FOH Governance Proposal

[Bull's-eye]

The only votes against will be by the same people that would vote against no matter what was in it.

 

I'm sure the foundation has worked that out and acts accordingly and doesn't waste it's time or our money trying to appease the unpleasable.

[davemclaren]

7 minutes ago, Oliver Twist said:

The only votes against will be by the same people that would vote against no matter what was in it.

 

I'm sure the foundation has worked that out and acts accordingly and doesn't waste it's time or our money trying to appease the unpleasable.

Strange comment. 

[Francis Albert]

11 minutes ago, Oliver Twist said:

The only votes against will be by the same people that would vote against no matter what was in it.

 

I'm sure the foundation has worked that out and acts accordingly and doesn't waste it's time or our money trying to appease the unpleasable.

And there will be many more votes for, hopefully with more considered reasons than "I am sure the foundation has worked that out".

Foh will get a big majority, that is a given.  I wish that after 11 months they had at least made a better case for largely rejecting the counterproposals made. 

Edited July 29, 2018 by Francis Albert

[portobellojambo1]

16 minutes ago, Oliver Twist said:

The only votes against will be by the same people that would vote against no matter what was in it.

 

I'm sure the foundation has worked that out and acts accordingly and doesn't waste it's time or our money trying to appease the unpleasable.

 

The first line of your post above makes no sense at all.  I'd imagine that anyone who has looked at the proposals and who agrees with them will vote in favour, and people who have questions are right to raise those questions. And that is how it should be. People aren't raising questions to hinder the club, they are raising things they feel will be of benefit. To simply dismiss them in the way you have says more about you than them.

[Bull's-eye]

9 minutes ago, portobellojambo1 said:

 

The first line of your post above makes no sense at all.  I'd imagine that anyone who has looked at the proposals and who agrees with them will vote in favour, and people who have questions are right to raise those questions. And that is how it should be. People aren't raising questions to hinder the club, they are raising things they feel will be of benefit. To simply dismiss them in the way you have says more about you than them.

 

Made enough sense you chose to respond.

 

Thank you for the reply.

[ToadKiller Dog]

I do worry like FF does about moving from fan ownership to fan funded. 

Part of the idea I was most proud of is that we are to be  fan owned. 

I don't and never have envisaged fans making all the decisions as in the way the set up that was tried at Ebbsfleet. 

 

Day to day decisions should be left to the club including issues like Lafferty and FOH board clearly. 

And we should of course be asked on the big major decisions. 

But I also feel we should have the ability to ask the board to look again on issues such as sponsorship, naming rights etc. 

I don't really have a fear that we would go to a controversial sponsor say a pay day loan but it shouldn't be counted out boards can make wrong choices. 

Boards can go against what we see as the clubs ethos. 

 

As example Shalke board did a deal with one of those massive mark up secondary ticket sales companies, the fans/owners  objected and used their numbers to make the Shalke board drop the deal. 

Will we have mechanisms in place to ask the board to rethink if such an issue came up before a deal being struck? 

 

[Footballfirst]

There is now just one week to go before the deadline (19 September) for responses to the updated proposals.  All members should consider providing FOH with feedback if they haven’t already done so, positive or negative.

 

I personally don’t plan to provide further direct feedback as the FOH Board has already indicated that they are not looking for repeat arguments.

“we are principally interested during this final consultation in hearing new arguments and submissions, rather than feedback which repeats arguments raised in the previous consultation stage.”

 

However, I do think it is worthwhile to highlight those proposals that will lead me to vote against the full package at the AGM, as the FOH Board has indicated that they don’t want a vote on individual elements of the proposals.

“Our view at this stage, however, is that we should present our governance framework as a single package rather than uncouple key elements. “

 

I’ve expressed my concerns previously, but they can be summarised as:

*  Membership model is not inclusive - active members only / former pledgers excluded.

*  Share ownership vehicle – No long term trust protection for ownership of the club by the wider Hearts community – shares will be “owned” by the active members only, whatever their numbers.

