FOH Governance Proposal

[Francis Albert]

22 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. 

Perhaps because almost every suggestion made in the consultation process has been dismissed, often with little by way of explanation or rationale (eg the  proposed retention of a some cap on FoH's use of funds for its own purposes, as discussed earlier)'

FoH has not really shown any inclination to consider alternative models since they first latched on to the "Barcelona" membership" which they first talked about in the early days.

Except that their model does not accept the principle of a threshold after which life membership is attained (admittedly 40 years as in the case of Barcelona would not some of us much good, but the principle is there) Nor does paying for FoH membership come with other benefits such as priority in a waiting list for STs, as in the case of Barcelona.

[SUTOL]

11 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

Why would you take the chance? 

 

Why take the chance by just allowing current contributors allowing a sell-out to the highest bidder in the future ? 

(i.e in a worst case scenario of a few hundred 'pledgers' in 10 years time, who sell to another Vlad to make themselves thousands of pounds)

[iainmac]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Perhaps because almost every suggestion made in the consultation process has been dismissed, often with little by way of explanation or rationale (eg the  proposed retention of a some cap on FoH's use of funds for its own purposes, as discussed earlier)'

FoH has not really shown any inclination to consider alternative models since they first latched on to the "Barcelona" membership" which they first talked about in the early days.

Except that their model does not accept the principle of a threshold after which life membership is attained (admittedly 40 years as in the case of Barcelona would not some of us much good, but the principle is there) Nor does paying for FoH membership come with other benefits such as priority in a waiting list for STs, as in the case of Barcelona.

 

That was Alex Mackie's personal vision. I've not seen anything from FOH to suggest that we're going down that route -  have you? 

[Buffalo Bill]

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

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.

 

Yes. 

 

To reiterate, big matters such as a stadium move, badge change decisions would revert back to FoH members to decide (a stadium move would require a 90% majority. 

 

So to use your Chris Robinson scenario, the person who will run the day to day affairs of the football club in say 2026, couldn’t overspend the allotted budget, couldn’t change the badge and couldn’t sell the stadium. Sure, he or she will have some low-level powers, but certainly not Chris Robinson powers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SUTOL]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

Yes. 

 

To reiterate, big matters such as a stadium move, badge change decisions would revert back to FoH members to decide (a stadium move would require a 90% majority. 

 

So to use your Chris Robinson scenario, the person who will run the day to day affairs of the football club in say 2026, couldn’t overspend the allotted budget, couldn’t change the badge and couldn’t sell the stadium. Sure, he or she will have some low-level powers, but certainly not Chris Robinson powers. 

 

COuldn't, unless the members voted (what majority of members, or is it majority of voters?) and what if there's only a few hundred who could gain thousands from a sale for example? 

[redm]

1 hour 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.

 

I’m still not sure who this Trust is pitched at. Existing FOH members, right.... but who else? Where does the fresh blood come from? 

[By the light]

Just skimmed the last page of this thread. My contribution is one that I’ll keep making and I’m not one for getting involved in the politics. No problem with people who do and these things wouldn’t happen without people being willing to step up and make suggestions and think about these things.

 

My initial reaction to what I’ve read is that I agree with FF suggestion. I’d caveat it though to say it lapses after no contribution through season ticket, FOH contribution etc for a period of say 3 or 5 years.

 

For people who want to be acknowledged for being a founding contributor to FoH I’m sure they (FoH) can come up with a way of recognising the fans who originally stepped up either through a named brick on the plaza or a 500 club style board or even a commemorative gift of some sort. 

[Buffalo Bill]

14 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Perhaps because almost every suggestion made in the consultation process has been dismissed, often with little by way of explanation or rationale (eg the  proposed retention of a some cap on FoH's use of funds for its own purposes, as discussed earlier)'

FoH has not really shown any inclination to consider alternative models since they first latched on to the "Barcelona" membership" which they first talked about in the early days.

Except that their model does not accept the principle of a threshold after which life membership is attained (admittedly 40 years as in the case of Barcelona would not some of us much good, but the principle is there) Nor does paying for FoH membership come with other benefits such as priority in a waiting list for STs, as in the case of Barcelona.

