Q&A session with CEO Ann Budge - ANSWERS.

[Big Slim Stylee]

7 hours ago, Bad Religion said:

 

How would you know Lawson?

 

You haven't been on here in 3 years?

 

You can bet he's been busy reading away for free, though. 

[Maple Leaf]

59 minutes ago, OTT said:

See the EEN straight up lifted the Q&A for an article

 

Nothing like quality journalism eh 

 

JKB has always a gold mine of information for the media.  Hidden in all the argy-bargy, there are diamonds.  Sorry for the mixed metaphor. 

[davemclaren]

3 hours ago, iainmac said:

The timing of the Q&A may have indeed led to less questions about the football department of the club if it was pre our season effectively ending. 

 

The updates  on the off-field stuff / infrastructure are most welcome & show great progress being made there. They also show that the architect seems to have made a right pig's ear of certain elements of the new stand & the club gave had to adjust accordingly. We already suspected that. 

 

My biggest concern (post Q&A timing) is why the team only "turned up" for half the game in the 2 biggest matches of the season. The number of ST's we sell next season will be a better barometer of where the entire fan base think we are, in the footballing sense, rather than any polls on JKB. 

 

I personally think we will need to see some really exciting signings if we want to match this year's numbers. 

 

Over to you Craig! 

Can’t deny that. We need some signings that inspire people to renew. 

[OTT]

25 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

JKB has always a gold mine of information for the media.  Hidden in all the argy-bargy, there are diamonds.  Sorry for the mixed metaphor. 

 

Wouldn't surprise me to hear our friends in the media just hit Crtl-F and type in certain users names for all thinks ITK  

[Hearts1975]

Just a big appreciation to The JKB posters who obviously gave up a lot of their own time to get this out and for everyone's view .. Big thanks for this 

 

interesting read as well ... the bit that sticks out for me is how much thought is going into how to maximise revenue streams within the ground and that if there are costs to be inherited for us there has to be return benefit for the club 

 

as AB said paying higher salaries and getting better players will reflect what our turnover would be - you can see immediately that the club now comes first in terms of financial priority which is great and credit to AB for this 

[Hearts1975]

On 3/29/2018 at 03:14, Buffalo Bill said:

There’s only so much Ann would answer on the football side of things but she was positive about next season and the fact is, we will need to sign about nine new players this summer, so a Levein Q&A would be very useful. 

 

The main thing I took from the Q&A was the positive news on expected money generated from the new stand and the projected increase of turnover. When Dave and I interviewed Ann back in 2014, our turnover was £7M. Aberdeen’s was £14M. Our turnover is now £12M and is expected to rise to £15M in two years time. Aberdeen meanwhile, will need to find at least £50M from somewhere if they want to move to a field in the arse-end of nowhere. 

 

Aberdeen have, to their credit, been steady-Eddies over the last five years. We’ve been all over the place with administration, relegation, promotion, managerial-experimentation and stadium reconstruction. Where we are at this moment in time is a place where we’ve never been before because since 2014, we have been evolving, business-wise and we’ll continue to evolve until the new stand is completed and we start to generate a new and vastly improved income streams from it. 

 

The increase in turnover is therefore essential. Ann said that we will always limit ourselves to a % of the turnover to football budget (wages). Therefore, you increase the turnover. The new stand will be churning out profits in 2020. At the same time, FoH income flows directly into the club. 

 

I’ve no idea what nine players Levein will sign this summer, but I do hope that 2018/19 will be be better than season 2017/18. This season had its moments, but ultimately ended in disappointment. 

 

But as a club, we are building towards 2020, where I fully expect us to be in a very good place, both on and off the hybrid pitch. 

 

.

 

Good post bb 

your breakdown of how we will improve our financial position in the future is fully accurate 

 

don't see any of our rivals Moving forward in a financial sense like we are currently 

 

this will take time, won't happen overnight but we have shrewd people now at the helm, and they know exactly where they want to take our club which is great to see 

[Francis Albert]

8 hours ago, Hearts1975 said:

Good post bb 

your breakdown of how we will improve our financial position in the future is fully accurate 

 

don't see any of our rivals Moving forward in a financial sense like we are currently 

 

this will take time, won't happen overnight but we have shrewd people now at the helm, and they know exactly where they want to take our club which is great to see 

I agree that the ambition (and associated plan)  is a good and attention is rightly being given to areas which need improvement such as marketing and merchandising.

