Jump to content

FOH Governance Proposal


graygo

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 593
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Francis Albert

    74

  • Buffalo Bill

    60

  • Footballfirst

    59

  • davemclaren

    37

30 minutes ago, Smack said:

I hope you are right. When money is involved people can get greedy so I hope I'll be forgiven for smelling a rat. 

 

Doubt anyone has an issue with you mentioning that you are worried, mate. Just don’t see anything that sets off any alarm bells. We have a great big asset sitting there which accounts for our cash injection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Buffalo Bill said:

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’. 

 

.

I'm in full agreement with this from BB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mitch41 said:

I'm in full agreement with this from BB.

 

So am I, particularly when he says:

 

"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."

 

"Job done" will be when the majority shareholding is transferred (should be Jan/Feb 2020). "Job done" should also mean a reset in what FOH does.

 

Put the ownership of the club under the protection of a trust for the long term benefit of the Hearts Community and not the individuals, whether that is 8,000, 5,000, 1,000 or whatever. There would be no pieces of the pie to be shared. All Hearts fans would be the beneficiaries.

 

FOH can then concentrate on raising funds for the club into the future, something that it has proved to be adept over the last five years (this month marks the 5th anniversary of the first pledges being accepted).

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I wrote “Job done”, I was specifically referring to the spring/summer of 2014 and post-CVA share purchase by Bidco, aided by a commitment to pledge by 8,000 Hearts supporters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours 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. 

 

Those “greedy leeches” at the FoH do their work for free and give up a lot of their spare time because they love the club. 

 

If you have any evidence of wrong-doing I would suggest you come right out and say it, backed up by evidence of course. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

When I wrote “Job done”, I was specifically referring to the spring/summer of 2014 and post-CVA share purchase by Bidco, aided by a commitment to pledge by 8,000 Hearts supporters. 

Apologies for the misinterpretation of your comment.  I don't think that many Club or FOH officials would agree with the assertion of "job done" as early as the spring/summer of 2014. "Job started" would be more appropriate.

 

"Job done" to me will be when all three tasks, 1)  bringing the club out of administration (May 2014), 2) stabilising the finances of the club (May 2016) and, 3) the transfer of majority ownership (Feb 2020?), are all achieved.

 

Thereafter there will be one new job of oversight of the running of HMFC, and one ongoing job of raising further funds for the benefit of HMFC. 

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Apologies for the misinterpretation of your comment.  I don't think that many Club or FOH officials would agree with the assertion of "job done" as early as the spring/summer of 2014. "Job started" would be more appropriate.

 

"Job done" to me will be when all three tasks, 1)  bringing the club out of administration (May 2014), 2) stabilising the finances of the club (May 2016) and, 3) the transfer of majority ownership (Feb 2020?), are all achieved.

 

Thereafter there will be one new job of oversight of the running of HMFC, and one ongoing job of raising further funds for the benefit of HMFC. 

FF, you don’t have to answer this but will you reconsider your membership of FOH if these proposals are approved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, davemclaren said:

FF, you don’t have to answer this but will you reconsider your membership of FOH if these proposals are approved?

 

I will continue to pledge, but also to argue against them, at least until they come into effect, following the transfer of the majority shareholding (Feb 2020?). That is the 'job done' that I signed up to.  There will be more than a year between the next AGM and the point at which FOH assumes control of the club, so there is some time for reflection. 

 

Only at that point, will I make a judgement on whether or not I continue to support the direction that FOH takes in terms of membership, structure and use of funds.   

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Apologies for the misinterpretation of your comment.  I don't think that many Club or FOH officials would agree with the assertion of "job done" as early as the spring/summer of 2014. "Job started" would be more appropriate.

 

"Job done" to me will be when all three tasks, 1)  bringing the club out of administration (May 2014), 2) stabilising the finances of the club (May 2016) and, 3) the transfer of majority ownership (Feb 2020?), are all achieved.

 

Thereafter there will be one new job of oversight of the running of HMFC, and one ongoing job of raising further funds for the benefit of HMFC. 

 

Well it’s all semantics but to me, the club was ‘saved’ in 2014. The full ‘completion’ of the handover of shares is indeed spring 2020. 

 

But the handover date is neither here nor there for me. I just want the club to be in safe hands. And we have been since the spring of 2014. 