*  Use of FOH contributions – No direction or control over the purpose and use of funds once handed to the club.

*  No limit on FOH internal spending – The current 5% or £50,000 limit has been removed.   

[Don Dan]

22 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

There is now just one week to go before the deadline (19 September) for responses to the updated proposals.  All members should consider providing FOH with feedback if they haven’t already done so, positive or negative.

 

 

 

I personally don’t plan to provide further direct feedback as the FOH Board has already indicated that they are not looking for repeat arguments.

 

“we are principally interested during this final consultation in hearing new arguments and submissions, rather than feedback which repeats arguments raised in the previous consultation stage.”

 

 

 

However, I do think it is worthwhile to highlight those proposals that will lead me to vote against the full package at the AGM, as the FOH Board has indicated that they don’t want a vote on individual elements of the proposals.

 

“Our view at this stage, however, is that we should present our governance framework as a single package rather than uncouple key elements. “

 

 

 

I’ve expressed my concerns previously, but they can be summarised as:

 

*  Membership model is not inclusive - active members only / former pledgers excluded.

 

*  Share ownership vehicle – No long term trust protection for ownership of the club by the wider Hearts community – shares will be “owned” by the active members only, whatever their numbers.

 

*  Use of FOH contributions – No direction or control over the purpose and use of funds once handed to the club.

 

*  No limit on FOH internal spending – The current 5% or £50,000 limit has been removed.   

 

 

Thanks for the heads up FF. I’d forgotten all about it. 

Your first two points are something that needs more thought. 

IMO any member who has contributed should be considered active until they (the member) indicates otherwise or dies. 

Point above must therefore mean they still own the club. 

Control of continuing funds should once again imo be initially used to maintain the structure of the club property. This would free up monies from normal generated income which would then be reinvested in the players/coaches. Obvious outcome from that would be higher income due to better results. 

The funds used for FOH spending should be budgeted for annually and justified prior to spending. 

Accountabilty should be foremost at all times. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Dannie Boy
Clarity

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

There is now just one week to go before the deadline (19 September) for responses to the updated proposals.  All members should consider providing FOH with feedback if they haven’t already done so, positive or negative.

 

 

 

I personally don’t plan to provide further direct feedback as the FOH Board has already indicated that they are not looking for repeat arguments.

 

“we are principally interested during this final consultation in hearing new arguments and submissions, rather than feedback which repeats arguments raised in the previous consultation stage.”

 

 

 

However, I do think it is worthwhile to highlight those proposals that will lead me to vote against the full package at the AGM, as the FOH Board has indicated that they don’t want a vote on individual elements of the proposals.

 

“Our view at this stage, however, is that we should present our governance framework as a single package rather than uncouple key elements. “

 

 

 

I’ve expressed my concerns previously, but they can be summarised as:

 

*  Membership model is not inclusive - active members only / former pledgers excluded.

 

*  Share ownership vehicle – No long term trust protection for ownership of the club by the wider Hearts community – shares will be “owned” by the active members only, whatever their numbers.

 

*  Use of FOH contributions – No direction or control over the purpose and use of funds once handed to the club.

 

*  No limit on FOH internal spending – The current 5% or £50,000 limit has been removed.   

 

 

The first one stands out for me. I agree everyone who has pledged at anything at any point up to when the membership model comes into force has helped to save and buy the club and therefore partly owns it and should be recognised as a member for life.

[Don Dan]

I’ve just emailed FOH with my points in the reply to FF. 

we need more to voice any concerns they have!!!

[Nucky Thompson]

7 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

The first one stands out for me. I agree everyone who has pledged at anything at any point up to when the membership model comes into force has helped to save and buy the club and therefore partly owns it and should be recognised as a member for life.

I would prefer recognition for members with continuous, unbroken pledges since day one.

I know loads of people who stop and start their pledges based on form and how the team is playing

[alanthejambo]

I think there should be a milestone limit which, once you reach, you become a life member whether you carry on contributing or not. Would easily fit into the FOH model where there are rewards already eg plot ceremony 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

I would prefer recognition for members with continuous, unbroken pledges since day one.

