By the light Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I didn't vote as I wasn't aware of it. Probably a load in the same boat. Not blaming anyone, I rarely check email or Hearts website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazzas right boot Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Never voted but happy it passed. Had a busy few weeks and completly forgot to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Just what where the 43 thinking. Oh wait they weren't thinking at all. Fookin numptys. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Maybe some of them were trying to fire a warning shot across FoH's bows that they shouldn't in future try to bump people into diverting ?3m of their money with minimal consultation while denying that the proposal will inevitably delay fan ownership and denying it is a change to the FoH objectives we signed up to when we pledged. I don't know, but I have no reason to believe the 43 didn't think as much about their vote as the other 99%. In fact probably a bit more, because not following the herd usually requires that. The witch hunt and insults against them are shameful. But unsurprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Maybe some of them were trying to fire a warning shot across FoH's bows that they shouldn't in future try to bump people into diverting ?3m of their money with minimal consultation while denying that the proposal will inevitably delay fan ownership and denying it is a change to the FoH objectives we signed up to when we pledged. I don't know, but I have no reason to believe the 43 didn't think as much about their vote as the other 99%. In fact probably a bit more, because not following the herd usually requires that. The witch hunt and insults against them are shameful. But unsurprising. So were would the FOH short fall be found if the vote was no funding??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 So were would the FOH short fall be found if the vote was no funding???Sorry you missed that debate. It would be purely academic now. If you were interested you could have discussed it before the vote. But maybe you just voted for the proposal without considering whether there was any alternative. Like an "idiot" , to quote your view of 43 other FoH members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Maybe some of them were trying to fire a warning shot across FoH's bows that they shouldn't in future try to bump people into diverting ?3m of their money with minimal consultation while "denying" that the proposal will inevitably delay fan ownership and denying it is a change to the FoH objectives we signed up to when we pledged.I don't know, but I have no reason to believe the 43 didn't think as much about their vote as the other 99%. In fact probably a bit more, because not following the herd usually requires that.The witch hunt and insults against them are shameful.But unsurprising. Q 4 ? Will the timescales to becoming majority shareholder change? A ? Possibly. The original agreement had years 3, 4 and 5 (ending May 2019) available to buy out the ?2.5M Bidco loan. The new proposal defers the buy-out and redirects FoH funds to Stadium funding during years 3 and 4. After achieving the ?3M target or from June 2018 (whichever is earlier), the loan to Bidco will start to be bought out. While we would still have a three-year period in which to complete the loan buy-out, at current pledge levels, the ?2.5M would be paid to Bidco as early as eight months after the original May 2019 end-date. If levels of donations increased, then the loan could potentially be bought out within the original five-year period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Maybe some of them were trying to fire a warning shot across FoH's bows that they shouldn't in future try to bump people into diverting ?3m of their money with minimal consultation while denying that the proposal will inevitably delay fan ownership and denying it is a change to the FoH objectives we signed up to when we pledged. I don't know, but I have no reason to believe the 43 didn't think as much about their vote as the other 99%. In fact probably a bit more, because not following the herd usually requires that. The witch hunt and insults against them are shameful. But unsurprising. When are the burnings at the stake going to be? Will we hold them in the close season, or will we do them at halftime at the Europa qualifiers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Or they believed a new stand in 2017 (or 2018 - there is no guarantee the new stand will be delivered in 2017) could be funded in other ways? The bizarre reaction to 43 people voting against raises the question of what sort of reaction there will be if or when there is a really divisive disagreement between FoH members. Probably a "normal" JKB reaction. Why would you think otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Q 4 ? Will the timescales to becoming majority shareholder change? A ? Possibly. The original agreement had years 3, 4 and 5 (ending May 2019) available to buy out the ?2.5M Bidco loan. The new proposal defers the buy-out and redirects FoH funds to Stadium funding during years 3 and 4. After achieving the ?3M target or from June 2018 (whichever is earlier), the loan to Bidco will start to be bought out. While we would still have a three-year period in which to complete the loan buy-out, at current pledge levels, the ?2.5M would be paid to Bidco as early as eight months after the original May 2019 end-date. If levels of donations increased, then the loan could potentially be bought out within the original five-year period. We aren't really going through all this again. As spelt out clearly by Football First on another thread (no-one challenged his analysis) the change in the agreement will, given current FoH contribution levels, delay fan ownership by about 2 years and 3 months. The agreement was not for a five year period - the five year date was a back stop. The only way fan ownership will be delivered on the same timescale as the original agreement is if FoH subs quickly double. None of this would have affected the outcome of the vote so the spin was unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydug Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Sorry you missed that debate. It would be purely academic now. If you were interested you could have discussed it before the vote. But maybe you just voted for the proposal without considering whether there was any alternative. Like an "idiot" , to quote your view of 43 other FoH members. What would your alternative way to fund a new stand be ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Probably a "normal" JKB reaction. Why would you think otherwise?Yes you are right. But even by JKB standards the abuse of the "43" seems a bit OTT to me. Maybe you disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 What would your alternative way to fund a new stand be ?See the post you quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowmans_Boot Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Sorry you missed that debate. It would be purely academic now. If you were interested you could have discussed it before the vote. But maybe you just voted for the proposal without considering whether there was any alternative. Like an "idiot" , to quote your view of 43 other FoH members. