Jump to content

FOH Governance Proposal


graygo

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

It’s not a freebie though as they have already paid, just like someone who bought shares ages ago and still has a vote as FF said earlier.

 

Paying subs once or for a limited period of time doesn’t get you lifelong membership or rights in almost any scenario or situation I can think of. I don’t understand the rationale for wanting to make this sort of huge gesture. The club is saved, nobody was ever promised any lifelong rights as part of the package, and I can’t honestly imagine many people expecting them either. 

 

It just seems right and proper to me (and logical) that those paying in and actively engaging with the FOH/club are the ones that vote on the decisions. A 23 year old in full time employment whose Dad opened a FOH account for him when he was a kid and popped in tenners for 12 months for example - there will be heaps of people like that. He’ll maybe never have his own real independent relationship with the FOH (by way of paying subs) because he won’t need to. That would be a shame. I can’t see the goodwill from lifelong voting rights outweighing the benefits of keeping things as they are, basically. 

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

 

I tend to agree with FF on this subject and I would be all for a two tiered approach, splitting out the ownership from ongoing financial support.

 

Those pledgers who contributed towards the buy-out of the shares could be recognised as lifetime members, whether or not still active pledgers, but perhaps subject to some minimum contribution (possibly a combination of the duration of pledges made and total amount pledged).  These members, both active and lapsed, would have the right to vote in any future decision to sell all or part of the FOH shareholding to another party.

 

Those who continue to pledge beyond the acquisition of the shares, including any new pledgers coming on board after the acquisition, would have a say in how the ongoing funding is used and could hold the FOH board to account for how they utilise that funding.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

I tend to agree with FF on this subject and I would be all for a two tiered approach, splitting out the ownership from ongoing financial support.

 

Those pledgers who contributed towards the buy-out of the shares could be recognised as lifetime members, whether or not still active pledgers, but perhaps subject to some minimum contribution (possibly a combination of the duration of pledges made and total amount pledged).  These members, both active and lapsed, would have the right to vote in any future decision to sell all or part of the FOH shareholding to another party.

 

Those who continue to pledge beyond the acquisition of the shares, including any new pledgers coming on board after the acquisition, would have a say in how the ongoing funding is used and could hold the FOH board to account for how they utilise that funding.

 

What happens when all the ‘owning’ group leave this mortal coil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, redm said:

 

I think it’s a nice idea to have everyone involved but near enough impossible to implement in a sensible or straightforward way. Inclusivity is awfy important but not at the expense of practicality. The organisation started as a means of saving the club but is now changing and developing with the club and to me that’s healthy. 

 

I don’t see the active subs/voting rights thing as uncaring or unthinking at all. I think it sounds like a sensible business decision. For me personally, I gave my money and my club is alive and my name is right there in the list of people who contributed. I don’t expect the club or FOH to keep expressing gratitude or give me things or make gestures. We need to move on from all that now imho. 

 

We’re in a unique and very strong position - we can take the FOH model and use it as a means of giving ourselves a competitive advantage. A real boost to lift us beyond our nearest and closest competitors. We’d be mad to ignore that opportunity or fail to exploit it to our own advantage while there’s still such a strong appetite for pledging. 

Impossible to implement - Nonsense. As an example, there is a model trust setup used by other clubs, that FOH themselves mentioned.

 

Inclusivity at the expense of practicality - I'm disappointed that you would be prepared to dispense with inclusivity because (I assume) you have been told it might be difficult to manage. I'm  sure the suffragettes would have disagreed with any notion of them bring denied  vote because it would double the size of the voters roll.

 

A sensible business decision - Is that it? Business practicality at the expense of inclusivity. I dont want gestures either. I'm looking for practicality too. The practical recognition that if you have made a significant contribution to saving the club and acquiring majority ownership of the club, then recognise it for what it is, buying the the long term stability and future of the club. Give them a practical stake in the future. Don't diminish their contribution to mere gestures.

 

Move on? - From what? Being inclusive and recognising those who made the future of the club safe, in a meaningful and practical way?

 

I agree with your last paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

What happens when all the ‘owning’ group leave this mortal coil?

 

You've spotted the one minor flaw in my proposal Dave

 

:facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, redm said:

 

Paying subs once or for a limited period of time doesn’t get you lifelong membership or rights in almost any scenario or situation I can think of. I don’t understand the rationale for wanting to make this sort of huge gesture. The club is saved, nobody was ever promised any lifelong rights as part of the package, and I can’t honestly imagine many people expecting them either. 

As explained several times previously, buying shares in a company, like HMFC, does exactly that.

 

Nobody was promised lifetime rights, but equally so, no one was being asked to contribute a penny beyond saving the club and acquiring majority ownership.

