FOH Governance Proposal

[JamboGraham]

3 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

 the dividends are trophies

 

What a perfect way to look at it...

[Scnorthedinburgh]

12 minutes ago, JamboGraham said:

 

What a perfect way to look at it...

Would  feel guilty if I didn't add. Your investments can go down as well as up.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Scnorthedinburgh

[BelgeJambo]

I want much of the same tbh

Run within our means continue to pledge and challenge on the field and maybe one day we will pull off a Leicester like miracle

Celtic dominance won’t last forever, they’re too smug 

[TurboT]

8 hours ago, Jambo, Goodbye said:

 

That’s brilliant?

[davie1980]

1 hour ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

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?

 

It does

 

There might not be an easy fix, just feel people who have given so much should retain a degree of involvement, for the lifetime of fan ownership that they gave so much to

[Kiwidoug]

Once people have analysed this I want to know if there is anything I should be really pleased about or anything I should be worried about.

 

Too lazy to find out for myself.  Yawned when I saw the email.

 

How's HSL getting on?

[iainmac]

FWIW, my own personal view is that pledgers should be granted "votes for life" after reaching a certain amount. 

 

That would satisfy those that have contributed to helping achieve fan ownership / fan funding but have had to stop pledging for whatever reason. If they had already passed the required threshold,  they could still have a say in the running of the club  they helped to save from oblivion. 

 

I realise that the level of that threshold would have to be carefully thought through but I think it would go a long way to easing the worries already expressed on this thread. 

 

Again,  I stress this is my own personal view. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by iainmac

[bn jambo]

I think the main contentious point in all of this is about votes and contributions, as has been said before, some think if you've paid to save the club you should get voting rights, the point being made that there wasn't a mention of pledge for life early doors.

I understand this argument but the role of FOH has changed, most fans originally understood that the pledge was to save the club and pay off AB. Doing that alone would have been reward enough for Me. 

 

But we have done much more and can physically see in the stand what a pledge for life can achieve, the active members of the foundation should be the ones to vote on where we go going forwards,while the original pledgers should be recognised for what they have achieved but not with a vote for life.

 

I think FF does raise some good points but I do think that the foundation are correct on this one, as otherwise it would lead to a drop in pledges which would in no way benefit the club we fought tooth and nail to save.

[Elshin]

6 hours ago, iainmac said:

FWIW, my own personal view is that pledgers should be granted "votes for life" after reaching a certain amount. 

 

That would satisfy those that have contributed to helping achieve fan ownership / fan funding but have had to stop pledging for whatever reason. If they had already passed the required threshold,  they could still have a say in the running of the club  they helped to save from oblivion. 

 

I realise that the level of that threshold would have to be carefully thought through but I think it would go a long way to easing the worries already expressed on this thread. 

 

Again,  I stress this is my own personal view. 

This is very similar to what i was coming on to post.

 

Lets be clear, the more FOH members the better, if 1000-8000 get lifetime membership through time that can only be beneficial to the longevity of this project.

 

For me, i will pledge for life if i can, but once the shares are owned and the stadium complete raising money will no longer be the no1 priority for me, that will be ensuring the club is well run, within our means and never owned by the pieman and vlads of this world.   

 

By not giving pledges for life we will always be in danger over 20/30/40 years of membership tailing right off and the club being run by individuals who may then vote to sell the club.   

 

For me 5 or 10 years of pledges, no matter the amount should give you a life vote, this then gives the future generations of fans a chance to conteibute, know what it is about and then the majority of future fan bases will have the main say on the biggest issues.

[The Treasurer]

7 hours ago, iainmac said:

FWIW, my own personal view is that pledgers should be granted "votes for life" after reaching a certain amount. 

 

That would satisfy those that have contributed to helping achieve fan ownership / fan funding but have had to stop pledging for whatever reason. If they had already passed the required threshold,  they could still have a say in the running of the club  they helped to save from oblivion. 

 

I realise that the level of that threshold would have to be carefully thought through but I think it would go a long way to easing the worries already expressed on this thread. 

 

Again,  I stress this is my own personal view. 

This (the vote for life issue) seems to be the biggest sticking point for most people.

What you suggest is never going to be perfect but is worth looking at.

While I think that it is right that current pledgers should be the ones able to have a say in any decisions, it is clearly unfair for someone who has pledged substantial investment in the past to suddenly have no voice, purely because for whatever reason they are no longer able to contribute.

