FOH Governance Proposal

[Buffalo Bill]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

In other words the owners can decide to do what CPR and his board decided to do without reference to the wider fan base, which would be reduced to placards, boycotts and protests ... or a new "Save our Hearts" movement perhaps?.

 

No, I don’t know how you came to that conclusion. Firstly, the wider fan base has the opportunity to get involved in this particular decision making process by being FoH members. 

 

And I don’t see why a SoH/type scenario couldn’t still arise to this particular doomsday scenario of yours. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

7 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

I think most of us knew that he was a bit of a loose cannon; an eccentric. But we didn’t know in 2004 just how erratic he would be (sacking Burley ‘cos he was jealous, Rima and her golden stick etc). 

 

But again, like your CPR point, we’re comparing apples with oranges because no future director would have Romanov’s power. 

No we aren't. The point is that Romanov was a successful banker and businessman and in such a scenario, would pass any "vetting". This is why entrusting members to have the democratic say over FoH's representatives is so important.

[Francis Albert]

16 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

It’s based on what I heard or read FoH directors say many times and not spending more than what you bring in is a basic principle. 

 

 

So whatever that means exactly and whether or not it is a sensible rule to adopt, it actually has nothing to do with the proposed governance arrangements.

[Buffalo Bill]

20 minutes ago, sandylejambo said:

I have been contributing from the start and I am uncomfortable with the fact that even when we have paid for the club, me and my co pledgers will have no say in how the club we own will be run, surely someone with more savvy than me on the FOH could come up with a system that lets us have a say, if they can't, maybe they shouldn't be there. From the outside it seems I have as much say as I did when Romanov was in charge, before me and my fellow Jambo's bought the club.

 

FoH made it clear from the start that the club would be ‘fan owned’, not ‘fan run’. 

 

As this has turned into a thread of extreme scenarios you can’t have punters sitting in the Tynie Arms at 2pm thinking that they should be picking the team. 

 

FoH model was chosen, along with Bidco as the best way to take the club forward. 

 

Who would you have preferred, sandyle? 

 

 

[Buffalo Bill]

6 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

No we aren't. The point is that Romanov was a successful banker and businessman and in such a scenario, would pass any "vetting". This is why entrusting members to have the democratic say over FoH's representatives is so important.

 

I don’t think he would pass vetting in the current FoH set up. 

[Francis Albert]

10 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

All fair pints, FF but by the same rule of thumb, if you award the possibility of corruption and incompetence towards FoH, then what’s to stop the same scenario happening to your ‘House of Lords’ idea? 

If we need analogies with the UK constitution I think FF's' proposal in relation ownership and a trust are more akin to the principle of universal suffrage than to the House of Lords.

 

The simple fact is that if membership falls to say 1000 or fewer (over 20 years a not unthinkable or extreme possibility and therefore one that should be addressed in governance arrangements) then there is less protection than if there are 8000 or 10000 or more members.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

I don’t think he would pass vetting in the current FoH set up. 

 

Yes, because successful bankers and businessmen are inappropriate people!

 

Who appoints the "vetters" incidentally and makes them judges of character?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

7 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

FoH made it clear from the start that the club would be ‘fan owned’, not ‘fan run’. 

 

As this has turned into a thread of extreme scenarios you can’t have punters sitting in the Tynie Arms at 2pm thinking that they should be picking the team. 

 

FoH model was chosen, along with Bidco as the best way to take the club forward. 

 

Who would you have preferred, sandyle? 

 

 

Funny sort of "fan owned" where the only way to maintain ownership is to pay a fee in perpetuity.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Geoff Kilpatrick

[Francis Albert]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

FoH made it clear from the start that the club would be ‘fan owned’, not ‘fan run’. 

 

As this has turned into a thread of extreme scenarios you can’t have punters sitting in the Tynie Arms at 2pm thinking that they should be picking the team. 

 

FoH model was chosen, along with Bidco as the best way to take the club forward. 

 

Who would you have preferred, sandyle? 