But it remains a plan, now a three year plan rather than a five year plan, but still a plan that has to be implemented.

The major implementation risk remains and I suppose always is performance on the pitch. The Q&A doesn't and couldn't really say much about this - we will just have to wait to see what players we recruit, which we offload, and above all see what happens from the League Cup sections onward. (and please can we take those seriously and not just as part of pre-season warm up). Without progress on the pitch and a significant improvement over what we've seen in the last two seasons the new stand will not be churning out money. At least not at the level planned.

The other uncertainty for me is how successful the new focus on renting out space for exhibitions and conferences and other third party business activities will be.  It is a significant change of focus. I am not clear where the business expertise for this line of operation exists within the club and assume we will be recruiting here too. 

[sairyinthat]

15 hours ago, 1953 said:

Spot on.

Nonsense Police Scotland arresting and hauling them out in front of everybody is the Only way to deal with it in Edinburgh and the club should be demanding it.

[1953]

44 minutes ago, sairyinthat said:

Nonsense Police Scotland arresting and hauling them out in front of everybody is the Only way to deal with it in Edinburgh and the club should be demanding it.

Fair point, I was always impressed that in the 70's 2 policemen would wade into the crowd, haul out the trouble makers and march them round the track, but given that that doesn't happen now, filling the place with jambos and restricting the away fans to one section is the way to go. Mrs B proved that she would go down that route in the championship season and it worked.

[kila]

For as long as Celtic and Rangers continue to portray themselves as political identities, sectarianism will continue in football. Like all that is wrong with Scottish football, the Old Firm are the driving force behind it. Of course we have our own that try to apply political identity to the club, but it is small and not endorsed by the club, unlike the Old Firm. And I can't see Celtic and Rangers ever dropping that political identity because it is key to their power and finances.

 

I think strict liability would help tackle the problem. The fans won't give up that political identity, but songbook would overtime. It'd be a big improvement but it'd only work if the SPFL can be trusted, so I wouldn't bet on it .

 

 

[Elmore]

19 minutes ago, kila said:

For as long as Celtic and Rangers continue to portray themselves as political identities, sectarianism will continue in football. Like all that is wrong with Scottish football, the Old Firm are the driving force behind it. Of course we have our own that try to apply political identity to the club, but it is small and not endorsed by the club, unlike the Old Firm. And I can't see Celtic and Rangers ever dropping that political identity because it is key to their power and finances.

 

I think strict liability would help tackle the problem. The fans won't give up that political identity, but songbook would overtime. It'd be a big improvement but it'd only work if the SPFL can be trusted, so I wouldn't bet on it .

 

 

We seem to be the only country that hasn't went down the strict liability route. The old firm influence in our game and society again. What's the argument against it? 

[Sir Vladimir of Romanov]

8 minutes ago, Elmore said:

We seem to be the only country that hasn't went down the strict liability route. The old firm influence in our game and society again. What's the argument against it? 

 

The clubs would be voting for something that may result in fines or docked points. Not exactly in their interest.

[Maple Leaf]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I agree that the ambition (and associated plan)  is a good and attention is rightly being given to areas which need improvement such as marketing and merchandising.

But it remains a plan, now a three year plan rather than a five year plan, but still a plan that has to be implemented.

The major implementation risk remains and I suppose always is performance on the pitch. The Q&A doesn't and couldn't really say much about this - we will just have to wait to see what players we recruit, which we offload, and above all see what happens from the League Cup sections onward. (and please can we take those seriously and not just as part of pre-season warm up). Without progress on the pitch and a significant improvement over what we've seen in the last two seasons the new stand will not be churning out money. At least not at the level planned.