 

This is just my own opinion, but FoH, and pledging was originally only about saving the club. But I think the remit has now gone beyond that. No one person will own the club. The foundation will own it, look after it, care for it and develop it. I appreciate the position you and Francis have taken, but as I said in a previous post, this isn’t about individuals owning a piece of the pie. It’s about the club.

 

Once the handover is done, I’m sure some people will cease pledging. But I’m certain a large majority will continue, because they’ve bought into the #pledgeforlife ethos of continually improving the club. I agree that past members should be recognised, but the foundation’s opportunity to keep pulling in £1M+ year on year is something we shouldn’t throw away. 

 

.

 

 

Edited by Buffalo Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

Well it’s all semantics but to me, the club was ‘saved’ in 2014. The full ‘completion’ of the handover of shares is indeed spring 2020. 

 

But the handover date is neither here nor there for me. I just want the club to be in safe hands. And we have been since the spring of 2014. 

 

This is just my own opinion, but FoH, and pledging was originally only about saving the club. But I think the remit has now gone beyond that. No one person will own the club. The foundation will own it, look after it, care for it and develop it. I appreciate the position you and Francis have taken, but as I said in a previous post, this isn’t about individuals owning a piece of the pie. It’s about the club.

 

Once the handover is done, I’m sure some people will cease pledging. But I’m certain a large majority will continue, because they’ve bought into the #pledgeforlife ethos of continually improving the club. I agree that past members should be recognised, but the foundation’s opportunity to keep pulling in £1M+ year on year is something we shouldn’t throw away.

 

I can agree with much of what you say, but my biggest issue is not about divvying up the pie.  I want to ensure that the pie remains unsliced during my lifetime and beyond, for the benefit of all Hearts fans, without the risk of the club ending up being under the control of, operated, or even sold, at the whim of a diminishing group of active pledgers.

 

That's the protection I'm looking for in respect of everyone who has contributed to saving the club.  

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I can agree with much of what you say, but my biggest issue is not about divvying up the pie.  I want to ensure that the pie remains unsliced during my lifetime and beyond, for the benefit of all Hearts fans, without the risk of the club ending up being under the control of, operated, or even sold, at the whim of a diminishing group of active pledgers.

 

That's the protection I'm looking for in respect of everyone who has contributed to saving the club.  

 

Well firstly, I would hope that it would never come that. 

 

I personally think that it’s unlikely pledge numbers would ever diminished to such a extent but say they did: the FoH would have to evolve in some way to make membership a much broader spectrum (such as including season ticket holders or something). 

 

But the very concept of having a foundation anywhere is to ensure the safety of an institution or entity. The people in charge need to ensure that successors are well equipped, well qualified and have the best interest of the club, and the foundation at heart. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
8 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

Well firstly, I would hope that it would never come that. 

 

I personally think that it’s unlikely pledge numbers would ever diminished to such a extent but say they did: the FoH would have to evolve in some way to make membership a much broader spectrum (such as including season ticket holders or something). 

 

But the very concept of having a foundation anywhere is to ensure the safety of an institution or entity. The people in charge need to ensure that successors are well equipped, well qualified and have the best interest of the club, and the foundation at heart. 

Isn't the point that in the case of your second paragraph the remaining members may well have every incentive financially not to seek a broader membership ... indeed quite the reverse. Unlikely scenario maybe but governance is about dealing with unlikely scenarios and avoiding or mitigating the risk. Governance doesn't matter much when everything is hunky-dory which is maybe why it doesn't arouse much interest at present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

Well firstly, I would hope that it would never come that. 

 

I personally think that it’s unlikely pledge numbers would ever diminished to such a extent but say they did: the FoH would have to evolve in some way to make membership a much broader spectrum (such as including season ticket holders or something). 

 

But the very concept of having a foundation anywhere is to ensure the safety of an institution or entity. The people in charge need to ensure that successors are well equipped, well qualified and have the best interest of the club, and the foundation at heart. 

I agree with all of that.

 

My view is the the FOH Board is happy where they are and with what has worked for them so far.  That is fine as long as all you have is a sole single purpose of raising as much money as you can as quickly as possible.

 

Come the spring of 2020, FOH will acquire a majority shareholding in HMFC, but also wants to continue as before to raise as much money for the club as it can. That means two distinct purposes and a recognition that what has worked previously, might not be appropriate going forward. 

 

I don't think the implications and responsibilities that go with owning a football club have been fully thought through, or that the risks identified have not been adequately mitigated.

