FOH Governance Proposal

[The Treasurer]

1 hour 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.

Couldn't have put it better Bez.

Those who were there right from the start should rightly be acknowledged for the part they played in saving the club, but as you say, FoH has evolved into much more than just a vehicle for saving the club and delivering fan ownership.

We need to encourage those who are part of FoH to continue and, crucially, encourage more to become involved.

[Taffin]

It's odd that those arguing against lifetime voting rights are saying foh shouldn't be about getting something in return for your donation yet also argue that lifetime membership would take away the point of paying in. 

 

That seems somewhat conflicting. 

 

For me, pledging was about saving the club. I'm glad we have done that and glad to have been a part of it, my name on a shirt was reward enough and something I'll cherish forever. However, I've also come to see it as something more and will contribute for life, but only once fan ownership is delivered. Until then I view my pledge as on hold as we seem to have kicked the intended aim further and further down the road.

[Saint Jambo]

The one benefit that currently comes just from being a member is voting rights. The proposed governance structure will pretty much limit votes to a once a year vote for FoH board members. All other benefits are triggered by reaching certain milestones in total donations, which you obviously wouldn't reach if you weren't donating any more.

 

Are posters really arguing that there are people out there who are currently donating a minimum of £120 a year (I think £10 is minimum monthly amount) who are planning to carry on donating beyond ownership but would stop donating if they could still vote in once a year FoH board elections?

[Francis Albert]

34 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

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 ?

Petty much the same incentive as 8000 contributing fans have at present when at least as many fans don't contribute yet benefit from what the FoH funds achieve.

Does having a 0.01% vote really incentivise people to pay?

Especially when that 0.01% will given the proposed governance scheme give you no say in what the FoH funds are used for.

[Footballfirst]

46 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

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

While FOH currently has just under 8,000 pledgers (at the last notification), over 10,000 have been active at one point. We can expect that to grow over time to 15,000 or 20,000.  The opportunity and incentive to sell out at a profit would be diminished if the number of people sharing in the bounty kept growing.

 

The FOH Board recognise the risk, but their mitigating action is to keep working to attract new pledgers, which is fine, but there is no protection if the number of active pledgers actually falls.

 

I'd rather separate the fundraising and share ownership functions and put the shares into a trust for the long term benefit of the wider Hearts community, leaving FOH much as it is at the moment, to raise as much as it can.

 

It is worth noting that the FOH Board rejected the trust suggestion on the basis that it would be too complex and time consuming to set up.  That was an odd argument, as they acknowledged that there is already an off the shelf model trust that cold be used. They have also had an extra two years available to get the right set up in place while the stand was being funded.   

Edited September 13, 2018 by Footballfirst

[John Findlay]

What does FOH give me? Heart of Midlothian for the next 50, 100 years and beyond. For me personally that's worth pledging for.

[The Treasurer]

25 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Petty much the same incentive as 8000 contributing fans have at present when at least as many fans don't contribute yet benefit from what the FoH funds achieve.

Does having a 0.01% vote really incentivise people to pay?

Especially when that 0.01% will given the proposed governance scheme give you no say in what the FoH funds are used for.

I can only speak for myself, but the only "incentive" I have for continuing my pledge is to see my team continue to grow and improve.

Voting rights are not a big part of the reason I am involved. Like I say this is my personal view but I suspect the majority share this view.

[The Treasurer]

28 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

While FOH currently has just under 8,000 pledgers (at the last notification), over 10,000 have been active at one point. We can expect that to grow over time to 15,000 or 20,000.  The opportunity and incentive to sell out at a profit would be diminished if the number of people sharing in the bounty kept growing.

 

The FOH Board recognise the risk, but their mitigating action is to keep working to attract new pledgers, which is fine, but there is no protection if the number of active pledgers actually falls.

 

I'd rather separate the fundraising and share ownership functions and put the shares into a trust for the long term benefit of the wider Hearts community, leaving FOH much as it is at the moment, to raise as much as it can.

 

It is worth noting that the FOH Board rejected the trust suggestion on the basis that it would be too complex and time consuming to set up.  That was an odd argument, as they acknowledged that there is already an off the shelf model trust that cold be used. They have also had an extra two years available to get the right set up in place while the stand was being funded.   

I agree that the risk is still there, regardless of numbers, but I'd suggest that if numbers drop those still on board are doing it for the right reasons (to help Hearts thrive on the pitch).

No guarantee of course

[Buffalo Bill]

Everything ‘Bez’ has said on the previous page speaks for me and I’m sure many others. 