 

How do you know that other models suggested to FoH weren’t considered? 

 

Just because a suggestion is rejected doesn’t mean to say it wasn’t considered. 

[Buffalo Bill]

4 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

COuldn't, unless the members voted (what majority of members, or is it majority of voters?) and what if there's only a few hundred who could gain thousands from a sale for example? 

 

As I explained in a previous post, in the highly unlikely scenario of membership dropping to just a few hundred, I would hope that there would be a constitutional re-think in advance of such a event. That’s just my guess. 

 

But the 90% rule is a barrier to protect against what you describe. 

[graygo]

13 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

COuldn't, unless the members voted (what majority of members, or is it majority of voters?) and what if there's only a few hundred who could gain thousands from a sale for example? 

 

If there was only a few hundred active members and 90% of them agreed to sell the club to make a few quid then they would be as well shutting the doors tbf.

Edited September 18, 2018 by graygo

[graygo]

11 minutes ago, By the light said:

Just skimmed the last page of this thread. My contribution is one that I’ll keep making and I’m not one for getting involved in the politics. No problem with people who do and these things wouldn’t happen without people being willing to step up and make suggestions and think about these things.

 

My initial reaction to what I’ve read is that I agree with FF suggestion. I’d caveat it though to say it lapses after no contribution through season ticket, FOH contribution etc for a period of say 3 or 5 years.

 

For people who want to be acknowledged for being a founding contributor to FoH I’m sure they (FoH) can come up with a way of recognising the fans who originally stepped up either through a named brick on the plaza or a 500 club style board or even a commemorative gift of some sort. 

 

That already happens, or at least similar.

[Francis Albert]

31 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

That was Alex Mackie's personal vision. I've not seen anything from FOH to suggest that we're going down that route -  have you? 

I have seen the FoH governance proposals for a membership scheme restricted to currently paying members.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

13 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

Yes. 

 

To reiterate, big matters such as a stadium move, badge change decisions would revert back to FoH members to decide (a stadium move would require a 90% majority. 

 

So to use your Chris Robinson scenario, the person who will run the day to day affairs of the football club in say 2026, couldn’t overspend the allotted budget, couldn’t change the badge and couldn’t sell the stadium. Sure, he or she will have some low-level powers, but certainly not Chris Robinson powers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cool. Meantime, if (and this is the issue - we have to deal in hypotheticals for Governance proposals as it sets the latitude for what the board can or can't do) the board decided to invest in a hotel or other leisure facilities with FoH money, they would be able to do so - in theory - with only the need of the FoH board's approval. Yes, I know it is unlikely but the key point is that because the FoH board is almost self-selecting, the approval process for plans is not as wide ranging as it should be.

 

To use an analogy, it is like modern day charities with CEOs, marketing etc. It is all very far flung from the days of someone rattling a tin and volunteers. I get why it is like that but essentially turning everything over to trust that individuals are doing the right thing with something we have bought and then effectively have no ownership rights over, sits uncomfortably with me. I will vote against them but as I say, it will make no difference.

[Francis Albert]

6 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

If there was only a few hundred active members and 90% of them agreed to sell the club to make a few quid then they would be as well shutting the doors tbf.

So in this scenario the thousands of Hearts fans who aren't FoH members at the time this happens simply don't count?

I think you make the point that is being made about the risks of a declining membership very well.

[SUTOL]

13 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

As I explained in a previous post, in the highly unlikely scenario of membership dropping to just a few hundred, I would hope that there would be a constitutional re-think in advance of such a event. That’s just my guess. 

 

But the 90% rule is a barrier to protect against what you describe. 

 

11 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

If there was only a few hundred active members and 90% of them agreed to sell the club to make a few quid then they would be as well shutting the doors tbf.

 

 

Would it not maybe be a good idea to consider such or similar worst case scenarios and put plans together to mitigate against that happening, rather than hoping or guessing or just giving up? 