 

It is the FOH Board that has moved the goalposts and is seemingly intent on excluding lapsed pledges from having a stake in the very thing that they signed up to do.

 

 

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
3 hours ago, graygo said:

 

Could it be that while they have worked hard to keep within the maximum 3% figure to date, going forward they feel that if they had spent a bit more they might have had a better return?

May well be. If so why not simply say so and why reject with no justification whatsoever having ANY cap. The suggestion was to have a cap, not to have a 3% cap as applies during the first seven years of FoH fund raising.

I am guessing the cap was Ann's idea. She isn't stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
9 hours ago, redm said:

 

Paying subs once or for a limited period of time doesn’t get you lifelong membership or rights in almost any scenario or situation I can think of. I don’t understand the rationale for wanting to make this sort of huge gesture. The club is saved, nobody was ever promised any lifelong rights as part of the package, and I can’t honestly imagine many people expecting them either. 

 

It just seems right and proper to me (and logical) that those paying in and actively engaging with the FOH/club are the ones that vote on the decisions. A 23 year old in full time employment whose Dad opened a FOH account for him when he was a kid and popped in tenners for 12 months for example - there will be heaps of people like that. He’ll maybe never have his own real independent relationship with the FOH (by way of paying subs) because he won’t need to. That would be a shame. I can’t see the goodwill from lifelong voting rights outweighing the benefits of keeping things as they are, basically. 

When I and others first pledged the "pledge for life" concept didn't exist. The consultation document implicitly accepts this in one carefully worded phrase "we have been consistently promoting this theme for some time" (my emphasis)". So back then it was not unreasonable to assume ,that once the club ownership had been secured that the club would be "fan owned" and  that those who had pledged and paid accordingly would have an ownership interest in the club through FoH. If "pledge for life" had not been introduced later, what would have happened when FoH secured its majority holding?

Of course it is fine to support the FoH's membership subscription scheme if that's your preference but to suggest that no-one could have ever expected anything else is wrong.

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert

And just to expand on that a little I have never really seen my FoH pledge as equivalent to paying "subs", analogous to subscriptions say to  a magazine or a gym.  After all neither of those involve a "pledge", and I don't recall FoH calling for subscriptions. At least initially it was all about pledging funds to secure ownership of the club. I saw it more as buying an ownership interest in the club through instalments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Impossible to implement - Nonsense. As an example, there is a model trust setup used by other clubs, that FOH themselves mentioned.

 

Inclusivity at the expense of practicality - I'm disappointed that you would be prepared to dispense with inclusivity because (I assume) you have been told it might be difficult to manage. I'm  sure the suffragettes would have disagreed with any notion of them bring denied  vote because it would double the size of the voters roll.

 

A sensible business decision - Is that it? Business practicality at the expense of inclusivity. I dont want gestures either. I'm looking for practicality too. The practical recognition that if you have made a significant contribution to saving the club and acquiring majority ownership of the club, then recognise it for what it is, buying the the long term stability and future of the club. Give them a practical stake in the future. Don't diminish their contribution to mere gestures.

 

Move on? - From what? Being inclusive and recognising those who made the future of the club safe, in a meaningful and practical way?

 

I agree with your last paragraph.

 

It’s really not nonsense though. When you start adding layers and over-complicating something like this you run the potential risk of the majority losing interest. I know some folk like yourself are into the detail but it’s probably safe to assume that most people aren’t. They don’t have time or the inclination to sit and work it all out - it needs to be clear and straightforward I think. An easy decision to make. 

 

The club is saved now so how do we maximise the opportunity and maintain a healthy FOH into the future? Attract new pledgers? I don’t think overcomplicating it will help. The message and the purpose needs to be clear. 

 

“The practical recognition that if you have made a significant contribution to saving the club and acquiring majority ownership of the club, then recognise it for what it is, buying the the long term stability and future of the club.”

 

This works for me. We ‘bought’ the long term stability and future of the club. That’s the contribution and the reward. I don’t deserve or need a different level of involvement to anyone who decided just to sign up this week - there’s nothing “inclusive” about that. We’re all doing our bit in different ways and at different times. 

 

And no, I wasn’t told that it would be difficult to manage. I’m not really so bothered about the administration of it, I just don’t support the concept itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
59 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

And just to expand on that a little I have never really seen my FoH pledge as equivalent to paying "subs", analogous to subscriptions say to  a magazine or a gym.  After all neither of those involve a "pledge", and I don't recall FoH calling for subscriptions. At least initially it was all about pledging funds to secure ownership of the club. I saw it more as buying an ownership interest in the club through instalments.

