Jump to content

FOH Governance Proposal


graygo

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, redm said:

 

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.

Like Buffalo Bill and Dave McLaren earlier, I think you may not have fully understood what I have suggested.

 

On share transfer day plus one, FOH is proposing that the fundraising and ownership functions are managed as a single entity  going forward under the custodianship of the FOH Board and the active pledgers of the day.

 

I've suggested treating the two functions as separate entities. The fundraising continues as previously under the FOH Board and it's active pledgers of the day. It's only right that those who are actively contributing decide how their contributions are spent.

 

Where we differ is on the long term ownership of the club. I want it ring fenced for all Hearts fans and the community. The appropriate mechanism for that would be a trust arrangement. ALL pledgers, past, present or future, on admission, would become members of the trust for life. Admission could be set at an appropriate contribution figure, either by amount or time period of pledging. That is the inclusive solution.

 

In my opinion there is too much weight now being given to the future financial income of FOH (as a cash cow for the club). There is a danger of losing sight of the reason for FOH's existence, to save and ultimately own the club. Don't go down the route of removing the stakeholder rights that all pledgers have built from their contributions, should they choose to stop or can no longer afford to contribute at any point.

 

New FOH funds are a "nice to have" but not a "need to have". Collective ownership of the club is more important than future fundraising capability. 

Edited by Footballfirst
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

Geoff Kilpatrick
6 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Like Buffalo Bill and Dave McLaren earlier, I think you may not have fully understood what I have suggested.

 

On share transfer day plus one, FOH is proposing that the fundraising and ownership functions are managed as a single entity  going forward under the custodianship of the FOH Board and the active pledgers of the day.

 

I've suggested treating the two functions as separate entities. The fundraising continues as previously under the FOH Board and it's active pledgers of the day. It's only right that those who are actively contributing decide how their contributions are spent.

 

Where we differ is on the long term ownership of the club. I want it ring fenced for all Hearts fans and the community. The appropriate mechanism for that would be a trust arrangement. ALL pledgers, past, present or future, on admission, would become members of the trust for life. Admission could be set at an appropriate contribution figure, either by amount or time period of pledging. That is the inclusive solution.

 

In my opinion there is too much weight now being given to the future financial income of FOH (as a cash cow for the club). There is a danger of losing sight of the reason for FOH's existence, to save and ultimately own the club. Don't go down the route of removing the stakeholder rights that all pledgers have built from their contributions, should they choose to stop or can no longer afford to contribute at any point.

 

New FOH funds are a "nice to have" but not a "need to have". Collective ownership of the club is more important than future fundraising capability. 

Oh, I think others do get it. Their problem is they find it hard to argue against and so they deflect from your position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Oh, I think others do get it. Their problem is they find it hard to argue against and so they deflect from your position.

Actually, I did misunderstand it but, now that it has been further clarified, I actually like FF’s proposal and think it has a lot of merit. Clearly, there is a financial, and administrative, cost to such an arrangement but that may not be onerous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert

I would actually go a bit further than FF on membership of the trust. I have not and am not contributing to FoH to save Hearts (and secure its future from the Robinsons and Vlad's of this world) for me or just for FoH pledgers but for all Hearts fans. So ST holders, existing small shareholders, any remaining large ones like Ann as she will continue to be,  old 500 club members, people with a decent history of loyalty points or club shop purchases etc should IMO also be eligible for trust membership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Oh, I think others do get it. Their problem is they find it hard to argue against and so they deflect from your position.

 

Read my last couple of posts. I fully get it and have responded. 

 

I’ve no idea why FF namechecked me in his last post when I’ve fully responded to his point. 

 

Disagreement doesn’t equal deflection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I would actually go a bit further than FF on membership of the trust. I have not and am not contributing to FoH to save Hearts (and secure its future from the Robinsons and Vlad's of this world) for me or just for FoH pledgers but for all Hearts fans. So ST holders, existing small shareholders, any remaining large ones like Ann as she will continue to be,  old 500 club members, people with a decent history of loyalty points or club shop purchases etc should IMO also be eligible for trust membership.