The other uncertainty for me is how successful the new focus on renting out space for exhibitions and conferences and other third party business activities will be.  It is a significant change of focus. I am not clear where the business expertise for this line of operation exists within the club and assume we will be recruiting here too. 

 

It's clear that AB sees HMFC as consisting of two closely-related parts.  In her view, if I've interpreted her comments properly, the football side is more likely to succeed if the business side is also a success.  Hence the emphasis on developing additional revenue streams.

 

Regarding the notion of renting out space to conferences, she believes that there is adequate space in Edinburgh already available for large conferences ... those in the 1000 + range ... but a shortage of space for smaller conferences ... up to 400-500.  That  opinion is based on discussions she's had with her business associates.  As you say, there has to be some uncertainty about the viability of such a plan, but we won't know until we try, I suppose.  It seems like a low-risk venture to me.

 

[PeterintheRain]

21 hours ago, Hendricks said:

 

 

Its a very difficult one, for sure. Do Hearts take the approach that we simply can't afford not to take the guaranteed revenue.

 

This is back of a fag packet math and I think I've been conservative but say its an average of 25 a ticket x 3500 bodies x 4 games that equals 350k. If we only sell them 25 ticket x 2100 bodies x 4 that equals 210k and if its 25 a ticket x 1400 bodies x 4 games its only 140k.

 

Can Hearts afford, at this time, to be throwing away anywhere between 140-210k if we are unable to sell out those tickets to our own fans?  Or do they make a stance on 'moral' grounds and say you know what we aren't going to allow this in our stadium regardless often being a couple thousand empty seats. As I say I have sympathy for this situation though my hope is that the finger is pulled out and a side is pit on the park that will see Jambo's want the seats as that is the best case solution! 

 

 

 

  So you'd be happy to have 3,500 Nazi scum filling the away end  just as long as they paid for their tickets?

 

  Nice to know.   Also it's mathS. Unless you're from Trumpland.  Short for Mathematics. See me after class. D minus.

[sairyinthat]

1 hour ago, 1953 said:

Fair point, I was always impressed that in the 70's 2 policemen would wade into the crowd, haul out the trouble makers and march them round the track, but given that that doesn't happen now, filling the place with jambos and restricting the away fans to one section is the way to go. Mrs B proved that she would go down that route in the championship season and it worked.

Yeah,Police Scotland are obviously incapable of controlling Glasgow but I do expect them to be able to control our Edinburgh Stadium they are in place to combat crime not encourage it by inaction.

[i wish jj was my dad]

1 hour ago, Sir Vladimir of Romanov said:

 

The clubs would be voting for something that may result in fines or docked points. Not exactly in their interest.

We should have the moral courage to accept this. Nothing would send out a stronger message about how unacceptable the sectarian shite is in this day and age.

[Sir Vladimir of Romanov]

15 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

We should have the moral courage to accept this. Nothing would send out a stronger message about how unacceptable the sectarian shite is in this day and age.

 

I don't disagree, but certain turkeys won't vote for Christmas. 

 

What level of voting would apply on such a proposal? 

[i wish jj was my dad]

1 minute ago, Sir Vladimir of Romanov said:

 

I don't disagree, but certain turkeys won't vote for Christmas. 

 

What level of voting would apply on such a proposal? 

No idea but I personally don't believe the authorities are serious about tackling bigotry because they know it is what their marketing is built upon.  By remaining passive we are open to accusations of condoning.

 

I'd like to see AB show leadership on this and tackle sectarianism with the same energy as they do racism.

[Elmore]

1 hour ago, Sir Vladimir of Romanov said:

 

The clubs would be voting for something that may result in fines or docked points. Not exactly in their interest.

I'm sure I've heard that one of the pathetic excuses against it is that fans from other clubs might go to games to cause trouble to get points docked from their rivals. If it's still going in other countries, it mustn't be a huge problem.  Sometimes you have to ask, are clubs getting value for money when it comes to paying for policing?  

[Elmore]

18 minutes ago, Sir Vladimir of Romanov said:

 

I don't disagree, but certain turkeys won't vote for Christmas. 

 

What level of voting would apply on such a proposal? 