 

It's all very well to hope that something happens or doesn't happen. Good governance means that you put measures in place that deal with such eventualities, rather than cross your fingers and hope for the best.

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only respond generally to both of you by saying yes, of course all these worse-case-scenario theories should be considered and planned for, no matter how unlikely. I think we can all agree on that point. 

 

I do agree that all original pledgers should be recognised in some way but I do veer more to the side of ‘keep pledging’. Because that’s what I believe is best for the club, and I also reckon that’s what most current pledgers would support. 

 

I hope we break the 10,000 pledger mark one day. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

I can only respond generally to both of you by saying yes, of course all these worse-case-scenario theories should be considered and planned for, no matter how unlikely. I think we can all agree on that point. 

 

I do agree that all original pledgers should be recognised in some way but I do veer more to the side of ‘keep pledging’. Because that’s what I believe is best for the club, and I also reckon that’s what most current pledgers would support. 

 

I hope we break the 10,000 pledger mark one day. 

 

 

 

I really want Hearts to be a model for fan ownership but I understand a lot of Hearts fans might not be so bothered and will be happy just to see a more successful team on the park. I will continue pledging no matter what and I suspect most will. My ultimate aim is to ensure Hearts never falls into the hands of a rich chancer again, and I want the same for other clubs, which is why I'd like us to become a model.

 

I do think that the "recognition" thing is more than just giving the original pledgers a pat on the back or some sort fo reward. As everyone is saying, the only reward all pledgers I think wanted was a club to support. I really think FoH and those pledgers did something pretty unique and, in an environment where football clubs traditionally largely ignore their fans and take them for granted (not saying Hearts will in future but we have in the past), giving as many of those pledgers as possible a long-term say in the club, some sort of special membership level (even for a limited time) or whatever, seems like 1) a nice thing to do (and you'd expect a fan organisation like FoH to put fans first) and 2) is just good marketing if it gets lapsed pledgers back on board and keeps existing pledgers engaged (although I personally think pledging has become habit for so many of us that most will continue regardless as long as they can afford to).

 

It's very common for lapsed customers to get a special introductory offer or benefits or whatever, just as new customers are often enticed by something. The better the club does, the harder it probably will be to attract new pledgers (without that sense of urgency there was at the start) and retain existing ones. It will take good marketing to be successful in the long term.

 

My view that the original 8,000 or however many getting an ongoing say in things means that however well or not well the future membership scheme is operated, we still have a solid base of fans who are still engaged and have a voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

I can only respond generally to both of you by saying yes, of course all these worse-case-scenario theories should be considered and planned for, no matter how unlikely. I think we can all agree on that point. 

 

I do agree that all original pledgers should be recognised in some way but I do veer more to the side of ‘keep pledging’. Because that’s what I believe is best for the club, and I also reckon that’s what most current pledgers would support. 

 

I hope we break the 10,000 pledger mark one day. 

 

 

I'll ask the same question I asked earlier of someone else. Do you believe there are people currently pledging, who plan to continue to pledge who would stop pledging if they could still vote in an annual FoH board electing without pledging?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

I'll ask the same question I asked earlier of someone else. Do you believe there are people currently pledging, who plan to continue to pledge who would stop pledging if they could still vote in an annual FoH board electing without pledging?

 

It’s a very good question. My answer is they might well do, but I think the majority will continue to pledge regardless.

 

I think that very few people give thie ‘voting rights’ subject much thought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worthing Jambo
2 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

I agree with all of that.

 

My view is the the FOH Board is happy where they are and with what has worked for them so far.  That is fine as long as all you have is a sole single purpose of raising as much money as you can as quickly as possible.

 

Come the spring of 2020, FOH will acquire a majority shareholding in HMFC, but also wants to continue as before to raise as much money for the club as it can. That means two distinct purposes and a recognition that what has worked previously, might not be appropriate going forward. 

 

I don't think the implications and responsibilities that go with owning a football club have been fully thought through, or that the risks identified have not been adequately mitigated.

 

It's all very well to hope that something happens or doesn't happen. Good governance means that you put measures in place that deal with such eventualities, rather than cross your fingers and hope for the best.

I agree with this.

It isn’t about the here and now and the fantastic work that has been done, it is about protecting that for the future.

No one can categorically claim that the future custodians of foh will always be of the same ilk as those that lead it now.