[iainmac]

8 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I have seen the FoH governance proposals for a membership scheme restricted to currently paying members.

 

That's not the Barcelona model. 

[Buffalo Bill]

4 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

 

 

Would it not maybe be a good idea to consider such or similar worst case scenarios and put plans together to mitigate against that happening, rather than hoping or guessing or just giving up? 

 

 

Who’s to say the foundation hasn’t thought about it? Just because I’m taking a stab at answering your question doesn’t mean to say there isn’t a definitive answer. 

[graygo]

5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

So in this scenario the thousands of Hearts fans who aren't FoH members at the time this happens simply don't count?

I think you make the point that is being made about the risks of a declining membership very well.

 

No they don't. If they want to count then they need to subscribe.

The next £10 monthly donation is more important to FoH than the last one and rightly so.

Someone above mentioned constitutional change if we ever got that low in numbers and he's spot on.

This club will hopefully see us all off this mortal coil and that is why the next generation of active members is so important, the club and FoH know this and as it says in their proposal - 

 

We are very mindful of the need to maintain membership numbers, so that the Foundation is a genuinely representative body and our shareholding in the Club is not under the control of a relatively small number of individuals. Conferring enduring voting right would mitigate that risk, but in a potentially unsatisfactory way. The bloc of former pledgers could, over time, become quite unrepresentative and detached from the Club, and if they never took the trouble to vote, the protection afforded by them against an over concentration of decision-making is illusory. The bloc would also decline in size over time as members died, and its effectiveness in maintaining membership numbers would thus gradually diminish. The real protections against a fall-off in membership have to be assiduous work by the board of the Foundation to attract and retain members, and a shared belief among a substantial section of supporters that continuing to contribute is the right way to ensure that our club never faces an extinction event again.

[SUTOL]

1 minute ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

 

Who’s to say the foundation hasn’t thought about it? Just because I’m taking a stab at answering your question doesn’t mean to say there isn’t a definitive answer. 

 

I guessed from other posters putting the suggestion and saying they had little or no response to the question/suggestion that it wasn't something had communicated that they had discussed.

But maybe they have, but just aren't telling anyone that they have, yet. 

 

Thanks for the replies, I know you aren't in a position to give definitive answers and I'm not expecting one from you anyway. 

 

 

I believe it's something worth discussion and consideration of, even extremely unlikely worst case scenarios.

And there are probably several other 'things' that could be an issue and are worth discussion. 

 

 

 

[graygo]

3 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

I guessed from other posters putting the suggestion and saying they had little or no response to the question/suggestion that it wasn't something had communicated that they had discussed.

But maybe they have, but just aren't telling anyone that they have, yet. 

 

Thanks for the replies, I know you aren't in a position to give definitive answers and I'm not expecting one from you anyway. 

 

 

I believe it's something worth discussion and consideration of, even extremely unlikely worst case scenarios.

And there are probably several other 'things' that could be an issue and are worth discussion. 

 

 

 

 

They better get a shift on then as tomorrow is the deadline for feedback.

[Smack]

5 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

No they don't. If they want to count then they need to subscribe.

The next £10 monthly donation is more important to FoH than the last one and rightly so.

Someone above mentioned constitutional change if we ever got that low in numbers and he's spot on.

This club will hopefully see us all off this mortal coil and that is why the next generation of active members is so important, the club and FoH know this and as it says in their proposal - 

 

We are very mindful of the need to maintain membership numbers, so that the Foundation is a genuinely representative body and our shareholding in the Club is not under the control of a relatively small number of individuals. Conferring enduring voting right would mitigate that risk, but in a potentially unsatisfactory way. The bloc of former pledgers could, over time, become quite unrepresentative and detached from the Club, and if they never took the trouble to vote, the protection afforded by them against an over concentration of decision-making is illusory. The bloc would also decline in size over time as members died, and its effectiveness in maintaining membership numbers would thus gradually diminish. The real protections against a fall-off in membership have to be assiduous work by the board of the Foundation to attract and retain members, and a shared belief among a substantial section of supporters that continuing to contribute is the right way to ensure that our club never faces an extinction event again.