Probably the usual 43-1. Which means never. Unless Holyrood FC grows a pair and demands it. Why the Falkirk did Aberdeen vote to keep the same voting structure?  It's help hold our game back for the next few years and they are getting off lightly for it. Amazed they didn't vote for change . 

[The Treasurer]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

It's clear that AB sees HMFC as consisting of two closely-related parts.  In her view, if I've interpreted her comments properly, the football side is more likely to succeed if the business side is also a success.  Hence the emphasis on developing additional revenue streams.

 

Regarding the notion of renting out space to conferences, she believes that there is adequate space in Edinburgh already available for large conferences ... those in the 1000 + range ... but a shortage of space for smaller conferences ... up to 400-500.  That  opinion is based on discussions she's had with her business associates.  As you say, there has to be some uncertainty about the viability of such a plan, but we won't know until we try, I suppose.  It seems like a low-risk venture to me.

 

I'd say the success of both sides of the club are largely dependant on the success of each other.

The playing side has more "unknowns" such as players form, injuries, refereeing decision, cup draws etc that we can't control, but the business side can be controlled by those in charge, providing they have the correct marketing and have done their homework it terms of supply and demand.

[Maple Leaf]

3 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

I'd say the success of both sides of the club are largely dependant on the success of each other.

The playing side has more "unknowns" such as players form, injuries, refereeing decision, cup draws etc that we can't control, but the business side can be controlled by those in charge, providing they have the correct marketing and have done their homework it terms of supply and demand.

 

That's right.  And it appears that the business side is well under control.

[Paolo]

22 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

That's right.  And it appears that the business side is well under control.

I don’t mind sharing a shop at the airport.  It makes sense, as rates are extortionate.    

 

We MUST NOT however self half and half scarves or anything like that.   The merchandise must be entirely separate, with each club keeping its own earnings from its own merchandise. 

[davemclaren]

22 minutes ago, Paolo said:

I don’t mind sharing a shop at the airport.  It makes sense, as rates are extortionate.    

 

We MUST NOT however self half and half scarves or anything like that.   The merchandise must be entirely separate, with each club keeping its own earnings from its own merchandise. 

I can’t ever see a half and half scarf being produced but the terms of the arrangement needs to be to both clubs advantage so a 50/50 split on costs/profit may be best. That’s all to be negotiated if this ever goes ahead. 

[OTT]

2 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

It's clear that AB sees HMFC as consisting of two closely-related parts.  In her view, if I've interpreted her comments properly, the football side is more likely to succeed if the business side is also a success.  Hence the emphasis on developing additional revenue streams.

 

Regarding the notion of renting out space to conferences, she believes that there is adequate space in Edinburgh already available for large conferences ... those in the 1000 + range ... but a shortage of space for smaller conferences ... up to 400-500.  That  opinion is based on discussions she's had with her business associates.  As you say, there has to be some uncertainty about the viability of such a plan, but we won't know until we try, I suppose.  It seems like a low-risk venture to me.

 

 

Growing the turnover to create a gap between ourselves and the other clubs in this division is crucial IMO. I think the old firm get such an easy ride because of the gap in financial resources. If we could bridge that somewhat and by extension create a large gap between ourselves and say.. Aberdeen and Hibs. It would be an effective way of securing 3rd and putting pressure on 2nd. 

 

I'm very keen to hear what revenue streams we could open up though, clearly the foundation money could be used to invest in infrastructure within the club - like the new stand, but that can only take us so far.. right? 

 

Killie had their hotel which I believe propped them up quite a bit until they sold it ..? Celtic are looking at building a hotel next to their stadium, so perhaps this line of revenue could be looked at - Hostels, Student housing.. hotels. Edinburgh has a massive student population and Hearts owned accommodation could be a revenue generator and advertising method - if flyers etc. were put in the buildings it might encourage foreign students using the facilities to go to the stadium and take in a game?.. An idea anyway  

 

 

 

[Paolo]

1 minute ago, davemclaren said:

I can’t ever see a half and half scarf being produced but the terms of the arrangement needs to be to both clubs advantage so a 50/50 split on costs/profit may be best. That’s all to be negotiated if this ever goes ahead. 