[Scnorthedinburgh]

Devil's advocate here.

 

If you were living on a limited budget when the foh was set up, and the option was attend the games or pledge.

 

If you chose to attend games you also put much needed money in to help save the club.

 

I am sure there will be families who would love to pledge but budget to attend games only.

 

They have no vote, but have contributed much needed money to the club.

 

If for whatever reason you stop pledging you simply fall into that status.

 

Only truely fair way to all fans is anyone who has put money into the club in any form over the years gets a vote on any major issues.

 

We are all equal as fans (A Budge a fair bit above until she is paid back)

[JamboGraham]

Another thought on the vote for life...the foundation is required by the companies act to keep and up to date and accurate record of members. This will require on-going administration (therefore cost). There is also the question of how would former members who have no wish for a vote excluded from the process (more administration).

 

A more simple version would be for a member wishing to end their financial contributions to the club (via FOH) to reduce their direct debit down to £1 per month (the minimum amount as far as I can see...)

 

So their membership remains active but the £12 per year is essentially an admin fee.

[Taffin]

I think it should have been those who have donated X amount or X months from conception to purchase would have votes for life regardless of whether they stopped or not. They were essentially the lifeblood of the project which was aimed at saving the club and shouldn't be cut out just because their circumstances changed or never planned on contributing after the purchase.

 

This isn't really possible now as the goalposts have changed and FOH is more of a money tree for the club rather than being a vehicle to fan ownership.

[Taffin]

1 minute ago, JamboGraham said:

Another thought on the vote for life...the foundation is required by the companies act to keep and up to date and accurate record of members. This will require on-going administration (therefore cost). There is also the question of how would former members who have no wish for a vote excluded from the process (more administration).

 

A more simple version would be for a member wishing to end their financial contributions to the club (via FOH) to reduce their direct debit down to £1 per month (the minimum amount as far as I can see...)

 

So their membership remains active but the £12 per year is essentially an admin fee.

 

 

I like that solution.

[Ribble]

5 hours ago, bn jambo said:

I think FF does raise some good points but I do think that the foundation are correct on this one, as otherwise it would lead to a drop in pledges which would in no way benefit the club we fought tooth and nail to save.

 

Either way could see a drop in pledges, if votes are for active contributors then what's to stop people only contributing for the month of the AGM to get a vote? Also from the day we own the club FOH contributions are bonus money as it's stated that the club will be ran within budget, as FOH subs are then a bonus and not needed for the clubs survival then I can see subs dropping anyway.

 

Personally I'd say that anyone that has contributed (regardless of value) from either day 1 of the FOH until the day we buy the club or for a minimum period, say 5 years, then they should retain a vote whether that is for life or for the same amount of time as they have contributed.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

I am a bit of a sap with these things, I have paid since day 1, I really don't give a toss, as long as the guys are being responsible, and from reading the document, I know they are.

 

Would love to be able to do more. I hope soon we are all rewarded, its a donation and so many people have donated, no matter how large or small, the day that true success comes is going to be deeply emotional.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Glad my contribution has helped someone else basically own the club.

 

Please let Ann stay for longer. It will be a shambles post buyout otherwise.

[davemclaren]

22 minutes ago, Ribble said:

 

Either way could see a drop in pledges, if votes are for active contributors then what's to stop people only contributing for the month of the AGM to get a vote? Also from the day we own the club FOH contributions are bonus money as it's stated that the club will be ran within budget, as FOH subs are then a bonus and not needed for the clubs survival then I can see subs dropping anyway.

 

Personally I'd say that anyone that has contributed (regardless of value) from either day 1 of the FOH until the day we buy the club or for a minimum period, say 5 years, then they should retain a vote whether that is for life or for the same amount of time as they have contributed.

That’s a good point. I think there should be a minimum period before you are allowed a vote. A year sounds about right. 

 

Is the mnimm monthly contribution £10?

[iainmac]

24 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

That’s a good point. I think there should be a minimum period before you are allowed a vote. A year sounds about right. 

 

Is the mnimm monthly contribution £10?

 

Yes it is Dave. 

[Buffalo Bill]

19 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

 

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

 

 

Just out of interest, where does it say that? 

[Footballfirst]

I've attached what I submitted in May 2017 (14 months ago) as my feedback to the original governance proposals.

