Jump to content

BBC Scotland TV Series - Inside Tynecastle


August Landmesser

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


FOH just say three bags full whenever Budge does anything. The definition of yes men.

 

We should never have signed up to a documentary because they’re asking for trouble. But it’s typical Budge arrogance to do that and then try and sugar coat it.

 

That is just utterly shite.

 

Having spoke to Stuart Wallace, I know that for a fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • i8hibsh

    60

  • Pasquale for King

    60

  • ToqueJambo

    56

  • kila

    51

4 hours ago, Dallas Green said:

 

That is just utterly shite.

 

Having spoke to Stuart Wallace, I know that for a fact.

That’s what he told you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

That’s what he told you?

 

When I spoke to him during last season I asked if the FOH rep on the board or them themselves have any input. He said they don't have any direct influence but they do make the rest of the board and Ann aware of members feelings on situations. While Ann has final say on things, the board do challenge her. They most definitely are not yes men.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dallas Green said:

 

When I spoke to him during last season I asked if the FOH rep on the board or them themselves have any input. He said they don't have any direct influence but they do make the rest of the board and Ann aware of members feelings on situations. While Ann has final say on things, the board do challenge her. They most definitely are not yes men.

Cheers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
12 hours ago, Dallas Green said:

 

When I spoke to him during last season I asked if the FOH rep on the board or them themselves have any input. He said they don't have any direct influence but they do make the rest of the board and Ann aware of members feelings on situations. While Ann has final say on things, the board do challenge her. They most definitely are not yes men.

No direct influence? Stuart is a member of the board. His influence may not always ( maybe rarely) , be decisive, but if he has no direct influence on board decisions, what is he doing on the board?

Most boards take decisions on a majority basis, with the Chairman having final say if the board is evenly split. 

If you quote Stuart accurately he is describing something akin to a dictatorship.

 

FOH  will continue to have only a minority of board members after FoH eventually get their 75.1% majority ownership. And no direct influence on the club board? 

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

No direct influence? Stuart is a member of the board. His influence may not always ( maybe rarely) , be decisive, but if he has no direct influence on board decisions, what is he doing on the board?

Most boards take decisions on a majority basis, with the Chairman having final say if the board is evenly split. 

If you quote Stuart accurately he is describing something akin to a dictatorship.

 

FOH  will continue to have only a minority of board members after FoH eventually get their 75.1% majority ownership. And no direct influence on the club board? 

 

Does he not just mean he doesn't make decisions as a board member? That's the only way you can have a direct influence. CEOs are there to make the tough decisions. Of course they take advice and guidance from the board, and that might include a vote. Ultimately the CEO decides though. I assume that's how it works at Hearts and what is described about Stuart's role doesn't seem top contradict that. At the end of the day FoH board members have a role in developing the strategy and making decisions, but you still need someone to make the final decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Does he not just mean he doesn't make decisions as a board member? That's the only way you can have a direct influence. CEOs are there to make the tough decisions. Of course they take advice and guidance from the board, and that might include a vote. Ultimately the CEO decides though. I assume that's how it works at Hearts and what is described about Stuart's role doesn't seem top contradict that. At the end of the day FoH board members have a role in developing the strategy and making decisions, but you still need someone to make the final decision.

"A non-executive director typically does not engage in the day-to-day management of the organization but is involved in policymaking and planning exercises. A non-executive director's responsibilities include the monitoring of the executive directors and acting in the interest of the company stakeholders."

 

The last sentence is the part that always bothered me : the board wasn't functioning properly given the catastrophic failings of the manager/DOF/the team itself.

The board (ie the exec directors) failed and there was no effective oversight. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite looking forward to the next edition. 

 

Wasn't anywhere near embarrassment I thought it could be. 

 

Obviously the form was mince, but shows that the infrastructure is decent 

Link to post
Share on other sites
gorgie rd eh11

I've only once contacted FOH to express my feelings on something. I received a reply promptly and was assured that my concerns would be passed on. I have no doubt that Stuart has HMFC's best interests at heart. Anybody doubting that should put themselves forward i'm sure all help would be welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

No direct influence? Stuart is a member of the board. His influence may not always ( maybe rarely) , be decisive, but if he has no direct influence on board decisions, what is he doing on the board?

Most boards take decisions on a majority basis, with the Chairman having final say if the board is evenly split. 

If you quote Stuart accurately he is describing something akin to a dictatorship.

 

FOH  will continue to have only a minority of board members after FoH eventually get their 75.1% majority ownership. And no direct influence on the club board? 

 

 

They are non executive board members. So have a voice but ultimately it is down to Ann. I also said they do challenge her on things.

 

When FOH are majority shareholder then things will change in that regard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
13 hours ago, Dallas Green said:

 

 

They are non executive board members. So have a voice but ultimately it is down to Ann. I also said they do challenge her on things.