 

I dont read Hearts-related matters hibs.net because it’s full of bitter weirdos but I was alerted to a post there recently where one of their own clearly and concisely pointed out that future FoH funds will give Hearts a financial advantage over them. For me, FoH was originally about saving the club which was why I supported them from the start. Job done. 

 

But now it’s about taking the club forward into the future. I’m not interested in what my slice of the pie is. Hearts being top of the league? Now that interests me. Attracting new FoH members and maintaining current pledgers will help the club, help the stadium, help the academy. 

 

I agree that past members should be recognised in some way, but I bet you majority of them just want to see the club do well. People have the right to pledge and stop pledging as they see fit, or however circumstances prevail. But I’ll support whatever best encourages continued membership because that’s what I feel is best for the club, not the ‘individual’. 

 

.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Buffalo Bill

[Homme]

The best way to get new pledgers is to have a winning team.

 

All the marketing in the world won't have the effect a cup win would, or a sustained league challenge.

[ando]

What happens when all the original members die do we pass on our rights . 

The future of the foundation has been laid it is now up to the original members and future members to build on the this.

Hearts Forever

[RobboM]

14 hours 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?).

Just catching up on this thread but on this point if you are an active member by dint of your current standing order then that would cease after your death as banks will freeze or cancel all standing orders and direct debits and therefore, implicitly, your FoH membership?

[RobboM]

14 hours 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?).

Just catching up on this thread but on this point if you are an active member by dint of your current standing order then that would cease after your death as banks will freeze or cancel all standing orders and direct debits and therefore, implicitly, your FoH membership?

[Footballfirst]

41 minutes ago, RobboM said:

Just catching up on this thread but on this point if you are an active member by dint of your current standing order then that would cease after your death as banks will freeze or cancel all standing orders and direct debits and therefore, implicitly, your FoH membership?

It's a moot point, but in the absence of someone actually telling FOH that the pledger had died, all that FOH would see is a failed DD request, the deceased pledger would just become another lapsed pledger, and as you suggest cease to have any membership rights. You may then find that an email is sent to the deceased pledger asking why they have stopped pledging and asking if they would consider restarting.

 

It's actually a very minor point and one that could be resolved either by an annual token payment to maintain membership, or by responding to a periodic email confirmation request.  As far as I am aware FOH only uses email addresses to identify and communicate with individual pledgers, i.e. if you change your email address then you will be able to continue pledging, but FOH will be unable to contact you, re AGMs, Accounts, Votes etc.

 

It's a sensible approach which minimises administration costs, e.g. postage costs, but it isn't without its flaws.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Footballfirst

[The Treasurer]

11 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

It's a moot point, but in the absence of someone actually telling FOH that the pledger had died, all that FOH would see is a failed DD request, the deceased pledger would just become another lapsed pledger, and as you suggest cease to have any membership rights. You may then find that an email is sent to the deceased pledger asking why they have stopped pledging and asking if they would consider restarting.

 

It's actually a very minor point and one that could be resolved either by an annual token payment to maintain membership, or by responding to a periodic email confirmation request.  As far as I am aware FOH only uses email addresses to identify and communicate with individual pledgers, i.e. if you change your email address then you will be able to continue pledging, but FOH will be unable to contact you, re AGMs, Accounts, Votes etc.

 

It's a sensible approach which minimises administration costs, e.g. postage costs, but it isn't without its flaws.

Don't know how people would feel about receiving an e-mail asking "are ye deid yet?" ?

[Footballfirst]

2 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

Don't know how people would feel about receiving an e-mail asking "are ye deid yet?" ?

I think that the request would be to "please confirm your email address" or "please review and update your details". In the absence of a response,  FOH could then look at alternative means of ensuring that their register of members is up to date.

[davemclaren]

It’s all a bit moot anyway as most members don't get involved in FiH, attend AGMs or even vote. There isa risk though that FoH withers over time and the voting righs they have from their Hearts shares are utilised by a small group of several hundred ‘current’ members. 

[EIEIO]

3 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

It’s all a bit moot anyway as most members don't get involved in FiH, attend AGMs or even vote. There isa risk though that FoH withers over time and the voting righs they have from their Hearts shares are utilised by a small group of several hundred ‘current’ members. 

Think your last sentence is Football First's main concern.

[Jambo-Fox]

2 hours ago, The Treasurer said:

Don't know how people would feel about receiving an e-mail asking "are ye deid yet?" ?

I’m going to live for ever! Before I die I’m going to put ‘out of office’ auto reply on!

 

 I’m now out of this world. If you need to

contact me please do so at [email protected] or give me a wave above on match days!!