 

2017-05-12 Governance proposals response.docx

 

I'm personally disappointed that so little has changed form the original draft. I say that because I know from the contacts I had with the Governance Working, Party in the months following my submission, that at least one member of the group was supportive of much of what I had written and said. 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Footballfirst

[JohnB]

1 hour ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

Devil's advocate here.

 

If you were living on a limited budget when the foh was set up, and the option was attend the games or pledge.

 

If you chose to attend games you also put much needed money in to help save the club.

 

I am sure there will be families who would love to pledge but budget to attend games only.

 

They have no vote, but have contributed much needed money to the club.

 

If for whatever reason you stop pledging you simply fall into that status.

 

Only truely fair way to all fans is anyone who has put money into the club in any form over the years gets a vote on any major issues.

 

We are all equal as fans (A Budge a fair bit above until she is paid back)

That's correct, just some are more equal than others!

[Mikey1874]

2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I've attached what I submitted in May 2017 (14 months ago) as my feedback to the original governance proposals.

 

2017-05-12 Governance proposals response.docx

 

I'm personally disappointed that so little has changed form the original draft. I say that because I know from the contacts I had with the Governance Working, Party in the months following my submission, that at least one member of the group was supportive of much of what I had written and said. 

 

I went to the consultation event at Tynecastle last August 

 

I got a very strong impression the proposals were not going to be significantly changed.

 

The reason I say that was I spoke 3 times in support of various proposals and I got a very enthusiastic response - nodding and othewise showing approval to my comments. I'd have expected the team to be more neutral in how they reacted to comments. 

 

Its not clear from this document the strength of various submissions. Though very few people responding may have been a factor. 

 

They decided what they wanted and are sticking to it. 

[Footballfirst]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

They decided what they wanted and are sticking to it. 

 

That's a fair summary.

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

Just out of interest, where does it say that? 

Sorry I was wrong it doesn't. It is 90% of FoH members voting on a FoH shareholding transfer. Whether Ann can influence it after an FoH vote in favour of a transfer of ownership of the club depends on the threshold for ownership transfer among HMFC shareholders.

 

In practice it seems highly unlikely the first hurdle of 90% of voting FoH members would ever be met.

[Francis Albert]

5 hours ago, Ribble said:

 

Either way could see a drop in pledges, if votes are for active contributors then what's to stop people only contributing for the month of the AGM to get a vote? Also from the day we own the club FOH contributions are bonus money as it's stated that the club will be ran within budget, as FOH subs are then a bonus and not needed for the clubs survival then I can see subs dropping anyway.

 

Personally I'd say that anyone that has contributed (regardless of value) from either day 1 of the FOH until the day we buy the club or for a minimum period, say 5 years, then they should retain a vote whether that is for life or for the same amount of time as they have contributed.

Agreed. I am not convinced by the FoH assumption that recognising significant contributors to the achievement of "fan ownership" by granting them an ongoing ownership interest through FoH membership and the rights that go with it would lead to a significant fall off in subscriptions. Personally, kicking out those who have made a significant contribution to the original objective of "fan ownership" would make me less likely to continue to subscribe.

 

After all there seems widespread consensus that there should not be a distinction between those who have contributed £10 per month from day one (or perhaps for a much shorter period) and those who have contributed £20 per month or £50 per month or more from day one. I don't think anyone really contributes in order to have a vote and I don't believe many would cancel their subs because someone who has made a significant contribution stlll gets a vote despite for whatever reason ceasing to contribute,

 

Some sort of low admin fee for "former but now non-contributing" pledgers (with a minimum level of contribution)  would I have thought satisfy most and maximise FoH membership (a key aim surely of any "fan ownership" model) ... and encourage those who have stopped their pledged subs  to resume when their circumstances allow.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Francis Albert

[maroonedinbriz]

I would hope that all FoH contributers will continue to pledge when the club is finally fan owned. However, those who decide the principal task has been completed will be within their rights to stop. I firmly believe  that their contribution should be acknowledged, if they have paid in for a reasonable period, by retaining their voting rights. Noting there are many on here who disagree with that postion would it be worth the administrators starting a JKB vote to get a idea how the majority feel?

[1953]

The big contentious point seems to be the loss of voting rights once contributions stop and I find myself wondering just how many folks actually vote anyway. Can anybody put a figure on the percentage of FOH members who currently vote when we need to elect board members?

[Francis Albert]

30 minutes ago, 1953 said:

The big contentious point seems to be the loss of voting rights once contributions stop and I find myself wondering just how many folks actually vote anyway. Can anybody put a figure on the percentage of FOH members who currently vote when we need to elect board members?