 

When FOH are majority shareholder then things will change in that regard.

I am not so sure. Under the governance arrangements FOH will continue to have a minority of two members on the club board, also probably non-Execs. The only real change is that with a 75.1% shareholding FoH will be able to vote out the non-FoH directors at  an AGM or EGM but it would take a really big crisis for that nuclear option to happen given the FoH "fan owned not fan run" philosophy.

 When Ann announced the appointment of a Chief Executive in the summer it sounded as if she wasn't intending to go anywhere any time soon so in practice I can't see much changing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
14 hours ago, gorgie rd eh11 said:

I've only once contacted FOH to express my feelings on something. I received a reply promptly and was assured that my concerns would be passed on. I have no doubt that Stuart has HMFC's best interests at heart. Anybody doubting that should put themselves forward i'm sure all help would be welcome.

I have no doubt Stuart and all the FoH directors  have the best interests of Hearts at heart. 

 

The point is that by his own words (if quoted correctly) Stuart and FoH have no real power to influence decisions and Ann is all powerful. After £11m of FoH funding and getting on for 6 months after the shares should have transferred to FoH under Ann's agreement with FoH. And it is not clear if much will change when the shares are eventually transferred.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I am not so sure. Under the governance arrangements FOH will continue to have a minority of two members on the club board, also probably non-Execs. The only real change is that with a 75.1% shareholding FoH will be able to vote out the non-FoH directors at  an AGM or EGM but it would take a really big crisis for that nuclear option to happen given the FoH "fan owned not fan run" philosophy.

 When Ann announced the appointment of a Chief Executive in the summer it sounded as if she wasn't intending to go anywhere any time soon so in practice I can't see much changing. 

 

With the 75.1% the FOH will have greater voting power though. So at a board meeting, if something comes down to a vote, FOH will have control.

 

How the FOH comes to a decision though is a different question obviously, with being fan owned but not fan run.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I have no doubt Stuart and all the FoH directors  have the best interests of Hearts at heart. 

 

The point is that by his own words (if quoted correctly) Stuart and FoH have no real power to influence decisions and Ann is all powerful. After £11m of FoH funding and getting on for 6 months after the shares should have transferred to FoH under Ann's agreement with FoH. And it is not clear if much will change when the shares are eventually transferred.

In any organisation be it a board, a committee or whatever, the governing (for want of a better word) members will be able to air their views but ultimately the final decision will rest with the Chairman or Owner.  If a member's view has been accepted he will have influenced a decision, otherwise he won't.

That's the way things work.  I am fairly confident that AB and others are aware of that and are willing to move forward together for the betterment of the club without letting egoes impede progress.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
1 hour ago, Baxfee said:

Imagine if half of the numpties on here were in charge. Club would go bust within weeks

Yes. Or it might be the third best supported club in the country playing in the second division having won 4 games out of 30 last season. It might have gone over budget by 100% on a new stand. It might have indulged in horrendous wasteful player, management and coaching staff recruitment. It might have continued to employ a failed Director of Football/head coach  for a long time after he has now admitted he was not up to the job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
3 hours ago, Dallas Green said:

 

With the 75.1% the FOH will have greater voting power though. So at a board meeting, if something comes down to a vote, FOH will have control.

 

How the FOH comes to a decision though is a different question obviously, with being fan owned but not fan run.

It won't have control in a boardroom where it is a minority on the board.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
1 hour ago, JamboAl said:

In any organisation be it a board, a committee or whatever, the governing (for want of a better word) members will be able to air their views but ultimately the final decision will rest with the Chairman or Owner.  If a member's view has been accepted he will have influenced a decision, otherwise he won't.

That's the way things work.  I am fairly confident that AB and others are aware of that and are willing to move forward together for the betterment of the club without letting egoes impede progress.

A wild simplification of how a plc is governed. And Chairman and Owner are usually two different things. 

As for egos not playing a part ... come on!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

A wild simplification of how a plc is governed. And Chairman and Owner are usually two different things. 

As for egos not playing a part ... come on!

I tried to keep it simple for you.

What I can say is that if I owned a business i would certainly take into account what others, eg managers, say but the final decisions would definitely be mine.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
19 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

I tried to keep it simple for you.

What I can say is that if I owned a business i would certainly take into account what others, eg managers, say but the final decisions would definitely be mine.

 

Not the FOH model!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

It won't have control in a boardroom where it is a minority on the board.

 

It will because of the percentage of shares.

 

Hence why right now, a single person (who owns the most shares) has control.

 

Edited by Dallas Green
Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
41 minutes ago, Dallas Green said:

 

It will because of the percentage of shares.

 

Hence why right now, a single person (who owns the most shares) has control.