 

 

Not that old chestnut. Has anyone ever suggested this? And of course nothing whatsoever to do with the ownership structure or definition of membership of FoH. You are getting a bit desperate BB. 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Buffalo Bill]

4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

So whatever that means exactly and whether or not it is a sensible rule to adopt, it actually has nothing to do with the proposed governance arrangements.

 

Well you know exactly what it means. What a flippant response! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Francis Albert]

31 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

No, I don’t know how you came to that conclusion. Firstly, the wider fan base has the opportunity to get involved in this particular decision making process by being FoH members. 

 

And I don’t see why a SoH/type scenario couldn’t still arise to this particular doomsday scenario of yours. 

Owners (FoH members) can decide. The "wider fan base" by which I mean non-FoH members don't have a say. Except (Catch 22) by being FoH members.

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Buffalo Bill]

10 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

 

Yes, because successful bankers and businessmen are inappropriate people!

 

Who appoints the "vetters" incidentally and makes them judges of character?

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!    

 

(We can both do that if we want to act like dicks) 

 

No, I honestly believe that if Vladimir Romanov (let’s pretend he wasn’t in charge when the club got driven into administration) rocked up, I don’t think he’d get elected onto the FoH board. 

 

As far as I’m aware, all new directors have to be approved by the current board. 

[Francis Albert]

7 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

Well you know exactly what it means. What a flippant response! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What current or previous FoH Directors have said has nothing to do with the governance arrangements (unless you write their words into the governance arrangements and so bind future FoH directors).

 

I don't think that is in the least flippant. Just a statement of fact. Or do think I am wrong?

Edited September 19, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!    

 

(We can both do that if we want to act like dicks) 

 

No, I honestly believe that if Vladimir Romanov (let’s pretend he wasn’t in charge when the club got driven into administration) rocked up, I don’t think he’d get elected onto the FoH board. 

 

As far as I’m aware, all new directors have to be approved by the current board. 

I made the reference to 2004. There was nothing to indicate Vlad was a nutjob AT THAT TIME!

 

How do we know the present board aren't potential "nutjobs"? Talk about self-selection!

[Buffalo Bill]

14 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Funny sort of "fan owned" where the only way to maintain ownership is to pay a fee in perpetuity.

 

It’s a foundation. It’s not about Geoff Kilpatrick owning his piece of the pie. That’s just the way it is. 

 

What party did you support during the CVA process? 

 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

It’s a foundation. It’s not about Geoff Kilpatrick owning his piece of the pie. That’s just the way it is. 

 

What party did you support during the CVA process? 

 

 

What a daft question. I supported the only one which had a chance of saving the club.

[Buffalo Bill]

17 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Not that old chestnut. Has anyone ever suggested this? And of course nothing whatsoever to do with the ownership structure or definition of membership of FoH. You are getting a bit desperate BB. 

 

Desperate? I was answering Sandy’s question in the same language that he asked it in. 

[redm]

2 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

The fresh blood would come from the same source as the fresh blood that joins FOH every year.

 

FOH has had 10,000 unique members in its lifetime so, in keeping active membership numbers stable at around 8,000, it must have recruited 2,000 new members to replace the 2,000 it has lost over the period.

 

That is a fantastic achievement and FOH should be lauded for that.

 

There is no reason for recruitment of new pledgers to stop regardless of the final structure that is implemented. 

 

FA has also suggested opening up membership of a shareowning Trust to other groups such as ST holders of long standing. I had actually suggested that membership should be opened up in my initial feedback on the proposals, even to the extent of rebranding the FOH fundraising function as a club membership scheme, to attract the widest possible particiption from all Hearts fans, individuals and local businesses.

 

There should  be no shortage of new blood joining a trust.

 

 

Hmm. How do the existing Shareholders Assoc and Supporters Trust do in terms of membership? And how many members are young? What sort of active role would people play in club as part of this type of Trust? I don’t think it sounds like an easy sell and if it’s not an easy sell it won’t get the numbers. If it doesn’t get the numbers it’s just another committee populated mostly by older fans, representing yet another medium/small group of supporters. 