I know loads of people who stop and start their pledges based on form and how the team is playing

 

I assume FoH can easily confirm that. Makes no sense to me as a football club tends to need the most support when we're not doing so well. It could be hard to identify when day one is. Not everyone pledged immediately. I do think that everyone who contributed anything played a big part in saving the club. Plenty didn't contribute, so even those who might have stopped and started at least made the effort.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, alanthejambo said:

I think there should be a milestone limit which, once you reach, you become a life member whether you carry on contributing or not. Would easily fit into the FOH model where there are rewards already eg plot ceremony 

 

That makes sense to me. It might provide the impetus for some larger one-off pledges in the short-term.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, alanthejambo said:

I think there should be a milestone limit which, once you reach, you become a life member whether you carry on contributing or not. Would easily fit into the FOH model where there are rewards already eg plot ceremony 

 

Edit: Although having thought about it a bit more. Everyone has a different financial situation. £10 a month could be a huge deal for some fans - equivalent to £100 /month from someone else in terms of impact on their budget. So deciding membership on how much you contributed isn't as democratic as recognising that everyone who put their hand in their pocket to save the club is equally important. 

[alanthejambo]

4 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Edit: Although having thought about it a bit more. Everyone has a different financial situation. £10 a month could be a huge deal for some fans - equivalent to £100 /month from someone else in terms of impact on their budget. So deciding membership on how much you contributed isn't as democratic as recognising that everyone who put their hand in their pocket to save the club is equally important. 

A good point. I still think there should be a milestone limit for amount contributed. Could also have a milestone limit for number of monthly payments made

[gowestjambo]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

There is now just one week to go before the deadline (19 September) for responses to the updated proposals.  All members should consider providing FOH with feedback if they haven’t already done so, positive or negative.

 

 

 

I personally don’t plan to provide further direct feedback as the FOH Board has already indicated that they are not looking for repeat arguments.

 

“we are principally interested during this final consultation in hearing new arguments and submissions, rather than feedback which repeats arguments raised in the previous consultation stage.”

 

 

 

However, I do think it is worthwhile to highlight those proposals that will lead me to vote against the full package at the AGM, as the FOH Board has indicated that they don’t want a vote on individual elements of the proposals.

 

“Our view at this stage, however, is that we should present our governance framework as a single package rather than uncouple key elements. “

 

 

 

I’ve expressed my concerns previously, but they can be summarised as:

 

*  Membership model is not inclusive - active members only / former pledgers excluded.

 

*  Share ownership vehicle – No long term trust protection for ownership of the club by the wider Hearts community – shares will be “owned” by the active members only, whatever their numbers.

 

*  Use of FOH contributions – No direction or control over the purpose and use of funds once handed to the club.

 

*  No limit on FOH internal spending – The current 5% or £50,000 limit has been removed.   

 

 

I along with many others appreciate your work and views expressed since the inception of FoH. However, I must take issue with the highlighted point.

 

This appears to me to be like your winning lottery ticket numbers coming up after you have stopped buying tickets. You cannot just go back and expect a pay out if you no longer participate.

Edited September 12, 2018 by gowestjambo

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, gowestjambo said:

 

I along with many others appreciate your work and views expressed since the inception of FoH. However, I must take issue with the highlighted point.

 

This appears to me to be like your winning lottery ticket numbers coming up after you have stopped buying tickets. You cannot just go back and expect a pay out if you no longer participate.

 

Maybe a better analogy could be that your citizenship, and often voting rights in major elections at least, aren't taken away from you if you move from Scotland to Australia or New Zealand (as far as I know). So even though you're not paying taxes anymore, you still have a stake in your home country if you want it. I think of FoH pledgers that way - Hearts citizens effectively as their contribution was that important. Without them there would be no Hearts right now. Lifetime voting rights and ideally a share at minimum seems a very small price to pay, and I honestly don't think there would be a drop-off, especially if the membership scheme is attractive.