By far the biggest issue put to a vote to date was the contribution to funding the new stand and resulting two year delay to FoH acquiring its 75% shareholding. 3790 votes were cast so about 50% turn out. The result was never in doubt - there were only 43 votes against. Votes will matter if and when there is a more controversial issue.

Experience to date of turn out on this and other votes, where turn out has been much lower, suggests that the right to vote is not a determining factor in many FoH members decision on whether to contribute and of course is not an issue on how much to contribute. FoH, in its persistent view that only those currently contributing should enjoy full membership rights, hasn't produced a shred of evidence that doing otherwise would have a negative effect on the level of contributions.

The latest FoH paper says that "a shared belief that continuing to contribute is the right way to ensure that our club never faces an extinction event again". Though extra funding through FoH subs is clearly a good thing I really don't see the link to avoiding any future "existinction event" or why full membership rights for those who prevented the last extinction event would detract from the "shared belief" in the virtue of continuing to subscribe.

[graygo]

4 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Agreed. I am not convinced by the FoH assumption that recognising significant contributors to the achievement of "fan ownership" by granting them an ongoing ownership interest through FoH membership and the rights that go with it would lead to a significant fall off in subscriptions. Personally, kicking out those who have made a significant contribution to the original objective of "fan ownership" would make me less likely to continue to subscribe.

 

After all there seems widespread consensus that there should not be a distinction between those who have contributed £10 per month from day one (or perhaps for a much shorter period) and those who have contributed £20 per month or £50 per month or more from day one. I don't think anyone really contributes in order to have a vote and I don't believe many would cancel their subs because someone who has made a significant contribution stlll gets a vote despite for whatever reason ceasing to contribute,

 

Some sort of low admin fee for "former but now non-contributing" pledgers (with a minimum level of contribution)  would I have thought satisfy most and maximise FoH membership (a key aim surely of any "fan ownership" model) ... and encourage those who have stopped their pledged subs  to resume when their circumstances allow.

 

Nobody would be kicking anybody out, they would be chosing to leave, as would you.

 

Also if nobody really contributes in order to have a vote why the stushie?

[MacDonald Jardine]

47 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

By far the biggest issue put to a vote to date was the contribution to funding the new stand and resulting two year delay to FoH acquiring its 75% shareholding. 3790 votes were cast so about 50% turn out. The result was never in doubt - there were only 43 votes against. Votes will matter if and when there is a more controversial issue.

Experience to date of turn out on this and other votes, where turn out has been much lower, suggests that the right to vote is not a determining factor in many FoH members decision on whether to contribute and of course is not an issue on how much to contribute. FoH, in its persistent view that only those currently contributing should enjoy full membership rights, hasn't produced a shred of evidence that doing otherwise would have a negative effect on the level of contributions.

The latest FoH paper says that "a shared belief that continuing to contribute is the right way to ensure that our club never faces an extinction event again". Though extra funding through FoH subs is clearly a good thing I really don't see the link to avoiding any future "existinction event" or why full membership rights for those who prevented the last extinction event would detract from the "shared belief" in the virtue of continuing to subscribe.

I do think the mindset will change, as it was always going to, when FOH buys the shares.

It's one thing to contribute to save the club, another to continue as we finance a new stand and IMO something completely different to continue to contribute on an oncoming basis without any obvious tangible outcome. 

It could be seen as a tax on supporting Hearts, albeit a voluntary one.

[Rocky jamboa]

For me, FOH was all about raising funds to pay Ann back, who initially put her owns funds in to save the club, and for the fans to ultimately pay this back, to own the club. In that respect, the FOH  subs should really stop at that point, however, I don't know how else you can be a member of FOH without continuing some sort of contribution. I'm happy to contribute for life, as it seems most other people are. 

 

In the future, FOH should make the main decisions on the running of the club and for this to represent the general feelings of the fans. 

 

For instance, this lafferty thing, 99% of fans don't want him sold to rangers on the cheap so that shouldn't be allowed to happen under fan ownership. 

 

Also, by being a member of FOH, you should qualify for things like passes into the directors box, get onto board meetings, and possibly quarterly agm type meetings, to keep us informed of goings on at the club, but also, for the FOH to know the feelings of the fans. 

 

That for me would be proper fan ownership but with figureheads voted in, dealing with the daily runnings of the club. 