If that was the case, costs would have to include the cost to produce the merchandise, as well as the shop costs.  

 

My concern would be, if we share sales income 50/50, and one side decided to have a sale, or sell old stock at a loss to get rid of it, the other would share that loss.   

 

That is why I think only shop (and staff) costs should be what is shared in any joint venture. 

[davemclaren]

3 minutes ago, Paolo said:

If that was the case, costs would have to include the cost to produce the merchandise, as well as the shop costs.  

 

My concern would be, if we share sales income 50/50, and one side decided to have a sale, or sell old stock at a loss to get rid of it, the other would share that loss.   

 

That is why I think only shop (and staff) costs should be what is shared in any joint venture. 

Fair comments but all that would need tbe agreed either way. 

[Paolo]

24 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Fair comments but all that would need tbe agreed either way. 

Absolutely.     Both Budge and Dempster seem more open minded, and less old school, so something may happen. 

[Maple Leaf]

33 minutes ago, Paolo said:

If that was the case, costs would have to include the cost to produce the merchandise, as well as the shop costs.  

 

My concern would be, if we share sales income 50/50, and one side decided to have a sale, or sell old stock at a loss to get rid of it, the other would share that loss.   

 

That is why I think only shop (and staff) costs should be what is shared in any joint venture. 

 

With UPC bar coding on everything these days, it's easy to keep track of what's being sold and where the profits/losses are coming from. Keeping the sales separate for both clubs should be no problem. 

[Paolo]

8 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

With UPC bar coding on everything these days, it's easy to keep track of what's being sold and where the profits/losses are coming from. Keeping the sales separate for both clubs should be no problem. 

That is way over my head, so I will take your word for it.  Good to hear it should not be too complex though. 

[Beast Boy]

They wouldn’t sell half and half scarves ffs! ?

 

It’d be a shop split in to a maroon half and a green half. 

[kila]

25 minutes ago, Paolo said:

That is way over my head, so I will take your word for it.  Good to hear it should not be too complex though. 

 

At the till, basically anything that has a printed barcode on it is Hearts and anything with a number hand scribble on ending with a p is Hibs

[Hendricks]

3 hours ago, PeterintheRain said:

 

  So you'd be happy to have 3,500 Nazi scum filling the away end  just as long as they paid for their tickets?

 

  Nice to know.   Also it's mathS. Unless you're from Trumpland.  Short for Mathematics. See me after class. D minus.

 

 bit of a leap from what I said!!! 

[Francis Albert]

4 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

It's clear that AB sees HMFC as consisting of two closely-related parts.  In her view, if I've interpreted her comments properly, the football side is more likely to succeed if the business side is also a success.  Hence the emphasis on developing additional revenue streams.

 

Regarding the notion of renting out space to conferences, she believes that there is adequate space in Edinburgh already available for large conferences ... those in the 1000 + range ... but a shortage of space for smaller conferences ... up to 400-500.  That  opinion is based on discussions she's had with her business associates.  As you say, there has to be some uncertainty about the viability of such a plan, but we won't know until we try, I suppose.  It seems like a low-risk venture to me.

 

It will be great if we can make money outside match days from the new facilities. It did come across as another of Ann's light bulb moments - we planned to build new facilities for the Matchday Experience in the new stand and then it struck us - look we've got the ideal facilities over there in the Gorgie Stand! I am sure we will have done market research - it would be interesting to know how much the SRU makes out of Murrayfield which has a very wide range of exhibition and meeting spaces, most in the small to medium size range we are targeting. Murrayfield has better communication links with the airport and city centre and more parking ... and for the general exhibition/conference goer is a more iconic venue than our place, so Murrayfield is an obvious competitor (along with many hotels in the city). We will need to ensure we get the right experience for this specialist marketing task. 