... and just to make it clear about what I thought the principal aim was ... "and by so doing collectively secure the future of the club from the threat that future owners might again take us to the brink". It is the pledgers who will have contributed about £9m by the time we buy out Ann who have achieved that principal objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

When I and others first pledged the "pledge for life" concept didn't exist. The consultation document implicitly accepts this in one carefully worded phrase "we have been consistently promoting this theme for some time" (my emphasis)". So back then it was not unreasonable to assume ,that once the club ownership had been secured that the club would be "fan owned" and  that those who had pledged and paid accordingly would have an ownership interest in the club through FoH. If "pledge for life" had not been introduced later, what would have happened when FoH secured its majority holding?

Of course it is fine to support the FoH's membership subscription scheme if that's your preference but to suggest that no-one could have ever expected anything else is wrong.

 

I'm not sure what assumptions I made back then. I think it was fairly obvious that the situation was kind of unique and there wasn't very much in the way of  expertise or existing models to draw from so I didn't make many assumptions at all. I just knew I'd pay money and it would be used to bring the club back to life after admin, then in time I knew if I continued to pledge that it would form part of an extra pot of cash that could give us a bit of an edge over nearest competitors. If I continued to pay regular pledges then I'd be part of the active membership and would be able to vote, and if I chose not to continue to pledge the voting would be left to those who were currently active members. 

 

A lot has happened in a few years. We're all learning as we go. I don't think anyone would have predicted how successful the FOH became or how many people would buy in to the idea. It maybe started as a means of saving the club but it has evolved. I don't think of that as moving goalposts or anything negative, I see that as a massive positive. It's good to take stock of your circumstances and opportunities and adapt accordingly. It's working out really well for the club and for me that's the most important thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately those currently pledging will decide whether or not to approve the proposals. This, and similar threads, allow good discussion of them. However, my gut feel is that most pledgers won’t feel strongly enough either way to vote to reject them. Such is democracy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Though of course no one doubts the financial propriety, hard work and dedication of past and present FoH Directors they have always been partial to bit of spin. Here in full is their response in the latest consultation document to a suggestion, made in response to the last consultation document, that FoH's use of funds for its own purposes should be capped.

 

"On balance we do not agree with this suggestion. While it is clearly important that the Foundation keeps its cost base as low as possible, it would be difficult to set a fixed limit for what running costs should be, and spending too little on administration could impair efficiency. Our annual accounts provide complete transparency on costs. During the four financial years in which we have been meeting our financial obligations under the Bidco Agreement, our administrative costs have been less than 3%, on average, of our income from pledges."

 

That last bit sounds very comforting, implying tight control of costs. What it omits to say is that the Bidco Agreement contains a cap,  not perhaps entirely coincidentally, of about 3%, on what FoH can withhold from income from pledges for its own requirements. Of course saying so would not only dilute the tone of self congratulation on the tight control of costs but also raise the questions of why it wasn't too difficult to set an annual cap for the seven or so  years of the  Bidco Agreement, and why what was required and good enough for the agreement with Bidco isn't required and good enough in relation to future income from  pledges.

 

This all seems a bit desperate from you, Francis. Whilst your prolonged, existentialist debate on the purpose of the FoH is a valid one, you do yourself no favours at all, sitting at home, having thought this particular one up. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

As explained several times previously, buying shares in a company, like HMFC, does exactly that.

 

Nobody was promised lifetime rights, but equally so, no one was being asked to contribute a penny beyond saving the club and acquiring majority ownership.

 

It is the FOH Board that has moved the goalposts and is seemingly intent on excluding lapsed pledges from having a stake in the very thing that they signed up to do.

 

 

 

But the initial pledges were for the foundation to gain ownership, not you or me individually, no matter how small a percentage that may be. The ‘foundation’ will own the club, not the individual contributors; the vast majority of whom seem to understand and accept this. 

 

‘Fan ownership’ in this sense is of course different to you and I legally owning 1/8000th of the club. But as long as we can contribute to FOH, and allow contributing members to vote and stand for office then that is the definition of fan ownership in this particular case. 

 

FoH membership and leadership will always derive from the fan base of Hearts supporters; thus we are ‘fan owned’. 

 

Meanwhile £1.4M a year is being raised...

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
3 hours ago, redm said:

 

It’s really not nonsense though. When you start adding layers and over-complicating something like this you run the potential risk of the majority losing interest. I know some folk like yourself are into the detail but it’s probably safe to assume that most people aren’t. They don’t have time or the inclination to sit and work it all out - it needs to be clear and straightforward I think. An easy decision to make. 

 

The club is saved now so how do we maximise the opportunity and maintain a healthy FOH into the future? Attract new pledgers? I don’t think overcomplicating it will help. The message and the purpose needs to be clear. 

