AGM Week

[redm]

6 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

Need more details and humble apologies if I misread but we are “investing” the potential salaries of one or two first team players into the ladies football team?

 

Why?

 

Should be set up as a separate entity and become self funding, based on gate receipts and sponsorship etc. 

 

 

Oh, and she needs to give up on hammering Section N. It will be there long after Ann has moved on. 

 

I’d guess because much like men’s football a long long long time ago, it needs a bit of money spent on it before it can start making its own money. Development of their game will take time too. The women’s game is still light years behind men’s in that regard, so the financial support is necessary. 

 

The really amazing thing about this is that until now they’ve somehow managed to fund themselves. It’s been a struggle and I’m very pleased for them. This is great news. 

[Nookie Bear]

4 minutes ago, XB52 said:

That's like asking why are we not still living in mud huts. The world has moved on and women's football is a growing concern. 

 

Not really.

 

Womens football needs to grow organically as a separate entity. The success of the women’s team is of zero relevance to the actual profile of HMFC. 

[XB52]

Just now, Nookie Bear said:

 

Not really.

 

Womens football needs to grow organically as a separate entity. The success of the women’s team is of zero relevance to the actual profile of HMFC. 

Of course it is relevant. 

[Sexton Hardcastle]

Imagine threatening to pull your funding for ‘your’ club because you know fine well you’re a sectarian bigot who can’t be trusted to behave for 90 mins at a game of football.

 

Just ****ing behave. It’s really not that hard.

[Nookie Bear]

1 minute ago, redm said:

 

I’d guess because much like men’s football a long long long time ago, it needs a bit of money spent on it before it can start making its own money. Development of their game will take time too. The women’s game is still light years behind men’s in that regard, so the financial support is necessary. 

 

The really amazing thing about this is that until now they’ve somehow managed to fund themselves. It’s been a struggle and I’m very pleased for them. This is great news. 

 

And it will continue to grow on its own terms. But taking funds away from the main business for this is poor imo

 

[Boab]

1 minute ago, redm said:

 

Sure, but I’m not clear on why we’d expect people to snap up extra tickets in the Roseburn when they aren’t rushing to get the ones elsewhere in the ground. I’m not trying to be difficult, it’s just that I can clearly see the disadvantages to reducing their allocation but the advantages are much less tangible. What are the actual benefits other than having to look at slightly fewer of their gurning faces?

 

Sorry, Red, but to echo Thomaso, that's not the point. It's the fact, if it is indeed so, that, if we were doing really well, we couldn't alter ticketing to let more of our fans in.

It may seem petty to you, bud, but decisions like this just don't make sense to many, me included.

What the hell is wrong with having a policy in place that has the flexibility to allow the arrangements to be changed if we're flying ?

Not good PR !

[Nookie Bear]

Just now, XB52 said:

Of course it is relevant. 

 

Go on...

[redm]

19 minutes ago, haveyouheard 22 said:

I think many Hearts fans are put off with the thought of a whole Roseburn full of bile and stay away..I'd offer a Roseburn special for the OF games with vastly reduced prices for Hearts fans who take it up..Maybe a pipe dream but  hay ho 

 

The thought of it? It has been a reality for almost my whole football supporting life, I think. It’s this season’s “How can we no just fill in the corners?”

 

As an aside, it’s quite bewildering watching all these folk on social media who usually rant about wanting “a cauldron of bigotry and hate” now giving it “ah well yea but not *that* much bigotry and hate plz. They do it too much and it ruins everything.” Jesus Christ. Give me strength. 

[redm]

2 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

And it will continue to grow on its own terms. But taking funds away from the main business for this is poor imo

 

 

Even more reason to leave the Roseburn stand full a few times a year then I suppose!

[Nookie Bear]

Just now, redm said:

 

Even more reason to leave the Roseburn stand full a few times a year then I suppose!

 

I have no issue with the old firm having he full Roseburn as we don’t sell out and some fans actually stay away from these games, which beggars belief. 

 

But if if we can tolerate those away fans, we can tolerate Section N. 

[redm]

3 minutes ago, Boab said:

 

Sorry, Red, but to echo Thomaso, that's not the point. It's the fact, if it is indeed so, that, if we were doing really well, we couldn't alter ticketing to let more of our fans in.

It may seem petty to you, bud, but decisions like this just don't make sense to many, me included.

What the hell is wrong with having a policy in place that has the flexibility to allow the arrangements to be changed if we're flying ?

Not good PR !