 

Plus you’d essentially be splitting (or potentially diluting) the FOH membership.

 

I understand the need to be super careful and to protect the ownership element, but this doesn’t sound like the winning mechanism to me. Not if the concept is genuinely about wider participation. Hearts and minds. 

[Buffalo Bill]

10 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

What a daft question. I supported the only one which had a chance of saving the club.

 

It’s actually a fair question, brought up to challenge any sense of perspective you might have. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, Buffalo Bill said:

 

It’s actually a fair question, brought up to challenge any sense of perspective you might have. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm an FoH subscriber BB. What I'm saying is that I don't like how it is transforming itself and it is able to do so because the vast majority of the support are apathetic to minutiae like this. That's dangerous in itself.

[redm]

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I'm an FoH subscriber BB. What I'm saying is that I don't like how it is transforming itself and it is able to do so because the vast majority of the support are apathetic to minutiae like this. That's dangerous in itself.

 

Absence of opposition doesn’t necessarily indicate apathy. 

[iainmac]

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I'm an FoH subscriber BB. What I'm saying is that I don't like how it is transforming itself and it is able to do so because the vast majority of the support are apathetic to minutiae like this. That's dangerous in itself.

 

How do you know that Geoff? 

 

Are you just going by the number of contributors on this thread? 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

14 minutes ago, redm said:

 

Hmm. How do the existing Shareholders Assoc and Supporters Trust do in terms of membership? And how many members are young? What sort of active role would people play in club as part of this type of Trust? I don’t think it sounds like an easy sell and if it’s not an easy sell it won’t get the numbers. If it doesn’t get the numbers it’s just another committee populated mostly by older fans, representing yet another medium/small group of supporters. 

 

Plus you’d essentially be splitting (or potentially diluting) the FOH membership.

 

I understand the need to be super careful and to protect the ownership element, but this doesn’t sound like the winning mechanism to me. Not if the concept is genuinely about wider participation. Hearts and minds. 

How many people do you think have read the Governance report for FoH, by the same token? This will be nodded through because we will all slap ourselves on the back and tell ourselves how wonderful we are at "fan ownership" and everyone else sucks. This is dull and boring but bloody important yet it has bugger all by way of engagement.

[redm]

Just now, redm said:

 

Absence of opposition doesn’t necessarily indicate apathy. 

 

Well, not absence, perceived absence might be better, you know what I mean. There’s plenty opposition on this thread, for example. I haven’t discussed this stuff anywhere else though - and I probably wouldn’t have bothered at all if I hadn’t popped in and discovered that there was even a debate to be had.

 

Glad we are chatting about it all though. Never a bad thing. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, iainmac said:

 

How do you know that Geoff? 

 

Are you just going by the number of contributors on this thread? 

I don't know for definite but I'm inferring it from previous contributions on FoH in general i.e. "I don't care how it is governed but my pledge is for life". That's great but it is a fundamentally risky attitude.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, redm said:

 

Well, not absence, perceived absence might be better, you know what I mean. There’s plenty opposition on this thread, for example. I haven’t discussed this stuff anywhere else though - and I probably wouldn’t have bothered at all if I hadn’t popped in and discovered that there was even a debate to be had.

 

Glad we are chatting about it all though. Never a bad thing. 

True but given FF and FA are the main protagonists there is a perception they are being "negative". They aren't!

[redm]

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

How many people do you think have read the Governance report for FoH, by the same token? This will be nodded through because we will all slap ourselves on the back and tell ourselves how wonderful we are at "fan ownership" and everyone else sucks. This is dull and boring but bloody important yet it has bugger all by way of engagement.

 

I have no idea. I do know that several friends have read it (FOH’ers) but to my knowledge haven’t been chatting about it online or anything. I don’t imagine they’re unique in that sense. 

 

By the same token, it doesn’t make us ownership governance gurus to insist on substantial changes to a perfectly workable and successful model either. Sledgehammers cracking nuts. 

 

??‍♀️

[Buffalo Bill]

3 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

True but given FF and FA are the main protagonists there is a perception they are being "negative". They aren't!

