Jump to content

FOH Governance Proposal


graygo

Recommended Posts

Francis Albert
10 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

I had never even met anyone from FOH before a meeting that SaveOurHearts had with Sergei / Southern in the Grosvenor Hotel after the Remembrance Day service in 2012, I think. FOH were meeting the club right after we were and I was introduced to Alex Mackie & Brian Cormack. Since then, I've helped out whenever I've been asked. Whether that was speaking at the FOH "launch" in the Gorgie Suite, delivering roadshows around the country or climbing the stands to help deliver 16000 leaflets trying to generate more pledgers. 

 

I got to know the current Directors by actively engaging with them & introducing myself, because I take an interest in what's happening at our club. 

 

That doesn't make me an "unofficial spokesman" or "go between" or any other phrase you'd like to chuck my way in a pathetic attempt to stop me expressing MY views on here. 

Fair enough. Just as your pathetic attempt to label me as "an enemy of FoH" hasn't deterred me from expressing my views. In fact probably had the opposite effect.

 

But just add congratulations on the good liaison job you do in the sticky on this forum. Even helping this enemy out at least once  I think

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 593
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Francis Albert

    74

  • Buffalo Bill

    60

  • Footballfirst

    59

  • davemclaren

    37

scott herbertson
10 minutes ago, Hearts_fan said:

 

Thanks Iain. It's true, and it's great, and I think FoH is a great thing and doing a fantastic job. I'm very much on board.

 

But social media is communication, and not what I mean by "meaningful interaction". 

 

Having thought about it more, I think all I expect is the members get to vote on certain aspects of how our investment is spent, and as I understand it, this isn't going to happen long term (?).

 

I don't have the answers. I'm just responding to what I've caught up on in the past two or three pages of this thread. 

 

It just strikes me that there could be a future issue in the relationship between members and the FoH if the members aren't seen as any more valuable than what they contribute to the balance sheet. 

 

It goes back to my first comment that the FoH was built on an ethos of people power. People are people, not direct debits. People's values and opinions need to be listened to and respected, that's simply how good and longstanding relationships work. 

 

 

 

That's well put and i agree with both the thrust of what you are saying and in part with your thrd line. 

I can understand why the detail of the business plan of the Club should not be the subject of a broad debate or vote , but i would like the 'vision/ annual plan' to be brought to FOH AGM and pre-circulated to FOH Members at least for discussion and comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

That's well put and i agree with both the thrust of what you are saying and in part with your thrd line. 

I can understand why the detail of the business plan of the Club should not be the subject of a broad debate or vote , but i would like the 'vision/ annual plan' to be brought to FOH AGM and pre-circulated to FOH Members at least for discussion and comment.

I agree and would also concur with @Hearts_fan's excellent post on peoples' value not being their direct debits.

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

I had never even met anyone from FOH before a meeting that SaveOurHearts had with Sergei / Southern in the Grosvenor Hotel after the Remembrance Day service in 2012, I think. FOH were meeting the club right after we were and I was introduced to Alex Mackie & Brian Cormack. Since then, I've helped out whenever I've been asked. Whether that was speaking at the FOH "launch" in the Gorgie Suite, delivering roadshows around the country or climbing the stands to help deliver 16000 leaflets trying to generate more pledgers. 

 

I got to know the current Directors by actively engaging with them & introducing myself, because I take an interest in what's happening at our club. 

 

That doesn't make me an "unofficial spokesman" or "go between" or any other phrase you'd like to chuck my way in a pathetic attempt to stop me expressing MY views on here. 

 

You are constantly popping up in this thread shooting down discussion about alternatives. I wonder if you have a particular agenda or allegiance in this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, kila said:

 

You are constantly popping up in this thread shooting down discussion about alternatives. I wonder if you have a particular agenda or allegiance in this...

 

Read the thread and you'll see my suggestion on voting rights on an earlier post. As for "constantly popping up", I wasn't aware that there was a limit to how much you can contribute on any one thread? I think you'll find that there are a good few others who have "popped up" a lot more than me. ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

 I get you have a familial relationship in this but this isn't personal. 