 

For several years now, there have been very few tangible benefits to being an FoH pledger other than the warm fuzzy feeling of having contributed to Hearts still being around. and pledging seems to have continued. So I'd be surprised if people suddenly stopped contributing when they get more benefits than they had before. And on the flip side, the ones that do, could be offset by people who decided not to contribute to FoH because they thought the club has been saved so what's the need?

[graygo]

Did anybody who has replied to FF's post read the governance summary paper from FOH?

All those points were answered in it, you might not like the answers but they are there.

You are free of course to vote against the proposal.

[Saint Jambo]

26 minutes ago, gowestjambo said:

 

I along with many others appreciate your work and views expressed since the inception of FoH. However, I must take issue with the highlighted point.

 

This appears to me to be like your winning lottery ticket numbers coming up after you have stopped buying tickets. You cannot just go back and expect a pay out if you no longer participate.

 

Alternatively it is like buying a TV and paying in instalments and when you make the final payment being told that actually you need to keep making payments and if you ever stop the TV won't be yours anymore.

 

It seems to be largely a perception issue. If you believed the primary purpose of FoH was to buy the club and make it fan owned. Then it doesn't make a lot of sense to say now we own it we are going to gradually reduce the number of fans who actually own the club.

 

If you saw FoH as being primarily a vehicle for providing an additional revenue stream to the club, then the proposed model of membership based on subscriptions continuing makes more sense.

 

I think my view would be a sensible compromise would be somewhere inbetween. Drop the minimum subscription significantly. Hoping to convince the fans that would otherwise stop paying to instead drop to the £50 a year say. May also pick up some new members at that level. And then to give life membership to anyone that has donated a total of £1000.

 

Before setting future minimum membership fees, it might be sensible for FoH to undertake some research of existing members asking if once ownership is achieved they plan to continhe pledging at the same level, reduce or stop. And for those that plan to stop, whether they would consider continuing at a level below the current minimum.

[Footballfirst]

52 minutes ago, gowestjambo said:

I along with many others appreciate your work and views expressed since the inception of FoH. However, I must take issue with the highlighted point.

 

This appears to me to be like your winning lottery ticket numbers coming up after you have stopped buying tickets. You cannot just go back and expect a pay out if you no longer participate.

Your analogy doesn't really cut it.  I am a shareholder in HMFC. I don't need to buy more shares or participate in rights or other share issues to keep my right to vote at an AGM.  I have it for life. In fact I can pass my shareholding on to anyone of my choosing before, or following my death.

 

FOH made a point that it would be a problem having to track those inactive members who die.  I'd suggest to FOH that both active and inactive members are liable to die (or are active pledgers immortal?).

Edited September 12, 2018 by Footballfirst

[scott herbertson]

6 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Alternatively it is like buying a TV and paying in instalments and when you make the final payment being told that actually you need to keep making payments and if you ever stop the TV won't be yours anymore.

 

 

 

 

I see it more like the local cinema's going to close down and you and others in the community raise funds for it. It's still going to need new funds so having some sort of ownership rights to it after you stop paying in would perhaps inhibit newcomers from paying in. I do think something should be done for thos ewho have paid in for a substantial period  - perhaps some sort of perpetual membership giving 5% discounts at the club shop or £5 reduction on all home league cup tickets or whatever..

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, graygo said:

Did anybody who has replied to FF's post read the governance summary paper from FOH?

All those points were answered in it, you might not like the answers but they are there.

You are free of course to vote against the proposal.

 

 I did but don't think it hurts to provide more feedback and ideas. I missed any previous discussion of the membership scheme. Specifically on the membership for founding pledgers thing, I disagree with their "job done" reasoning that people would just stop pledging. I think that will always be most a financial decision.

 

I think as above, something around length of contribution or whatever could be factored in, or creating a symbolic special category of membership with no benefits other than a vote. Or make that membership "what you can afford" so at least they get £1 from each (I think most would do more). 

 

I can see other pledgers maybe being disgruntled at lapsed pledgers getting discounts or whatever, but does anyone really have a problem with founding pledgers who gave what they could having a share and lifetime vote as recognition of what they did?