[hearts @ heart]

6 hours ago, The Treasurer said:

Couldn't have put it better Bez.

Those who were there right from the start should rightly be acknowledged for the part they played in saving the club, but as you say, FoH has evolved into much more than just a vehicle for saving the club and delivering fan ownership.

We need to encourage those who are part of FoH to continue and, crucially, encourage more to become involved.

I recently received my Certificate of Ownership for a Commemorative Plot of Tynecastle Pitch. Like many before me I felt very proud and dare I say humble at the occasion.

Yes I was not looking for anything but after sharing the experience with others I feel that this process should be kept so it can be shared within the FOH for evermore.

That is more than what I expected and should remain as a goal. My pledge has always been for my lifetime or until circumstances prevented it.

Great cause and to take a bit from the speakers speach. It is to safe guard our children and there childrens chance to watch Heart of Midlothian play football at Tynecastle now and for a long time in the future.

anything else is a bonus.

[Francis Albert]

4 hours ago, RobboM said:

Just catching up on this thread but on this point if you are an active member by dint of your current standing order then that would cease after your death as banks will freeze or cancel all standing orders and direct debits and therefore, implicitly, your FoH membership?

This "problem" is easily solved by charging an annual administration fee of say £5 payable by direct debit. No-one would reasonably object to that.

 

FoH's arguments for dismissing virtually every suggestion made in the "consultation" were feeble (despite taking 11 months to come up with them).

[Mikey1874]

There will always enough members to make the structure and voting viable. 

[XB52]

6 hours ago, The Treasurer said:

I can only speak for myself, but the only "incentive" I have for continuing my pledge is to see my team continue to grow and improve.

Voting rights are not a big part of the reason I am involved. Like I say this is my personal view but I suspect the majority share this view.

think there will be a minority of one (or at the most 2) on here who don't agree with you.

[davemclaren]

39 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

This "problem" is easily solved by charging an annual administration fee of say £5 payable by direct debit. No-one would reasonably object to that.

 

FoH's arguments for dismissing virtually every suggestion made in the "consultation" were feeble (despite taking 11 months to come up with them).

So why do you think they made that decision?

[davemclaren]

39 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

There will always enough members to make the structure and voting viable. 

What does viable mean wrt this?

[Mikey1874]

Just now, davemclaren said:

What does viable mean wrt this?

 

More than what Football First says could happen

[davemclaren]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

More than what Football First says could happen

Who knows where things might be at in 20 or 30 years time? I think it’s a fair point. 

[Mikey1874]

8 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Who knows where things might be at in 20 or 30 years time? I think it’s a fair point. 

 

It's a theoretical possibility put forward by people who have other concerns behind it. It is not supported by any evidence. 

[Francis Albert]

21 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

So why do you think they made that decision?

Clearly they fear that if people retain full membership including voting rights and the ownership share through FoH they have bought (in line with the original pledge) they will cease to fund FoH and hence the club (and will not be incentivised to do so)

But for me, and as far as I can see almost everyone on the thread, voting rights have little if anything to do with why they pledged. So why should people stop paying simply because some members who have made a major contribution to the original aim of "fan ownership" retain an ownership share if for whatever reason they cease to pay. Why do many people pay a multiple of the minimum and as the consultation showed no-one objected to the "cheaper ride" enjoyed by those who pay the minimum?

At the risk of entrenching my reputation for contrariness I will actually be less inclined to continue my subs and FoH membership if FoH becomes not a vehicle for fan ownership (and in my view breeches the terms of the original pledge) by simply becoming a paid membership club. Only a small part of the money I spend on Hearts is spent via FoH and I may well decide to spend my FoH money in other ways to support the club. (The Youth Development Committee would have been a good option but for some reason the club has shut it down.)

Edited September 13, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

11 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

It's a theoretical possibility put forward by people who have other concerns behind it. It is not supported by any evidence. 

Who has these "other concerns" and what are they?

 

And what is the evidence for the belief that a wider membership including those who have "done their bit" but decide not to contribute further would result in loss of incentive for others to fund FoH?

[Saint Jambo]

6 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

It's a theoretical possibility put forward by people who have other concerns behind it. It is not supported by any evidence. 

 

There are various examples of large membership organisations seeing member decline significantly and in some cases decline to the point that governance became problematic. There are also examples of the current members of long-standing sports clubs with significant assets deciding to sell those assets for personal gain. "I don't believe it will ever happen" is a really bad basis on which to design the governance of an organisation. Considering the potential worst case scenarios and the safeguards in place is an important element of good governance.