 

That’s not something I’ve mentioned, or felt the need to mention on this thread. For the record, that has got nothing to do with it. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

That's well put and i agree with both the thrust of what you are saying and in part with your thrd line. 

I can understand why the detail of the business plan of the Club should not be the subject of a broad debate or vote , but i would like the 'vision/ annual plan' to be brought to FOH AGM and pre-circulated to FOH Members at least for discussion and comment.

 

Thanks. I agree that the business plan of the Club should not be subject to broad debate or vote.

 

But lets distinguish between the plan of the whole Club, and any planning for the FoH's contribution to it. If we consider the Club's turnover is what, £10m, and the turnover of FoH is £1.5m, then I'd argue that the FoH members should be entitled to meaningfully contribute to any planning attributed to how the £1.5m is spent, for example via a vote.

 

However, for that money to be subsumed by the Club and spent wisely is all well and good, except for the fact that such a behind-closed-doors process completely disregards the views of the so-called active-members who provide the income. We are "active" inasmuch as we have a direct debit set up.

 

That's not meaningful activity to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
4 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

That’s not something I’ve mentioned, or felt the need to mention on this thread. For the record, that has got nothing to do with it. 

 

 

Yet you have mentioned it on here in the past when Stuart Wallace was appointed. Apologies for inferring it was an underlying reason for you being so defensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think the FoH’s proposal are satisfactory.  I think they have the best intentions in mind, to maximise club revenues, but I don’t believe this is the purpose of the FoH and I don’t believe their proposals will maximise club revenues anyway. 

 

In my mind the FoH exists to provide stable ownership of the club and protect the legitimacy of the Foundation as owner.  I don’t think their proposals will achieve these goals.

 

I think they have been seduced by the £££ that the membership have given and have assumed we will be happy to keep giving no matter what.  I think they hope membership numbers will stay high by cynically tying ongoing membership with ownership.  It feels like they are forgetting that the FoH is a member’s organisation, it’s not for the current board to exclude members who have contributed to buying the club because they are unable or unwilling to continue gifting their cash.

 

Secondly, they are purposefully giving our power away by gifting our membership fees to the club with no strings attached.  It is inevitable that the club will be poorly managed at some point in the future!  In my view gifting cash with no strings attached is bound to reduce membership when the club is making poor management decisions.  I think this is bad governance, ownership of the club should be unrelated to the club’s performance.  Gifting cash as general working capital inevitably ties FoH membership to the club’s performance – it will go up when times are good (like we see now) but it will go down when times are not so good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Oh dear. So you don't really want a consultation. Just praise for the proposal.

 

A number of posters have agreed with FF, me,  and Geoff in what has been the most open debate since the first full proposal came out in April 2017.

 

Your attitude to the debate maybe helps explain why this is so.

 

I absolutely welcome consultation and constructive debate. You clearly oppose the structure of FoH and are entitled to do so.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Yet you have mentioned it on here in the past when Stuart Wallace was appointed. Apologies for inferring it was an underlying reason for you being so defensive.

 

When Stuart was put forward by the foundation as Chairman in early 2017, I contributed to a thread discussing the matter to endorse him, and mention a bit about him, but also to state that he was a close friend and family member, just to offer a bit of transparency and to be ‘up front’ about it. 

 

That was the only time and done for what I considered to be the right reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
8 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

When Stuart was put forward by the foundation as Chairman in early 2017, I contributed to a thread discussing the matter to endorse him, and mention a bit about him, but also to state that he was a close friend and family member, just to offer a bit of transparency and to be ‘up front’ about it. 

 

That was the only time and done for what I considered to be the right reasons. 

Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, JC7 said:

I don’t think the FoH’s proposal are satisfactory.  I think they have the best intentions in mind, to maximise club revenues, but I don’t believe this is the purpose of the FoH and I don’t believe their proposals will maximise club revenues anyway. 

 

In my mind the FoH exists to provide stable ownership of the club and protect the legitimacy of the Foundation as owner.  I don’t think their proposals will achieve these goals.

 

I think they have been seduced by the £££ that the membership have given and have assumed we will be happy to keep giving no matter what.  I think they hope membership numbers will stay high by cynically tying ongoing membership with ownership.  It feels like they are forgetting that the FoH is a member’s organisation, it’s not for the current board to exclude members who have contributed to buying the club because they are unable or unwilling to continue gifting their cash.