 

“The practical recognition that if you have made a significant contribution to saving the club and acquiring majority ownership of the club, then recognise it for what it is, buying the the long term stability and future of the club.”

 

This works for me. We ‘bought’ the long term stability and future of the club. That’s the contribution and the reward. I don’t deserve or need a different level of involvement to anyone who decided just to sign up this week - there’s nothing “inclusive” about that. We’re all doing our bit in different ways and at different times. 

 

And no, I wasn’t told that it would be difficult to manage. I’m not really so bothered about the administration of it, I just don’t support the concept itself. 

 

Quite. Which means that the cynic (moi?) can simply say it has become a charity donation like the student chuggers, the difference being we are emotionally invested as opposed to being guilt tripped by people getting paid a commission.

 

It also means that there will come a time when FoH is an opportunity for some individuals to do the dirty on the noble ideas, because the human race has these people amongst it. And most people won't realise until after the fact because they won't take an interest.

 

As I said above, those who disagree with this are farting against thunder because of that lack of interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
2 hours ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

This all seems a bit desperate from you, Francis. Whilst your prolonged, existentialist debate on the purpose of the FoH is a valid one, you do yourself no favours at all, sitting at home, having thought this particular one up. 

 

 

Don't worry, I have not had to spend time at home thinking this up.

It struck me as an extremely weak and evasive response to a straightforward suggestion in response to the initial consultation (not one of mine I should say), when I first skimmed through the latest consultation document 5 or 6 weeks ago..

Lets just say I doubt if Ann would have had much truck with this argument (against any cap on FOH's own expenditure) when the Bidco agreement was being negotiated.

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

 

Quite. Which means that the cynic (moi?) can simply say it has become a charity donation like the student chuggers, the difference being we are emotionally invested as opposed to being guilt tripped by people getting paid a commission.

 

It also means that there will come a time when FoH is an opportunity for some individuals to do the dirty on the noble ideas, because the human race has these people amongst it. And most people won't realise until after the fact because they won't take an interest.

 

As I said above, those who disagree with this are farting against thunder because of that lack of interest.

 

It might also just be that people don't feel motivated enough to comment because they're happy enough/ambivalent about it. The silent majority thing. I don't think it's necessarily disinterest.

 

I do get your point about opportunists though and it's probably always going to be in the back of the mind because of previous experiences, but hopefully there will always be plenty of people reading the fine print. I don't think we have anything to worry about at present. I also don't think absence/smaller numbers of people opposing the plans should necessarily indicate that people aren't paying attention either - maybe they are, but they have no complaints?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

But the initial pledges were for the foundation to gain ownership, not you or me individually, no matter how small a percentage that may be. The ‘foundation’ will own the club, not the individual contributors; the vast majority of whom seem to understand and accept this. 

 

‘Fan ownership’ in this sense is of course different to you and I legally owning 1/8000th of the club. But as long as we can contribute to FOH, and allow contributing members to vote and stand for office then that is the definition of fan ownership in this particular case. 

 

FoH membership and leadership will always derive from the fan base of Hearts supporters; thus we are ‘fan owned’. 

 

Meanwhile £1.4M a year is being raised...

OK. Take the scenario that FOH decided to call it a day as "job done" as soon as majority ownership was achieved, as was their right. There would be no active pledgers to consider. Who would own the shareholding and how would that ownership manifest itself?

 

That remains where we are at until the share transfer day + 1.

 

My view on that scenario is that the FOH would hold the majority shareholding in a trust arrangement for the long term benefit of the previous contributors and the wider Hearts community. 

 

That is what underpins the argument I have been making.

 

Continuing pledges beyond the transfer day was an opportunistic situation born out of a "what if" question.  It was first publicly mooted by Brian Cormack at the AGM in December 2015.

 

The original governance proposals, published in May 2017, were the formal notice of what the Board want to happen post share transfer day.

 

The proposals if implemented will see FOH move from an inclusive collective ownership model, to an exclusive (albeit open) fee driven members only club, which will own the shareholding in HMFC, but takes no cognisence of how that ownership was achieved.

 

It's majority ownership of a football club that turns over £12m a year with the potential to grow significantly. 75% of the club will be exclusively owned by those who are deemed to be active contributors at any given future date. The value of FOH is in it's majority shareholding in HMFC, not someone's first £10 contribution five years down the road.

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

OK. Take the scenario that FOH decided to call it a day as "job done" as soon as majority ownership was achieved, as was their right. There would be no active pledgers to consider. Who would own the shareholding and how would that ownership manifest itself?

 

That remains where we are at until the share transfer day + 1.

 

My view on that scenario is that the FOH would hold the majority shareholding in a trust arrangement for the long term benefit of the previous contributors and the wider Hearts community. 