 

In 15 years time people may say, don’t worry about selling out, times have moved on, don’t live in the past, that was then, this is now.

 

That may be a very valid point, leaving the door open to new challenges, should the Scottish football landscape change, and major investment needed for Hearts to keep up!

 

It might only be a few making that decision though and, to me anyway, that is no different to what we’ve had in the past.

 

Although maybe not the same scenario, I have a certificate on the wall that says “This is to certify that Heart of Midlothian Supporter’s Trust holds 571 ordinary shares in Heart of Midlothian Football Club on behalf of .........”

That was about 15 years ago.

No one wants to talk about it now and I’m sure those involved had the club’s best interests at heart.

Maybe I need to move on and forget it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

Those “greedy leeches” at the FoH do their work for free and give up a lot of their spare time because they love the club. 

 

If you have any evidence of wrong-doing I would suggest you come right out and say it, backed up by evidence of course. 

 

 

How do you know that Buffalo Bill? Do you know them?

 

Some of the people involved with the FoH didn't cover themselves in glory on the initial thread(s) on this site, especially when challenged on details, to the extent that one suggested a fight with a contributor. 

 

It's important that the men who are running the FoH show know that they are under close scrutiny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Smack said:

How do you know that Buffalo Bill? Do you know them?

 

Some of the people involved with the FoH didn't cover themselves in glory on the initial thread(s) on this site, especially when challenged on details, to the extent that one suggested a fight with a contributor. 

 

It's important that the men who are running the FoH show know that they are under close scrutiny. 

There are accounts, wouldn't we know if they were being paid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Worthing Jambo said:

 

 

In 15 years time people may say, don’t worry about selling out, times have moved on, don’t live in the past, that was then, this is now.

 

That may be a very valid point, leaving the door open to new challenges, should the Scottish football landscape change, and major investment needed for Hearts to keep up!

 

It might only be a few making that decision though and, to me anyway, that is no different to what we’ve had in the past.

 

It would take a 90% vote from all members to sell the majority shareholding. This has been publicised in the past. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smack said:

How do you know that Buffalo Bill? Do you know them?

 

Some of the people involved with the FoH didn't cover themselves in glory on the initial thread(s) on this site, especially when challenged on details, to the extent that one suggested a fight with a contributor. 

 

It's important that the men who are running the FoH show know that they are under close scrutiny. 

 

Yeah, I know some of them. 

 

Just to explain, when you make claims or insinuations of wrong-doing, the burden of proof falls on you, not me. 

 

Please feel free to post links or evidence to these claims on your next response. 

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thankfully I am positive that most FoH contributors feel the same way as BB here. I hate the way destruction almost always swells from within, and almost always from sources who believe they are doing ‘the right thing’. :yucky:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Smack said:

How do you know that Buffalo Bill? Do you know them?

 

Some of the people involved with the FoH didn't cover themselves in glory on the initial thread(s) on this site, especially when challenged on details, to the extent that one suggested a fight with a contributor. 

 

It's important that the men who are running the FoH show know that they are under close scrutiny. 

You're getting me a bit wound up here.  Suggest you give FoH a wide berth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

It would take a 90% vote from all members to sell the majority shareholding. This has been publicised in the past. 

 

And if the numbers of members drop off over the years, till there is just a couple .

Then what, that 90% vote could in theory come from 2 people (i.e. 100%) who would potentially gain millions in a sale. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
10 hours ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

It would take a 90% vote from all members to sell the majority shareholding. This has been publicised in the past. 

Genuine question to save me looking it up. Is that 90% of those voting or 90% of all members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
9 hours ago, Bez said:

Thankfully I am positive that most FoH contributors feel the same way as BB here. I hate the way destruction almost always swells from within, and almost always from sources who believe they are doing ‘the right thing’. :yucky:

What does that mean?

 

I know that some in FoH, including at least one close to past or present FoH Directors, think that anyone who comments adversely  or criticises FoH in any way is "an enemy of FoH"

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

What does that mean?

 

I know that some in FoH, including at least one close to past or present FoH Directors, think that anyone who comments adversely  or criticises FoH in any way is "an enemy of FoH"

 

It’s not difficult to understand Francis. It means exactly what it says. You can take it whatever way you like. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
35 minutes ago, Bez said:

 

It’s not difficult to understand Francis. It means exactly what it says. You can take it whatever way you like. :thumbsup:

In that case the wider the membership, including as many as possible of those who will have demonstrated their allegiance to the cause by committing in aggregate £9m by the time transfer of ownership, the more difficult will be "destruction from within".