 

As FF said above, that's what a share gets you even if you inherited shares (as I have) and no-one has a problem with that.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Guest

[zicoinexile]

This might not be the right thread for this but having read the pro and cons regarding governance that the Foundation proposals.  have look at this on youtube as a reminder of how far we have come in  5 years: 

 

https://youtu.be/owj3eDYPPUQ

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

Before setting future minimum membership fees, it might be sensible for FoH to undertake some research of existing members asking if once ownership is achieved they plan to continhe pledging at the same level, reduce or stop. And for those that plan to stop, whether they would consider continuing at a level below the current minimum.

 

Good suggestion.

[Muirhead]

I agree with any proposal that incentivises continued contribution.  It’s what will set us apart from our direct competitors.  That’s too exciting a prospect to jeapordise 

[gowestjambo]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

Your analogy doesn't really cut it.  I am a shareholder in HMFC. I don't need to buy more shares or participate in rights or other share issues to keep my right to vote at an AGM.  I have it for life. In fact I can pass my shareholding on to anyone of my choosing before, or following my death.

 

FOH made a point that it would be a problem having to track those inactive members who die.  I'd suggest to FOH that both active and inactive members are liable to die (or are active pledgers immortal?).

With respect neither does yours.  So someone who paid for a year and then stopped subscriptions enjoys the same benefits as a perpetual donor? Sorry that is not realistic.

 

You are either in or out as far as FoH are concerned imo. Where is the incentive to keep donating if you acquire the same rights as a past donor?.

[gowestjambo]

1 hour ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Alternatively it is like buying a TV and paying in instalments and when you make the final payment being told that actually you need to keep making payments and if you ever stop the TV won't be yours anymore.

 

It seems to be largely a perception issue. If you believed the primary purpose of FoH was to buy the club and make it fan owned. Then it doesn't make a lot of sense to say now we own it we are going to gradually reduce the number of fans who actually own the club.

 

If you saw FoH as being primarily a vehicle for providing an additional revenue stream to the club, then the proposed model of membership based on subscriptions continuing makes more sense.

 

I think my view would be a sensible compromise would be somewhere inbetween. Drop the minimum subscription significantly. Hoping to convince the fans that would otherwise stop paying to instead drop to the £50 a year say. May also pick up some new members at that level. And then to give life membership to anyone that has donated a total of £1000.

 

Before setting future minimum membership fees, it might be sensible for FoH to undertake some research of existing members asking if once ownership is achieved they plan to continhe pledging at the same level, reduce or stop. And for those that plan to stop, whether they would consider continuing at a level below the current minimum.

 

I agree with some of your points. I think if donations cease and an agreed contribution amount is established some credence should be afforded to the contributions paid.

 

However, you cannot pay less and expect the same recognition.

[XB52]

Since day one I was always aware that I had rights as long as I was a member. If I stopped paying i was no.longer a member, end of story. As I am paying till the day I die it doesn't bother me one bit

[Saint Jambo]

21 minutes ago, gowestjambo said:

 

I agree with some of your points. I think if donations cease and an agreed contribution amount is established some credence should be afforded to the contributions paid.

 

However, you cannot pay less and expect the same recognition.

 

Paying less and getting the same recognition in terms of voting rights is a key component of the proposals with the one member one vote model.

 

All other benefits are based on hitting thresholds in total money paid in. That could carry on even if members that stopped paying in retained voting rights. They wouldn't be accruing any more points so wouldn't become eligible for any new rewards. There seems to be a widely held belief that people don't pledge to vote or put a cash value on that vote so it isn't clear anyone would stop pledging because others were getting a vote for free.

 

One benefit of retaining lapsed pledges as members is that FoH would still be able to communicate with them, which should in theory make them easier to convince to start pledging again in the future. Kicking then out the minute they stop pledging for whatever reason and breaking the relationship you have with them doesn't necessarily seem like a great move to me.