[scott herbertson]

28 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

It will be great if we can make money outside match days from the new facilities. It did come across as another of Ann's light bulb moments - we planned to build new facilities for the Matchday Experience in the new stand and then it struck us - look we've got the ideal facilities over there in the Gorgie Stand! I am sure we will have done market research - it would be interesting to know how much the SRU makes out of Murrayfield which has a very wide range of exhibition and meeting spaces, most in the small to medium size range we are targeting. Murrayfield has better communication links with the airport and city centre and more parking ... and for the general exhibition/conference goer is a more iconic venue than our place, so Murrayfield is an obvious competitor (along with many hotels in the city). We will need to ensure we get the right experience for this specialist marketing task. 

 

 

As as I mentioned  in the shop discussion the SRU would be a key partner IMO. I realise it’s only 3 or 4 times a year but we could have overspill from the rugby tourists and their families as well as events over these weekends.

 

i agree Murrayfield is more iconic - I’ve been to corporate events at Wembley, The Oval, Edgbaston and Wimbledon it can’t remember any in the club football grounds. I don’t think it’s an easy market either but it will be interesting to see what the plans are. Transport and parking would be issues I guess too.

[davemclaren]

1 hour ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

As as I mentioned  in the shop discussion the SRU would be a key partner IMO. I realise it’s only 3 or 4 times a year but we could have overspill from the rugby tourists and their families as well as events over these weekends.

 

i agree Murrayfield is more iconic - I’ve been to corporate events at Wembley, The Oval, Edgbaston and Wimbledon it can’t remember any in the club football grounds. I don’t think it’s an easy market either but it will be interesting to see what the plans are. Transport and parking would be issues I guess too.

Once the temporary nursery goes there is Gerard’s yard for parking. 

[Hearts1975]

On 3/30/2018 at 23:09, Francis Albert said:

I agree that the ambition (and associated plan)  is a good and attention is rightly being given to areas which need improvement such as marketing and merchandising.

But it remains a plan, now a three year plan rather than a five year plan, but still a plan that has to be implemented.

The major implementation risk remains and I suppose always is performance on the pitch. The Q&A doesn't and couldn't really say much about this - we will just have to wait to see what players we recruit, which we offload, and above all see what happens from the League Cup sections onward. (and please can we take those seriously and not just as part of pre-season warm up). Without progress on the pitch and a significant improvement over what we've seen in the last two seasons the new stand will not be churning out money. At least not at the level planned.

The other uncertainty for me is how successful the new focus on renting out space for exhibitions and conferences and other third party business activities will be.  It is a significant change of focus. I am not clear where the business expertise for this line of operation exists within the club and assume we will be recruiting here too. 

Don't disagree fa with ur comments 

 

in a financial sense I can see that we are trying to maximise all sources of revenue and turnover into the club ... I realise the key to realising the revenue opportunities is success on the pitch but I genuinely believe that so do those at the club, Cl AB and the other directors know that if we are to realise our ambitions and have the ground packed out then this has to happen 

 

I think we are in a far better place today than we have ever been. We are in the unique position now that we are debt free and we don't owe anybody anything ... I'm sure with the non football investments and return that we will be advised by the right people and who know how to make this work ... this would have to have been planned as part of the stand redevelopment 

 

yes it's still a plan and one which has still to come to fruition but in respect of the financial aspects it seems a good methodical plan and one which I buy into in all honesty .. let's just get this season finished with and all look forward to next year, big changes coming in the football side and I think we will all welcome these changes as and when they happen. We absolutely need to get it right next year, no question 

[wavydavy]

On 3/28/2018 at 20:22, Buffalo Bill said:

 

No, there was definitely reports previous to the Q&A that it would be scaled back, rather than removed. The question in the Q&A was just to get an update on the timescale. 

 

 

I don' t have the written copy of the piece I read but I was fairly certain that it was stated that the police viewing block was to be removed at the end of the season. It said that because of the fact there was so many important cables etc that they could not do this work at the same time as the new stand and it would be scaled back during the International Break with a view to being removed completely in the close season.

 

It may well have changed of course which seems to be the case based on what AB said however I don't recall seeing anything that said the plans had changed.