 

Secondly, they are purposefully giving our power away by gifting our membership fees to the club with no strings attached.  It is inevitable that the club will be poorly managed at some point in the future!  In my view gifting cash with no strings attached is bound to reduce membership when the club is making poor management decisions.  I think this is bad governance, ownership of the club should be unrelated to the club’s performance.  Gifting cash as general working capital inevitably ties FoH membership to the club’s performance – it will go up when times are good (like we see now) but it will go down when times are not so good. 

 

Members contributed to save the club and for the foundation to own the shares, not the members individually. 

 

It’s also worth remembering that there will be two FoH directors sitting on the club board, I assume over-seeing where money is spent. 

 

I would agree with your second point if the money was being spent on a jolly boys holiday to Benidorm but again, you have to put some trust in these people to get it right. Going by this thread alone, there will be enough scrutiny on them. 

 

My hope is that all or most of the FoH funds are put towards things that improve the stadium and the general infrastructure of the club (including the academy). 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, farin said:

 

Pretty much where I’m at too. There’s a real danger people might see themselves as being used as just a cash cow if their monies are simply given over to the club. 

 

Where would you like to see the money to go, if not to the club? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Iainmac and Francis Albert i love your passion for this important debade your 

having but you are (i believe) only going round in circles over a small but crucial 

issue. I'm sure the both of you would probably agree with the vast majority of 

how the process will work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jc7 - eexcellent summary on the membership / ownership dilemma. 

 

Moving on to another of my concerns was the response of the Board to capping it's  expenditure.

 

It praised it's own frugality when it kept its  costs to 3% (it was allowed to spend the lower of 5% or £50,000). The 3% was actually very close to the £50k limit imposed by the Bidco agreement in the last 3 years but doesn't spin so well in a statement.

 

The Board however sees a future cap as an inhibiting factor. It's quite a simple task to set a limit of 5% or 10% with no cap. If more spending is required to meet a specific need then ask the membership for approval in an online poll.

 

There may be good reasons to exceed a cap in any given year e.g. for an advertising campaign or renewal of IT equipment. I'm sure any spending request for such purposes would be approved without fuss.

 

I'm uncomfortable with the Board having free reign to spend as much of pledgers contributions as they want on anything they see fit, when the only recourse on accountability might be at an AGM after the spend has already been made. 

 

I certainly wouldn't want to see pledgers funds used to fund say an FOH directors box or hospitality box where they and their guests would be wined and dined at home matches. I dont think that, or a 20% internal spend, would be acceptable to most pledgers either.

 

The Board should continue to be frugal with their internal spending at all times. A cap on spending is a simple means of putting controls in place to stop excessive spending, before it takes place.

 

File under "good governance". 

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
32 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

Where would you like to see the money to go, if not to the club? 

 

 

I think people's concerns are more about what it might be spent on. They are unlikely to object, but the money we are paying was intended initially to save the club. Then it was to build the main stand, bot tangible concepts which everyone (even the most sceptical  ?) thought were sensible projects.Many people, including me, would like to have a more tangible project or set of projects, to feel our money is going towards.I think that is pretty easy to achieve if the FOH AGM is just presented with the proposed annual plan for the Club and we are asked to agree which projects FOH funds will be targetted at. personally I'd be happy with broad areas - eg Paying off Budge, Developing the Youth Academy, buying more land, whatever - the detail is up to the club in delivery.

 

In practice this would almost certainly make no difference to the club, and I can't think of circumstances where the fans priorities would differ from thos eof FOH's board, which will have been involved in developing the plans.... There could be emergency provisions for unexpected calls on money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
Just now, graygo said:

 

Why do I often see [email protected] in posts?

 

 

simply because bot programmes can pick them up and send you spam

 

 

...and you don't want bot spam .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

simply because bot programmes can pick them up and send you spam

 

 

...and you don't want bot spam .....

 

So there was no point in ianmac trying to put up a link to wherever it was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
3 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

So there was no point in ianmac trying to put up a link to wherever it was?