[Saint Jambo]

8 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Since day one I was always aware that I had rights as long as I was a member. If I stopped paying i was no.longer a member, end of story. As I am paying till the day I die it doesn't bother me one bit

 

Except it isn't the end of the story because it is one of the core purposes of the consultation exercise and governance review to agree the membership structure once ownership has been secured.

[Francis Albert]

8 minutes ago, gowestjambo said:

 

I agree with some of your points. I think if donations cease and an agreed contribution amount is established some credence should be afforded to the contributions paid.

 

However, you cannot pay less and expect the same recognition.

 

Under the  proposed foh arrangements someone who has been  paying perhaps for a few weeks 10 quid a month  will have  more recognition than someone who had paid for 5 yearsto save  the club. As they originally pledged to do. And that is despite foh revisionism is all they pledged to do. Not a subsidy for life, let alone a subsidy with no say in what the subsidy was for.

 

I am not going to to respond to the next stage of the so called consultation because foh have made it clear they don't really want one. Eleven months to respond to the first proposals, a response that was IMO  insultingly dismissive of the few serious responses they received (I am not talking about mine) ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RENE]

As far as I'm concerned if you have paid into FOH, even if it was for just a year, you are a FOH member and helped save the club. Therefore you should be eligible for a vote.  Also, I might add, if you are a season ticket holder you should have a vote.  

[Francis Albert]

14 minutes ago, RENE said:

As far as I'm concerned if you have paid into FOH, even if it was for just a year, you are a FOH member and helped save the club. Therefore you should be eligible for a vote.  Also, I might add, if you are a season ticket holder you should have a vote.  

Agreed. Foh if it is really about "fan ownership" should be about including all fans.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Francis Albert

[RobNox]

22 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

 

Under the  proposed foh arrangements someone who has been  paying perhaps for a few weeks 10 quid a month  will have  more recognition than someone who had paid for 5 yearsto save  the club. As they originally pledged to do. And that is despite foh revisionism is all they pledged to do. Not a subsidy for life, let alone a subsidy with no say in what the subsidy was for.

 

I am not going to to respond to the next stage of the so called consultation because foh have made it clear they don't really want one. Eleven months to respond to the first proposals, a response that was IMO  insultingly dismissive of the few serious responses they received (I am not talking about mine) ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with you on this point FA.  Perhaps there could be a 2 tiered approach, recognising active members but also lapsed members.  I wouldn't want to complicate things too much, but it seems unfair that someone who may have contributed >£1,000 but finds themselves unable to continue making contributions, has less of a voice than someone who starts to make £10 monthly contributions.

 

As you say, all that the original pledgers signed up for was to save the club and eventually achieve fan ownership.  They should be recognised for that even if they decide they don't want to continue to subsidise the club going forward.

[Bazzas right boot]

Interesting. 

 

For me, the donation is like a charity or a political party membership. 

 

I pay it because I want to, not because I want something back or to be recignized in any special way. 

 

There are some good points, but folk complaining that past pledgers are not recognised is a strange one? 

 

Do any past pledgers feel agreived that they no longer have a say as they have now stopped paying? 

 

Seems a petty thing to be hung up on. 

 

It's not a business investment or shares. Surely folk know this? 

[Footballfirst]

38 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

Interesting. 

 

For me, the donation is like a charity or a political party membership. 

 

I pay it because I want to, not because I want something back or to be recignized in any special way. 

 

There are some good points, but folk complaining that past pledgers are not recognised is a strange one? 

 

Do any past pledgers feel agreived that they no longer have a say as they have now stopped paying? 

 

Seems a petty thing to be hung up on. 

 

It's not a business investment or shares. Surely folk know this? 

I want FOH to be as inclusive as possible. That's why I canvass for full recognition of past contributions.  No one is asking for lapsed pledgers to have a say on how new contributions are spent. However, everyone who has contributed to saving the club should have a stake in its future.