 

No, I don’t think that you and FA are being negative. 

 

mocking the current model and anyone who supports it, looking for the worst case scenario in every, highly unlikely situation  whilst displaying a total mistrust towards all FoH directors present and future. 

 

Not negative at all.

 

 

[Francis Albert]

45 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

Well you know exactly what it means. What a flippant response! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

May have been at cross purposes. When I said I didn't know what it meant I was referring to your assertion that "the club would never spend more than it brings in" - as posted earlier what period does this refer to - daily, monthly, annually, an accounting year, over a 5 year period? Without definition it is just a slogan. And without some link to the governance arrangements it is not binding on future Directors. As I have also said its probably good that its not binding because as a business rule it is not very sensible.

In any event not relevant to the governance discussion.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

No, I don’t think that you and FA are being negative. 

 

mocking the current model and anyone who supports it, looking for the worst case scenario in every, highly unlikely situation  whilst displaying a total mistrust towards all FoH directors present and future. 

 

Not negative at all.

 

 

Oh dear. So you don't really want a consultation. Just praise for the proposal.

 

A number of posters have agreed with FF, me,  and Geoff in what has been the most open debate since the first full proposal came out in April 2017.

 

Your attitude to the debate maybe helps explain why this is so.

[scott herbertson]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

May have been at cross purposes. When I said I didn't know what it meant I was referring to "the club would never spend more than it brings in" - as posted earlier what period does this refer to - daily, monthly, annually, an accounting year, over a 5 year period? Without definition it is just a slogan. And without some link to the governance arrangements it is not binding on future Directors. As I have also said its probably good that its not binding because as a business rule it is not very sensible.

In any event not relevant to the governance discussion.

 

 

 It's a Mr Micawber statement to me -

 

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

 

So I would treat it mainly as an annual income and expenditure thing.

 

The exception might be capital expenditure where some level of secured debt against relatively safe future might be acceptable.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

11 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

No, I don’t think that you and FA are being negative. 

 

mocking the current model and anyone who supports it, looking for the worst case scenario in every, highly unlikely situation  whilst displaying a total mistrust towards all FoH directors present and future. 

 

Not negative at all.

 

 

There is a emoji but there's no need to get so defensive. I get you have a familial relationship in this but this isn't personal. Rather, it is trying to ensure that FoH is open to its members and accountable to its members. Things like the present board being able to "vet" new potential board members is not being accountable, no matter how you look at it.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Geoff Kilpatrick

[mitch41]

At all times all Hearts fans and FOH members want is to be informed of the truth.

Communication is key to Hearts future success on and off the pitch. We have a 

woman running our club that we all have total respect for and she is a fantastic 

communicator and business person which we are lucky to have. We'd be stupid

not to take her advice on the future ownership of the club and who should do her

job when she steps down. Now all i'm saying is that her advice should be taken 

into account nothing more.

[iainmac]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Oh dear. So you don't really want a consultation. Just praise for the proposal.

 

A number of posters have agreed with FF, me,  and Geoff in what has been the most open debate since the first full proposal came out in April 2017.

 

Your attitude to the debate maybe helps explain why this is so.

 

It appears you don't want a consultation either. You want to rip everything up and introduce a brand new Trust model. 

 

That's fair enough as long as you realise that your view is merely 1 out of 8000 and people are quite entitled to disagree. 

[Coco]

Putting the ownership in trust for the Hearts community (no need for any separate membership or income stream) and thus separated from the money raising activity would be a nice symbolic representation of fan ownership.

 

It could be coupled with a constitutional effort at either the FoH or club level to prevent the decisions which led to financial distress seen several times in the past 30 years.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

3 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

It appears you don't want a consultation either. You want to rip everything up and introduce a brand new Trust model. 

 

That's fair enough as long as you realise that your view is merely 1 out of 8000 and people are quite entitled to disagree. 

Absolutely. I prefer they stated why they disagree though.

[iainmac]

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Absolutely. I prefer they stated why they disagree though.

 

I think the "disagrees" have articulated their position all over this thread Geoff. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, iainmac said:

 

I think the "disagrees" have articulated their position all over this thread Geoff. 