One pound one vote could solve that. When someone dies the vote is not passed on or inherited. 

[Buffalo Bill]

31 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Cool. Meantime, if (and this is the issue - we have to deal in hypotheticals for Governance proposals as it sets the latitude for what the board can or can't do) the board decided to invest in a hotel or other leisure facilities with FoH money, they would be able to do so - in theory - with only the need of the FoH board's approval. Yes, I know it is unlikely but the key point is that because the FoH board is almost self-selecting, the approval process for plans is not as wide ranging as it should be.

 

To use an analogy, it is like modern day charities with CEOs, marketing etc. It is all very far flung from the days of someone rattling a tin and volunteers. I get why it is like that but essentially turning everything over to trust that individuals are doing the right thing with something we have bought and then effectively have no ownership rights over, sits uncomfortably with me. I will vote against them but as I say, it will make no difference.

 

Anyone can stand for election, but the thoroughness of vetting is there for a very good reason: to safeguard the foundation and thus, the club. But the election is a democratic process. 

 

There has to come a point where we need to elect people and trust them to get on with their job. If a future FoH board decide to invest in a Hearts Hotel, then we have to accept that they were elected to be able to make such a decision. In a highly hypothetical scenario, if the board wanted to sell the shares back to Vladimir Romanov, then the decision goes to the members, 90% of whom have to agree. 

 

Hearts is a institution that has plenty of people scrutinising the board’s every move, so no stone should remain unturned. 

 

.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Buffalo Bill

[Jambo-Fox]

This thread is ‘heavy’ reading!

 

Who are the different parties?

Is there a vote?

Who gets a vote?

What are we voting on?

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I have seen the FoH governance proposals for a membership scheme restricted to currently paying members.

 

Are these published somewhere? I'm interested in how FoH plan to attract new pledgers on an ongoing basis aside from offering voting rights. Without the sense of urgency that drove contributions, plus the very fast tangible improvement on (at least in the first season) and off the pitch with the stand, etc, that kept people pledging, it's going to be a big ask to get £x a month, especially if that's not translated into success on the park quite quickly, or major developments off it. 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Guest

[Jambo-Fox]

35 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I have seen the FoH governance proposals for a membership scheme restricted to currently paying members.

Let’s hope that’s correct - got to be in it to be part of it! I don’t think non members of any organisation should have a vote in it!

[Jambo-Fox]

PS I think for any organisation a qualifying period should be served! Perhaps eg 6 months before getting a vote?!

 

 

[graygo]

6 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

PS I think for any organisation a qualifying period should be served! Perhaps eg 6 months before getting a vote?!

 

 

 

Correct, stops those pesky vermin from signing up a week before to vote to sell us to some mad Russian.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

18 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

Anyone can stand for election, but the thoroughness of vetting is there for a very good reason: to safeguard the foundation and thus, the club. But the election is a democratic process. 

 

There has to come a point where we need to elect people and trust them to get on with their job. If a future FoH board decide to invest in a Hearts Hotel, then we have to accept that they were elected to be able to make such a decision. In a highly hypothetical scenario, if the board wanted to sell the shares back to Vladimir Romanov, then the decision goes to the members, 90% of whom have to agree. 

 

Hearts is a institution that has plenty of people scrutinising the board’s every move, so no stone should remain unturned. 

 

.

I agree that trust does come into play, which is why setting the rules now is so important. The vetting, IMO, is a flaw because it closes off control to a select few. I'd rather have trust in documentation and processes at outset as opposed to people.

[stuart500]

22 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

PS I think for any organisation a qualifying period should be served! Perhaps eg 6 months before getting a vote?!

 

 

I agree but would make it 12 months minimum before getting a vote.

Allowing anyone to have a say in the whole future of the club after chucking in their first tenner seems extremely dangerous to me.

What would prevent a mischievous group of fans of another club signing up in significant number to do serious damage to Hearts through FoH. And at the cost of maybe only two or three contributions. 

However unlikely it's a risk that must not exist.