 

There was a point for Ian, but no point for us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

So there was no point in ianmac trying to put up a link to wherever it was?

 

I can still see it in my original post but, if you can't........ 

 

consultationresponses at the normal foundation domain. Apologies ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

I can still see it in my original post but, if you can't........ 

 

consultationresponses at the normal foundation domain. Apologies ?

 

I knew what the email address was Ian, it was just a general question as it comes up quite a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

I knew what the email address was Ian, it was just a general question as it comes up quite a bit.

As Scott mentioned, it’s to protect your email address from bots. For public contact details of organisations you

are best to link to their contact web page. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

As Scott mentioned, it’s to protect your email address from bots. For public contact details of organisations you

are best to link to their contact web page. 

 

If I did that Dave, you'd get the wrong email address. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

FoH made it clear from the start that the club would be ‘fan owned’, not ‘fan run’. 

 

As this has turned into a thread of extreme scenarios you can’t have punters sitting in the Tynie Arms at 2pm thinking that they should be picking the team. 

 

FoH model was chosen, along with Bidco as the best way to take the club forward. 

 

Who would you have preferred, sandyle? 

 

 

i have no way of knowing what the other options are, I do know that I and many other pledgers are feeling left out of any decisions concerning HMFC, even though it belongs to us, surely FOH board could come up with a way of even pretending we own the club, even the appointees of ours are out voted by the rest of the board, even when we own it outright that will be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sandylejambo said:

i have no way of knowing what the other options are, I do know that I and many other pledgers are feeling left out of any decisions concerning HMFC, even though it belongs to us, surely FOH board could come up with a way of even pretending we own the club, even the appointees of ours are out voted by the rest of the board, even when we own it outright that will be the case.

 

You can email FoH at anytime, engage with them through social media or even apply to stand for office when openings arise. 

 

In 18 months, FoH will be the majority shareholder so why would you need them to “pretend” that they own the club when they will for real? 

 

You cant have 8,000 people sitting round a table running a football club day to day. You have to elect a board (or be part of a board) that represents the fans honestly, openly and to the best of their ability. 

 

‘Fan owned, not fan run’ has always been the mantra. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
2 hours ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

Members contributed to save the club and for the foundation to own the shares, not the members individually. 

 

It’s also worth remembering that there will be two FoH directors sitting on the club board, I assume over-seeing where money is spent. 

 

I would agree with your second point if the money was being spent on a jolly boys holiday to Benidorm but again, you have to put some trust in these people to get it right. Going by this thread alone, there will be enough scrutiny on them. 

 

My hope is that all or most of the FoH funds are put towards things that improve the stadium and the general infrastructure of the club (including the academy). 

 

 

 

 

I don't think anyone now and on this thread is  disputing that FoH's ownership should be a collective ownership of its members' (whether under FoH or FF's model)

The issue is definition of members, where this years  AGM provides the first opportunity for FoH members to vote on that. (Like the funding of the new stand I think that would be more appropriately have been put to a members vote not as an AGM item, but that is (yet) another point).

The problem is that beyond transfer of ownership as FF has pointed out FoH will perform two functions. One is raising "top up" finance for the club. The IMO clearly more substantial role  is owning the club and  as the major shareholder influencing and voting on issues that come before the club board.

I don't think anyone would really argue that how the "top up revenues" are spent after Ann is bought out is a matter for currently active and contributing members (although FoH seems to have abdicated to a significant degree that responsibility or role).

But FoH's position as owner of the club derives not from ongoing active members subsidising the club but solely and entirely from the funding provided by members during the seven years of the Bidco agreement. To deny those members influence in relation to issues relating to club ownership (except on condition that they go on contributing forever to FoH's other relatively minor  role as top up revenue fund raiser) just seems to me unfair, unjustifiable and even a bit outrageous.

FoH could abandon its fund raising role after the Bidco agreement is complete or at any time in the future. It would still own the club.

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

You can email FoH at anytime, engage with them through social media or even apply to stand for office when openings arise. 

 

In 18 months, FoH will be the majority shareholder so why would you need them to “pretend” that they own the club when they will for real? 

