Fan ownership

[After The Watershed]

So supporters direct and the consortium plan fan ownership. However nobody has asked the fans how much they would pay to own the club.

 

I would want one member one vote with a board made up of elected members. Non profit organisation with all money raised going into the club or some form of saving account for a rainy day to cover any short fall (such as the demise of a TV deal like setanta few years back) or put towards a new stadium or developed tynecastle.

 

I could afford ?30 a month for membership (would just mean I cut back on dominoes pizza or a few less pints!) If we had just 10000 buying into this we could raise 3.6m a year.

 

The club have said if we buy the shares at the end of the year the club will be self sufficient.

 

If true surely we could still have a team that was able to put in a challenge.

 

Alternatively surely Vlad would accept a bid for the club with payment over a few years at a more than generous ?7m -?9m with no further debt.

 

I'll stop rambling now but maybe we should be showing what support there is for a fan buy out to help all parties involved see how it would work and be funded.

 

Thoughts?

 

[Big Team]

Sadly the assumptions that 10,000 folk will put in anything like ?30 a month are where this falls down.

 

You would think that kind of financial commitment would have been gteed in the last ten days, but the reality is that a small percentage of those 10,000 people have ended up putting in significantly more per head, and we still havnt breached ?300k raised.

 

It looks like fan ownership is our only saviour and so I need that to work, but I have grave concerns over the fans ability or comittment to provide that level of finance on an ongoing basis.

[jack D and coke]

At ?10 a month and your talking realistic figures. Could we get 25,000 of them? Surely even for people who don't go anymore that target must be achievable?

[kingantti1874]

Sadly the assumptions that 10,000 folk will put in anything like ?30 a month are where this falls down.

 

You would think that kind of financial commitment would have been gteed in the last ten days, but the reality is that a small percentage of those 10,000 people have ended up putting in significantly more per head, and we still havnt breached ?300k raised.

 

It looks like fan ownership is our only saviour and so I need that to work, but I have grave concerns over the fans ability or comittment to provide that level of finance on an ongoing basis.

 

Where did you hear we haven't breached 300k, given stmirren is nigh on sol out ?75k, JKB alone has raised ?20k as did the auction... Tht doesn't take into consideration shares - I'd say we are well beyond the ?300k

[Victorian]

The more salient point is that an ambitious target like that is much less likely to sustain for the required timescale. You might get a massive take up initially but it must be a long term commitment over years. Basing the security of the club on a figure of people continuing their subscriptions through the years seems precarious.

 

If the group doing this was able to underwrite a subscription shortfall in some way... Fine. But they don't seem to be able to at this stage.

[shaun.lawson]

The more salient point is that an ambitious target like that is much less likely to sustain for the required timescale. You might get a massive take up initially but it must be a long term commitment over years. Basing the security of the club on a figure of people continuing their subscriptions through the years seems precarious.

 

If the group doing this was able to underwrite a subscription shortfall in some way... Fine. But they don't seem to be able to at this stage.

 

Yes, commitment is key - and that would also entail patience, not exactly a common commodity amongst football fans. Just imagine it:

 

"If you don't sack McGlynn immediately/bring Rudi back at once/play two up front/drop that carthorse Sutton/tell Stevenson to GTF/pick Sutton, our only natural goalscorer/give Paterson a rest/pick Paterson - he's a star/show some ambition because Celtic are there for the taking, I'm pulling my tenner out. What are you going to do about it?"

 

The concept, in other words, would have to persuade enough people to commit for a significant period of time, and to accept that things would not always run smoothly. Nothing unusual in that: this is Hearts, after all.

[After The Watershed]

Sadly the assumptions that 10,000 folk will put in anything like ?30 a month are where this falls down.

 

You would think that kind of financial commitment would have been gteed in the last ten days, but the reality is that a small percentage of those 10,000 people have ended up putting in significantly more per head, and we still havnt breached ?300k raised.

 

It looks like fan ownership is our only saviour and so I need that to work, but I have grave concerns over the fans ability or comittment to provide that level of finance on an ongoing basis.

 

That's part of my point. If we can raise so much over a few weeks then some form of commitment even ?10 a month must be achievable. What you have to remember is folk would probably put in more if Vlad wasn't in charge.

 

[Victorian]

 

 

Yes, commitment is key - and that would also entail patience, not exactly a common commodity amongst football fans. Just imagine it:

 

"If you don't sack McGlynn immediately/bring Rudi back at once/play two up front/drop that carthorse Sutton/tell Stevenson to GTF/pick Sutton, our only natural goalscorer/give Paterson a rest/pick Paterson - he's a star/show some ambition because Celtic are there for the taking, I'm pulling my tenner out. What are you going to do about it?"

 

The concept, in other words, would have to persuade enough people to commit for a significant period of time, and to accept that things would not always run smoothly. Nothing unusual in that: this is Hearts, after all.

 

. Quite. You would have those sort if things to deal with, as well as the inevitable issue of subscribers:

 

Dying.

Losing jobs/falling on hardship.

Moving away and losing interest.

Staying and losing interest.

Changing bank and lapsing.

Etc.

 

Also, people tend to forget that many fans are minors without their own independent resources. Many of these would require their parents to either fund such a subscription or at least to allow their kids to commit to it.

[After The Watershed]

The more salient point is that an ambitious target like that is much less likely to sustain for the required timescale. You might get a massive take up initially but it must be a long term commitment over years. Basing the security of the club on a figure of people continuing their subscriptions through the years seems precarious.

 

If the group doing this was able to underwrite a subscription shortfall in some way... Fine. But they don't seem to be able to at this stage.

 

That's just it. It would not be used to run the club. The club would run on the basis the current board are trying to get it to which is within it's means. What is made by season ticket sales, match day tickets, merchandise and TV money would pay for the running of the club. If any income was reduced the wage bill would be cut to reflect this.

 

The money made from trust members would be extra to put towards future investment in stadium, youth development etc.

 

You could also have different packages with a merchandise discount card for members paying ?30 a month. Say 10% off. Then have a basic membership of ?10. Still one vote per member.