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by stuart500

[Francis Albert]

6 hours ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Let’s hope that’s correct - got to be in it to be part of it! I don’t think non members of any organisation should have a vote in it!

The issue is how membership is defined.

[Francis Albert]

7 hours ago, iainmac said:

 

That's not the Barcelona model. 

The club is owned by an active paying membership, which I see as the essence of the Barcelona model.

What is the FoH model equivalent elsewhere or is it unique to FoH?

6 hours ago, Jambo-Fox said:

PS I think for any organisation a qualifying period should be served! Perhaps eg 6 months before getting a vote?!

 

 

The solution to the risks of an over-restricted membership is I think simpler and safer than making membership more restrictive

 

[Francis Albert]

7 hours ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

Anyone can stand for election, but the thoroughness of vetting is there for a very good reason: to safeguard the foundation and thus, the club. But the election is a democratic process. 

 

There has to come a point where we need to elect people and trust them to get on with their job. If a future FoH board decide to invest in a Hearts Hotel, then we have to accept that they were elected to be able to make such a decision. In a highly hypothetical scenario, if the board wanted to sell the shares back to Vladimir Romanov, then the decision goes to the members, 90% of whom have to agree. 

 

Hearts is a institution that has plenty of people scrutinising the board’s every move, so no stone should remain unturned. 

 

.

That's the nub of it, not how the "bonus funds"  generated by FoH are spent. FoH will be the owners and as you have said FoH members (a minority of Hearts fans, potentially in future a small minority) may under these proposals sell the club to a Romanov or CPR (or merge it with Hibs) and the majority of Hearts fans, including "lapsed" FoH members who actually saved the club and secured membership and  those contributing much larger sums to Hearts annually (FoH revenue is remember the cherry on the cake not the cake) will have no say.

Not my vision of "fan ownership" nor I suspect that of many.

[Buffalo Bill]

7 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I agree that trust does come into play, which is why setting the rules now is so important. The vetting, IMO, is a flaw because it closes off control to a select few. I'd rather have trust in documentation and processes at outset as opposed to people.

 

Surely part of the role of the foundation board is to safeguard the foundation? What if some nut job tried to get on board? 

 

There indeed should be stringent constitutional measures put in place to make sure that everything is above board. 

 

But just to recap two points: 

 

*The club would never again spend more than it brings in. 

 

*Major decisions (such as a stadium move) would be given to FoH members to vote on requiring a super majority. 

 

 

 

 

[Buffalo Bill]

7 hours ago, stuart500 said:

I agree but would make it 12 months minimum before getting a vote.

Allowing anyone to have a say in the whole future of the club after chucking in their first tenner seems extremely dangerous to me.

What would prevent a mischievous group of fans of another club signing up in significant number to do serious damage to Hearts through FoH. And at the cost of maybe only two or three contributions. 

However unlikely it's a risk that must not exist.

 

 

I agree. 

[Francis Albert]

7 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Are these published somewhere? I'm interested in how FoH plan to attract new pledgers on an ongoing basis aside from offering voting rights. Without the sense of urgency that drove contributions, plus the very fast tangible improvement on (at least in the first season) and off the pitch with the stand, etc, that kept people pledging, it's going to be a big ask to get £x a month, especially if that's not translated into success on the park quite quickly, or major developments off it. 

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

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

 

[Buffalo Bill]

4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

That's the nub of it, not how the "bonus funds"  generated by FoH are spent. FoH will be the owners and as you have said FoH members (a minority of Hearts fans, potentially in future a small minority) may under these proposals sell the club to a Romanov or CPR (or merge it with Hibs) and the majority of Hearts fans, including "lapsed" FoH members who actually saved the club and secured membership and  those contributing much larger sums to Hearts annually (FoH revenue is remember the cherry on the cake not the cake) will have no say.

Not my vision of "fan ownership" nor I suspect that of many.

 

I agree that such a particular doomsday scenario would be very bad. But it’s also worth recognising that it’s an extreme, highly unlikely, worst-case-scenario. 