 

No. Boards of Directors and Board members of PLCs have duties to all shareholders and stakeholders. The controlling majority shareholder has control in the sense she can vote out appointed Directors at an EGM or AGM. She does not have absolute power or control.

FoH will not have absolute power and control if and when it becomes controlling majority shareholder. (It appears to be abnegating most control and power voluntarily!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Not the FOH model!

You seem to have a bee in your bonnetabout FoH but in any case I thought we were talking about the Hearts board.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
3 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

You seem to have a bee in your bonnetabout FoH but in any case I thought we were talking about the Hearts board.

So if you owned a business the final decisions would definitely be yours. But in the case of FOH you don't think that should be the case?

 

As for bee in my bonnet, isn't the thread basically about FOH?

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

No. Boards of Directors and Board members of PLCs have duties to all shareholders and stakeholders. The controlling majority shareholder has control in the sense she can vote out appointed Directors at an EGM or AGM. She does not have absolute power or control.

FoH will not have absolute power and control if and when it becomes controlling majority shareholder. (It appears to be abnegating most control and power voluntarily!)

 

If I owned 80% of shares in a company and my two brothers owned 10% each I could make a change I wanted even if both of them didn't (and all three of us were the board) I would be 1 person against 2 people (a minority in that sense) however my shares would give me more voting power. 80% of the votes would be for the change and 20% would be against. That is how voting works if the shares are voting shares. Which at HMFC, they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

So if you owned a business the final decisions would definitely be yours. But in the case of FOH you don't think that should be the case?

 

As for bee in my bonnet, isn't the thread basically about FOH?

 

 

The final word would certainly be mine but the point I took issue with was what you said below

 

 FoH have no real power to influence decisions and Ann is all powerful.

 

I wouldn't expect otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
1 hour ago, Dallas Green said:

 

If I owned 80% of shares in a company and my two brothers owned 10% each I could make a change I wanted even if both of them didn't (and all three of us were the board) I would be 1 person against 2 people (a minority in that sense) however my shares would give me more voting power. 80% of the votes would be for the change and 20% would be against. That is how voting works if the shares are voting shares. Which at HMFC, they are.

That is not how the boards of PLCs work. It is how votes of shareholders  at an AGM or EGM work but that is a different thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

That is not how the boards of PLCs work. It is how votes of shareholders  at an AGM or EGM work but that is a different thing.

How does it work then?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick
6 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

That is not how the boards of PLCs work. It is how votes of shareholders  at an AGM or EGM work but that is a different thing.

Correct. A directors' vote is simply that with a chairman holding a casting vote. Weight of shares only comes into it with votes at AGM's or EGM's.

 

In the 80/10/10 model of course, that example would no doubt lead to an EGM to force whatever it was through.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as we can force things through at a AGM or EGM, then we won't let anyone keep doing something we are against, I personally think that is why the shares have not been transferred yet, she thinks (probably rightly) that she has the club going where it should and has learned from her mistakes, I'm not wanting to rock the boat at this time but she had let the footballing side of the business go to Donald, it's getting fixed now but it's a problem of her own making.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Correct. A directors' vote is simply that with a chairman holding a casting vote. Weight of shares only comes into it with votes at AGM's or EGM's.

 

In the 80/10/10 model of course, that example would no doubt lead to an EGM to force whatever it was through.

And at the EGM would that 80/10/10 vote change?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh
10 hours ago, Perth to Paisley said:

Here was me thinking the thread was about the BBC docu ...

 

FA needs to move his moaning to the appropriate thread. He continually hijacks threads in this manner. 

 

Anyhoo back on topic I finally got round to watching it and have to say it wasn't too bad. It had the capability of being really cringeworthy but imho was not at all. Even Lockie was fine and understandable! It did confirm for me we should have persisted with DS though. Looking forward to see how they cover the shitstorm of the SPFL vote. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2020 at 19:05, Dallas Green said:

 

That is just utterly shite.

 

Having spoke to Stuart Wallace, I know that for a fact.


Did he have a show down with Budge about her delay in sacking Levein?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

FA needs to move his moaning to the appropriate thread. He continually hijacks threads in this manner. 

 

Anyhoo back on topic I finally got round to watching it and have to say it wasn't too bad. It had the capability of being really cringeworthy but imho was not at all. Even Lockie was fine and understandable! It did confirm for me we should have persisted with DS though. Looking forward to see how they cover the shitstorm of the SPFL vote. 

Can I ask why you thought we should have persisted with DS?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perth to Paisley
42 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

:biglaugh:

 

Didn't we agree on "docco"?

I was going to write 'documentary 'in full but I fell asleep reading the usual tropes!

Link to post
Share on other sites
jonnothejambo
13 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

FA needs to move his moaning to the appropriate thread. He continually hijacks threads in this manner. 