Probably. Mainly because the "agrees" haven't said why these plans are perfect.

[iainmac]

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Probably. Mainly because the "agrees" haven't said why these plans are perfect.

 

In my entire Corporate life, I've never encountered any kind of Governance that I'd describe as "perfect". ? 

[geogth]

1 hour ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Funny sort of "fan owned" where the only way to maintain ownership is to pay a fee in perpetuity.

Exactly. We signed up to buy the club and have a say in the running of it. It now seems we wont have a say unless we continue to contribute whether we can afford to or not. I know the majority intend to continue contributions after the debt is repaid but to "dump" the people who SAVED the club because they for whatever reason no longer contribute is imo unfair. 

[Francis Albert]

15 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

It appears you don't want a consultation either. You want to rip everything up and introduce a brand new Trust model. 

 

That's fair enough as long as you realise that your view is merely 1 out of 8000 and people are quite entitled to disagree. 

If the FoH didn't want consultation on the fundamental "active membership" model they should have said so. As they did not say so I don't think proposing alternatives merits the accusation ripping everything up.

 

I think incidentally that the aggressive response to any so called negative comment (ie disagreement or questioning) by those regular posters who seem to have some connection with FoH and seem to act as unofficial spokesmen at times does not augur well if it reflects more widespread FoH attitudes.

 

I am aware I am 1 in 8000 and I'd put the chances of views on this thread having any impact on the outcome as closer to zero than some of the scenarios dismissed as "doomsday" and Extreme worst case" on this thread

 

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Francis Albert

[iainmac]

16 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

If the FoH didn't want consultation on the fundamental "active membership" model they should have said so. As they did not say so I don't think proposing alternatives merits the accusation ripping everything up.

 

I think incidentally that the aggressive response to any so called negative comment (ie disagreement or questioning) by those regular posters who seem to have some connection with FoH and seem to act as unofficial spokesmen at times does not augur well if it reflects more widespread FoH attitudes.

 

I am aware I am 1 in 8000 and I'd put the chances of views on this thread having any impact on the outcome as closer to zero than some of the scenarios dismissed as "doomsday" and Extreme worst case" on this thread

 

 

 

Surely we all have a "connection with FOH" - 8000 of us! 

 

I'm not an "unofficial spokesman" for FOH - something you love to throw about on here when you get your knickers in a twist about one thing or another. 

 

I'm a pledger, I'm a JKB member therefore just as entitled to my personal views as you are. 

 

If you can't handle that, use the ignore function. 

[Hearts_fan]

Founded on an ethos of "people power", the FoH should – in my opinion – operate in a way that allows the layman to interact meaningfully with the FoH and be meaningfully included. 

 

I am uninterested in pages upon pages of small print and corporate jargon (or maybe I'm just short of time), and so it feels to me as if this corporate project is – at times – operating on a trajectory above my head, yet it relies on my subscription fee.

 

FoH has the opportunity to enact a thoroughly modern, inclusive, transparent and empowering ethos, one that truly incentivises participation by communicating with it's members using members' language and communication styles.

 

The alternative to that idea may become just another untouchable corporate entity that exists in an ivory tower somewhere whilst relying on the voluntary donations of the most faithful of supporters. 

 

Goodwill. Money. Loyalty. Lifeblood. Trust. That's what members give to the FoH.

 

In exchange we get the knowledge that we are helping the club. That's massive, but – in my opinion – there needs to be more interaction in the relationship, more meaningful interaction.

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Hearts_fan

[iainmac]

3 minutes ago, Hearts_fan said:

Founded on an ethos of "people power", the FoH should – in my opinion – operate in a way that allows the layman to interact meaningfully with the FoH and be meaningfully included. 

 

I am uninterested in pages upon pages of small print and corporate jargon (or maybe I'm just short of time), and so it feels to me as if this corporate project is – at times – operating on a trajectory above my head, yet it relies on my subscription fee.

