Jump to content

Q&A session with CEO Ann Budge - ANSWERS.


Maple Leaf

Recommended Posts

Enzo Chiefo
8 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

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.

 

 

Yes, I really don't think for a minute that CL would have let his teammates down by not showing up. It's not an allegation that anyone of us, including GM, can make against him. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 264
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Francis Albert

    18

  • Beast Boy

    17

  • davemclaren

    9

  • Maple Leaf

    9

i wish jj was my dad
3 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Yes, I really don't think for a minute that CL would have let his teammates down by not showing up. It's not an allegation that anyone of us, including GM, can make against him. 

 

I don't think Doddie would have tolerated it. Never mind making him club captain. Whatever Gary's beef us he needs to get over it. No matter gow much a PHM he is it disgusts me that he has created or fed a rumour like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
33 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

I don't think Doddie would have tolerated it. Never mind making him club captain. Whatever Gary's beef us he needs to get over it. No matter gow much a PHM he is it disgusts me that he has created or fed a rumour like that.

 

Me too. It's embarrassing. Is Gary Mackay a doctor, who from Dens Park, could miraculously tell that Craig Levein, lying in his sick bed, wasn't sick? 

 

It's also a quite laughably old school, British mentality. (1) The assumption that everyone who gets the flu all recover at the exact same moment (2) The idea that someone with heavy flu should play regardless. Levein did the right thing by staying home. Mackay has to find some reason for what happened at Dens, so he's maintained a bitter feud with Levein ever since. Pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Hearts,

Gary MacKay loves Hearts,

Craig Levein loves Hearts

We all love Hearts

 

What ever our differences are,

WE ALL LOVE HEARTS!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nookie Bear
10 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Me too. It's embarrassing. Is Gary Mackay a doctor, who from Dens Park, could miraculously tell that Craig Levein, lying in his sick bed, wasn't sick? 

 

It's also a quite laughably old school, British mentality. (1) The assumption that everyone who gets the flu all recover at the exact same moment (2) The idea that someone with heavy flu should play regardless. Levein did the right thing by staying home. Mackay has to find some reason for what happened at Dens, so he's maintained a bitter feud with Levein ever since. Pathetic.

 

How is point (1) part of “British mentality”?

 

And did the Brazilians not force a clearly sick Ronaldo to play a World Cup final (2)

 

But, nah, it’s only those stupid Brits who do that. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
11 hours ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

I don't think Doddie would have tolerated it. Never mind making him club captain. Whatever Gary's beef us he needs to get over it. No matter gow much a PHM he is it disgusts me that he has created or fed a rumour like that.

Exactly, doddie gave him at least two more contracts and made him captain in the following years, and no human alive can convince me that Gary Mackay is more perceptive that Alex McDonald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2018 at 18:14, Footballfirst said:

 

I'm a bit intrigued by Ann's timescales.  I believe that FOH is currently handing over £120k a month, based on the figures provided in the March Blog. All going to plan the £3m stand funding target will be reached with the first £50k of May's pledges (normally handed over around 20th of the month).  I'd expect that some presentation to that effect will take place at the final home game of the season.

 

May 2020, which is Ann's earliest share transfer date, is two years further down the line.  By that point, at current pledging rates, FOH will have handed over another £2.95m,  24 x £120k or £2.88m plus the £70k surplus from May 2018's pledges.  The loan is £2.4m and the shares £100k, so what is planned for the extra £450k?

 

The loan should be repaid in January 2020 and the shares purchased a month later, unless I'm missing something. There may be a formal handover of a few months if Ann is handing over the reins to a new chief exec., possibly at the end of season 2019/20, but under the terms of the agreement FOH's financial commitments will be met some months earlier than Ann's estimate.

 

Don't suppose you ever got an answer to this one? Might be worth dropping a note to FOH and asking them for an answer. Stuart Wallace might be the man to ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
59 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

Don't suppose you ever got an answer to this one? Might be worth dropping a note to FOH and asking them for an answer. Stuart Wallace might be the man to ask.

 

I wasn't looking for an answer. I will continue to monitor the funds raised against payments though. 

 

The agreement requires FOH to hand over 95% of the pledges to use them to complete the stand funding, then "participate" in the £2.4m Bidco Loan in multiples of £100k, while the remaining 5% of pledges retained by FOH is capped at £50k per annum.  Note that FOH is acquiring (buying) the loan from Bidco, not repaying it on behalf of the club. The club will actually end up owing the £2.4m to FOH instead of Bidco, although it is likely that FOH will write this off, unless there is a benefit to FOH in retaining it as a secured debt over Tynecastle. Note also that it is the club who pays interest to Bidco and not FOH, although there is no interest payable to FOH once its acquires a share of the Loan. I wonder if Ann's extended timescales mean that she is looking for FOH to meet the club's interest payments.

 

On my reading of the agreement, there is no discretion to utilise FOH funds for any other purpose than to participate in the Loan, although it is possible for all parties to agree to amend the agreement if they wished to do so.  