 

I would also argue that the foundation and FoH pledgers pledge because we want the club to survive and prosper for ALL Hearts fans to enjoy; young, old and even those who haven’t even been born yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

I would also argue that the foundation and FoH pledgers pledge because we want the club to survive and prosper for ALL Hearts fans to enjoy; young, old and even those who haven’t even been born yet. 

 

Yes and I would say that having a say in the future running of the club is pretty much all that the FOH have to use as an incentive for people to continue to donate after ownership is confirmed, why would they want to give that up?

I get that some won't be able to continue to afford to contribute, hell I'll probably be one of them but that's life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I would actually go a bit further than FF on membership of the trust. I have not and am not contributing to FoH to save Hearts (and secure its future from the Robinsons and Vlad's of this world) for me or just for FoH pledgers but for all Hearts fans. So ST holders, existing small shareholders, any remaining large ones like Ann as she will continue to be,  old 500 club members, people with a decent history of loyalty points or club shop purchases etc should IMO also be eligible for trust membership.

I'd vote for that, if I was eligible to do so  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

Like Buffalo Bill and Dave McLaren earlier, I think you may not have fully understood what I have suggested.

 

On share transfer day plus one, FOH is proposing that the fundraising and ownership functions are managed as a single entity  going forward under the custodianship of the FOH Board and the active pledgers of the day.

 

I've suggested treating the two functions as separate entities. The fundraising continues as previously under the FOH Board and it's active pledgers of the day. It's only right that those who are actively contributing decide how their contributions are spent.

 

Where we differ is on the long term ownership of the club. I want it ring fenced for all Hearts fans and the community. The appropriate mechanism for that would be a trust arrangement. ALL pledgers, past, present or future, on admission, would become members of the trust for life. Admission could be set at an appropriate contribution figure, either by amount or time period of pledging. That is the inclusive solution.

 

In my opinion there is too much weight now being given to the future financial income of FOH (as a cash cow for the club). There is a danger of losing sight of the reason for FOH's existence, to save and ultimately own the club. Don't go down the route of removing the stakeholder rights that all pledgers have built from their contributions, should they choose to stop or can no longer afford to contribute at any point.

 

New FOH funds are a "nice to have" but not a "need to have". Collective ownership of the club is more important than future fundraising capability. 

 

No, I do understand it, I just don't think it's the most practical solution. It's not a matter of losing sight of the original aims of the foundation either. The original idea has evolved and that's a great thing. The FOH model has been dynamic and adaptable and continues to be so. I think it's encouraging to see that sort of flexibility - especially when it is so successful. The Trust doesn't sound like the worst thing in the world but it does sound unnecessary - just yet another committee. I don't understand where the new members would come from either tbh...what their motivation would be to join, or how it might appeal to younger supporters. It sounds like it would become stale very quickly and have limited appeal. 

 

In short, I don't think the answer is to double up and I can't see how any perceved benefits would be worth it, or justify it. I can't see thousands of people being interested in participating and engaging with two different governance related organisations as well as the club itself. Maybe we'll need to consider a different sort of model one day but now just doesn't feel like the right time at all. It sounds a lot like putting the brakes on and bringing progress and momentum to a halt.

 

As for the cash cow stuff - if people decide they feel used or they don't like what's happening to the money, they'll soon stop pledging. That side of things will take care of itself.

Also, by keeping the voting to active members you're not removing stakeholder rights - the right to vote has only ever existed through membership. I am a stakeholder in Hearts regardless of the status of my FOH relationship, but my right to vote exists only with that membership. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, davemclaren said:

Actually, I did misunderstand it but, now that it has been further clarified, I actually like FF’s proposal and think it has a lot of merit. Clearly, there is a financial, and administrative, cost to such an arrangement but that may not be onerous. 