 

Hypothetical scenario: In 10 years time the number of active pledgers drifts down to 2,000. Those 2000 now own 75.1% of HMFC.  Some wealthy individual offers FOH £20m for their shares and another £20m to be invested in the club.  If that offer is accepted, the £20m will be divvied up between the 2000, so £10,000 each.  If it goes down to 1,000 active pledgers it's £20,000 each. What if it goes down to 100 pledgers?

 

Good governance is not just about making good things happen, it's also about preventing bad things happening. IMO the proposals don't do enough to mitigate the risk of the bad things. Sure it's great to have 8,000 happy pledgers. What if it's 7,000, or 6,000, 5,000, 4,000? When does it become an issue?

 

[Bazzas right boot]

38 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I want FOH to be as inclusive as possible. That's why I canvass for full recognition of past contributions.  No one is asking for lapsed pledgers to have a say on how new contributions are spent. However, everyone who has contributed to saving the club should have a stake in its future.

 

Hypothetical scenario: In 10 years time the number of active pledgers drifts down to 2,000. Those 2000 now own 75.1% of HMFC.  Some wealthy individual offers FOH £20m for their shares and another £20m to be invested in the club.  If that offer is accepted, the £20m will be divvied up between the 2000, so £10,000 each.  If it goes down to 1,000 active pledgers it's £20,000 each. What if it goes down to 100 pledgers?

 

Good governance is not just about making good things happen, it's also about preventing bad things happening. IMO the proposals don't do enough to mitigate the risk of the bad things. Sure it's great to have 8,000 happy pledgers. What if it's 7,000, or 6,000, 5,000, 4,000? When does it become an issue?

 

 

 

Fair point, so we are moving the goal posts from a foundation to a share scheme?

 

Surely, if that happens, everyone at the time  will be aware and the shares floated and everyone who contributes ( or buys shares) at that time is now an invester/ owner and will be invested in that way--as you are just now with your shares. 

 

Is That not a completely different thing legally and for everyone involved than what we've been doing. 

 

If so, then contributors from 5 years ago can't expect to be part of it, unless they continue to Contribute in the new form? 

 

 

[gerryjambo41]

7 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Edit: Although having thought about it a bit more. Everyone has a different financial situation. £10 a month could be a huge deal for some fans - equivalent to £100 /month from someone else in terms of impact on their budget. So deciding membership on how much you contributed isn't as democratic as recognising that everyone who put their hand in their pocket to save the club is equally important. 

This is where I’m at . When the club launched the 500 clubs and the club share issue , I wasn’t in a position financially to contribute to any of them . Fast forward a few years and money isn’t as tight and I was able to buy Vlad shares and then contribute to FOH . I wasn’t any less of a supporter when I couldn’t pitch in, the same goes for fans that can’t now . The club belongs to all of us !

[Beast Boy]

FoH is going to give us an advantage over our rivals.once Ann Budge is paid off. Now, as we are on the cusp of entering that stage, people want to do everything they can to encourage members to stop pledging. I despair.

[Jambof3tornado]

11 hours ago, alanthejambo said:

A good point. I still think there should be a milestone limit for amount contributed. Could also have a milestone limit for number of monthly payments made

This is what I'd prefer. Not sure of the number of months but its a good idea.

[Jambof3tornado]

46 minutes ago, Bez said:

FoH is going to give us an advantage over our rivals.once Ann Budge is paid off. Now, as we are on the cusp of entering that stage, people want to do everything they can to encourage members to stop pledging. I despair.

Is anyone encouraging members to stop pledging though??

[Beast Boy]

12 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Is anyone encouraging members to stop pledging though??

 

If you give pledgers the same rewards and advantages after reaching X amount, as those who continue to pledge beyond buying the shares off Budge, then you take away the incentive for many. I get the argument that that was what FoH was originally set up to do, but it has turned in to something so much more now. Look at our stadium, that’s only been possible through FoH pledges. Now imagine what we can do when it and Ann Budge are paid off? Maybe in the furure, we could replace the Wheatfield, or buy land off the distillery? 

 

I am all for recognising past efforts, but I don’t agree with taking away the incentive for those who want to be part of something bigger. 