 

That is what underpins the argument I have been making.

 

Continuing pledges beyond the transfer day was an opportunistic situation born out of a "what if" question.  It was first publicly mooted by Brian Cormack at the AGM in December 2015.

 

The original governance proposals, published in May 2017, were the formal notice of what the Board want to happen post share transfer day.

 

The proposals if implemented will see FOH move from an inclusive collective ownership model, to an exclusive (albeit open) fee driven members only club, which will own the shareholding in HMFC, but takes no cognisence of how that ownership was achieved.

 

It's majority ownership of a football club that turns over £12m a year with the potential to grow significantly. 75% of the club will be exclusively owned by those who are deemed to be active contributors at any given future date. The value of FOH is in it's majority shareholding in HMFC, not someone's first £10 contribution five years down the road.

 

FF, let’s firstly recognise that we’re going round in circles here. There argument is the same. We’re just wording it slightly differently each time. 

 

You wrote: “my view on that scenario is that the FOH would hold the majority shareholding in a trust arrangement for the long term benefit of the previous contributors and the wider Hearts community.” 

 

You then suggest that currently, FoH would be a “exclusive” yet “open fee-driven members club”. If it is open, how can it be exclusive? And if it is “exclusive”, how does that compare with your own preferred scenario? 

 

It is absolutely (and perhaps unapologetically) clear that the premise for FoH has shifted from ‘save the club’ to hashtag ‘pledge for life’. We both recognise that. 

 

My guess (and it’s just a guess) is that the majority of past (but no longer current) pledgers would understand, and indeed support the evolution of the foundation, and to keep momentum going (and with it, ‘voting rights’) for those who continue to pledge now, and for those who continue to pledge in future. 

 

Whilst I recognise what you’re saying, I think your preferred way benefits ‘individuals’, and their individual slice of the pie.

 

The foundation’s way benefits the club. Because the club is bigger and important than the individual. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, redm said:

 

I'm not sure what assumptions I made back then. I think it was fairly obvious that the situation was kind of unique and there wasn't very much in the way of  expertise or existing models to draw from so I didn't make many assumptions at all. I just knew I'd pay money and it would be used to bring the club back to life after admin, then in time I knew if I continued to pledge that it would form part of an extra pot of cash that could give us a bit of an edge over nearest competitors. If I continued to pay regular pledges then I'd be part of the active membership and would be able to vote, and if I chose not to continue to pledge the voting would be left to those who were currently active members. 

 

A lot has happened in a few years. We're all learning as we go. I don't think anyone would have predicted how successful the FOH became or how many people would buy in to the idea. It maybe started as a means of saving the club but it has evolved. I don't think of that as moving goalposts or anything negative, I see that as a massive positive. It's good to take stock of your circumstances and opportunities and adapt accordingly. It's working out really well for the club and for me that's the most important thing.

 

This is the key point and main focus of the discussion. What if active membership drops to 2 or 3,000? Having the 8,000 or so original pledgers, who didn't just "pay subs" they literally saved the club, engaged to keep the spirit of the original aim of fan ownership alive and give them a say as a thank you seems very sensible. And I have no idea why anyone would be against that, given the analogies raised about people with shares having exactly the same rights as some are proposing here. As I mentioned earlier, I also think it's good marketing or customer relationship management or whatever you want to call it.

 

Because people have continued to contribute, I don't agree it would lead to a "job done" effect. And as someone suggested a simple way to assess that risk would be to send out a survey to current and past pledgers.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

Whilst I recognise what you’re saying, I think your preferred way benefits ‘individuals’, and their individual slice of the pie.

 

The foundation’s way benefits the club. Because the club is bigger and important than the individual. 

You clearly have not recognised what I have been saying at all. It's quite the opposite. I want to take the responsibily for ownership of the club away from the individuals and put it into a trust wrapper, with the long term  benenficiaries being the collective of all Hearts fans, including FOH pledgers past, present and future.

 

It's the FOH way that is about the exclusive fee paying individuals owning the future of the club, and not the collective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a radical thought but imagine the active membership does drop to say 1,000 and some billionaire comes along and wants to buy the club and invest to take the club forward and the 1.000 active members want to take up this offer but are held back by the 7,000 lapsed members. How can that be right?

 

*** I know this is a very unlikely scenario but it seems to be what a couple of posters are suggesting may happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, graygo said:

Here's a radical thought but imagine the active membership does drop to say 1,000 and some billionaire comes along and wants to buy the club and invest to take the club forward and the 1.000 active members want to take up this offer but are held back by the 7,000 lapsed members. How can that be right?