Thanks Dave. All this canvassing is hard work. 7,999 to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

I would actually go a bit further than FF on membership of the trust. I have not and am not contributing to FoH to save Hearts (and secure its future from the Robinsons and Vlad's of this world) for me or just for FoH pledgers but for all Hearts fans. So ST holders, existing small shareholders, any remaining large ones like Ann as she will continue to be,  old 500 club members, people with a decent history of loyalty points or club shop purchases etc should IMO also be eligible for trust membership.

I think that would be stretching it a bit. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

I would actually go a bit further than FF on membership of the trust. I have not and am not contributing to FoH to save Hearts (and secure its future from the Robinsons and Vlad's of this world) for me or just for FoH pledgers but for all Hearts fans. So ST holders, existing small shareholders, any remaining large ones like Ann as she will continue to be,  old 500 club members, people with a decent history of loyalty points or club shop purchases etc should IMO also be eligible for trust membership.

 

They are currently all eligible for FOH membership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, redm said:

 

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.

 

All good points. I just think FF's approach makes most sense when the original aim was to safeguard the future of the cub in the long-term. As someone said 8000 is stronger than 1000.

 

Where I'm coming from is that traditionally fans don't have a voice in their club, which leads to situations like we had a few years ago and like other clubs have had. So here we are in a position where we can give (literally, even though they have more than earned it IMO) around 8000 fans a permanent voice.

 

I can't speak for other pledgers but all I wanted was a club to support, so it's not about a thank you or whatever. And everything that happens to Hearts in future, eg the new stand and community pitch you mention will only happen because of the FoH pledgers who saved the club, so I can't think of any group of supporters more deserving of the type of thing being discussed here. Other fans who give in future, including probably most of the original pledgers, will get satisfaction from other things the club does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
6 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Like Buffalo Bill and Dave McLaren earlier, I think you may not have fully understood what I have suggested.

 

On share transfer day plus one, FOH is proposing that the fundraising and ownership functions are managed as a single entity  going forward under the custodianship of the FOH Board and the active pledgers of the day.

 

I've suggested treating the two functions as separate entities. The fundraising continues as previously under the FOH Board and it's active pledgers of the day. It's only right that those who are actively contributing decide how their contributions are spent.

 

Where we differ is on the long term ownership of the club. I want it ring fenced for all Hearts fans and the community. The appropriate mechanism for that would be a trust arrangement. ALL pledgers, past, present or future, on admission, would become members of the trust for life. Admission could be set at an appropriate contribution figure, either by amount or time period of pledging. That is the inclusive solution.

 

In my opinion there is too much weight now being given to the future financial income of FOH (as a cash cow for the club). There is a danger of losing sight of the reason for FOH's existence, to save and ultimately own the club. Don't go down the route of removing the stakeholder rights that all pledgers have built from their contributions, should they choose to stop or can no longer afford to contribute at any point.

 

New FOH funds are a "nice to have" but not a "need to have". Collective ownership of the club is more important than future fundraising capability. 

Agreed. But as I understand it the governance proposals provide that neither FoH members nor the FoH Board will decide how their money is spent. The Club Board will, although we are told that they may pay some attention to FoH's views. Or on the other hand they may not.

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Agreed. But as I understand it the governance proposals provide that neither FoH members nor the FoH Board will decide how their money is spent. The Club Board will, although we are told that they may pay some attention to FoH's views. Or on the other hand they may not.

Given FoH will have a significant presence on the club board there will be a pretty tight coupling between the two organisations? Similarly, With FoH being the major shareholder what are the chances of significant divergance between the two boards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
12 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Given FoH will have a significant presence on the club board there will be a pretty tight coupling between the two organisations? Similarly, With FoH being the major shareholder what are the chances of significant divergance between the two boards?

You would hope and expect so and that divergence is unlikely. The "Working Together" document is I think supposed to help ensure this.

 

I was just grabbing the chance to correct FF,  not an opportunity that occurs very often!

