Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Just noticed their plans on the Q & A thread and felt it is worth debate. Here's the post. We are finalising the Governance documents of the Foundation at the moment and this will become clear early in the New Year. Initially the FOH board will consist of the existing four directors, three fans representatives (most likely to be from the Federation of Hearts Supporters. Hearts Shareholders and Hearts Trust) and one or two other business people. The board members will take no salary. The three fans representatives will be voted on, from within each of the organisations, and will serve for three years. All other board members will also serve on a three year basis and will come from the business community. So the representatives will come from the federation of hearts supports, hearts shareholders and hearts trust. Any idea how many fans each of these groups claim to represent? Any thoughts about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Just noticed their plans on the Q & A thread and felt it is worth debate. Here's the post. So the representatives will come from the federation of hearts supports, hearts shareholders and hearts trust. Any idea how many fans each of these groups claim to represent? Any thoughts about this? Have to be honest: my heart sank when I read it. It screams of little fiefdoms being protected yet again. But in the absence of any united fans' organisation, it's difficult to see what alternative FoH have. If the Foundation do take over the club, I suspect this aspect will be a major bone of contention on here. "He doesn't speak for me!" and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadKiller Dog Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I would hope and expect that in time the reps on the board from the fans would eventually come from the people who pledge . All pledgers should be formed with the fans groups into one big group . This is was the current bigwigs in each current fans group should be looking to do , recruit and form a single organisation to work with the FOH or whoever may take over . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted December 28, 2012 Author Share Posted December 28, 2012 Have to be honest: my heart sank when I read it. It screams of little fiefdoms being protected yet again. But in the absence of any united fans' organisation, it's difficult to see what alternative FoH have. If the Foundation do take over the club, I suspect this aspect will be a major bone of contention on here. "He doesn't speak for me!" and all that. I would have thought the best way to do it would be for candidates to put themselves forward and then for a vote to be held for the support as a whole? Agree with your thoughts though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 The Hearts trust? If this organisation was functional, the foundation wouldn't need to exist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I would have thought the best way to do it would be for candidates to put themselves forward and then for a vote to be held for the support as a whole? Agree with your thoughts though. I would like to hope that eventually it would take that format AP. I think initially they are picking people who are already involved in organisations, onside and committed to what is intended. I would hope that eventually as you say it will be a case of candidates make FOH aware they wish to stand, put forward some sort of promotional script, and all the members (i.e. those who pledge) then vote for whom they believe to be the best candidates to sit alongside the businessmen. I have to be honest and say it isn't a position which has a great deal of appeal up front, given the multitude of opinions that football as a whole generates, and as an offshoot the number of people you would have to please if successful in being elected (and pleasing everybody and covering every persons opinion is well nigh feckin impossible). I think whoever is answering for FoH on the Q & A thread covered it by saying 'likely to come from' rather than 'will definitely come from' which suggests it is just one of the finer points yet to be ironed out to ensure the full support is encompassed, or at the very least no one feels left out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyjambo Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 The Hearts trust? If this organisation was functional, the foundation wouldn't need to exist! Agreed, emailed Derek Watson about 2 weeks ago and am still waiting for a reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Jung Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I would have thought the best way to do it would be for candidates to put themselves forward and then for a vote to be held for the support as a whole? Agree with your thoughts though. I can't see what other option there is though. Vote or no vote any fan rep on the board will be subject to the 'not in my name' issue and I guess at this early stage these groups represent something. I don't have the answer but given FOH will be fans anyway it will surely be a cross section of the fans you would hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigieboy Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 The Hearts trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyjambo Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 The Hearts trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Schalke 04 have already solved the problem of fan owned clubs and governance structure is professional directors run the football club, they report to the fans supervisory council who are elected and accountable to the members. If the foundation can't or won't replicate that at tynecastle then why the hell not? Until/unless the foundation provide something similar at tynie then they don't deserve our support or money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Jung Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I can't see what other option there is though. Vote or no vote any fan rep on the board will be subject to the 'not in my name' issue and I guess at this early stage these groups represent something. I don't have the answer but given FOH will be fans anyway it will surely be a cross section of the fans you would hope. I should probably add at this stage that I have no idea what each of these three organisation represent or what their role is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beats Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 the Federation of Hearts Supporters and Hearts Trust That all these gimps that have pointless meetings at Tynecastle and think they know the lot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tams bird Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Get more details from the FBI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I should probably add at this stage