 

You cant have 8,000 people sitting round a table running a football club day to day. You have to elect a board (or be part of a board) that represents the fans honestly, openly and to the best of their ability. 

 

‘Fan owned, not fan run’ has always been the mantra. 

 

 

 

That is a great mantra and I note that it states 'fan owned' rather than 'pledger owned'. I view those who have pledged to deliver fan ownership as having funded the purchase of the club for all fans, not just a few. The FOH is just the vehicle by which to achieve that aim. Once that is delivered then by all means change scope to create a new 'club' that people must have to be an active pledger to be a part of but once the club is owned by the fans that is job done and those who have made it happen shouldn't be kicked out if they don't wish to be a part of whatever is to follow.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I don't think anyone now and on this thread is  disputing that FoH's ownership should be a collective ownership of its members' (whether under FoH or FF's model)

The issue is definition of members, where this years  AGM provides the first opportunity for FoH members to vote on that. (Like the funding of the new stand I think that would be more appropriately have been put to a members vote not as an AGM item, but that is (yet) another point).

The problem is that beyond transfer of ownership as FF has pointed out FoH will perform two functions. One is raising "top up" finance for the club. The IMO clearly more substantial role  is owning the club and  as the major shareholder influencing and voting on issues that come before the club board.

I don't think anyone would really argue that how the "top up revenues" are spent after Ann is bought out is a matter for currently active and contributing members (although FoH seems to have abdicated to a significant degree that responsibility or role).

But FoH's position as owner of the club derives not from ongoing active members subsidising the club but solely and entirely from the funding provided by members during the seven years of the Bidco agreement. To deny those members influence in relation to issues relating to club ownership (except on condition that they go on contributing forever to FoH's other relatively minor  role as top up revenue fund raiser) just seems to me unfair, unjustifiable and even a bit outrageous.

FoH could abandon its fund raising role after the Bidco agreement is complete or at any time in the future. It would still own the club.

 

I agree that members who played their part in saving the club should have voting rights. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

I agree that members who played their part in saving the club should have voting rights. 

 

So do I, subject to a threshold being reached. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

That is a great mantra and I note that it states 'fan owned' rather than 'pledger owned'. I view those who have pledged to deliver fan ownership as having funded the purchase of the club for all fans, not just a few. The FOH is just the vehicle by which to achieve that aim. Once that is delivered then by all means change scope to create a new 'club' that people must have to be an active pledger to be a part of but once the club is owned by the fans that is job done and those who have made it happen shouldn't be kicked out if they don't wish to be a part of whatever is to follow.

 

 

 

I don’t disagree with that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

I don’t disagree with that. 

 

I do to an extent. 

 

If they don't wish to be part of whatever is to follow - haven't they de facto kicked themselves out? 

 

Also, as long as "voting rights" was incorporated into the existing Rewards framework, I'd be happier with that. No one got their name on the tribute strip without hitting a certain level of contribution, for example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

I do to an extent. 

 

If they don't wish to be part of whatever is to follow - haven't they de facto kicked themselves out? 

 

Also, as long as "voting rights" was incorporated into the existing Rewards framework, I'd be happier with that. No one got their name on the tribute strip without hitting a certain level of contribution, for example. 

 

I have no problem with the original pledgers getting voting rights should they stop pledging after the transfer of shares, even though I’ll continue to pledge myself. That’s just my personal view point, but thresholds and timeframes would need to be considered too for practical reasons. 

 

But I fully back the #pledgeforlife mantra. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

They were published on the FoH website and sent to members about seven weeks ago.

Other than that FoH has done little to generate interest in this fundamental issue during this and the previous consultation. The last few pages have been the most detailed debate I have seen.

 

 

Am I blind? I can’t see what the specific membership benefits are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

So do I, subject to a threshold being reached. 

What would be your opinion on members who reach a threshold retaining voting rights and active members (those who continue contributing) being rewarded in some way which lapsed members do not qualify for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

You can email FoH at anytime, engage with them through social media or even apply to stand for office when openings arise. 

 

In 18 months, FoH will be the majority shareholder so why would you need them to “pretend” that they own the club when they will for real? 