 

*** I know this is a very unlikely scenario but it seems to be what a couple of posters are suggesting may happen.

 

Isn't that exactly what fan ownership is designed to prevent! Someone can invest of course, but they won't ever own a majority so we will never fall into the hands of someone like Romanov again.

 

Also, if a legitimate offer of investment came in, why on earth would you think 7000 lapsed members would be against moving the club forward compared to these new 1000 members? They are the very people who coughed up to keep it alive. Makes no sense.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
3 minutes ago, graygo said:

Here's a radical thought but imagine the active membership does drop to say 1,000 and some billionaire comes along and wants to buy the club and invest to take the club forward and the 1.000 active members want to take up this offer but are held back by the 7,000 lapsed members. How can that be right?

 

*** I know this is a very unlikely scenario but it seems to be what a couple of posters are suggesting may happen.

I'd hope the greedy and soon to be rich 1000 would take some account of the wider views of Hearts fans, many if not most of whom may have contributed more financially to the club than they have. In fact you have pretty much hit the nail on the head here.

And in your scenario the 1000 only need a 90% majority of votes cast, so they may only a need a few hundred votes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BB - I think you'll find that we agree on much more about what we want for the club and FOH, than we disagree on.

 

This discussion is about good governance. I happen to believe that what is proposed doesn't provide the level of long term assurances and inclusiveness I'm looking for from a fan owned club. You are free to accept what is on offer as being sufficient. I don't.

 

I'd imagine that this latest discussion will diminish after Wednesday's cut off date for feedback. No doubt it will start again once the AGM agenda is published later in the year.

 

I have little doubt that the FOH Board's view wil prevail in the end, but I will continue to argue the case as I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, graygo said:

Here's a radical thought but imagine the active membership does drop to say 1,000 and some billionaire comes along and wants to buy the club and invest to take the club forward and the 1.000 active members want to take up this offer but are held back by the 7,000 lapsed members. How can that be right?

 

*** I know this is a very unlikely scenario but it seems to be what a couple of posters are suggesting may happen.

You do realise that those 1,000 active members, and only those 1,000, would share in the bounty offered by the billionaire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, graygo said:

Here's a radical thought but imagine the active membership does drop to say 1,000 and some billionaire comes along and wants to buy the club and invest to take the club forward and the 1.000 active members want to take up this offer but are held back by the 7,000 lapsed members. How can that be right?

 

*** I know this is a very unlikely scenario but it seems to be what a couple of posters are suggesting may happen.

 

Surely 8000 gatekeepers is better than 1000?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Surely 8000 gatekeepers is better than 1000?

 

Of course it is and that is why I think the foundation are right to encourage them to remain active members, if they decide not to though then they should not be able to hold back the ones that are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

You do realise that those 1,000 active members, and only those 1,000, would share in the bounty offered by the billionaire. 

 

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Isn't that exactly what fan ownership is designed to prevent! Someone can invest of course, but they won't ever own a majority so we will never fall into the hands of someone like Romanov again.

As far as I can see there is nothing to stop someone owning a majority if a majority (not sure of the %age required) of active members want to sell

 

Also, if a legitimate offer of investment came in, why on earth would you think 7000 lapsed members would be against moving the club forward compared to these new 1000 members? They are the very people who coughed up to keep it alive. Makes no sense.

No it doesn't make sense but not impossible. I suppose if you have no financial gain from selling you may be more reluctant.

 

 

 

Edited by graygo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Of course it is and that is why I think the foundation are right to encourage them to remain active members, if they decide not to though then they should not be able to hold back the ones that are.

 

But the Foundation was set up to bring about fan ownership. That's why it exists. Although I personally thing fears about people stopping contributing are unfounded and contributions could even increase if lapsed pledgers are reactivated, not making sure the club has as many fans as possible involved seems like a missed opportunity and goes against FoH's original aims: "We set out with the goal of making Hearts the biggest fan owned club within the UK."

 

I mean, contributors up to now have pumped what 8m into the club. Surely no-one can object to them receiving, at minimum, voting rights for that?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

But the Foundation was set up to bring about fan ownership. That's why it exists. Although I personally thing fears about people stopping contributing are unfounded and contributions could even increase if lapsed pledgers are reactivated, not making sure the club has as many fans as possible involved seems like a missed opportunity and goes against FoH's original aims: "We set out with the goal of making Hearts the biggest fan owned club within the UK."

 

I mean, contributors up to now have pumped what 8m into the club. Surely no-one can object to them receiving voting rights for that?

 

We voted overwhelmingly to change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

You clearly have not recognised what I have been saying at all. It's quite the opposite. I want to take the responsibily for ownership of the club away from the individuals and put it into a trust wrapper, with the long term  benenficiaries being the collective of all Hearts fans, including FOH pledgers past, present and future.