 

I think the two major UK political parties are more exposed to "destruction from within" since their membership numbers have dwindled, allowing extreme but committed and activist factions (even though they remain very much a minority) to gain disproportionate influence and control.

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

In that case the wider the membership, including as many as possible of those who will have demonstrated their allegiance to the cause by committing in aggregate £9m by the time transfer of ownership, the more difficult will be "destruction from within".

 

I think the two major UK political parties are more exposed to "destruction from within" since their membership numbers have dwindled, allowing extreme but committed and activist factions (even though they remain very much a minority) to gain disproportionate interest and control.

 

Fascinating. Thanks Francis. A wee bit off topic, but riveting all the same. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

In that case the wider the membership, including as many as possible of those who will have demonstrated their allegiance to the cause by committing in aggregate £9m by the time transfer of ownership, the more difficult will be "destruction from within".

 

I think the two major UK political parties are more exposed to "destruction from within" since their membership numbers have dwindled, allowing extreme but committed and activist factions (even though they remain very much a minority) to gain disproportionate influence and control.

I agree with you. I’m not sure that a vote for life, after paying a tenner, is the right way to go about it though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, davemclaren said:

I agree with you. I’m not sure that a vote for life, after paying a tenner, is the right way to go about it though. 

 

Really?? Why not? :unsure:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
30 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I agree with you. I’m not sure that a vote for life, after paying a tenner, is the right way to go about it though. 

I think a threshold ogf 2 to 3 years worth of contributions would be reasonable - what would have been enough to achieve the original objective.

 

Nothing  will be perfectly fair. 

 

Nothing to do really with voting just the principle of what fan ownership means to me at least.

 

Although there are also good reasons for maximising membership anyway and not limiting it to current payers.

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SUTOL said:

 

And if the numbers of members drop off over the years, till there is just a couple .

Then what, that 90% vote could in theory come from 2 people (i.e. 100%) who would potentially gain millions in a sale. 

 

 

 

I would imagine that in theory, if FoH membership dropped down from approx 8,000 to just two, then at some point, there would need to be a bit of a constitutional re-think. 

 

I’m not an expert on these extreme worst-case-scenarios but I guess they’re worthwhile discussing in spite of the apparent positive, progressive upward trajectory of Hearts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Genuine question to save me looking it up. Is that 90% of those voting or 90% of all members.

 

I believe it would be votes cast. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are often surprised about the lack of candidates that put themselves up for election to the FoH Board. 

 

Have a look at some of the scurrilous accusations being chucked their way on this thread. This despite the fact that almost the entire FoH Board has changed since the CVA was signed. No evidence put forward whatsoever of any wrongdoing - but let's make the accusations anyway. 

 

All unpaid volunteers working hard to ensure that our football club is able to survive & prosper. 

 

I suggest that the people making these allegations either put up or shut up. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
2 hours ago, iainmac said:

People are often surprised about the lack of candidates that put themselves up for election to the FoH Board. 

 

Have a look at some of the scurrilous accusations being chucked their way on this thread. This despite the fact that almost the entire FoH Board has changed since the CVA was signed. No evidence put forward whatsoever of any wrongdoing - but let's make the accusations anyway. 

 

All unpaid volunteers working hard to ensure that our football club is able to survive & prosper. 

 

I suggest that the people making these allegations either put up or shut up. 

 

 

Who are these people? (to adopt a phrase). With one (fairly incoherent) exception no-one on this thread has cast aspersions on any past or present FoH Directors.

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we need to give FA a place on a committee that looks after the shares? Give him a fancy title and a blazer. That way we could use his doggedness to our advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its happened the way its happened.

 

Its immensly positive and its much more likely fan ownership happening will expand the level of interest. 

 

Various people have questioned things at different stages. At every step the project  moved on. Earlier before Ann  Budge People didn't like some of the individuals involved and their communications. Then Ian Murray came in and calmed things down. For example. 

 

There are details. Then there is the main big project. The main project is set in motion.

 

Its going well. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert

Though of course no one doubts the financial propriety, hard work and dedication of past and present FoH Directors they have always been partial to bit of spin. Here in full is their response in the latest consultation document to a suggestion, made in response to the last consultation document, that FoH's use of funds for its own purposes should be capped.