that I have no idea what each of these three organisation represent or what their role is. If I told you that they were Vlad's spies in the camp how would you feel about them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amadjambo Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I have to be honest and say that there have been numerous occasions in the past where a representative of the Federation has given statements or interviews to the media which I have found cringeworthy and unrepresentative of the thoughts and feelings of myself and any Hearts supporters I know. The thought that these people could be on the board is really not appealing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 The foundation board should be nothing more than an interim board until a competent board with people of relevant experience and skills can be elected by the members. Anything different to that and iam out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Schalke 04 have already solved the problem of fan owned clubs and governance structure is professional directors run the football club, they report to the fans supervisory council who are elected and accountable to the members. If the foundation can't or won't replicate that at tynecastle then why the hell not? Until/unless the foundation provide something similar at tynie then they don't deserve our support or money. So the Schalke way is the only way? No other structure is possible or desirable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 So the Schalke way is the only way? No other structure is possible or desirable? Other structures are of course possible but desireable? Nope all the major fan owned clubs in the bundesliga and Holland follow a very similar template is professional managers>>members council>>>members/fans. Why should anything less be acceptable if they want to buy the club with OUR money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Other structures are of course possible but desireable? Nope all the major fan owned clubs in the bundesliga and Holland follow a very similar template is professional managers>>members council>>>members/fans. Why should anything less be acceptable if they want to buy the club with OUR money? What about fans directly electing the directors? Why not that structure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinkster Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I have to be honest and say that there have been numerous occasions in the past where a representative of the Federation has given statements or interviews to the media which I have found cringeworthy and unrepresentative of the thoughts and feelings of myself and any Hearts supporters I know. The thought that these people could be on the board is really not appealing to me. Or the mutual backslappers on here, thankfully they dont represent ( although in this rarified world, they are convinced they do) the views of our supporters. That scares me more,although i suspect in real life it would not be an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 What about fans directly electing the directors? Why not that structure? Under the german/dutch models anybody who is not performing ie team manager, chief executive, finance director etc can be removed at the AGM if enough members propose and vote on a motion. I think you need an elected council of qualified people to appoint and monitor the professionals but ultimately everybody must be accountable and removable. The Schalke constitution provides for that. You can download it from their website. They are a truly democratic fan owned club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Jung Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 If I told you that they were Vlad's spies in the camp how would you feel about them? I'd believe everything they said and blame everything on everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Shaton Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I'd suggest a board member from the ranks of kickback. This would be restricted to members of at least 6 years standing with over 4000 posts. To exclude Internet weirdoes, anyone with a post count of greater than 5000 would be excluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DalryJambo Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Surely step one is to bring all the groups together and step two will be to merge in to one group? It might take a few years but bringing everyone together must be the first step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Once people have actually signed their direct debits to FoH, doesn't that group of joint owners naturally supersede all the little competing groups referred to in the FoH answer? And if they represent the source of funding (the FoH having so far failed to answer or even attempt to answer the question of whether and how any other funding is to be made available) why do they have only a minority representation on the board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amadjambo Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Once people have actually signed their direct debits to FoH, doesn't that group of joint owners naturally supersede all the little competing groups referred to in the FoH answer? And if they represent the source of funding (the FoH having so far failed to answer or even attempt to answer the question of whether and how any other funding is to be made available) why do they have only a minority representation on the board? Very good point. If they are electing anyone, they should be from the people actually pledging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amadjambo Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Surely step one is to bring all the groups together and step two will be to merge in to one group? It might take a few years but bringing everyone together must be the first step. But it doesn't bring ALL the groups together. In fact, the largest group is not included. This group being those supporters who are not part of the other organisations, which is by far the largest number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Montgomery Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 From what I have seen so far including the answer and question sticky I am not sure if they mean representatives on the board of FOH or HMFC which may be different things. As far as I'm aware the Federation have agreed to have a rep on the FOH board. However what happens with HMFC board is unclear (as other things appear to be) as there may still be other individual shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Shaton Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 From what I have seen so far including the answer and question sticky I am not sure if they mean representatives on the board of FOH or HMFC which may be different things. As far as I'm aware the Federation have agreed