 

FoH has the opportunity to enact a thoroughly modern, inclusive, transparent and empowering ethos, one that truly incentivises participation by communicating with it's members using members' language and communication styles.

 

The alternative to that idea may become just another untouchable corporate entity that exists in an ivory tower somewhere whilst relying on the voluntary donations of the most faithful of supporters. 

 

Goodwill. Money. Loyalty. Lifeblood. Trust. That's what members give to the FoH.

 

In exchange we get the knowledge that we are helping the club. That's massive, but – in my opinion – there needs to be more interaction in the relationship, more meaningful interaction.

 

FOH are on Twitter, Facebook & send regular blogs out by email. What else would you like to see by way of interaction? 

[scott herbertson]

Here's my thoughts (which I'm sending in). Can't say I've thoroughly read everything so I may have missed the point here or there

 

 

 

Comments on the governance proposals

 

Proposals in relation to the Foundation

 

Point 2: Re - Lapsed members

This issue has been discussed extensively on Kickback and it clearly is one which some FOH members who contributed to save their club feel strongly about.

While I understand the argument that subscribing members must be encouraged to continue and that providing lapsed members with continued benefits might seem unfair and encourage lapsing,  I am sure there are common sense ways this can be reconciled.

I would suggest that all members who have contributed an amount equivalent to two years at the minimum subscription (£240 at present I believe) which would tally with the intial calls to save the club, could be given a permanent membership status call it Supporter of FOH (SFOH).

The benefits of a SFOH could be quite simple:

·         Continued receipt of regular online  FOH updates (but with an option to resubscribe pushed and the option to opt out of SFOH if wished.

·         If FOH are given in future a discount on club shop goods, then a lower level of discount could apply to SFOH members - this would be particularly apt at Christmas.

·         notification of AGM documentation as per FOH members, online version only or link to it

·         Lastly, and most importantly SFOH members could be given limited voting rights ( I realise this might be technically difficult but I am sure a workaround could be found) on specific and fundamental issues which could be clearly laid out - eg  1. Sale or transfer of ownership of Tynecastle. 2 Sale or transfer of ownership of the Club 3. Constitutional changes affecting SFOH members

 

Point 4. Specialist directors.

 

The proposals make sense in terms of efficiency but I don't think avoiding competitive election processes is actually a good thing per se which seems to be the way this is phrased.

 

I think this rationale should be re-presented and I would suggest if the membership opt to vote against the appointment of a specialist director chosen by the Board the Board should have the right to try again OR still have the option to invite applications for the post using a competitive election if it seems the best way (there may be candidates in the membership who the board are unaware of). I also think while it may not be part of the constitution it would be good practice in a fan owned club for the Board to state in its annual plan the areas it is seeking to strengthen so that members with skills can offer their services pro bono if appropriate, albeit the Board reserve the right to not take them up on any offer!

Building a framework

 

clause 2.17

 

No directors’ fees are payable, but a director may

receive reasonable remuneration for professional or other services provided to the Foundation, and be repaid reasonable expenses properly incurred on Foundation business.

 

I would propose that any remuneration for services provided by Directors should be identified clearly and  published online for the sake of transparency.

 

clause 3.38

 

See my comments on Point 2 above.

 

While the proposal admits of a consultation requirement with the FOH Board , I think the issue should be addressed more clearly in FOH's own constitution and that it should  be a requirement of the FOH directors on the Club Board to vote as instructed on these matters by the FOH Board, and that the FOH Board should be required to consult with its members (including where appropriate SFOH, see above) . In addition to the points in the 4th bullet point I would add the sale of shares, as I believe FOH membership should be consulted on any proposals which may dilute their influence.

 

 

 

[Footballfirst]

31 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

It appears you don't want a consultation either. You want to rip everything up and introduce a brand new Trust model. 

 

That's fair enough as long as you realise that your view is merely 1 out of 8000 and people are quite entitled to disagree. 

Iain - Nothing is being ripped up. The existing FOH model is bound by a legally binding agreement between FOH, Bidco and HMFC. That model expires on the day the shares are transferred. The Board currently has no authority to accept pledges beyond that date without a new agreement. 