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

You would hope and expect so and that divergence is unlikely. The "Working Together" document is I think supposed to help ensure this.

 

I was just grabbing the chance to correct FF,  not an opportunity that occurs very often!

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Agreed. But as I understand it the governance proposals provide that neither FoH members nor the FoH Board will decide how their money is spent. The Club Board will, although we are told that they may pay some attention to FoH's views. Or on the other hand they may not.

That's one of my other concerns with the proposals. I think it was wrong of FOH to relinquish control of how members' contributions are spent.

 

I attended an FOH meeting at which Ann Budge asked that she be given flexibility over how the funds are used. In my own cynical view I saw that as her requesting control.

 

I can see a situation where there could be a disagreement about spending priorities. The club may want to spend money on improving hospitality facilities or purchasing the community pitch or even Tynecastle School. However let's say there is a groundswell of opinion among FOH pledgers that they want a safe standing area as an early priority.  Who makes the final decision? I'm sure that Ann would argue that her priorities would be to the long term benefit of the club while the fans would see the long term benefit to the support.That would be a good debate to have.

 

What I don't want to see is FOH money going directly out the club to buy the new striker's flash car, the agent's fee for our next world cup star, or the gambling debts of a player who has pushed the boat out once too often.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
3 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

All good points. I just think FF's approach makes most sense when the original aim was to safeguard the future of the cub in the long-term. As someone said 8000 is stronger than 1000.

 

Where I'm coming from is that traditionally fans don't have a voice in their club, which leads to situations like we had a few years ago and like other clubs have had. So here we are in a position where we can give (literally, even though they have more than earned it IMO) around 8000 fans a permanent voice.

 

I can't speak for other pledgers but all I wanted was a club to support, so it's not about a thank you or whatever. And everything that happens to Hearts in future, eg the new stand and community pitch you mention will only happen because of the FoH pledgers who saved the club, so I can't think of any group of supporters more deserving of the type of thing being discussed here. Other fans who thegive in future, including probably most of the original pledgers, will get satisfaction from other things the club does.

I pledged, and still do, because it was the only practical way to save the club. Post transfer, my pledge becomes a pseudo charity donation under these proposals with a nod that "good people" will spend it wisely because they are qualified to do so.

 

Simply put, pre 1994, Chris Robinson would have been perceived as "good people" by fellow Hearts fans. As it transpired, he wasn't particularly good but in general he had the support of his board. Under these proposals, history could repeat itself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
5 hours ago, iainmac said:

 

They are currently all eligible for FOH membership.

True. Bur rather beside to point in discussing the merits of FF's ownership model. Or indeed of the FoH proposals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Oh, I think others do get it. Their problem is they find it hard to argue against and so they deflect from your position.

 

6 hours ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

Read my last couple of posts. I fully get it and have responded. 

 

I’ve no idea why FF namechecked me in his last post when I’ve fully responded to his point. 

 

Disagreement doesn’t equal deflection. 

 

I take it Geoff has decided not to respond to this? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I pledged, and still do, because it was the only practical way to save the club. Post transfer, my pledge becomes a pseudo charity donation under these proposals with a nod that "good people" will spend it wisely because they are qualified to do so.

 

Simply put, pre 1994, Chris Robinson would have been perceived as "good people" by fellow Hearts fans. As it transpired, he wasn't particularly good but in general he had the support of his board. Under these proposals, history could repeat itself.

 

 

I think it’s been well documented that the club will never again spend more than what it brings in. 

 

Edited by Buffalo Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

I take it Geoff has decided not to respond to this? 

I dont know about Geoff, but you clearly interpreted an earlier post of mine wrongly, then after I pointed it out you admitted that you had re-read it before amending your response. That's why you were name checked in a later post. 

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

True. Bur rather beside to point in discussing the merits of FF's ownership model. Or indeed of the FoH proposals.

 

I was actually responding to your point about someone buying something in the club shop being eligible for membership. 

 

They are eligible now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

I was actually responding to your point about someone buying something in the club shop being eligible for membership. 