 

First of all, I don’t think our support will ever let things get to that stage. I just don’t believe that would happen. 

 

But why is this door kept slightly ajar and not bolted shut? Maybe there could be a positive reason for that, rather than a negative, especially if Hearts fans were to somehow, in your scenario, to lose interest with the foundation and the concept of fan ownership. 

 

If fan ownership didn’t work, then there should be an opportunity for an alternative. 

 

 

 

 

[Footballfirst]

9 hours ago, redm said:

 

I’m still not sure who this Trust is pitched at. Existing FOH members, right.... but who else? Where does the fresh blood come from? 

The fresh blood would come from the same source as the fresh blood that joins FOH every year.

 

FOH has had 10,000 unique members in its lifetime so, in keeping active membership numbers stable at around 8,000, it must have recruited 2,000 new members to replace the 2,000 it has lost over the period.

 

That is a fantastic achievement and FOH should be lauded for that.

 

There is no reason for recruitment of new pledgers to stop regardless of the final structure that is implemented. 

 

FA has also suggested opening up membership of a shareowning Trust to other groups such as ST holders of long standing. I had actually suggested that membership should be opened up in my initial feedback on the proposals, even to the extent of rebranding the FOH fundraising function as a club membership scheme, to attract the widest possible particiption from all Hearts fans, individuals and local businesses.

 

There should  be no shortage of new blood joining a trust.

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Footballfirst

[Saint Jambo]

37 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

But just to recap two points: 

 

*The club would never again spend more than it brings in.

 

 

 

What is this statement based on? I don't recall seeing anything in the governance proposals that would guarantee this. I don't even remember their being an explicit safeguard against this (e.g. a 90% vote of FoH membership to take on debt). If it is based on the statements of the current club board/ FoH board then stating it as a fact in a conversation of governance is a bit misleading.

[Francis Albert]

14 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

What is this statement based on? I don't recall seeing anything in the governance proposals that would guarantee this. I don't even remember their being an explicit safeguard against this (e.g. a 90% vote of FoH membership to take on debt). If it is based on the statements of the current club board/ FoH board then stating it as a fact in a conversation of governance is a bit misleading.

I was just trying to find anything in the Governance proposals that covers this and failed to find it. Indeed the hands off approach adopted towards the club board seems to make it difficult for FoH to guarantee this. But I may be missing something.

I am not sure in any event that it even makes sense - over what period does this constraint apply? A month, a year, 5 years? For a business to have a strict policy of never spending a penny more than it brings in seems unduly restrictive. What if there is an investment opportunity that offers say a 20% rate of return and you can borrow over 5 years at 5%? Most efficient business operate with an element of debt. It is not debt that is the problem, it is unsustainable or inefficient debt.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

52 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

Surely part of the role of the foundation board is to safeguard the foundation? What if some nut job tried to get on board? 

 

There indeed should be stringent constitutional measures put in place to make sure that everything is above board. 

 

But just to recap two points: 

 

*The club would never again spend more than it brings in. 

 

*Major decisions (such as a stadium move) would be given to FoH members to vote on requiring a super majority. 

 

 

 

 

Let's take that to its logical conclusion. Was Vladimir Romanov a "nutjob" in 2004?

[Footballfirst]

42 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

I agree that such a particular doomsday scenario would be very bad. But it’s also worth recognising that it’s an extreme, highly unlikely, worst-case-scenario. 

 

First of all, I don’t think our support will ever let things get to that stage. I just don’t believe that would happen. 

 

But why is this door kept slightly ajar and not bolted shut? Maybe there could be a positive reason for that, rather than a negative, especially if Hearts fans were to somehow, in your scenario, to lose interest with the foundation and the concept of fan ownership. 

 

If fan ownership didn’t work, then there should be an opportunity for an alternative. 

The risk of something untoward happening or some individual becoming involved, who perhaps doesn't  share the same sort of ethics as you or I, is probably higher than you think.

 

Football has been littered questionable ownership regimes and motives over the years, including Hearts. We have even seen the Big Hearts charity being embezzled and more recently the club was subjected to a fraud. Bad things can and do happen in the absence of good governance, processes and procedures.