 

There was a grey area in the original agreement, following the working capital contribution period (£1m + £1.4m + £1.4m), which allowed the club to continue to receive funds without them being used to repay the loan for a couple of months.  The club received an extra £250k as a result, just before the new stand funding arrangement was put in place.  I did query the £250k with Brian Cormack at the time, but was advised that the agreement allowed for that to happen.  I was aware that the agreement did indeed give that discretion, but the default position was that the funds should have been used to repay the loan, i.e. the club could ask for extra funds for working capital, but the FOH Board had to agree to it. Effectively it was a £250k spend that the FOH Board made without reference to the membership. 

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst

I should add that beyond paying off Bidco and acquiring the shares, FOH currently has no authorisation, agreements or or other arrangements to hand over ANY further funds to the club, or anyone else. Indeed they should not be seeking further pledges after the transfer date, unless they communicate to the membership what they plan to do with any additional funds raised.

 

That is another reason why the governance proposals are important going forward, as they should map out the process by which future funds will be allocated, e.g. as working capital for the club, specific projects, or retained by FOH for future activities still to be determined.

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

 

I wasn't looking for an answer. I will continue to monitor the funds raised against payments though. 

 

The agreement requires FOH to hand over 95% of the pledges to use them to complete the stand funding, then "participate" in the £2.4m Bidco Loan in multiples of £100k, while the remaining 5% of pledges retained by FOH is capped at £50k per annum.  Note that FOH is acquiring (buying) the loan from Bidco, not repaying it on behalf of the club. The club will actually end up owing the £2.4m to FOH instead of Bidco, although it is likely that FOH will write this off, unless there is a benefit to FOH in retaining it as a secured debt over Tynecastle. Note also that it is the club who pays interest to Bidco and not FOH, although there is no interest payable to FOH once its acquires a share of the Loan. I wonder if Ann's extended timescales mean that she is looking for FOH to meet the club's interest payments.

 

On my reading of the agreement, there is no discretion to utilise FOH funds for any other purpose than to participate in the Loan, although it is possible for all parties to agree to amend the agreement if they wished to do so.  

 

There was a grey area in the original agreement, following the working capital contribution period (£1m + £1.4m + £1.4m), which allowed the club to continue to receive funds without them being used to repay the loan for a couple of months.  The club received an extra £250k as a result, just before the new stand funding arrangement was put in place.  I did query the £250k with Brian Cormack at the time, but was advised that the agreement allowed for that to happen.  I was aware that the agreement did indeed give that discretion, but the default position was that the funds should have been used to repay the loan, i.e. the club could ask for extra funds for working capital, but the FOH Board had to agree to it. Effectively it was a £250k spend that the FOH Board made without reference to the membership. 

 

I thought that you were querying why AB was saying the transfer of ownership would be May 2020 when the last payment was being made in January 2020 and shares purchased in Feb 2020.

 

Also you were wondering about the extra £450k so that was why I thought you were looking for an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
11 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

I thought that you were querying why AB was saying the transfer of ownership would be May 2020 when the last payment was being made in January 2020 and shares purchased in Feb 2020.

 

Also you were wondering about the extra £450k so that was why I thought you were looking for an answer.

I just thought that it was odd, not that there was anything untoward with it. 

 

As you can see from my earlier post, I am familiar with the terms of the agreement, so I should be able to ask any appropriate questions should the need arise, at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dagger Is Back

I still can’t quite believe a 25% cost overrun on the new stand build.

 

It’s a bit like looking at my credit card bill once the wife has done the Xmas shopping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only living Hearts player of real note who escapes scathing criticism on here is Robbo.  I can't understand people launching into guys like Locke and Mackay when we have Stanton and Lennon as material.

 

A wee tip, if you're of my vintage and want to wind them up, do a balanced critique of Stanton and JJ as players.  They played in the same position in the same era.  Both had an eye for goal and both very strong in the tackle.

 

If you come out marginally in favour of Stanton as the better player, that makes them even angrier and they resort to name calling.

 

I love it when they do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Kiwidoug said:

The only living Hearts player of real note who escapes scathing criticism on here is Robbo.  I can't understand people launching into guys like Locke and Mackay when we have Stanton and Lennon as material.

 

A wee tip, if you're of my vintage and want to wind them up, do a balanced critique of Stanton and JJ as players.  They played in the same position in the same era.  Both had an eye for goal and both very strong in the tackle.

 

If you come out marginally in favour of Stanton as the better player, that makes them even angrier and they resort to name calling.

 

I love it when they do that.

 

Mind that time Pat Stanton won the Scottish Cup for Hibs? No... me neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bez said:

 

Mind that time Pat Stanton won the Scottish Cup for Hibs? No... me neither.

No.  I don't either.  That's the problem with getting a bit older.  I expect Pat was in Scottish Cup winning teams so often that he wet himself with excitement.

 

I do remember however being at a final he played in which they lost 6-1.

 

Funny that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...