 

They are eligible now. 

Eligible to join FOH at a minimum of £120 a year. I think FA was talking about joining a hypothetical  trust, in the unlikely event that the FOH Board would agree to such a structure.

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I dont know about Geoff, but you clearly interpreted an earlier post of mine wrongly, then after I pointed it out you admitted that you had re-read it before amending your response.

 

Actually it’s Geoff’s response I’m particularly interested in but when I told you I had read it and then re-read it, that wasn’t me telling you that I was wrong the first time. I re-read it to make the point that I had already properly read it! 

 

My initial post was a more general point to your general rhetoric but in my second response, I specifically addressed your point about your ‘trust’ idea, only for you to then go on and write in your next post that I had misunderstood your point! 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, davemclaren said:

Actually, I did misunderstand it but, now that it has been further clarified, I actually like FF’s proposal and think it has a lot of merit. Clearly, there is a financial, and administrative, cost to such an arrangement but that may not be onerous. 

 

I'm on board with FF's proposal too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Eligible to join FOH at a minimum of £120 a year. I think FA was talking about joining a hypothetical  trust, in the unlikely event that the FOH Board would agree to such a structure.

 

A hypothetical trust that we can all join for free, thereby depriving the club of a potential £1.3M revenue per annum? 

 

I'm out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
29 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

 

I take it Geoff has decided not to respond to this? 

I didn't realise you wanted a response. Fair enough, you disagree with FF. Apologies if you were offended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
28 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

I think it’s been well documented that the club will never again spend more than what it brings in. 

 

Now THAT'S deflection as this is not about overspending! Just as one small example, it was Chris Robinson's idea to change the badge. That went against popular opinion at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Now THAT'S deflection as this is not about overspending! Just as one small example, it was Chris Robinson's idea to change the badge. That went against popular opinion at the time.

 

Eh?!! I’m not deflecting at all. 

 

You made a point about perceptions over CPR circa 1994. By far his biggest fault was finances spiralling out of control (on a thread where finances are a central narrative). 

 

My response therefore was to make a CPR/FoH comparison point about finances. 

 

If you wanted to discuss the bloody badge, you should’ve said so! ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
Just now, Buffalo Bill said:

 

Eh?!! I’m not deflecting at all. 

 

You made a point about perceptions over CPR circa 1994. By far his biggest fault was finances spiralling out of control (on a thread where finances are a central narrative). 

 

My response therefore was to make a CPR/FoH comparison point about finances. 

 

If you wanted to discuss the bloody badge, you should’ve said so! ?

 

 

Now you are being obtuse. I'm perfectly aware that his biggest failing was financial. My point was that Robinson made lots of controversial decisions irrespective of the financial results. How do you avoid another Robinson under this setup exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I didn't realise you wanted a response. Fair enough, you disagree with FF. Apologies if you were offended.

 

Well I thought I deserved a response from you seeing as you accused me of deflecting FF’s point when I had clearly responded directly to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Now you are being obtuse. I'm perfectly aware that his biggest failing was financial. My point was that Robinson made lots of controversial decisions irrespective of the financial results. How do you avoid another Robinson under this setup exactly?

 

You should’ve listed them then and made it clear as to what sort of response you were looking for. 

 

But to try and expand a little, Hearts will in future have a CEO (or Ops manger - to that effect) who will run the club day to day. But things like badge changes or even stadium changes will be FoH matters that would go to members to vote on. I’m really not sure how you think future CPRs could spring up all over the place post-2020. This requires further explanation on your part. 

 

.

 

Edited by Buffalo Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

A hypothetical trust that we can all join for free, thereby depriving the club of a potential £1.3M revenue per annum? 

 

I'm out. 

As far as I have described how an FOH trust would function, it is anything but free. I have suggested  a threshold contribution or a period of pledging as being appropriate.

 

Please don't divert the discussion to one of depriving the club of revenue. If fans wish to contribute to the future operation of the club then they are free to do so. At no point have I suggested that fans should stop contributing.