[Francis Albert]

17 minutes ago, Hearts1975 said:

Don't disagree fa with ur comments 

 

in a financial sense I can see that we are trying to maximise all sources of revenue and turnover into the club ... I realise the key to realising the revenue opportunities is success on the pitch but I genuinely believe that so do those at the club, Cl AB and the other directors know that if we are to realise our ambitions and have the ground packed out then this has to happen 

 

I think we are in a far better place today than we have ever been. We are in the unique position now that we are debt free and we don't owe anybody anything ... I'm sure with the non football investments and return that we will be advised by the right people and who know how to make this work ... this would have to have been planned as part of the stand redevelopment 

 

yes it's still a plan and one which has still to come to fruition but in respect of the financial aspects it seems a good methodical plan and one which I buy into in all honesty .. let's just get this season finished with and all look forward to next year, big changes coming in the football side and I think we will all welcome these changes as and when they happen. We absolutely need to get it right next year, no question 

From the Q&A the switch of focus from hospitality to renting exhibition space etc seems to have been a fairly recent one and was not planned initially as part of the stadium development. Which is fine as long we have done our homework and employ the expertise to make it work.

[Hearts1975]

16 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

From the Q&A the switch of focus from hospitality to renting exhibition space etc seems to have been a fairly recent one and was not planned initially as part of the stadium development. Which is fine as long we have done our homework and employ the expertise to make it work.

I probably meant more along the lines that Pre stand development it would have to have been a considered option .. I did say the word planned above so fair enough ...

 

financially all things would have to be considered, generating revenue from the stand outwith match days is most definitely the right thing to do 

[Heres Rixxy]

Weirdly, I stumbled upon an old email today from Sergejus Fedotovas, dated 15th December 2009.

 

Would anyone prefer to have such owners now compared to Budge?

 

Quote

It is 'fact' that UBIG is 100% behind the club and its future development plans. UBIG has been an essential backer and partner of Hearts since the outright purchase of the club in February 2005. In the five years we have been at the club and we have achieved some success and at some times were deprived of success, but at all times we remain committed to the club. If you look at the board of the club, closest representatives of the owner are there and it shows the level of importance and commitment.

 

Since we came in the financial situation has been solid. All payments are ok at the club. The players are paid for five years since we have bought the club and the bonuses are paid when the team deserves a bonus.

 

UBIG provides funding for the club along with a range of other resources such as business expertise, connections to other football organisations and business contacts. This is evidenced in our ongoing planning for the Tynecastle stadium redevelopment, our bank development and other projects and business opportunities in Edinburgh.

 

Hearts enjoys an excellent relationship with UBIG and as long as Hearts maintains a focus on operational efficiencies and progressing the club in business development terms then we can look forward to many more years of support from the organisation.

 

 

[i wish jj was my dad]

Rixxy sums it up. I'd hate it if one morning Ann, Craig & co decided that Gary Mackay, Mikey Stewart and half a dozen slavers on here were right. They don't know what they are doing and should pack it all in and put their feet up because there are plenty of people out there who could do better. 

[iainmac]

58 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

Rixxy sums it up. I'd hate it if one morning Ann, Craig & co decided that Gary Mackay, Mikey Stewart and half a dozen slavers on here were right. They don't know what they are doing and should pack it all in and put their feet up because there are plenty of people out there who could do better. 

 

I can't recall either of the people you mention being critical of Ann Budge. In fact,  it was Gary who introduced AB to the FoH - without that event,  who knows where we'd be now? 

 

As far as the footballing side is concerned,  they've both expressed an opinion that  we should be doing better. I don't think they're in a minority there! 

[Escobar PHM]

On 30/03/2018 at 13:35, 1953 said:

Fair point, I was always impressed that in the 70's 2 policemen would wade into the crowd, haul out the trouble makers and march them round the track, but given that that doesn't happen now, filling the place with jambos and restricting the away fans to one section is the way to go. Mrs B proved that she would go down that route in the championship season and it worked.

In those days you had 200 cops in and around the ground for a big game, nearly 300 for derbies. Derby matches used to regularly see ejections and arrests in the hundreds. These days, due mainly to chronic underfunding and under-resourcing, you'd be lucky if there are 50 cops in and around the stadium for a big game (Derby or OF) The strategy for crowd control had to change and it has. Its all about CCTV, observation and safe intervention these days. They are not going to risk their guys getting bounced around by dozens of Celtic fans (as happened one recent time)  when they are simply there to safely control the crowd and prevent anything really top end serious happening.