 

"On balance we do not agree with this suggestion. While it is clearly important that the Foundation keeps its cost base as low as possible, it would be difficult to set a fixed limit for what running costs should be, and spending too little on administration could impair efficiency. Our annual accounts provide complete transparency on costs. During the four financial years in which we have been meeting our financial obligations under the Bidco Agreement, our administrative costs have been less than 3%, on average, of our income from pledges."

 

That last bit sounds very comforting, implying tight control of costs. What it omits to say is that the Bidco Agreement contains a cap,  not perhaps entirely coincidentally, of about 3%, on what FoH can withhold from income from pledges for its own requirements. Of course saying so would not only dilute the tone of self congratulation on the tight control of costs but also raise the questions of why it wasn't too difficult to set an annual cap for the seven or so  years of the  Bidco Agreement, and why what was required and good enough for the agreement with Bidco isn't required and good enough in relation to future income from  pledges.

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Though of course no one doubts the financial propriety, hard work and dedication of past and present FoH Directors they have always been partial to bit of spin. Here in full is their response in the latest consultation document to a suggestion, made in response to the last consultation document, that FoH's use of funds for its own purposes should be capped.

 

"On balance we do not agree with this suggestion. While it is clearly important that the Foundation keeps its cost base as low as possible, it would be difficult to set a fixed limit for what running costs should be, and spending too little on administration could impair efficiency. Our annual accounts provide complete transparency on costs. During the four financial years in which we have been meeting our financial obligations under the Bidco Agreement, our administrative costs have been less than 3%, on average, of our income from pledges."

 

That last bit sounds very comforting, implying tight control of costs. What it omits to say is that the Bidco Agreement contains a cap,  not perhaps entirely coincidentally, of about 3%, on what FoH can withhold from income from pledges for its own requirements. Of course saying so would not only dilute the tone of self congratulation on the tight control of costs but also raise the questions of why it wasn't too difficult to set an annual cap for the seven or so  years of the  Bidco Agreement, and why what was required and good enough for the agreement with Bidco isn't required and good enough in relation to future income from  pledges.

 

Could it be that while they have worked hard to keep within the maximum 3% figure to date, going forward they feel that if they had spent a bit more they might have had a better return?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m still very much against the idea of life long voting rights, for most of the reasons already outlined by others on this thread. It devalues membership and it potentially compromises the continued success of the model.

 

 There’s other ways to acknowledge the people who were there and dug deep when the club needed it most - but I don’t think freebie life-long voting rights are appropriate. Decisions (by voting) should be made by people who are actively engaged with the FOH and the club in that moment, not those who might’ve given them a few quid a number of years ago. 

 

I’m all for a bit of sentiment (and inclusivity!) but not when the side effect is that it might actually hobble the organisation or reduce the income. We need people to continue pledging and engaging with the FOH if we want it the organisation to grow with the club. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, graygo said:

 

Could it be that while they have worked hard to keep within the maximum 3% figure to date, going forward they feel that if they had spent a bit more they might have had a better return?

 

It would be easy enough to say, a 10% cap with a review in 5 years, or something similar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, redm said:

I’m still very much against the idea of life long voting rights, for most of the reasons already outlined by others on this thread. It devalues membership and it potentially compromises the continued success of the model.

 

 There’s other ways to acknowledge the people who were there and dug deep when the club needed it most - but I don’t think freebie life-long voting rights are appropriate. Decisions (by voting) should be made by people who are actively engaged with the FOH and the club in that moment, not those who might’ve given them a few quid a number of years ago. 

 

I’m all for a bit of sentiment (and inclusivity!) but not when the side effect is that it might actually hobble the organisation or reduce the income. We need people to continue pledging and engaging with the FOH if we want it the organisation to grow with the club. 

 

I would agree with much of that if FOH retained ONLY the single purpose of raising funds. Those who pay in cash should determine how it is used.

 

However, FOH is soon to take majority ownership of HMFC. That is a whole different ball game (no pun intended). What has someone's first £10 pledge in five years time got to do with saving the club and acquiring ownership? Meanwhile, consider the recently retired supporter who has contributed faithfully for the last five years but can no longer afford both a season ticket and a pledge. He/She decides that the pledge has to go.

 

FOH's proposal is to say "thanks for the cash and helping us save, and own, our great club, but I'm afraid we can only have current pledgers having a say on how the club is owned and operated, so you are excluded". That's the bottom line of what FOH intends to implement. It's unthinking, uncaring and exclusive.