 

It's the FOH way that is about the exclusive fee paying individuals owning the future of the club, and not the collective.

 

I have read what you said. I’ve now read it again. 

 

My general point/response (now worded differently) is that there is no need to create a separate “trust” for the shares. Why can’t the FoH board (whoever they may be in the years ahead) be trusted themselves? Why would a board of trustees be anymore trustworthy than a foundation board? 

 

Or...is this all simply a need to somehow reward the original pledgers (myself included)? 

 

I don’t need to be rewarded or thanked in this way and I doubt I’m alone in this thinking. 

 

If I want to feel rewarded, I look at our stadium, our balance sheet and our league position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Surely 8000 gatekeepers is better than 1000?

Spot on Taffin, my contribution is not huge but im doing my bit, how is the 1000 going to be split from the whole foundation.

Or why would you be in the 1000 elite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

We voted overwhelmingly to change that.

 

I know priorities changed but it's still about fan ownership right? From the FoH website: "Within the agreed (with Bidco) schedule, we aim to see the ownership of the club transferring from Ann Budge to the Foundation, thus delivering the central objective of fan ownership at Hearts."

 

What we are discussing I think, as FF outlines better than me, is how inclusive that ownership is going forward.

 

Given this is one of FoH's core aims: "TO ENSURE THAT THE FUTURE OF HEART OF MIDLOTHIAN FOOTBALL CLUB REMAINS SECURE FOR ALL TIME." I think ensuring all FoH pledgers involved in saving the club have a continuing say regardless of ability to pay in future makes sense.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

Spot on Taffin, my contribution is not huge but im doing my bit, how is the 1000 going to be split from the whole foundation.

 

 

The 1000, wouldn't be split. But it may be (or even less) the number of active pledgers in 20 years time (for example). 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

The 1000, wouldn't be split. But it may be (or even less) the number of active pledgers in 20 years time (for example). 

 

 

Cheers bud, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
59 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

We voted overwhelmingly to change that.

When was that vote? We voted to divert funds in the short term but there was no vote on the ultimate and principal objective of fan ownership.

This year's AGM vote is the first vote on the "pledge for life" principle and the proposed membership model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

When was that vote? We voted to divert funds in the short term but there was no vote on the ultimate and principal objective of fan ownership.

This year's AGM vote is the first vote on the "pledge for life" principle and the proposed membership model.

 

Noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

I have read what you said. I’ve now read it again. 

 

My general point/response (now worded differently) is that there is no need to create a separate “trust” for the shares. Why can’t the FoH board (whoever they may be in the years ahead) be trusted themselves? Why would a board of trustees be anymore trustworthy than a foundation board? 

 

Or...is this all simply a need to somehow reward the original pledgers (myself included)? 

Thanks for taking the time to re-read my earlier posts.

 

That's ok if you think that FOH Boards will always be trustworthy. We have had 17 directors of FOH in its short life. I know a few of them were appointed purely on their involvement in the original concept and others because of the positions they held in Hearts related groups. I'm happy with the current crop although I might not agree with all their plans. There are some former directors that I would have wished that they were still there. It's all about horses for courses and why there are no guarantees about its future make up. The Board has already conceded points on elections and specialist directors which could have led to self appointed  alliances or cliques.

 

Trustees would be bound by fiduciary duties to whatever trust deed they signed up to. Again there are no guarantees on the individuals.  Separating the fundraising from the ownership provides extra protection and gives me the assurance that no activist group in the future could act in self interest and against the the interests of the wider Hearts support.

 

"Rewarding" original pledgers isn't my purpose. Yes their contributions would be recognised on equal terms as that applied to current and future pledgers. They ALL should have a stake in the future of the club they saved and acquired for future generations. I just don't see the benefit, in governance terms, of the FOH Board's insistence on managing the discrete functions of fundraising and ownership under a single regime. Yes it might be easier to administer, but that should not be the deciding factor in implementing the right or best governance model.

 

 

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Thanks for taking the time to re-read my earlier posts.

 

That's ok if you think that FOH Boards will always be trustworthy. We have had 17 directors of FOH in its short life. I know a few of them were appointed purely on their involvement in the original concept and others because of the positions they held in Hearts related groups. I'm happy with the current crop although I might not agree with all their plans. There are some former directors that I would have wished that they were still there. It's all about horses for courses and why there are no guarantees about its future make up. The Board has already conceded points on elections and specialist directors which could have led to self appointed  alliances or cliques.

 

Trustees would be bound by fiduciary duties to whatever trust deed they signed up to. Again there are no guarantees on the individuals.  Separating the fundraising from the ownership provides extra protection and gives me the assurance that no activist group in the future could act in self interest and against the the interests of the wider Hearts support.