 

By all means keep a fire exit door available (ajar) in the event of a complete breakdown of fan ownership, or a mega takeover bid, but I'd strongly recommend making provisions for such an eventuality now, rather than making it up on the hoof with vested interests coming into play at the time of the event e.g. what happens to the shareholding and who benefits?

Edited September 19, 2018 by Footballfirst

[Francis Albert]

Incidentally has anyone received or seen a reminder, since the latest document was published 7 weeks ago, that today is the deadline for comments?

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

 

 

*Major decisions (such as a stadium move) would be given to FoH members to vote on requiring a super majority. 

 

 

 

 

In other words the owners can decide to do what CPR and his board decided to do without reference to the wider fan base, which would be reduced to placards, boycotts and protests ... or a new "Save our Hearts" movement perhaps?.

[Francis Albert]

9 hours ago, Buffalo Bill said:

 

How do you know that other models suggested to FoH weren’t considered? 

 

Just because a suggestion is rejected doesn’t mean to say it wasn’t considered. 

If they were considered (and I have no reason to believe they weren't) IMO a consultation should have started with a summary of the ownership models considered, and an outline of the pros and cons of each.

[scott herbertson]

22 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

In other words the owners can decide to do what CPR and his board decided to do without reference to the wider fan base, which would be reduced to placards, boycotts and protests ... or a new "Save our Hearts" movement perhaps?.

 

It seems to read the exact opposite to me - unless you think FOH members are not representative of the fan base which seems bizarre to me?

[Francis Albert]

7 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

It seems to read the exact opposite to me - unless you think FOH members are not representative of the fan base which seems bizarre to me?

They probably are at present although a minority. The point is that over the next 20 years or more they may not be representative  given the way membership and hence ownership is defined.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Francis Albert

[sandylejambo]

I have been contributing from the start and I am uncomfortable with the fact that even when we have paid for the club, me and my co pledgers will have no say in how the club we own will be run, surely someone with more savvy than me on the FOH could come up with a system that lets us have a say, if they can't, maybe they shouldn't be there. From the outside it seems I have as much say as I did when Romanov was in charge, before me and my fellow Jambo's bought the club.

[Buffalo Bill]

1 hour ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

What is this statement based on? I don't recall seeing anything in the governance proposals that would guarantee this. I don't even remember their being an explicit safeguard against this (e.g. a 90% vote of FoH membership to take on debt). If it is based on the statements of the current club board/ FoH board then stating it as a fact in a conversation of governance is a bit misleading.

 

It’s based on what I heard or read FoH directors say many times and not spending more than what you bring in is a basic principle. 

 

 

[Buffalo Bill]

1 hour ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Let's take that to its logical conclusion. Was Vladimir Romanov a "nutjob" in 2004?

 

I think most of us knew that he was a bit of a loose cannon; an eccentric. But we didn’t know in 2004 just how erratic he would be (sacking Burley ‘cos he was jealous, Rima and her golden stick etc). 

 

But again, like your CPR point, we’re comparing apples with oranges because no future director would have Romanov’s power. 

[Buffalo Bill]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

The risk of something untoward happening or some individual becoming involved, who perhaps doesn't  share the same sort of ethics as you or I, is probably higher than you think.

 

Football has been littered questionable ownership regimes and motives over the years, including Hearts. We have even seen the Big Hearts charity being embezzled and more recently the club was subjected to a fraud. Bad things can and do happen in the absence of good governance, processes and procedures.

 

By all means keep a fire exit door available (ajar) in the event of a complete breakdown of fan ownership, or a mega takeover bid, but I'd strongly recommend making provisions for such an eventuality now, rather than making it up on the hoof with vested interests coming into play at the time of the event e.g. what happens to the shareholding and who benefits?

 

All fair pints, FF but by the same rule of thumb, if you award the possibility of corruption and incompetence towards FoH, then what’s to stop the same scenario happening to your ‘House of Lords’ idea?