to have a rep on the FOH board. However what happens with HMFC board is unclear (as other things appear to be) as there may still be other individual shareholders. From what I've seen so far, I'm concerned by the inability of FoH to use basic spellchecking facilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I have to be honest and say that there have been numerous occasions in the past where a representative of the Federation has given statements or interviews to the media which I have found cringeworthy and unrepresentative of the thoughts and feelings of myself and any Hearts supporters I know. The thought that these people could be on the board is really not appealing to me. If someone from The Federation of Hearts Supporters Clubs gave a statement in the past, and that statement was on behalf of the Federation clubs and you weren't a member of a SC at that time they weren't speaking on your behalf, and if you were in a SC you would have been aware of what was to be said as the member clubs would have agreed the content before it was released. If the persons gave comment on a personal basis, and the relevant media outlet reported it as representing the HMFC support in general your gripe should be with said media outlet, as personal comment doesn't really need any expanding on in all honesty (I hope). And strangely enough those that you refer to as 'these people' are all HMFC fans, and can be seen at whichever ground HMFC are playing at in any given week of the season, strangely enough, and are perfectly approachable. They are ordinary HMFC fans they do not follow Hibernian, The Rangers, Celtic or any other club, nor are they from some distant planet in some dark corner of the universe. If you really want to look at an HMFC community with a lot of members where opinions are often miles apart you really don't even have to stray away from your computer screen, just read through the threads on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 So the representatives will come from the federation of hearts supporters, hearts shareholders and hearts trust. Any idea how many fans each of these groups claim to represent? I know you're quoting FoH here AP, but they've got it wrong, and it's been done to death dozens of times.... The Federation of Hearts Supporters Clubs (to give them their correct name) does not have individual fans as members, and never claims to represent the Hearts support, despite what is often wrongly quoted by the media, and now by FoH. The Federation is a democratic group representing the consensus view(s) of its member Clubs. No more, no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 1. Francis Albert is bang on the cash. 2. Game's a bogey. FOH have said enough to convince me NOT to let them have any of my money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 1. Francis Albert is bang on the cash. 2. Game's a bogey. FOH have said enough to convince me NOT to let them have any of my money. I can't agree on point 2 because they haven't told me how they plan to collect my pledge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 I can't agree on point 2 because they haven't told me how they plan to collect my pledge! I think it's fair to say that when it comes to the matters of governance and money, they seem - to use a time-honoured expression - to be talking through their arses. But hey ho. It's not the first time we've had to endure spoofing, waffle, vapourware and bullshit in the environs of Gorgie, and it surely won't be the last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boab Mugabe Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 There isn't the numbers, unity or desire amongst our fans to have a successful fan ownership model. I'll be more than prepared to eat humble pie if the case turns out to be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 According to the FoH, their plan is to have 8, or maybe 9, board members. The fans who pledge money will not get any preference when it comes to election to the board. Furthermore, only 3 board members will be elected from among the fans. The other 5 board members, or maybe 6, will be appointed. In my personal opinion, this seems like a bizarre proposal for an organization whose vision is "To have Hearts fans centrally involved in the ownership and running of this great club" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 According to the FoH, their plan is to have 8, or maybe 9, board members. The fans who pledge money will not get any preference when it comes to election to the board. Furthermore, only 3 board members will be elected from among the fans. The other 5 board members, or maybe 6, will be appointed. In my personal opinion, this seems like a bizarre proposal for an organization whose vision is "To have Hearts fans centrally involved in the ownership and running of this great club" Not only that, but far from fan ownership, it's more like a case of taxation without meaningful representation. "Give us your money, but you don't get to either run the club or choose representatives with the actual power to run the club". Think this needs to go back to the drawing board tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Honest the Barca model is slightly different in that every 3? or 4? years they hole a club general election where they vote for competing candidates to be club president and each would be president has his team of people to help run the club. It's still more democratic tyan what FoH are offering but inferior to the German/Dutch clubs model of club ownership. I want fans ownership to.succeed.at Hearts but from what I've seen thus far FoH are getting it horribly wrong in that they want to use the fans money but without reflecting that with equal representation or accountability. Until they correct this fairly fundamental flaw in their plan then we shouldn't be giving them support or money. I want them to succeed but no taxation without full and equal representation, they need to completely reassess how the club will owned, financed and governed if they want to use fans money otherwise they're trying to sell us something less than fan ownership which maybe explains why supporters direct have apparently not working with them anymore? Maybe we need an alternative model or if FoH won't change then a competing group that will propose TRUE fan ownership and representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Not only that, but far from fan ownership, it's more like a case of taxation without meaningful representation. "Give us your money, but you don't get to either run the club or choose representatives with the actual power to run the club". Think this needs to go back to the drawing board tbh. In addition, they have also confirmed that no matter how much you pledge, you will get no benefits. It is basically a cash grab, on a monthly basis. The more I read about FoH, the further away I