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Maybe some of them were trying to fire a warning shot across FoH's bows that they shouldn't in future try to bump people into diverting ?3m of their money with minimal consultation while denying that the proposal will inevitably delay fan ownership and denying it is a change to the FoH objectives we signed up to when we pledged. I don't know, but I have no reason to believe the 43 didn't think as much about their vote as the other 99%. In fact probably a bit more, because not following the herd usually requires that. The witch hunt and insults against them are shameful. But unsurprising. Don't follow the herd - even when the herd are heading for a safe haven? FoH are now trying to "bump people into diverting ?3M". I'd like to think that your "case against" was responsible for the overwhelming majority in favour of the proposal. Keep up the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowmans_Boot Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Yes you are right. But even by JKB standards the abuse of the "43" seems a bit OTT to me. Maybe you disagree. It is absolutely ridiculous, particularly given that there are so few people who voted against. We will have more controversial issues to vote about and I hate to think what the fall out from those will be. Anybody thinking that we will retain all of our FOH subscribers is seriously kidding themselves, if this is anything to go by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Folk bumping their gums because FoH never gave anybody a say...............even though they just had an open vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 We aren't really going through all this again. As spelt out clearly by Football First on another thread (no-one challenged his analysis) the change in the agreement will, given current FoH contribution levels, delay fan ownership by about 2 years and 3 months. The agreement was not for a five year period - the five year date was a back stop. The only way fan ownership will be delivered on the same timescale as the original agreement is if FoH subs quickly double.None of this would have affected the outcome of the vote so the spin was unnecessary. Was there any denial by anyone that there would be no delay? Francis Albert. "while "denying" that the proposal will inevitably delay fan ownership" FoH. "Possibly. The original agreement had years 3, 4 and 5 (ending May 2019) available to buy out the ?2.5M Bidco loan. The new proposal defers the buy-out and redirects FoH funds to Stadium funding" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Yes you are right. But even by JKB standards the abuse of the "43" seems a bit OTT to me. Maybe you disagree. No, I agree. People should be able to cast their votes as they see fit, obviously. But when you mention "the abuse of the 43" when nobody on here actually knows who they are, it's just the usual JKB name calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boab Mugabe Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Was about to post the same, but was heading for the Mugabe route. I'll have you know I am a bastion of democratic integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I'll have you know I am a bastion of democratic integrity. Aye, but how did you vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 No, I agree. People should be able to cast their votes as they see fit, obviously. But when you mention "the abuse of the 43" when nobody on here actually knows who they are, it's just the usual JKB name calling.I guess some of the 43 might know who they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I guess some of the 43 might know who they are. Well, if I were them, I wouldn't take it personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I guess some of the 43 might know who they are. Well, if I were them, I wouldn't take it personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowmans_Boot Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 No, I agree. People should be able to cast their votes as they see fit, obviously. But when you mention "the abuse of the 43" when nobody on here actually knows who they are, it's just the usual JKB name calling. So it is perfectly acceptable to abuse a small number of people if you don't know who they are? Really?? Following this I actually have reservations about FOH, as I can see it blowing up when there is a controversial issue to vote on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manaliveits105 Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Will the 43 create badges with 43 on it and claim it was a fix and they won really and call for another vote if UK votes to leave EU ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowmans_Boot Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Folk bumping their gums because FoH never gave anybody a say...............even though they just had an open vote Has anybody said that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Q 4 ? Will the timescales to becoming majority shareholder change? A ? Possibly. The original agreement had years 3, 4 and 5 (ending May 2019) available to buy out the ?2.5M Bidco loan. The new proposal defers the buy-out and redirects FoH funds to Stadium funding during years 3 and 4. After achieving the ?3M target or from June 2018 (whichever is earlier), the loan to Bidco will start to be bought out. While we would still have a three-year period in which to complete the loan buy-out, at current pledge levels, the ?2.5M would be paid to Bidco