 

"Rewarding" original pledgers isn't my purpose. Yes their contributions would be recognised on equal terms as that applied to current and future pledgers. They ALL should have a stake in the future of the club they saved and acquired for future generations. I just don't see the benefit, in governance terms, of the FOH Board's insistence on managing the discrete functions of fundraising and ownership under a single regime. Yes it might be easier to administer, but that should not be the deciding factor in implementing the right or best governance model.

 

 

FF, I’m intrigued by the trust concept. What happens when these original members die. Does their membership of the trust  become part of their estate, similar to shares owned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

georgiehearts66
57 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

FF, I’m intrigued by the trust concept. What happens when these original members die. Does their membership of the trust  become part of their estate, similar to shares owned?

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, davemclaren said:

So how does the trust survive the death of all the original subscribers?

 

Assuming they don't all die at once in some sort of zombie apocalypse, you have to assume we'll constantly be adding new members (especially current and future kids and grandkids of "the originals" given how almost everyone I know ended up supporting their dad's team) to offset that. Otherwise how will FoH survive either way? For me just having the people who saved the club given lifetime voter rights (as Barcelona does for members who have contributed for 40 years) seems appropriate. Given the state we were in, arguably FoH pledgers have done more for Hearts than Barca's members have done for them, even someone who has been a member of Barcelona for 40 years.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Assuming they don't all die at once in some sort of zombie apocalypse, you have to assume we'll constantly be adding new members (especially current and future kids and grandkids of "the originals" given how almost everyone I know ended up supporting their dad's team) to offset that. Otherwise how will FoH survive either way? For me just having the people who saved the club given lifetime voter rights (as Barcelona does for members who have contributed for 40 years) seems appropriate. Given the state we were in, arguably FoH pledgers have done more for Hearts than Barca's members have done for them, even someone who has been a member of Barcelona for 40 years.

Sorry, I thought the trust was inly for original members. I misread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, davemclaren said:

Sorry, I thought the trust was inly for original members. I misread. 

 

I've no idea how this or a trust would work to be honest, just would like us to become a genuine fan owned club with as many as possible having a say as was originally envisioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to remember too that the club will be run separately from the foundation, all be it, the foundation will also make up part of the club’s board. But essentially, the foundation is the ‘trustee’ and guardian of the shares (or will be from Feb/March 2020). 

 

Those future FoH board members ten, twenty, fifty years from now will all be screened, and will need to demonstrate both integrity as well as the required capabilities. 

 

Of course there is ‘risk’ with any human element. But the club is now on a sound footing and although in future, the team’s fortunes will undoubtedly fluctuate slightly (though I personally think we’ll be very successful), the set up at the foundation, and from the foundation to the club, and at the club itself has been well thought out and developed to enable prosperity, whilst safeguarding the business. Thus, I think FF’s valid point of a separate trust isn’t necessary. 

 

But yes, hopefully FoH can still find a way of recognising all past contributors on some level. 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Buffalo Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

This is the key point and main focus of the discussion. What if active membership drops to 2 or 3,000? Having the 8,000 or so original pledgers, who didn't just "pay subs" they literally saved the club, engaged to keep the spirit of the original aim of fan ownership alive and give them a say as a thank you seems very sensible. And I have no idea why anyone would be against that, given the analogies raised about people with shares having exactly the same rights as some are proposing here. As I mentioned earlier, I also think it's good marketing or customer relationship management or whatever you want to call it.

 

Because people have continued to contribute, I don't agree it would lead to a "job done" effect. And as someone suggested a simple way to assess that risk would be to send out a survey to current and past pledgers.

 

Well, there's lots of things to consider I think. What do you do when there's potentially a new generation of FOH members who might feel they've all done something really important like "paying for the main stand" or "buying the community pitch" or "built something else as yet undefined" whatever else we might find our FOH cash going towards in coming years? Some of these things might be of strategic importance too - why shouldn't they also insist on lifelong voting rights regardless of how much they contributed? 

 

I just don't think this is the right sort of "thank you" to give anyone. If original members really want some sort of special recognition then a symbolic name on a brick on a wall in the main stand would work, something literally in with the foundations, fixtures and fittings. Not votes. Where do you draw the line? If you're looking at keeping this organisation on the go for a long time you can't set restrictive precedents like that. I think it might actually be straight up bad marketing too - the financial transaction seems to be a meaningful and important way to keep people close to the FOH, close to the club and interested in what's going on. How their money is spent. Interested enough to read the emails, attend AGMs or scrutinise governance documents. 

 

Also, if you give rights away for free there is always the risk that you lose the payment. When there's no transaction there or meaningful exchange, the relationship between your money and your activity is less clear. You can understand why people might just stop it. That's not a good outcome.

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...