[Francis Albert]

One of the things I understand the FoH proposals do (despite objections during the consultation) is to remove the existing cap on what FoH can spend itself before passing funds to the club.

Another  reason why sending money direct to the club instead (especially if it can be earmarked for say youth development or new facilities) might not be a bad idea (cutting out the middleman!).

 

The proposals also give FoH no say (other than through its minority position on the club board) on what FoH funds are used for.

[Footballfirst]

The quorum for General Meetings is 51.  IIRC there were around 70 at the last AGM out of around 8,000 members. It won't take much more apathy for it to become difficult for the Board to progress business in a meeting format.

[graygo]

40 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Clearly they fear that if people retain full membership including voting rights and the ownership share through FoH they have bought (in line with the original pledge) they will cease to fund FoH and hence the club (and will not be incentivised to do so)

But for me, and as far as I can see almost everyone on the thread, voting rights have little if anything to do with why they pledged. So why should people stop paying simply because some members who have made a major contribution to the original aim of "fan ownership" retain an ownership share if for whatever reason they cease to pay. Why do many people pay a multiple of the minimum and as the consultation showed no-one objected to the "cheaper ride" enjoyed by those who pay the minimum?

At the risk of entrenching my reputation for contrariness I will actually be less inclined to continue my subs and FoH membership if FoH becomes not a vehicle for fan ownership (and in my view breeches the terms of the original pledge) by simply becoming a paid membership club. Only a small part of the money I spend on Hearts is spent via FoH and I may well decide to spend my FoH money in other ways to support the club. (The Youth Development Committee would have been a good option but for some reason the club has shut it down.)

 

Another sly dig at the club.

 

It was explained why this happened at the time an I'm sure, given the forensic way you look into everything the club does that you are well aware of why it was done.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, The Treasurer said:

Couldn't have put it better Bez.

Those who were there right from the start should rightly be acknowledged for the part they played in saving the club, but as you say, FoH has evolved into much more than just a vehicle for saving the club and delivering fan ownership.

We need to encourage those who are part of FoH to continue and, crucially, encourage more to become involved.

 

This is part of my argument in favour of giving all original pledgers a vote or special membership level (even for a limited period of a couple of years or something) for a contribution of their choice if not free or something like that. It's a nice touch that speaks to the original aims of FoH. It especially makes a lot of sense when it comes to lapsed pledgers. I'd be interested to know how FoH has been engaging with them to encourage them to re-pledge again. IMO people who have been contributing from the start will probably continue anyhow.

[Francis Albert]

56 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Another sly dig at the club.

 

It was explained why this happened at the time an I'm sure, given the forensic way you look into everything the club does that you are well aware of why it was done.

As I recall the club withdrew its support including I assume publicity and the HT cheque presentations.  I really have no idea why, sorry. Perhaps you can explain.

[graygo]

7 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

As I recall the club withdrew its support including I assume publicity and the HT cheque presentations.  I really have no idea why, sorry. Perhaps you can explain.

 

The club never withdrew it's support, HYDC disbanded because they felt that the club were doing a great job on the youth development side and they were no longer needed.

 

https://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/article/hydc-s-final-season

 

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/hearts-youth-development-committee-to-be-disbanded-1-4721171

[Francis Albert]

42 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

The club never withdrew it's support, HYDC disbanded because they felt that the club were doing a great job on the youth development side and they were no longer needed.

 

https://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/article/hydc-s-final-season

 

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/hearts-youth-development-committee-to-be-disbanded-1-4721171

Thanks. I am not sure I am much more enlightened about the reasons why HYDC is no more.

But it was only an aside anyway - the main point was that FoH is not the only way of financially supporting Hearts, or the main one.

[Footballfirst]

1 hour ago, graygo said:

 

The club never withdrew it's support, HYDC disbanded because they felt that the club were doing a great job on the youth development side and they were no longer needed.

 

https://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/article/hydc-s-final-season

 

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/hearts-youth-development-committee-to-be-disbanded-1-4721171

I'd suggest that there was a lot of spin put on the final statement published by the club.

 

Calum Robertson said " “It is gratifying that HYDC is stepping down at a time when so many youngsters have broken into the first team."

 

"stepping down" ......... it's an odd choice of phrase, when the fruits of the investment over 27 years were so apparent in the season gone by. You would have thought that it was the best time to actually use the opportunity for HYDC to make even more money for the Academy.

 

I know from my own time on the Committee, and helping them for a couple of years thereafter, that HYDC was proud of its independence from the club, as they knew that every penny of funds raised would go directly to the benefit of the Academy, most visibly during the latter Vlad years when spending on the Academy was cut to the bones. It was HYDC who paid the compensation fees to bring decent youngsters to the club. Vlad had no control over the funds raised by HYDC.