 

I don’t think it really has anything to do with PR this time - it’s just an operational thing and most days and weeks it has zero impact on anyone at all. There’s also no expectation for us to reduce allocation, generally speaking, it would be considered an extraordinary measure given we haven’t done it in eons. Nobody’s saying there’s anything right or wrong with this type of agreement, I don’t think I have any specific opinions on that subject given I haven’t a clue how these things work and therefore have no idea if this is perfectly normal or not (but suspect it probably is) - I just don’t see the point of reducing the allocation in the first place. 

[EIEIO]

11 minutes ago, redm said:

 

Sure, but I’m not clear on why we’d expect people to snap up extra tickets in the Roseburn when they aren’t rushing to get the ones elsewhere in the ground. I’m not trying to be difficult, it’s just that I can clearly see the disadvantages to reducing their allocation but the advantages are much less tangible. What are the actual benefits other than having to look at slightly fewer of their gurning faces?

Think Thomaso etc point is that we should be flexible ie if we are flying post winter shut down or when the post split fixtures are announce we should be able to reduce the bigot brothers allocation without any qualms. Why paint ourselves into a corner with some kind of preseason gentlemens agreement?

[fabienleclerq]

16 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

Need more details and humble apologies if I misread but we are “investing” the potential salaries of one or two first team players into the ladies football team?

 

Why?

 

Should be set up as a separate entity and become self funding, based on gate receipts and sponsorship etc. 

 

 

Oh, and she needs to give up on hammering Section N. It will be there long after Ann has moved on. 

 

I have to disagree. As much as I don't watch the woman's game I think of Hearts as a football club and as such should support our Women's team properly. There's a larger and larger amount of women going to games and supporting Hearts, it'd be a bit off saying we won't support the woman's team imo.

 

Think it's a good move, one not based on finance. Similar to cutting the old firms allocation...

 

 

 

[FarmerTweedy]

44 minutes ago, Thomaso said:

 

I think it was "ridiculous" to agree to give the OF the whole stand before a ball was kicked - and seemingly this agreement cannot be changed.

 

So let's just say we had not had all these terrible injuries and we were still flying at the top of the league.  It all comes down to a title decider against Celtic at Tynecastle after the split - now that would be a game all Hearts would want to see - but instead of giving Celtic minimal tickets, we give them the whole stand because that was what was agreed 9 months before!!

Ok, what I though Ann Budge had said at the AGM was that we'd had to decide on away allocations before the season started, and therefore couldn't now change them.  From other things I'm reading, it seems I picked that up wrong and that we'd actually chosen to agree the allocations before the season started.  If the latter is indeed the case, I'd agree that it was probably a mistake to agree to give them the whole stand for the entire season, and that we probably should have left our options open.  However, I suspect we may well have been under pressure to agree that, possibly with the threat of further cuts to our allocation at their grounds if we didn't do so, and given that our season ticket sales had fallen, it might not have seemed like we were giving up very much. I can state quite confidently that, if we'd told rangers we weren't committing to them getting the whole school end until we saw how our season started, and they'd then cut our allocation for the first game at Ibrox, Ann would have been utterly slated by a significant number of people, derided as a delusional fantasist, and accused of letting our supporters down.

 

I'd also point out that there probably wasn't anyone on the planet who, before the season started, thought there was a possibility that we might have been in a position to put in a title challenge, after the way last season went.

[Nelly Terraces]

Things Budge cares about: Turning Tynecastle inot a morgue.

 

Things she doesn't care about: Hearts winning football matches.

[Nookie Bear]

2 minutes ago, fabienleclerq said:

 

I have to disagree. As much as I don't watch the woman's game I think of Hearts as a football club and as such should support our Women's team properly. There's a larger and larger amount of women going to games and supporting Hearts, it'd be a bit off saying we won't support the woman's team imo.

 

Think it's a good move, one not based on finance. Similar to cutting the old firms allocation...

 

 

 

 

Fair points. 

 

But funding the women’s team, cutting the OF and ditching Section N all lose us money that will impact on the first team. 

[EIEIO]

17 minutes ago, Haken said:

The threatening to close Section N seems a bit of a hammer to crack a nut.  As an FoH contributor, I didn't agree to making funding for a new stand available in order to increase income only for a full section to be closed down because of the behaviour of a minority.  If the club is serious about addressing the problem - and it should be - then put in the resource steward-wise to do something, rather than punishing the majority of fans who cause no issues at all.

Agree with you can't see the logic in Ann's thinking, unless it is an attempt to alienate the bigots from the proper hearts fans in section N so that they self police and call the bams out. Closing a whole section for a few dozen latter day black shirts seems a bit OTT.

[Bring Back Paulo Sergio]

1 minute ago, fabienleclerq said:

 

I have to disagree. As much as I don't watch the woman's game I think of Hearts as a football club and as such should support our Women's team properly. There's a larger and larger amount of women going to games and supporting Hearts, it'd be a bit off saying we won't support the woman's team imo.