get from pledging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jezza Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Never going to happen to many supporters don't want it to and will make every excuse going not to pledge and hope instead another sugar daddy appears on the horizon with no questions asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 In addition, they have also confirmed that no matter how much you pledge, you will get no benefits. It is basically a cash grab, on a monthly basis. The more I read about FoH, the further away I get from pledging. It does sound very much like the fans money is the funding source they need to make their plans work but the people puting the money in aren't really welcome or wanted to sit on the politburo of self appointed cronies? I really hope that proves to be wrong because we are being sold short under the cuurent proposals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 More important than the mechanics of how the voting for the directors or FoH works is how the constitution of the club would be written. If, and of course it is a very big if, the club moves onto another stage holding onto Tynecastle and debt free (as FoH appear to envisage being possible); the priority should be a constitution which prevents 1) sale of Tynecastle and 2) the club running up debts other than normal short term trading debts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 More important than the mechanics of how the voting for the directors or FoH works is how the constitution of the club would be written. If, and of course it is a very big if, the club moves onto another stage holding onto Tynecastle and debt free (as FoH appear to envisage being possible); the priority should be a constitution which prevents 1) sale of Tynecastle and 2) the club running up debts other than normal short term trading debts. Why should the club be duty bound to remain at Tynecastle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 More important than the mechanics of how the voting for the directors or FoH works is how the constitution of the club would be written. If, and of course it is a very big if, the club moves onto another stage holding onto Tynecastle and debt free (as FoH appear to envisage being possible); the priority should be a constitution which prevents 1) sale of Tynecastle and 2) the club running up debts other than normal short term trading debts. On the Schalke website there is a club mission statement that was voted on by the membership that says such things as the club must always be located in Gelsenkirken, the club colours and team strips must always be blue and white, as the club originated as a miners social and sporting club the club must always prices that reflect their social origins and don't exclude any supporters on the basis of pricing and affordability, the club must always strive for sporting success but not at the expense of prudent financing or an unsustainable business etc etc. Schalke did move stadiums but they voted for that and built and financed it themselves raising the money from the private sector without any soft loans from local council or government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadKiller Dog Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Schalke also have one of the largest debt levels in Germany around 150m euros . Which has tied its hands in recent years to a certain extent compared with its rivals the Dortmund and Bayern . A great club that I enjoy going to watch play when I can . The new stadium the yogurt pot is just a stones throw from the old one . Ask Schalke fans the new stadium is as much a curse as an aid . The German model is what we should be looking at in terms of a fan run club , if sold to the support honestly it would be popular and successful in my view . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Why should the club be duty bound to remain at Tynecastle? Of course it shouldn't however it should always strive to remain at and improve the clubs traditional home and only ever move if the overwhelming majority of fans/members vote for that i.e. greater than eighty per cent in favour etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Of course it shouldn't however it should always strive to remain at and improve the clubs traditional home and only ever move if the overwhelming majority of fans/members vote for that i.e. greater than eighty per cent in favour etc Quite but the way Coco proposed it it suggested the club NEVER move from Tynecastle, which I think is daft. For one thing, if we needed to borrow against it, for whatever reason, we would be restricted in doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Quite but the way Coco proposed it it suggested the club NEVER move from Tynecastle, which I think is daft. For one thing, if we needed to borrow against it, for whatever reason, we would be restricted in doing so. I would support a constitution provision that an 90% or so majority of the members was required for the club to move from Tynecastle. The club is the fans, the colours, the history and the stadium. My second stipulation would prevent the club from borrowing against the stadium. If new facilities were required they could be funded by subscription. I like the sound of Shalke's constitution. I am also looking forward to hearing more of the responses from FoH on their own thread as there are many huge issues raised on there which have not been answered yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott herbertson Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 I would have no problem with a Federation rep on the board of a fan run club - they represent the interests of a large proportion of our most loyal travelling support I have a problem with the general approach that disconnects the pledges from the representation, as there would be many who pledge who are not in those groups. I think there needs to be a mechanism that associates pledgers (not the amount of pledge) with votes - it can be as simple as defining the pledge as an annual membership fee and only members can vote for board members - requiring the majority of the board members to be voted on by members (with a rotational 3 year term of office). The board could have a few appointees so they can have appropriate skills represented.. Kickback could be used for the election debate and possibly also the voting (with an alternative postal/ email method for those who don't use it) As with the Shalke model major decisions - eg stadium re-location or refurbishment could be put to a members vote. A season ticket could automatically make you a member, with some priveleges associated with higher levels of contribution - access to hospitality, additional loytalty points etc These are just rambling thoughts in response to what seems a flawed model proposed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.