 

FOH might want to see a Barcelona model implemented, but the problem with that is that Barcelona didn't need saving, it didn't already have it's own shareholders, and I can't see anyone volunteering to be elected president of HMFC with even an amount of cash proportional to what each presidential candidate at Barcelona has to come up with.

 

P.S. It's good to see FOH recruiting more new pledgers today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I would agree with much of that if FOH retained ONLY the single purpose of raising funds. Those who pay in cash should determine how it is used.

 

However, FOH is soon to take majority ownership of HMFC. That is a whole different ball game (no pun intended). What has someone's first £10 pledge in five years time got to do with saving the club and acquiring ownership? Meanwhile, consider the recently retired supporter who has contributed faithfully for the last five years but can no longer afford both a season ticket and a pledge. He/She decides that the pledge has to go.

 

FOH's proposal is to say "thanks for the cash and helping us save, and own, our great club, but I'm afraid we can only have current pledgers having a say on how the club is owned and operated, so you are excluded". That's the bottom line of what FOH intends to implement. It's unthinking, uncaring and exclusive.

 

FOH might want to see a Barcelona model implemented, but the problem with that is that Barcelona didn't need saving, it didn't already have it's own shareholders, and I can't see anyone volunteering to be elected president of HMFC with even an amount of cash proportional to what each presidential candidate at Barcelona has to come up with.

 

P.S. It's good to see FOH recruiting more new pledgers today.

 

I think it’s a nice idea to have everyone involved but near enough impossible to implement in a sensible or straightforward way. Inclusivity is awfy important but not at the expense of practicality. The organisation started as a means of saving the club but is now changing and developing with the club and to me that’s healthy. 

 

I don’t see the active subs/voting rights thing as uncaring or unthinking at all. I think it sounds like a sensible business decision. For me personally, I gave my money and my club is alive and my name is right there in the list of people who contributed. I don’t expect the club or FOH to keep expressing gratitude or give me things or make gestures. We need to move on from all that now imho. 

 

We’re in a unique and very strong position - we can take the FOH model and use it as a means of giving ourselves a competitive advantage. A real boost to lift us beyond our nearest and closest competitors. We’d be mad to ignore that opportunity or fail to exploit it to our own advantage while there’s still such a strong appetite for pledging. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, redm said:

I’m still very much against the idea of life long voting rights, for most of the reasons already outlined by others on this thread. It devalues membership and it potentially compromises the continued success of the model.

 

 There’s other ways to acknowledge the people who were there and dug deep when the club needed it most - but I don’t think freebie life-long voting rights are appropriate. Decisions (by voting) should be made by people who are actively engaged with the FOH and the club in that moment, not those who might’ve given them a few quid a number of years ago. 

 

I’m all for a bit of sentiment (and inclusivity!) but not when the side effect is that it might actually hobble the organisation or reduce the income. We need people to continue pledging and engaging with the FOH if we want it the organisation to grow with the club. 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s not a freebie though as they have already paid, just like someone who bought shares ages ago and still has a vote as FF said earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I would agree with much of that if FOH retained ONLY the single purpose of raising funds. Those who pay in cash should determine how it is used.

 

However, FOH is soon to take majority ownership of HMFC. That is a whole different ball game (no pun intended). What has someone's first £10 pledge in five years time got to do with saving the club and acquiring ownership? Meanwhile, consider the recently retired supporter who has contributed faithfully for the last five years but can no longer afford both a season ticket and a pledge. He/She decides that the pledge has to go.

 

FOH's proposal is to say "thanks for the cash and helping us save, and own, our great club, but I'm afraid we can only have current pledgers having a say on how the club is owned and operated, so you are excluded". That's the bottom line of what FOH intends to implement. It's unthinking, uncaring and exclusive.

 

FOH might want to see a Barcelona model implemented, but the problem with that is that Barcelona didn't need saving, it didn't already have it's own shareholders, and I can't see anyone volunteering to be elected president of HMFC with even an amount of cash proportional to what each presidential candidate at Barcelona has to come up with.

 

P.S. It's good to see FOH recruiting more new pledgers today.

FoH always envisaged ( or at least hoped ) that it would last well beyond just the saving of the club. Alex Mackie wanted a Barcelona type model. I’m not sure how ‘ownership’  works for that or other similar models. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...