 

Think it's a good move, one not based on finance. Similar to cutting the old firms allocation...

 

 

 

We don't put money we don't have in to the first team. Why should women have money put in to their game that they don't make? Promote the women's game and allow it to grow naturallylike Hearts' mens team do. If it doesn't increase revenue for more funds then tough shit.

[redm]

1 minute ago, EIEIO said:

Think Thomaso etc point is that we should be flexible ie if we are flying post winter shut down or when the post split fixtures are announce we should be able to reduce the bigot brothers allocation without any qualms. Why paint ourselves into a corner with some kind of preseason gentlemens agreement?

 

I don’t know enough about those agreements to really comment (and neither I suspect do most others) but at a guess I’d assume financial certainty is very important to us at the moment. I also would ask why on Earth they *wouldn’t* agree to something like this when our fans have given them no significant indication that they want to take up those tickets at any point in recent memory. Maybe if there’s demand this season they’ll do it differently next season. Maybe if there’s less financial risk for us they might do it anyway just cos. Who knows. 

[Sexton Hardcastle]

3 minutes ago, Nelly Terraces said:

Things Budge cares about: Turning Tynecastle inot a morgue.

 

Things she doesn't care about: Hearts winning football matches.

If turning Tynecastle into a morgue involves chasing away sectarian tadgers then it is a price worth paying.

[graygo]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

From the normal sources of match day income, broadcasting, retail, sponsorship etc. 

 

We could go on all day, so what would replace that?

[fabienleclerq]

4 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

Fair points. 

 

But funding the women’s team, cutting the OF and ditching Section N all lose us money that will impact on the first team. 

 

I wouldn't ditch Section N. Supporting the woman's game may bring more benefits.

[Alex Kintner]

2 hours ago, 1874KRM said:

EEN reporting that Anne is close to closing section N for recent incidents e.g the coin that hit Lennon... that was some throw if it’s came from section N

 

[Nookie Bear]

1 minute ago, fabienleclerq said:

 

I wouldn't ditch Section N. Supporting the woman's game may bring more benefits.

 

Even though you admit to never watching it. Very few do. 

[fabienleclerq]

4 minutes ago, Bring Back Paulo Sergio said:

We don't put money we don't have in to the first team. Why should women have money put in to their game that they don't make? Promote the women's game and allow it to grow naturallylike Hearts' mens team do. If it doesn't increase revenue for more funds then tough shit.

 

 

Your entitled to your opinion even if I think it's bullshit. Should we cut everything that doesn't make money for the first team? For me as a club we should be about more than just business, it's 2018 we should have a funded women's team.

[fabienleclerq]

Just now, Nookie Bear said:

 

Even though you admit to never watching it. Very few do. 

 

Absolutely, we could end up with more sponsorship etc. For me we should be about more than money.

[Nookie Bear]

Just now, To Be Frank said:

 

 

Why the facepalm. Poor reporting as per from the News. 

 

One incident above all has produced negative national news and it wasn’t Section N at caused it. The only people bothered by N are other Hearts fans. 

[The White Cockade]

Could be wrong but did Mrs B even mention closing Section N I thought it was   something thought up on here?

[redm]

7 minutes ago, Bring Back Paulo Sergio said:

We don't put money we don't have in to the first team. Why should women have money put in to their game that they don't make? Promote the women's game and allow it to grow naturallylike Hearts' mens team do. If it doesn't increase revenue for more funds then tough shit.

 

The men’s game was developed with money and took time to make money. The women’s game needs investment and will take time to make money too. 

[EIEIO]

3 minutes ago, redm said:

 

I don’t know enough about those agreements to really comment (and neither I suspect do most others) but at a guess I’d assume financial certainty is very important to us at the moment. I also would ask why on Earth they *wouldn’t* agree to something like this when our fans have given them no significant indication that they want to take up those tickets at any point in recent memory. Maybe if there’s demand this season they’ll do it differently next season. Maybe if there’s less financial risk for us they might do it anyway just cos. Who knows. 

I suspect the decision was based on season ticket sales and the spiralling costs for the new stand. Hopefully an increase in the former, allied to an increase in our turnover, and the completion of the new stand's outstanding works will enable a more pragmatic approach to be adopted next season.

[soonbe110]

2 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Spending on the Tynecastle Redevelopment Programme reached £20.7m at 30 November, up from £15m a year ago.