 

If you an another who believes that the club's future revenue stream from FOH contributions is more important than ownership of the club by the wider Hearts community, then I think your priorities are wrong, and we will have to agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd vote for FF's proposal with FA's extension.

 

Ownership being determined by how many are pledging each month doesn't sound stable for the long term to me. When numbers start to get really low, change could be more easily influenced a with an influx of proxy pledgers in support of a particular allegiance. I can't remember what the current minimum membership duration is for voting rights, not had any luck finding it on the FoH's faqs. One member one vote is all it says right now.

 

I'm not implying anything malicious about the current FoH board, more just as FF said putting safe guard in to prevent the bad however far away that may be.

 

 

 

 

Edited by kila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

As far as I have described how an FOH trust would function, it is anything but free. I have suggested  a threshold contribution or a period of pledging as being appropriate.

 

Please don't divert the discussion to one of depriving the club of revenue. If fans wish to contribute to the future operation of the club then they are free to do so. At no point have I suggested that fans should stop contributing.

 

If you an another who believes that the club's future revenue stream from FOH contributions is more important than ownership of the club by the wider Hearts community, then I think your priorities are wrong, and we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Again, I was responding to FA's "hypothetical trust" that looked to me that he was suggesting was free to anyone who had made a purchase from the club shop. If it was free, why would people continue to pledge thus depriving us of a significant advantage over our rivals? 

 

What would you know about "my priorities" by the way? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

Again, I was responding to FA's "hypothetical trust" that looked to me that he was suggesting was free to anyone who had made a purchase from the club shop. If it was free, why would people continue to pledge thus depriving us of a significant advantage over our rivals? 

 

What would you know about "my priorities" by the way? 

 

Pledging for me was to 'save Hearts' by paying Ann Budge back. Once she has been paid back, the pledges are surplus. You talk of using the pledges to give us an advantage over our rivals but in what way would the money be invested?

 

Would a season ticket holder, throwing £300+ a year be deemed less worthy of how the club is run than someone paying £120 a year to the FoH?

 

Once Budge is paid back, it all becomes the same money to me. Whole membership model needs a re-think.

 

 

Edited by kila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kila said:

 

Pledging for me was to 'save Hearts' by paying Ann Budge back. Once she has been paid back, the pledges are surplus. You talk of using the pledges to give us an advantage over our rivals but in what way would the money be invested?

 

Would a season ticket holder, throwing £300+ a year be deemed less worthy of how the club is run than someone paying £120 to the FoH?

 

Once Budge is paid back, it all becomes the same money to me. Whole membership model needs a re-think.

 

That's your view, great. 

 

Others may think differently. 

 

This started out as a discussion about a proposed Governance Model. It now appears that some want it to be a "let's rip it up and start again" exercise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, iainmac said:

What would you know about "my priorities" by the way? 

 

If you read the first word of the paragraph regarding your priorities  you will see that it started with "If".

 

Sadly, what started as a reasoned debate is becoming too personal for my liking.

 

I'm out  ............. well at least until there is a governance point to be discussed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Footballfirst said:

 

If you read the first word of the paragraph regarding your priorities  you will see that it started with "If".

 

Sadly, what started as a reasoned debate is becoming too personal for my liking.

 

I'm out  ............. well at least until there is a governance point to be discussed. 

 

So, IF anyone doesn't agree with you, their priorities are all wrong? Very good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

That's your view, great. 

 

Others may think differently. 

 

This started out as a discussion about a proposed Governance Model. It now appears that some want it to be a "let's rip it up and start again" exercise. 

 

Voting on the clubs future, big decisions, should be inclusive. I'd go as far as saying active season ticket holders should be given FoH membership after 2020. FoH membership could be done through the conventional way too, for those who want to have a say but can't go to games.

 

The current FoH model in the long term is open to being influenced by the few if those paying £300+ a year for their season ticket are expected to keep paying another £120 a year on top of that just to have a say in things.