 

Knowing a number of the committee members, I can't imagine them disbanding voluntarily unless there was pressure brought to bear that made that decision inevitable.   

Edited September 13, 2018 by Footballfirst

[Smack]

I sporadically donate to FoH based on my finances and because I love hearts. Not asking for anything in return. All I can see is a bunch of greedy leeches Sergei Fedatovas style looking to milk this cash cow. 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Smack

[Arry]

10 hours ago, The Treasurer said:

I can only speak for myself, but the only "incentive" I have for continuing my pledge is to see my team continue to grow and improve.

Voting rights are not a big part of the reason I am involved. Like I say this is my personal view but I suspect the majority share this view.

With you my friend ..

[Saint Jambo]

1 hour ago, Smack said:

I sporadically donate to FoH based on my finances and because I love hearts. Not asking for anything in return. All I can see is a bunch of greedy leeches Sergei Fedatovas style looking to milk this cash cow. 

 

Don't get this post? Who are the leeches? What is the cash cow they are trying to milk?

[Beast Boy]

1 hour ago, Arry said:

With you my friend ..

 

Me too.

[Smack]

41 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Don't get this post? Who are the leeches? What is the cash cow they are trying to milk?

The cash cows are the Hearts supporters who pay good money to support the club as a whole. To continue the analogy we've been milked many a time over the years. Wait and see what happens, hope I'm proved wrong. 

[Beast Boy]

3 minutes ago, Smack said:

The cash cows are the Hearts supporters who pay good money to support the club as a whole. To continue the analogy we've been milked many a time over the years. Wait and see what happens, hope I'm proved wrong. 

 

Milked? By who? Are you saying that you think the money we are paying in to the club is being trousered by someone? It’s going to the owner so we can buy her shares of her. 

[graygo]

16 minutes ago, Smack said:

The cash cows are the Hearts supporters who pay good money to support the club as a whole. To continue the analogy we've been milked many a time over the years. Wait and see what happens, hope I'm proved wrong. 

 

Why sporadically donate then if you think that?

 

ps. Have you seen the shiny new stand?

[Kiwidoug]

5 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

The quorum for General Meetings is 51.  IIRC there were around 70 at the last AGM out of around 8,000 members. It won't take much more apathy for it to become difficult for the Board to progress business in a meeting format.

51 That's superb.  Our great friends will love that 

[Smack]

6 minutes ago, Bez said:

 

Milked? By who? Are you saying that you think the money we are paying in to the club is being trousered by someone? It’s going to the owner so we can buy her shares of her. 

We've paid enough in to repay Ann Budge's investment a few times over. The way it was presented back then was we pay Ann the 2.5m back then we get the club. I trust Ann, it's these FoH folk who are getting defensive and seem to sniff a dollar that I'm worried about. 

[Beast Boy]

4 minutes ago, Smack said:

We've paid enough in to repay Ann Budge's investment a few times over. The way it was presented back then was we pay Ann the 2.5m back then we get the club. I trust Ann, it's these FoH folk who are getting defensive and seem to sniff a dollar that I'm worried about. 

 

But we agreed by overwhelming majority to pay towards redeveloping Tynecastle, before paying her back. The “FoH folk” are you and I. The eventual part owners and majority shareholders of HMFC. All the accounts of both FoH and HMFC have been above board and in order from the very start, and we now have a wonderful completed stadium, and in a little over a year, the club will be 70 odd % owned by the supporters through FoH. 

 

Honestly mate, I know we’ve had some bad times in the past, but I am so relaxed about the current regime. ?

Edited September 13, 2018 by Bez

[Saint Jambo]

3 minutes ago, Smack said:

We've paid enough in to repay Ann Budge's investment a few times over. The way it was presented back then was we pay Ann the 2.5m back then we get the club. I trust Ann, it's these FoH folk who are getting defensive and seem to sniff a dollar that I'm worried about. 

 

I think you are way off the mark. I've not got any involvement with FoH beyond being a donator. I did recently have coffee with one of the Directors and was very impressed with the time and effort they are putting in entirely voluntarily. I don't believe any Director is paid for their time. The reason we have put more than enough in to repay Ann Budge is that for the first couple of years we were putting money into the club to fund running costs as we had just exited administration and had no credit facility. This spending was the responsibility of Ann Budge who you trust. Then we the FoH members voted to divert our money to the club to pay for the stand. Again this spending was the responsibility of Ann Budge. Now we are finally paying Ann Budge back. This has all been entirely transparent.