 

The answer to repeated sectarian singing by an away support on successive visits is to cut the allocations to the bone and publicly state why you've done it. The police can't be expected to resolve this. Its just not possible. The SFA/SPFL have to stop sweeping it under the carpet too.

[i wish jj was my dad]

3 hours ago, iainmac said:

 

I can't recall either of the people you mention being critical of Ann Budge. In fact,  it was Gary who introduced AB to the FoH - without that event,  who knows where we'd be now? 

 

As far as the footballing side is concerned,  they've both expressed an opinion that  we should be doing better. I don't think they're in a minority there! 

The criticism is that Craig has too much control. I think the football could be better but i understand the reasons why.

[Enzo Chiefo]

4 hours ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

Rixxy sums it up. I'd hate it if one morning Ann, Craig & co decided that Gary Mackay, Mikey Stewart and half a dozen slavers on here were right. They don't know what they are doing and should pack it all in and put their feet up because there are plenty of people out there who could do better. 

Gary Mackay and Jim Jefferies are in my lifetime the top 2 PHM. Having stood on the terraces, captained the club and played with distinction for their entire careers. Both were natural leaders. It always amazes me how fans on this board will quite openly criticise Mackay - our record appearance holder - but castigate others who criticise Craig Levein because he's "one of our own". CL was a  fantastic player, who was dreadfully unlucky with injuries, and a reasonable manager but in PHM terms he is well behind GM and JJ. 

[Hendricks]

3 hours ago, iainmac said:

 

I can't recall either of the people you mention being critical of Ann Budge. In fact,  it was Gary who introduced AB to the FoH - without that event,  who knows where we'd be now? 

 

As far as the footballing side is concerned,  they've both expressed an opinion that  we should be doing better. I don't think they're in a minority there! 

 

Indeed. On both fronts. 

[i wish jj was my dad]

4 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Gary Mackay and Jim Jefferies are in my lifetime the top 2 PHM. Having stood on the terraces, captained the club and played with distinction for their entire careers. Both were natural leaders. It always amazes me how fans on this board will quite openly criticise Mackay - our record appearance holder - but castigate others who criticise Craig Levein because he's "one of our own". CL was a  fantastic player, who was dreadfully unlucky with injuries, and a reasonable manager but in PHM terms he is well behind GM and JJ. 

Gary's PHM credentials are not in question but I lost a lot of respect for him as a person after spending a night in his company. Folk generally and certainly I don't have a problem with CL being criticised. It's when the same discredited pish is regurgitated as fact that I can't put up with. 

[Enzo Chiefo]

1 hour ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

Gary's PHM credentials are not in question but I lost a lot of respect for him as a person after spending a night in his company. Folk generally and certainly I don't have a problem with CL being criticised. It's when the same discredited pish is regurgitated as fact that I can't put up with. 

Fair point JJ. I can't comment on what was said when GM was in your  company but, yes, I concur, or even agree, that a lot of stuff can grow arms and legs. Fwiw, I don't think for a minute that CL had been interfering in team selections or tactics but I do think as a heavily salaried DOF he has to take responsibility , and credit, for good and bad signings.

[i wish jj was my dad]

53 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Fair point JJ. I can't comment on what was said when GM was in your  company but, yes, I concur, or even agree, that a lot of stuff can grow arms and legs. Fwiw, I don't think for a minute that CL had been interfering in team selections or tactics but I do think as a heavily salaried DOF he has to take responsibility , and credit, for good and bad signings.

Gary was quite snidey inferring CL wasn't on the level about Dens but wouldn't come outright and say what he meant when he realised the audience weren't lapping it up.

 

No issue with your point about CL. His recruitment strategy wasn't right but he backed his coaches. Cathro was a disaster of McLean and McGlynn levels.  Down to him now. He has to stand or fall by his own decisions.