 

I wonder how many FoH members would keep paying indefinitely £120 year on top of their season ticket once Budge is paid back in 2020. Not a very inclusive model long term.

 

 

Edited by kila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
57 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

A hypothetical trust that we can all join for free, thereby depriving the club of a potential £1.3M revenue per annum? 

 

I'm out. 

Is there any evidence for this certain or even likely deprivation?. Why do so many FoH members pay two or more times the minimum? Why will  members  go on paying as thky wlll after the initial objective has been achieved when the benefits of the extra cashflow to the club will flow to all Hearts fans whether FoH members or not? Almost everyone has said they don't and won't pledge just to get a vote so why is FoH fixated with the idea that people will desert FoH because others who have done their bit in saving the club retain membership and a vote?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Is there any evidence for this certain or even likely deprivation?. Why do so many FoH members pay two or more times the minimum? Why will  members  go on paying as thky wlll after the initial objective has been achieved when the benefits of the extra cashflow to the club will flow to all Hearts fans whether FoH members or not? Almost everyone has said they don't and won't pledge just to get a vote so why is FoH fixated with the idea that people will desert FoH because others who have done their bit in saving the club retain membership and a vote?

 

 

 

Why would you take the chance? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, kila said:

 

Pledging for me was to 'save Hearts' by paying Ann Budge back. Once she has been paid back, the pledges are surplus. You talk of using the pledges to give us an advantage over our rivals but in what way would the money be invested?

 

Would a season ticket holder, throwing £300+ a year be deemed less worthy of how the club is run than someone paying £120 a year to the FoH?

 

Once Budge is paid back, it all becomes the same money to me. Whole membership model needs a re-think.

 

 

 

The current FoH model isn’t for everyone, and indeed it has evolved from simply saving the club back in 2013/14. 

 

Once Ann is paid back, FoH funds (at current levels) would contribute around £1.4M directly towards the club every year.

 

I agree with the idea that these funds should go to specific causes, such as tangible improvements to infrastructure and the running of the Academy. That would then allow for more of the tradition income streams to go towards the product we see on the park. 

 

£1.4Million. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Is there any evidence for this certain or even likely deprivation?. Why do so many FoH members pay two or more times the minimum? Why will  members  go on paying as thky wlll after the initial objective has been achieved when the benefits of the extra cashflow to the club will flow to all Hearts fans whether FoH members or not? Almost everyone has said they don't and won't pledge just to get a vote so why is FoH fixated with the idea that people will desert FoH because others who have done their bit in saving the club retain membership and a vote?

 

 

 

I must have missed that bit, was that the reason they gave?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FoH could divvy out shares based on contributions by individual donators. Every one pound you have donated over the whole period gives you one share, something like that. 

 

As others have said it could become a membership thing where you pay a set amount and each contributor owns as much as the next as long as you remain a member. Folk could still keep contributions above and beyond the flat fee if they wanted, or donate extra on a sporadic basis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
1 hour ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

You should’ve listed them then and made it clear as to what sort of response you were looking for. 

 

But to try and expand a little, Hearts will in future have a CEO (or Ops manger - to that effect) who will run the club day to day. But things like badge changes or even stadium changes will be FoH matters that would go to members to vote on. I’m really not sure how you think future CPRs could spring up all over the place post-2020. This requires further explanation on your part. 

 

.

 

Will they? That's not my interpretation of the structure. While FoH members get to appoint the FoH board, the people on that board are vetted first to be "suitable". Therefore, all it needs is for the football club board to convince those individuals of their decision, irrespective of what members voice.

 

EDIT: As to how they "spring up", I'm pointing out that control of FoH ends up being vested in a number of individuals. No doubt the vast majority, like your cousin, have the best interests of the club at heart. However, that doesn't necessarily mean they are the best people for the job nor will they take the most appropriate decisions when called upon.

Edited by Geoff Kilpatrick
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...