as early as eight months after the original May 2019 end-date. If levels of donations increased, then the loan could potentially be bought out within the original five-year period. The answer to that question shows that the loan will paid off within 20 months at current pledging levels with the first of 20 payments being made in June 2018. The alternative was also 20 months with the first payment in March 2016. (i.e. not ending on the 5th anniversary of the original agreement in May 2019 as implied by the answer above). All of years 3, 4 and 5 were only "available" if 95% of fans contributions fell to approx ?800K per annum. It was a politician's type of answer, not actually stating something that is factually incorrect, but leaving the implication of something different from actuality. The commonly used description of such speak is "spin". What I want to see from the FoH Board is openness and transparency above anything else. If that is not forthcoming, and they act as many private owners do, then they will store up problems for the future. Both the club and FoH had the opportunity to be open and transparent at their respective AGMs. Had they replied to questions re FoH funding by saying that a number of funding options for the new stand were being looked at and if there was a need or a desire to make a significant change to the existing agreement then it would be put to the FoH membership at the appropriate time, then that in itself would have avoided further questions or adverse comments about FoH from myself, FA and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Sifter Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 My email arrived 2 hours after the vote closed unfortunately ffs that's brutal. And should be looked into immediately. Hope you're happy with the result anyway bud ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irufushi Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 My email arrived 2 hours after the vote closed unfortunately I would have voted, but I didn't even know there was a vote? When was it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Sorry you missed that debate. It would be purely academic now. If you were interested you could have discussed it before the vote. But maybe you just voted for the proposal without considering whether there was any alternative. Like an "idiot" , to quote your view of 43 other FoH members. So i will ask again were was the alternative funding coming from if the FOH members voted no.. You think its fair to indirectly call someone a idiot because they ask a question.. Why are you defending the 43... And why are you trying to arrogantly paint the picture that the 98% who voted yes to the FOH funding did so out of nothing more than in a rushed and unthinking way. Is Budge happy with this vote and if so were does that leave the 43.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I would have voted, but I didn't even know there was a vote? When was it? I got an email and voted last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 The 43.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fxxx the SPFL Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 So it is perfectly acceptable to abuse a small number of people if you don't know who they are? Really?? Following this I actually have reservations about FOH, as I can see it blowing up when there is a controversial issue to vote on. to be perfectly honest I'm sure you know that the so called abuse of the 43 is all tongue in cheek and not having a go everyone is entitled to cast their votes as they deemed fit. We are all happy at the way the club is being run and I have no issues with FF and FA's input it's just a pity that FA lowered the tone by constant nitpicking/snidey remarks and generally deflecting his valid points with stupid childish input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewboy Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 to be perfectly honest I'm sure you know that the so called abuse of the 43 is all tongue in cheek and not having a go everyone is entitled to cast their votes as they deemed fit. We are all happy at the way the club is being run and I have no issues with FF and FA's input it's just a pity that FA lowered the tone by constant nitpicking/snidey remarks and generally deflecting his valid points with stupid childish input.So according to you FA lowers the tone constantly nitpicking but snidey remarks about "the 43" are all just a laugh and everyone knows they're tongue-in-cheek! Aye good yin! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Bill Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Or they believed a new stand in 2017 (or 2018 - there is no guarantee the new stand will be delivered in 2017) could be funded in other ways? The bizarre reaction to 43 people voting against raises the question of what sort of reaction there will be if or when there is a really divisive disagreement between FoH members. But the 43's new stand wouldn't be open in 2017 or 2018. Yes, they'd have paid Ann off a.s.a.p, but then they'd to have start the design, planning and funding process from scratch, without Ann's rich benefactor friends, and without the relationships Ann has built up with the council. Even when they could fund it, they'd have lost out on years of income. The 2017 (or at worse, 2018) new main stand will start generating sums of money the 43 couldn't possibly comprehend. One of them has admitted he voted against because he doesn't like Craig Levein's style of football Another doesn't trust Ann Budge because of Vladimir Romanov, and can't see the difference between the two That's who you're siding with, Francis. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irufushi Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I got an email and voted last week. Cheers, would have voted In favour anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydug Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 See the post you quoted. All I can see is you making your usual sarky remarks when asked a reasonable question. I have been offline for a couple of weeks so if you could oblige and answer a question in a reasonable manner it would save trawling through pages of waffle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 All I can see is you making your usual sarky remarks when asked a reasonable question. I have been offline for a couple of weeks so if you could oblige and answer a question in a reasonable manner it would save trawling through pages of waffle. I am not sure why I am obliged to save you trawling through pages of waffle. But in short, the idea that the only way for the club to raise ?3m is to get a donation from FoH members is stupid. If we had voted agaisnst the club would have just given up on building a new stand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 But the 43's new stand wouldn't be open in 2017 or 2018. Yes, they'd have paid Ann off a.s.a.p, but then they'd to have start the design, planning and funding process from scratch, without Ann's rich benefactor friends, and without the relationships Ann has built up with the council. Even when they could fund it, they'd have lost out on years of income. The 2017 (or at worse, 2018) new main stand will start generating sums of money the 43 couldn't possibly comprehend. One of them has admitted he voted against because he doesn't like Craig Levein's style of football Another doesn't trust Ann Budge because of Vladimir Romanov, and can't see the difference between the two That's who you're siding with, Francis. . See my previous post. The club would have had no difficulty in raising ?3m. It would have cost more, but would have been affordable, and it wouldn't have delayed fan ownership. We have rightly voted for a better option but the Thatcherite "TINA" is nonsense. Oops I've now accused FoH of being both Stalinist and Thatcherite. Must be some sort of record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDonald Jardine Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 to be perfectly honest I'm sure you know that the so called abuse of the 43 is all tongue in cheek and not having a go everyone is entitled to cast their votes as they deemed fit. We are all happy at the way the club is being run and I have no issues with FF and FA's input it's just a pity that FA lowered the tone by constant nitpicking/snidey remarks and generally deflecting his valid points with stupid childish input.Actually that's not clear at all. For what it's worth I voted in favour but having a go at others with a different view isn't on. Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sydney Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 This will speed up the redevelopment of Tynecastle and keep Ms Budge in charge for longer, so all in all its a happy day. Those who voted against were entitled to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 But the 43's new stand wouldn't be open in 2017 or 2018. Yes, they'd have paid Ann off a.s.a.p, but then they'd to have start the design, planning and funding process from scratch, without Ann's rich benefactor friends, and without the relationships Ann has built up with the council. Even when they could fund it, they'd have lost out on years of income. The 2017 (or at worse, 2018) new main stand will start generating sums of money the 43 couldn't possibly comprehend. One of them has admitted he voted against because he doesn't like Craig Levein's style of football Another doesn't trust Ann Budge because of Vladimir Romanov, and can't see the difference between the two That's who you're siding with, Francis. . I am not "siding" with anyone. Just expressing my own opinions. I am disappointed you seem to object to that, from me and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydug Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I am not sure why I am obliged to save you trawling through pages of waffle. But in short, the idea that the only way for the club to raise ?3m is to get a donation from FoH members is stupid. If we had voted agaisnst the club would have just given up on building a new stand? Until the fans took over the club that would surely have been the case. Easy to see why a positive vote was really the only sensible option. I didn't say you were obliged to save me looking through pages of waffle . I asked if you would oblige me by doing so. I should have known better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 So i will ask again were was the alternative funding coming from if the FOH members voted no.. You think its fair to indirectly call someone a idiot because they ask a question.. Why are you defending the 43... And why are you trying to arrogantly paint the picture that the 98% who voted yes to the FOH funding did so out of nothing more than in a rushed and unthinking way. Is Budge happy with this vote and if so were does that leave the 43.. It wasn't the 98% (actually 99%) I suggested may have voted unthinkingly. It was just you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisyboy7 Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Maybe they were against it to try and force a rethink of the capacity of the new stand which some people were quite vocal about I'm gutted they are connecting it to the other stands meaning we can do the corners at a later date. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Until the fans took over the club that would surely have been the case. Easy to see why a positive vote was really the only sensible option. I didn't say you were obliged to save me looking through pages of waffle . I asked if you would oblige me by doing so. I should have known better. Why would it have been surely the case. You really think Ann couldn't have come up with an alternative option? Obviously free money is the best option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I'm gutted they are connecting it to the other stands meaning we can do the corners at a later date. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Do you mean we can't fill the corners at a later date? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Until the fans took over the club that would surely have been the case. Easy to see why a positive vote was really the only sensible option. I didn't say you were obliged to save me looking through pages of waffle . I asked if you would oblige me by doing so. I should have known better. If you ask someone to oblige you, you shouldn't really complain when they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Will the 43 create badges with 43 on it and claim it was a fix and they won really and call for another vote if UK votes to leave EU ?I suspect not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Will the 43 create badges with 43 on it and claim it was a fix and they won really and call for another vote if UK votes to leave EU ?I suspect not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.