 

[graygo]

34 minutes ago, Paulp74 said:

For me, FOH was all about raising funds to pay Ann back, who initially put her owns funds in to save the club, and for the fans to ultimately pay this back, to own the club. In that respect, the FOH  subs should really stop at that point, however, I don't know how else you can be a member of FOH without continuing some sort of contribution. I'm happy to contribute for life, as it seems most other people are. 

 

In the future, FOH should make the main decisions on the running of the club and for this to represent the general feelings of the fans. 

 

For instance, this lafferty thing, 99% of fans don't want him sold to rangers on the cheap so that shouldn't be allowed to happen under fan ownership. 

 

Also, by being a member of FOH, you should qualify for things like passes into the directors box, get onto board meetings, and possibly quarterly agm type meetings, to keep us informed of goings on at the club, but also, for the FOH to know the feelings of the fans. 

 

That for me would be proper fan ownership but with figureheads voted in, dealing with the daily runnings of the club. 

 

 

Did you mention all this when they asked for feedback on the initial governance proposal?

 

Not that it would have mattered of course.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, graygo said:

 

Nobody would be kicking anybody out, they would be chosing to leave, as would you.

 

Also if nobody really contributes in order to have a vote why the stushie?

An argument that of course cuts both ways in "the stushie".

 

Depends on whether you would prefer FoH to be as inclusive as possible ... or not.

[Rocky jamboa]

16 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Did you mention all this when they asked for feedback on the initial governance proposal?

 

Not that it would have mattered of course.

Yes

[graygo]

1 minute ago, Paulp74 said:

Yes

 

Good man. Sorry I doubted you.

[georgiehearts66]

3 hours ago, Paulp74 said:

For me, FOH was all about raising funds to pay Ann back, who initially put her owns funds in to save the club, and for the fans to ultimately pay this back, to own the club. In that respect, the FOH  subs should really stop at that point, however, I don't know how else you can be a member of FOH without continuing some sort of contribution. I'm happy to contribute for life, as it seems most other people are. 

 

In the future, FOH should make the main decisions on the running of the club and for this to represent the general feelings of the fans. 

 

For instance, this lafferty thing, 99% of fans don't want him sold to rangers on the cheap so that shouldn't be allowed to happen under fan ownership. 

 

Also, by being a member of FOH, you should qualify for things like passes into the directors box, get onto board meetings, and possibly quarterly agm type meetings, to keep us informed of goings on at the club, but also, for the FOH to know the feelings of the fans. 

 

That for me would be proper fan ownership but with figureheads voted in, dealing with the daily runnings of the club. 

 

Your last three paragraphs reflect the situation that the club is rightfully attempting to avoid . The governance proposal debate is about clarification with full candour as to why none of the points you made are feasible. The board's of both the club and the FOH are attempting to best facilitate the future challenges, with the minimum impact of emotional fallout.

 

The superb effort of our support over the past few years, whether as a supporter buying a ST and/or a regular FOH contributor enables us only the satisfaction of knowing that something dear to us is still extant and in a position to progress. 

 

Supporter ownership beyond that is nothing about frequent invitations, to sup wine with the directors, receive supplementary information, beyond that disseminated by the two directors representing FOH on the main board.

 

Most important however, is that it will never be a vehicle when it could interfere with, nor seek influence regarding emotionally charged events. Especially when the dissemination is club sensitive and often BS.

 

Actually, your expectations are an excellent example why the logical and very pragmatic proposals presented for final approval are important to be implemented. In addition I would suggest that you read them carefully. They will not please you, but they explain the reasons why they are suggested.

 

As such, I expect them to be supported by a large majority. There will be a desire to tweak certain parts, but although understandable the proposal is the best pragmatic view regarding the future without excessive reference to the past.

 

 

 

[Rocky jamboa]

9 hours ago, georgiehearts66 said:

Your last three paragraphs reflect the situation that the club is rightfully attempting to avoid . The governance proposal debate is about clarification with full candour as to why none of the points you made are feasible. The board's of both the club and the FOH are attempting to best facilitate the future challenges, with the minimum impact of emotional fallout.

 

The superb effort of our support over the past few years, whether as a supporter buying a ST and/or a regular FOH contributor enables us only the satisfaction of knowing that something dear to us is still extant and in a position to progress. 

 

Supporter ownership beyond that is nothing about frequent invitations, to sup wine with the directors, receive supplementary information, beyond that disseminated by the two directors representing FOH on the main board.