 

Anyhoo back on topic I finally got round to watching it and have to say it wasn't too bad. It had the capability of being really cringeworthy but imho was not at all. Even Lockie was fine and understandable! It did confirm for me we should have persisted with DS though. Looking forward to see how they cover the shitstorm of the SPFL vote. 

 

Can't agree about keeping on DS, Seymour.

 

His persistence in playing poppadom paws was unforgiveable in my book and was, in effect, what led to our demotion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jonnothejambo said:

 

Can't agree about keeping on DS, Seymour.

 

His persistence in playing poppadom paws was unforgiveable in my book and was, in effect, what led to our demotion.

Got to agree here. He must’ve seen that JP was culpable on so many occasions and left it far too late to bring Bobby back into the fold. The one at parkhead when he palmed a shot straight back to a Celtic forward to score should’ve illustrated to DS that his confidence was wrecked and he needed dropped. To persist with him and a few co conspirators,  sealed our demotion. 
 

I know he inherited a shit squad but the game plan had to be consolidation with a win at all costs mentality and not try and play gegenpress with back line that was too slow. That method alone cost us valuable points.
 

Our first 11 now would be challenging in the top half of the table but we are still a few short. For an assault on 3rd place, we need a few more in and out the door. I think RN is doing just fine and no point in looking backwards now 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Saughton Jambo said:

Got to agree here. He must’ve seen that JP was culpable on so many occasions and left it far too late to bring Bobby back into the fold. The one at parkhead when he palmed a shot straight back to a Celtic forward to score should’ve illustrated to DS that his confidence was wrecked and he needed dropped. To persist with him and a few co conspirators,  sealed our demotion. 
 

I know he inherited a shit squad but the game plan had to be consolidation with a win at all costs mentality and not try and play gegenpress with back line that was too slow. That method alone cost us valuable points.
 

Our first 11 now would be challenging in the top half of the table but we are still a few short. For an assault on 3rd place, we need a few more in and out the door. I think RN is doing just fine and no point in looking backwards now 

 

We actually played some good stuff under DS and it was mostly blatant errors that cost us. Some of the defensive positioning was incredibly shite

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gone said:

 

We actually played some good stuff under DS and it was mostly blatant errors that cost us. Some of the defensive positioning was incredibly shite

Some of it was decent but mostly it was shit and that’s not entirely Daniels fault.  I’d love someone to explain how we could beat The Hun and the wee team and should’ve destroyed the sheep but fail to register a shot in paisley for 80 mins and lose two goals in 15 mins to Hamilton. It was this Jekyll and Hyde performances that cost us dear. 
 

Anyway it’s all water under the bridge for me and I’d rather look forward to the next 6 months rather than the last 6 months 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jonnothejambo said:

 

His persistence in playing poppadom paws was unforgiveable in my book and was, in effect, what led to our demotion.

 

This. That decision got us relegated. Either replace a dodgy keeper low on confidence or set up the defence well in front of him to provide protection. Stendel did nothing to make us hard to beat at a time when that was all he had to do and so we got beat.

 

Anyhow, the next episode looks quite good: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/54946296. Levein's role clarified. Harsh reporting on Sibbick's lack of performances in that article though. He got injured after 2 games. A 50% signing success rate wasn't great though, looking at Neilson's so far. Also the standard casual xenophobia from BBC sports reporters mocking Stendel's English.

Edited by ToqueJambo
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn
52 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

This. That decision got us relegated. Either replace a dodgy keeper low on confidence or set up the defence well in front of him to provide protection. Stendel did nothing to make us hard to beat at a time when that was all he had to do and so we got beat.

 

Anyhow, the next episode looks quite good: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/54946296. Levein's role clarified. Harsh reporting on Sibbick's lack of performances in that article though. He got injured after 2 games. A 50% signing success rate wasn't great though, looking at Neilson's so far. Also the standard casual xenophobia from BBC sports reporters mocking Stendel's English.


Levein’s tactics were predicated on making us hard to beat, which we weren’t under him. Basically, the squad was garbage and devoid of any quality. In the list of culpable parties, Stendel comes way down below Levein, McPhee, Budge and countless players like Whelan and other shithouses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saughton Jambo said:

 
 

Anyway it’s all water under the bridge for me and I’d rather look forward to the next 6 months rather than the last 6 months 

Correct 

upwards and onwards mate 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites
Malinga the Swinga
On 15/11/2020 at 11:32, Perth to Paisley said:

Here was me thinking the thread was about the BBC docu ...

Nope, it is about the same sad old faces bumping their gums and winging about the same thing they complained about years ago. 

They won't ever change their opinions because they simply don't want to. Quite sad really. 

Link to post
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...