 

You cant have 8,000 people sitting round a table running a football club day to day. You have to elect a board (or be part of a board) that represents the fans honestly, openly and to the best of their ability. 

 

‘Fan owned, not fan run’ has always been the mantra. 

 

 

I have no doubt that the guys from FOH are real fans and have the best interests of the club at heart, I never wanted to run the club, I just wanted to feel part of the club,  at this time I feel marginalised , I had hoped they would have been asking us what we thought about this or that with the funds we're supplying on a more regular basis. we have had to many self-servers at our club not to be a little bit worried about things. If this board acts like Robinson and his cronies how do we get rid of them? we cant vote them out as FOH wont be a majority on the board

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
3 minutes ago, geogth said:

What would be your opinion on members who reach a threshold retaining voting rights and active members (those who continue contributing) being rewarded in some way which lapsed members do not qualify for.

 

 

 I suggested a compromise in my comments to FOH (see my long post above)

 

I think those who reach the threshold should retain a vote just for the 'life threatening' issues like sale of the ground , transfer of ownership and new share issues. That preserves the club as was, the future development of the club should be voted on just by  those who continue to put in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

I agree that members who played their part in saving the club should have voting rights. 

 A lot of people who are not members played a massive part in saving the club. 

As someone who has been in from the start I don't want any thing different from the person who has just left school got a job and has money to pledge now.

Hearts then Hearts now Hearts Forever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

 I suggested a compromise in my comments to FOH (see my long post above)

 

I think those who reach the threshold should retain a vote just for the 'life threatening' issues like sale of the ground , transfer of ownership and new share issues. That preserves the club as was, the future development of the club should be voted on just by  those who continue to put in.

That certainly sounds better  than "thanks for the last seven years but if you don't continue to contribute you can do one". Maybe not FOH's words but that's how it feels. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best bit was when someone suggested membership of this FoH Stadium Trust Association could be passed on to offspring, like hereditary titles. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, geogth said:

What would be your opinion on members who reach a threshold retaining voting rights and active members (those who continue contributing) being rewarded in some way which lapsed members do not qualify for.

 

Doesn't the current Rewards framework cater for this already? Sorry if I've misunderstood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given how passionate people are on here it's interesting that on 'official' FOH representative hasn't come on to answer some of the questions? 

 

It would be good for the ordinary member to hear from them on a very well read forum and a big part of their members social media interaction. 

 

Especially at this time when the governance proposals are up for review, maybe they don't really want to hear it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

Doesn't the current Rewards framework cater for this already? Sorry if I've misunderstood. 

Yes it does but the proposed framework would exclude those who have contributed to buy the club unless they continue to contribute. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, geogth said:

Yes it does but the proposed framework would exclude those who have contributed to buy the club unless they continue to contribute. 

 

Indeed. I've given my suggestion for addressing that in the post you responded to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, sandylejambo said:

I have no doubt that the guys from FOH are real fans and have the best interests of the club at heart, I never wanted to run the club, I just wanted to feel part of the club,  at this time I feel marginalised , I had hoped they would have been asking us what we thought about this or that with the funds we're supplying on a more regular basis. we have had to many self-servers at our club not to be a little bit worried about things. If this board acts like Robinson and his cronies how do we get rid of them? we cant vote them out as FOH wont be a majority on the board

 

There’s been a discussion between me and Geoff Kilpatrick on this thread re Robinson and I’ve given my opinion on that scenario. 

 

The foundation invited comments and suggestions from members during their consultation period. If you still feel marginalised, why don’t you drop FoH an email asking how you can get more involved? 

 

When the club was up shit creek in 2012, I got in touch with Alex Mackie basically asking: what can I do to help? 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Bez said:

The best bit was when someone suggested membership of this FoH Stadium Trust Association could be passed on to offspring, like hereditary titles. :lol:

 

Shares can be passed on. I don't see the difference in terms of passing on voting rights and a part ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Shares can be passed on. I don't see the difference in terms of passing on voting rights and a part ownership.

 

****. THAT.

 

Big fat ‘no’ from me on that idea. Lots of honourable and decent people have arsehole children. Imagine we ended up with loads of Stephen Thompsons coming through to replace the Eddie Thompsons... *shudder*

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...