 

Most important however, is that it will never be a vehicle when it could interfere with, nor seek influence regarding emotionally charged events. Especially when the dissemination is club sensitive and often BS.

 

Actually, your expectations are an excellent example why the logical and very pragmatic proposals presented for final approval are important to be implemented. In addition I would suggest that you read them carefully. They will not please you, but they explain the reasons why they are suggested.

 

As such, I expect them to be supported by a large majority. There will be a desire to tweak certain parts, but although understandable the proposal is the best pragmatic view regarding the future without excessive reference to the past.

 

 

 

You've stated in your resonse that you expect these proposals "to be supported by a large majority", however, this isn't reflected in other responses on this thread, or the views of any other FOH contributors I've spoken to. I reckon most would expect FOH, and ultimately the fans, to have more influence over the running of the club. 

 

're decisions such as stadium naming rights etc, I would be disappointed if any decisions around this did not reflect the general consensus of opinion amongst supporters. I can't think of anything worse than the Tony macaroni tynecastle park, or anything else along those lines. 

 

I am keen for Ann budge to remain as director as she has been fantastic for the club and has the business side running in the right direction. I'm confident she has the club's interests at heart. (Is there a case for her being one of the FOH directors on the board, when her share is bought out?) However, what would stop her selling up to a Chris Robinson type in future and them then having more influence over club affairs and running the club back into the ground?

 

I'm not saying for fans to vote on every decision but for the FOH members on the board to make decisions with the fans opinions in mind. Being largest shareholding, it seems bizarre that the FOH would not have the final say, and more influence over decisions than minority shareholders.

 

The initial purpose of FOH was to pay back Ann's initial outlay and save the club, however, I'm sure most would expect the FOH and the fans to have more influence on the future running of the club. 

 

[georgiehearts66]

Paulp74

 

Company and association law, are not easy reads. Indeed, the original governance overview of 2017 and this current update... which make an excellent fist of it... never the less are still a little complicated. That being said they attempt to clarify... In simple language...their reasons. Do read it again. They address why they believe it's important to follow these suggestions. 

 

The main board selected at the AGM will include two members of the FOH( The chairman and one other) whom are there to represent the majority view of their members. Subsequently, in theory they will ensure the members view point prevail. Note: As non executive directors of the club board they are legally bound to ensure that their decisions are patently to the benefit of the club. They will be held to a higher standard of conduct than the other members. They are actually required by law to ensure that they do. They face serious consequences if they don't. 

 

The unintended consequences of incorporating what seems a simple solution regarding the voting rights of past, present and future contributers is an excellent example. 

 

Simply put, what seems today as a simple act of recognition, is not necessarily just a decision regarding possible impact on future contributions. It also can be used years later as a legal precedent, on a completely different issue which ones bottom will be bitten with. 

 

Lafferty situation is another example why supporter cannot be allowed a say. For anyone to make a balanced decision, one must be privy to all the facts. This is obviously impossible. As such we look to the club board and the executive management to make a decision based on the facts before them. 

 

As a general principle, if you follow the simple precept of assessing the actions of a board as to the  merit of their decision or suggested proposition, by applying the most detached critical analysis one is capable of and if the only real difference is the logical reasoning of the board. Then, support the board. It is noted that in last year's proposal that they envisaged a number of voting possibilities. Now, they don't. They have not totally closed the door but I am confident that they will have spent considerable time on the subject, knowing the likely impact. That deserves not only support, but respect, as it would have been obvious it would hit some emotional buttons. 

 

They explain their reasoning why the decision regarding stand and stadium naming must be retained by the club board 

 

 

 

 

[Mikey1874]

A point I would make is that effectively we are already fan owned. We saved the club and have a new breed involved both at the club and FoH. 

 

We are just paying off Ann Budge for the technical transfer. 

 

Fans set up FoH. Alex Mackie, Ann Budge etc are fans. 

 

The concern is how do the few who are directly involved like Ann Budge be held accountable and how do we ensure the club goes forward in a way that is truly responsive to how the fans in general want the club to be run. 

 

I support the general governance arrangements re board set up etc. But there might still be something to bridge the gap between the few and the many. 

 

I think it's really important fans respond to this consultation and make any suggestions. 

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, georgiehearts66 said:

Paulp74

 

Company and association law, are not easy reads. Indeed, the original governance overview of 2017 and this current update... which make an excellent fist of it... never the less are still a little complicated. That being said they attempt to clarify... In simple language...their reasons. Do read it again. They address why they believe it's important to follow these suggestions. 

