66
2 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

Have another read, explain where foh funds come into it. Over and above running costs.

If you want to sit on the board and have skills to help it, you can work to get on it.

The foh board is not a football board, more a business board, so specific skills will be required.

Hearts turn over 6 to 7 mill can't run every question past every member.

1 AGM a year if your not happy your vote counts and you could try and oust someone.

Nothing controversial in it at all, trying to set up good open governance.

This.

It will not satisfy everyone on all issues. However, will most certainly satisfy the vast majority as both pragmatical and logical. Likely to be supported and passed by an overwhelming vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Muirhead
2 hours ago, davie1980 said:

So, from what I'm reading, once the money has all been paid back and the fans own the club, they are expected to continue to contribute monthly to have any meaningful say in the running of the club that they already own (but won't really because it will be run by the board)

 

 

Where do these excess funds go once the stand is paid off and the club is fully owned by the fans?

Will they be fed directly into the running costs of the club or will they be held by the FoH to be used as and when directed by the fans?

Surely after ownership transfers, the excess funds go into the coffers to give us a huge financial advantage over anyone outside the  2 arse cheeks - bright future assuming its presented properly to the masses 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scott herbertson
1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

75.1% in most businesses means in effect "fully owned".

 

 

Yep - and personally I am happy with Anne Budge being the major minor shareholder. I'll need to read a bit more to understand the 'veto' aspect you refer to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perth to Paisley
Posted (edited)

Had a serious discussion with myself about whether I agree with the fact that only  the only ‘currently contributing’ get a vote..... should we ever get one.

 

I finally accepted that I agree with this but I wonder if this ‘rule’ could be extended to include those who had recently stopped contributing. I think this would remove any frustration of ‘missing out’ and maybe encourage them to restart. Shouldn’t be difficult to control in this day and age.

 

Everything else I am happy with.

 

My plan is too subscribe for life....or until the Mrs notices the DD :-)

Edited by Perth to Paisley
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davie1980
1 hour ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

Have another read, explain where foh funds come into it. Over and above running costs.

If you want to sit on the board and have skills to help it, you can work to get on it.

The foh board is not a football board, more a business board, so specific skills will be required.

Hearts turn over 6 to 7 mill can't run every question past every member.

1 AGM a year if your not happy your vote counts and you could try and oust someone.

Nothing controversial in it at all, trying to set up good open governance.

 

When i said "from what I read", I meant on here, from the comments made on the forum, I haven't had the time to go through the document.

 

As for fans involvement, I don't expect them to consult on every issue.

What I meant was, you could pay maybe £20 a month for a few years until the club is purchased (or 75% is purchased), so you have provided a share of the funds used by the FoH to purchase the club.

You stop your contributions at that point, you have still been the one that paid towards buying the club, you have done your bit. That was what the fans were asked to do.

But you stop your subscription and you lose you vote and your only say we have in the running.

Someone starts paying in the following month, into a pot that is perhaps used for the general running of the club, whatever. But maybe did not contribute to the purchase of the club, the funding of the stand, the saving of the club and they automatically get a vote and have more say than someone who spent year paying in to do all of those things.

 

When FoH was set up it was done to save the club and pay back the money used to buy the club. If you have done so over the last few years you should be entitled to consider yourself one of the "owners" of the club. I would like to think someone in that position would continue to have a say in what happens with the club you paid to help bail out and effectively now own a part of.

When this all kicked off, I was not aware that there would be a requirement to continue paying in long after the club was purchased and to my knowledge neither was anyone else, so why should it be a requirement to continue to have any control over matter.

 

I've maybe got the wrong end of the stick, but that appears to be what people are saying. It doesn't quite sit right with me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davie1980
26 minutes ago, Muirhead said:

Surely after ownership transfers, the excess funds go into the coffers to give us a huge financial advantage over anyone outside the  2 arse cheeks - bright future assuming its presented properly to the masses 

 

Which can only be a good thing of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davie1980
6 minutes ago, Perth to Paisley said:

Had a serious discussion with myself about whether I agree with the fact that only  the only ‘currently contributing’ get a vote..... should we ever get one.

 

I finally accepted that I agree with this but I wonder if this ‘rule’ could be extended to include those who had recently stopped contributing. I think this would remove any frustration of ‘missing out’ and maybe encourage them to restart. Shouldn’t be difficult to control in this day and age.