 

We have an opportunity to draw up a new model to manage both fundraising and ownership functions.  The Board believes that a continuation of the substantive parts of the existing model is sufficient.

 

I disagree with that view, as either being sufficient or appropriate for a "fan owned" football club"

 

Whatever is agreed at the AGM and implemented on share transfer day in early 2020 will be a brand new model.

 

As far as I'm aware we are still in a consultation phase. That means that all options remain on the table until there is an agreement following a general meeting. 

[Francis Albert]

11 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

Surely we all have a "connection with FOH" - 8000 of us! 

 

I'm not an "unofficial spokesman" for FOH - something you love to throw about on here when you get your knickers in a twist about one thing or another. 

 

I'm a pledger, I'm a JKB member therefore just as entitled to my personal views as you are. 

 

If you can't handle that, use the ignore function. 

I never use the ignore function. It always seems a childish thing to do on a public message board.

Therefore I know that at least one of the 8000 members is in your opinion an "enemy of FoH".

Would frequent go-between between members and FoH be a better description than "unofficial spokesman"?

Anyway seemingly personally rather more connected with the great and good than most of the 7999 others.

 

[iainmac]

6 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Iain - Nothing is being ripped up. The existing FOH model is bound by a legally binding agreement between FOH, Bidco and HMFC. That model expires on the day the shares are transferred. The Board currently has no authority to accept pledges beyond that date without a new agreement. 

 

We have an opportunity to draw up a new model to manage both fundraising and ownership functions.  The Board believes that a continuation of the substantive parts of the existing model is sufficient.

 

I disagree with that view, as either being sufficient or appropriate for a "fan owned" football club"

 

Whatever is agreed at the AGM and implemented on share transfer day in early 2020 will be a brand new model.

 

As far as I'm aware we are still in a consultation phase. That means that all options remain on the table until there is an agreement following a general meeting. 

 

I'm aware and have contributed to the consultation using the feedback option. My view is the current model needs only "tweaking" for it to deliver most of your requirements. 

 

I don't think it needs a separate Trust. 

[Hearts_fan]

5 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

FOH are on Twitter, Facebook & send regular blogs out by email. What else would you like to see by way of interaction? 

 

Thanks Iain. It's true, and it's great, and I think FoH is a great thing and doing a fantastic job. I'm very much on board.

 

But social media is communication, and not what I mean by "meaningful interaction". 

 

Having thought about it more, I think all I expect is the members get to vote on certain aspects of how our investment is spent, and as I understand it, this isn't going to happen long term (?).

 

I don't have the answers. I'm just responding to what I've caught up on in the past two or three pages of this thread. 

 

It just strikes me that there could be a future issue in the relationship between members and the FoH if the members aren't seen as any more valuable than what they contribute to the balance sheet. 

 

It goes back to my first comment that the FoH was built on an ethos of people power. People are people, not direct debits. People's values and opinions need to be listened to and respected, that's simply how good and longstanding relationships work. 

 

[iainmac]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I never use the ignore function. It always seems a childish thing to do on a public message board.

Therefore I know that at least one of the 8000 members is in your opinion an "enemy of FoH".

Would frequent go-between between members and FoH be a better description than "unofficial spokesman"?

Anyway seemingly personally rather more connected with the great and good than most of the 7999 others.

 

 

I had never even met anyone from FOH before a meeting that SaveOurHearts had with Sergei / Southern in the Grosvenor Hotel after the Remembrance Day service in 2012, I think. FOH were meeting the club right after we were and I was introduced to Alex Mackie & Brian Cormack. Since then, I've helped out whenever I've been asked. Whether that was speaking at the FOH "launch" in the Gorgie Suite, delivering roadshows around the country or climbing the stands to help deliver 16000 leaflets trying to generate more pledgers. 

 

I got to know the current Directors by actively engaging with them & introducing myself, because I take an interest in what's happening at our club. 

 

That doesn't make me an "unofficial spokesman" or "go between" or any other phrase you'd like to chuck my way in a pathetic attempt to stop me expressing MY views on here.