 

The main board selected at the AGM will include two members of the FOH( The chairman and one other) whom are there to represent the majority view of their members. Subsequently, in theory they will ensure the members view point prevail. Note: As non executive directors of the club board they are legally bound to ensure that their decisions are patently to the benefit of the club. They will be held to a higher standard of conduct than the other members. They are actually required by law to ensure that they do. They face serious consequences if they don't. 

 

The unintended consequences of incorporating what seems a simple solution regarding the voting rights of past, present and future contributers is an excellent example. 

 

Simply put, what seems today as a simple act of recognition, is not necessarily just a decision regarding possible impact on future contributions. It also can be used years later as a legal precedent, on a completely different issue which ones bottom will be bitten with. 

 

Lafferty situation is another example why supporter cannot be allowed a say. For anyone to make a balanced decision, one must be privy to all the facts. This is obviously impossible. As such we look to the club board and the executive management to make a decision based on the facts before them. 

 

As a general principle, if you follow the simple precept of assessing the actions of a board as to the  merit of their decision or suggested proposition, by applying the most detached critical analysis one is capable of and if the only real difference is the logical reasoning of the board. Then, support the board. It is noted that in last year's proposal that they envisaged a number of voting possibilities. Now, they don't. They have not totally closed the door but I am confident that they will have spent considerable time on the subject, knowing the likely impact. That deserves not only support, but respect, as it would have been obvious it would hit some emotional buttons. 

 

They explain their reasoning why the decision regarding stand and stadium naming must be retained by the club board 

 

 

 

 

I tjink.yoursecond paragraph is wrong. The Foh appointed club board members will have the same legal obligations of the other club board members.

Your fourth paragraph I think needs some clarification. What is this legal precedent that might result in someones bottom being bitten off? The Foh doesn't even run this argument so what is your basis for it?

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

A point I would make is that effectively we are already fan owned. We saved the club and have a new breed involved both at the club and FoH. 

 

We are just paying off Ann Budge for the technical transfer. 

 

Fans set up FoH. Alex Mackie, Ann Budge etc are fans. 

 

The concern is how do the few who are directly involved like Ann Budge be held accountable and how do we ensure the club goes forward in a way that is truly responsive to how the fans in general want the club to be run. 

 

I support the general governance arrangements re board set up etc. But there might still be something to bridge the gap between the few and the many. 

 

I think it's really important fans respond to this consultation and make any suggestions. 

I agree with your last parahraph.

On the first para, we are not already fan owned (except in the sense we were fan owned when CPR and many others owned us).

The consulatation is about what fan ownership means. 

Although fan ownership doesn't seem to feature so much in current foh thinking.

Instead the vision is of  a paying membership club which owns and subsidises the club with llittle practical influence on what the club does.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

4 hours ago, georgiehearts66 said:

Paulp74

 

Company and association law, are not easy reads. Indeed, the original governance overview of 2017 and this current update... which make an excellent fist of it... never the less are still a little complicated. That being said they attempt to clarify... In simple language...their reasons. Do read it again. They address why they believe it's important to follow these suggestions. 

 

The main board selected at the AGM will include two members of the FOH( The chairman and one other) whom are there to represent the majority view of their members. Subsequently, in theory they will ensure the members view point prevail. Note: As non executive directors of the club board they are legally bound to ensure that their decisions are patently to the benefit of the club. They will be held to a higher standard of conduct than the other members. They are actually required by law to ensure that they do. They face serious consequences if they don't. 

 

The unintended consequences of incorporating what seems a simple solution regarding the voting rights of past, present and future contributers is an excellent example. 

 

Simply put, what seems today as a simple act of recognition, is not necessarily just a decision regarding possible impact on future contributions. It also can be used years later as a legal precedent, on a completely different issue which ones bottom will be bitten with. 

 

Lafferty situation is another example why supporter cannot be allowed a say. For anyone to make a balanced decision, one must be privy to all the facts. This is obviously impossible. As such we look to the club board and the executive management to make a decision based on the facts before them. 

 

As a general principle, if you follow the simple precept of assessing the actions of a board as to the  merit of their decision or suggested proposition, by applying the most detached critical analysis one is capable of and if the only real difference is the logical reasoning of the board. Then, support the board. It is noted that in last year's proposal that they envisaged a number of voting possibilities. Now, they don't. They have not totally closed the door but I am confident that they will have spent considerable time on the subject, knowing the likely impact. That deserves not only support, but respect, as it would have been obvious it would hit some emotional buttons. 