 

Everything else I am happy with.

 

My plan is too subscribe for life....or until the Mrs notices the DD :-)

 

 

This is what I'm getting at.

 

I contributed for a couple years, then had to stop as I couldn't justify the spend.

But there have been fans who have contributed right through and put in far more than me.

 

As far as I'm aware, they did so on the understanding that they did so to hold a part share of the ownership of the club.

I also imagine, many will have signed up thinking they were expected to pay up until the moneys were paid to Mrs Budge and not necessarily a day longer.

 

Now I'm all for continuing the subs through FoH, if it makes the club better funded and can be invested in improving the footballing side and the infrastructure, I would like top get back involved myself when I can justify it.

But say I come back on board, start making my contributions after the club is paid off and FoH are owners, I wouldn't feel comfortable having a say in the running, when someone else, who paid continuously through the entire spell of paying off the debt and building the main stand doesn't, because they stopped paying once the job was done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scnorthedinburgh
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, davie1980 said:

 

When i said "from what I read", I meant on here, from the comments made on the forum, I haven't had the time to go through the document.

 

As for fans involvement, I don't expect them to consult on every issue.

What I meant was, you could pay maybe £20 a month for a few years until the club is purchased (or 75% is purchased), so you have provided a share of the funds used by the FoH to purchase the club.

You stop your contributions at that point, you have still been the one that paid towards buying the club, you have done your bit. That was what the fans were asked to do.

But you stop your subscription and you lose you vote and your only say we have in the running.

Someone starts paying in the following month, into a pot that is perhaps used for the general running of the club, whatever. But maybe did not contribute to the purchase of the club, the funding of the stand, the saving of the club and they automatically get a vote and have more say than someone who spent year paying in to do all of those things.

 

When FoH was set up it was done to save the club and pay back the money used to buy the club. If you have done so over the last few years you should be entitled to consider yourself one of the "owners" of the club. I would like to think someone in that position would continue to have a say in what happens with the club you paid to help bail out and effectively now own a part of.

When this all kicked off, I was not aware that there would be a requirement to continue paying in long after the club was purchased and to my knowledge neither was anyone else, so why should it be a requirement to continue to have any control over matter.

 

I've maybe got the wrong end of the stick, but that appears to be what people are saying. It doesn't quite sit right with me

Thanks for the reply. Totally get where your coming from

But I think the only way to solve the conundrum you bring up would be to issue a share or similar for each pledge you make.

And that would make foh vulnerable as the more money you invest the more you would own.

1 vote to each pledge puts us all on an equal footing.

But your point does highlight it is for the foh to get this 100 percent correct. As trailblazers we are all setting a new way to support your club.

Been on cider hope that makes sense?

Edited by Scnorthedinburgh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboGraham

My personal preference has always been for foundation members to have a very, very light touch on club affairs with only the most extreme and emotive issues sent to the full membership. I am pleased that this proposal reflects that.

 

I also like the way that the FOH does not attempt to blur the line between supporter of the club and foundation member. They are two different things and this proposal confirms this. No one should feel compelled, or overly rewarded, for participation in one or both.

 

I also agree strongly that only active contributors have a vote. The reward for saving the club is/was saving the club. There is no need to reward this on an ongoing basis as saving the club is no longer the sole objective of the FOH.

 

A sensible proposal with a real effort to keep it as simple as possible. Good work...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soonbe110
2 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

You understate the number of club shareholders, which is similar to FOH at around 8,000.

Just realised I left a 0 of my original post. I thought it was something like 4,500 individual holdings left after Vlads purchase. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soonbe110
2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

75.1% in most businesses means in effect "fully owned".

Agreed though probably less so when the 75% is owned by 9,000 different people all with their own views. The vast majority of the 25% are probably  also in the 75% as well so complicated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scnorthedinburgh
3 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Agreed though probably less so when the 75% is owned by 9,000 different people all with their own views. The vast majority of the 25% are probably  also in the 75% as well so complicated. 

Should be less complicated.

Rather than a hedge fund and pension pot putting money in to get dividends out.

The 75 and 25 only want the team to do well, the dividends are trophies

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×