 

I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot if we dont we don’t do everything we can to incentivise those already paying in to FoH to continue to do so, after the original target and the stand costs are achieved.

[gowestjambo]

4 minutes ago, Bez said:

 

If you give pledgers the same rewards and advantages after reaching X amount, as those who continue to pledge beyond buying the shares off Budge, then you take away the incentive for many. I get the argument that that was what FoH was originally set up to do, but it has turned in to something so much more now. Look at our stadium, that’s only been possible through FoH pledges. Now imagine what we can do when it and Ann Budge are paid off? Maybe in the furure, we could replace the Wheatfield, or buy land off the distillery? 

 

I am all for recognising past efforts, but I don’t agree with taking away the incentive for those who want to be part of something bigger. 

 

I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot if we dont we don’t do everything we can to incentivise those already paying in to FoH to continue to do so, after the original target and the stand costs are achieved.

 

I agree with the above. Recognition of past pledgers is fine, but surely we should be looking to find new members and grow this income stream.

 

This is not for any financial reward - just seeing our team improve and be more competitive is money well spent for me.

[Beast Boy]

Just now, gowestjambo said:

 

I agree with the above. Recognition of past pledgers is fine, but surely we should be looking to find new members and grow this income stream.

 

This is not for any financial reward - just seeing our team improve and be more competitive is money well spent for me.

 

Yep. Look at the way Hibs and Aberdeen fans are enviously eyeing our set up. They recognise the advantage it gives us, and they hate it. They Realise that ours is more potent because it was born out of impending disaster. They are struggling badly to copy us and it frustrates them. Now that we have those numbers, we really do need to do everything we can to keep the numbers up. Sod being in the position Hibs are in with desperate attempts to emulate us, but with little appetite or incentive.

[Muirhead]

1 hour ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Is anyone encouraging members to stop pledging though??

 

If Anthony Joshua is fighting and you have found a perfect stream to watch it on do you pay £25 to watch it on pay per view?

 

ps appreciate for most of us it’s a poor comparison but for some who are less committed or find their circumstances change it may become a consideration 

 

i do agree there would need to be waiting period before new contributors had rights.  Wouldn’t be fair to join foh and instantly have rights 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Muirhead

[Kiwidoug]

I'd like to see Jonno on the board with special responsibilities for positive relationships.  I think he could hang out with Rod and Leann, attend a good few games at the giro and promote harmony.

 

Just the man.

[The Treasurer]

1 hour ago, gowestjambo said:

 

I agree with the above. Recognition of past pledgers is fine, but surely we should be looking to find new members and grow this income stream.

 

This is not for any financial reward - just seeing our team improve and be more competitive is money well spent for me.

Agree with all of this.

[The Treasurer]

7 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

I want FOH to be as inclusive as possible. That's why I canvass for full recognition of past contributions.  No one is asking for lapsed pledgers to have a say on how new contributions are spent. However, everyone who has contributed to saving the club should have a stake in its future.

 

Hypothetical scenario: In 10 years time the number of active pledgers drifts down to 2,000. Those 2000 now own 75.1% of HMFC.  Some wealthy individual offers FOH £20m for their shares and another £20m to be invested in the club.  If that offer is accepted, the £20m will be divvied up between the 2000, so £10,000 each.  If it goes down to 1,000 active pledgers it's £20,000 each. What if it goes down to 100 pledgers?

 

Good governance is not just about making good things happen, it's also about preventing bad things happening. IMO the proposals don't do enough to mitigate the risk of the bad things. Sure it's great to have 8,000 happy pledgers. What if it's 7,000, or 6,000, 5,000, 4,000? When does it become an issue?

 

Your scenario would be the same (albeit with different sums involved) regardless of how many pledgers there are

[The Treasurer]

9 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Agreed. Foh if it is really about "fan ownership" should be about including all fans.

If you include "all fans" where is the incentive to continue pledging to FoH if you have the same say (or voting rights) as someone who maybe goes to the odd home game or stuck a few quid in a collecting bucket 5 years ago ?