 

Club resources - £6.7m

Benefactors - £6.75m

FOH - £3m

Supporter initiatives - £2m

Loan facility - £1.75m

Lease funding - £0.5m

 

The most interesting figure in that was the club's contribution having gone up from £4.75m at the last AGM to £6.7m now. That suggests that without the costs of the development there should be the best part of £2m to invest elsewhere (like the team).

Not sure that’s fair. The increased revenue the club is seeing is a result of the redevelopment project. Chicken and egg situation. 

[redm]

Just now, EIEIO said:

I suspect the decision was based on season ticket sales and the spiralling costs for the new stand. Hopefully an increase in the former, allied to an increase in our turnover, and the completion of the new stand's outstanding works will enable a more pragmatic approach to be adopted next season.

 

Sounds about right to me as well. If the fans show appetite for it, they’ll get what they want. I don’t doubt they’d rather have Hearts fans in there if they can. 

[Clerry Jambo]

Benefactor needs a stand named after him/her/them

[haveyouheard 22]

Closing  Sec N would be  brutal.. Imagine if those removed used the Roseburn..Pity its got to or getting to  this stage 

Edited December 18, 2018 by haveyouheard 22

[Bridge of Djoum]

1 hour ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

Didn't the hobos reduce rangers fans tickets for 2nd home game against them last season?

Perhaps they didn't have an agreement in place?

[Nookie Bear]

1 minute ago, haveyouheard 22 said:

Close Sec N would brutal.. Imagine if those removed used the Roseburn..Pity its got to or getting to  this stage 

 

Next to the great unwashed in the Roseburn?

 

I’m warming to the idea 

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, Bridge of Djoum said:

It's Ann, and did she actually say the coin came from N?

No she didnt

[Francis Albert]

Was there any clear analysis of the scope and cost variations that on the face of it seem to have resulted in a spend to date almost double the original £11m estimate with another year of the redevelpmemt project still to go?

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, Thomaso said:

 

So from this did Ann make the decision before a ball was kicked, that the team would not be challenging and attracting Hearts fans to buy tickets in the Roseburn stand for OF games???

It’s a £250k judgement call to be made at the start of the season. After feedback today I think she will make a different call next season. 

[kimosavi]

So Leveins dinosaur coaching swept under the carpet under its all down to the injuries excuse

 

Thought as much 

[Ribble]

It has been the clubs position for a number of years now, unless Season Ticket sales hit the point where it is reasonable to offer full ST's in the Roseburn Stand, then Cat A  opponents will be afforded the whole of the stand. 

 

If you want to stop the OF having the whole stand there is a simple solution, buy the requisite number of Season Tickets prior to ticket allocation agreements are in place for the following season.

 

Personally I couldn't give two hoots if someone who hasn't been all season wants to join in the fun come May and cannot get a ticket for a top 6 Cat A game. 

[Bridge of Djoum]

4 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

No she didnt

Yeah I didn't think so.

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, davemclaren said:

I got the impression at the AGM that it was ‘normal’ to agree these things at the beginning of the season. 

As did I. That’s what was inferred. 

[Bluesy1874]

I am quite interested to see how the link up with the American teams works out. We will have direct access to a hell of a lot of young players. Quite exciting really. 

[Francis Albert]

I am struggling to understand a threat to close Section N Lower at the same time as guaranteeing the whole of the Roseburn to fans who behave at least as badly as anyone in Section N but on a MUCH larger scale. 

[Bring Back Paulo Sergio]

4 minutes ago, redm said:

 

The men’s game was developed with money and took time to make money. The women’s game needs investment and will take time to make money too. 

It had massive potential and I just don't see it with women's football. There's just not an appetite for it.  I do wish them every success though.

[davemclaren]

46 minutes ago, Haken said:

The threatening to close Section N seems a bit of a hammer to crack a nut.  As an FoH contributor, I didn't agree to making funding for a new stand available in order to increase income only for a full section to be closed down because of the behaviour of a minority.  If the club is serious about addressing the problem - and it should be - then put in the resource steward-wise to do something, rather than punishing the majority of fans who cause no issues at all.

Raise it at the FoH agm tomorrow night. 

[Nookie Bear]

Just now, davemclaren said:

Raise it at the FoH agm tomorrow night. 

 

Seems a bit pointless because AB has her mind set on this and I am not sure what the FoH can do about it. 

[davemclaren]

8 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Was there any clear analysis of the scope and cost variations that on the face of it seem to have resulted in a spend to date almost double the original £11m estimate with another year of the redevelpmemt project still to go?

No. But no-one asked thst question. 

[davemclaren]

1 minute ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

Seems a bit pointless because AB has her mind set on this and I am not sure what the FoH can do about it. 

They have two directors representing member’s interests. It’s the most legitimate route for escalation of your concerns I reckon.