 

They explain their reasoning why the decision regarding stand and stadium naming must be retained by the club board 

 

 

 

 

Sorry to quote again but they don't really explain their reasoning. They make an asertion ... that naming rights are potentially a significant source of revenue and therefore the club board rather than than the 75% owners should decide on what is significant and what is acceptable.

 

[King Of The Cat Cafe]

On 27 July 2018 at 12:10, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Glad my contribution has helped someone else basically own the club.

 

Please let Ann stay for longer. It will be a shambles post buyout otherwise.

 

Damnit!!  I absolutely hate it when I find myself agreeing with Geoff Kilpatrick...

[Rocky jamboa]

6 hours ago, georgiehearts66 said:

Paulp74

 

Company and association law, are not easy reads. Indeed, the original governance overview of 2017 and this current update... which make an excellent fist of it... never the less are still a little complicated. That being said they attempt to clarify... In simple language...their reasons. Do read it again. They address why they believe it's important to follow these suggestions. 

 

The main board selected at the AGM will include two members of the FOH( The chairman and one other) whom are there to represent the majority view of their members. Subsequently, in theory they will ensure the members view point prevail. Note: As non executive directors of the club board they are legally bound to ensure that their decisions are patently to the benefit of the club. They will be held to a higher standard of conduct than the other members. They are actually required by law to ensure that they do. They face serious consequences if they don't. 

 

The unintended consequences of incorporating what seems a simple solution regarding the voting rights of past, present and future contributers is an excellent example. 

 

Simply put, what seems today as a simple act of recognition, is not necessarily just a decision regarding possible impact on future contributions. It also can be used years later as a legal precedent, on a completely different issue which ones bottom will be bitten with. 

 

Lafferty situation is another example why supporter cannot be allowed a say. For anyone to make a balanced decision, one must be privy to all the facts. This is obviously impossible. As such we look to the club board and the executive management to make a decision based on the facts before them. 

 

As a general principle, if you follow the simple precept of assessing the actions of a board as to the  merit of their decision or suggested proposition, by applying the most detached critical analysis one is capable of and if the only real difference is the logical reasoning of the board. Then, support the board. It is noted that in last year's proposal that they envisaged a number of voting possibilities. Now, they don't. They have not totally closed the door but I am confident that they will have spent considerable time on the subject, knowing the likely impact. That deserves not only support, but respect, as it would have been obvious it would hit some emotional buttons. 

 

They explain their reasoning why the decision regarding stand and stadium naming must be retained by the club board 

 

 

 

 

I find your posts and responses quite patronising, as if you are implying that I don't understand the proposals or how businesses are run, because I don't share the same view as you. 

 

I have read the proposal, I understand how business works, however, I don't agree that this is the right way forward. 

 

If you read pretty much every other response on this thread, they share the same view as me. It sounds like you have some connection to FOH or a vested interest in these proposals going ahead?

[graygo]

18 minutes ago, Paulp74 said:

I find your posts and responses quite patronising, as if you are implying that I don't understand the proposals or how businesses are run, because I don't share the same view as you. 

 

I have read the proposal, I understand how business works, however, I don't agree that this is the right way forward. 

 

If you read pretty much every other response on this thread, they share the same view as me. It sounds like you have some connection to FOH or a vested interest in these proposals going ahead?

 

I don't wish to get into this but just to let you know that I don't share your view and I'm sure there are many others who are the same.

 

I hope and expect this proposal to be voted through by a large majority. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

9 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

I don't wish to get into this but just to let you know that I don't share your view and I'm sure there are many others who are the same.

 

I hope and expect this proposal to be voted through by a large majority. 

It probably will be. I'll be voting against it, even though it is farting against thunder.

[Footballfirst]

31 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

It probably will be. I'll be voting against it, even though it is farting against thunder.

 

Likewise on four points, the use of members funds, the lack of any control over what FOH spends internally, the membership model and the long term share ownership vehicle. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

 

Likewise on four points, the use of members funds, the lack of any control over what FOH spends internally, the membership model and the long term share ownership vehicle. 

It is the second point that gets me. There are far too many opportunities for money to be squandered.

[Jambof3tornado]

Interesting read...and they squeezed in concomitant into the proceedings.

 

Have to say I'm still on the happy train with it all.