BBC Scotland TV Series - Inside Tynecastle

[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.

[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.

[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!

[JamboAl]

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.

 

[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!

[Dallas Green]

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 November 14, 2020 by Dallas Green

[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!)

[JamboAl]

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.

[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?

[Dallas Green]

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.

[JamboAl]

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.

[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.

[JamboAl]

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?

 

[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.

[sandylejambo]

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.

[Perth to Paisley]

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

[JamboAl]

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?

[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. 

[Thomaso]

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?

[KyleLafferty]

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?

[I P Knightley]

22 hours ago, Perth to Paisley said:

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

 

Didn't we agree on "docco"?

[Perth to Paisley]

42 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

 

Didn't we agree on "docco"?

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

[SMJ_1874]

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 

[Jeff]

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

[SMJ_1874]

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 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

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 November 16, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[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.

[One five]

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 👍

[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. 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

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.

 

The squad couldn't cope with injuries to 5 or 6 first choice picks. No team could cope with that. Levein coped with it especially badly and with no fit strikers or attacking mids it's no surprise we couldn't attack, but Stendel got almost everyone back and still got us relegated. I'm 100% sure a Levein team with Halkett, Walker, Naismith, Souttar, Haring, Washington, etc available for most of the season would have been nowhere near relegation. Wouldn't have been near the top the way things were going, but certainly would have been in no danger of going down.

 

Half of the first team from last season are still starting for us and 10 of the players who played in the win over Hibs were signed pre-Stendel. Neilson is doing much more with them than Stendel did and, importantly, Neilson immediately strengthened where we needed to strengthen - wingers, centre mid and goalie - with players who could hit the ground running.

 

Anyhow, it's old ground 🤣

[Greedy Jambo]

I'm not going to bother watching this one, i expect more of the same. 

It's not a fly on the wall documentary, it won't show you the anger of the fans and it will show you bugger all about the court case.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

Just now, Greedy Jambo said:

I'm not going to bother watching this one, i expect more of the same. 

It's not a fly on the wall documentary, it won't show you the anger of the fans and it will show you bugger all about the court case.

 

Not sure you understand the meaning of "Inside" in the title of the programme. Given the SPFL didn't want the court case to be public we won't see any of it. I expect we'll hear the thoughts of a lot of people at Hearts about how last season was ended by the SPFL though.

[Greedy Jambo]

1 minute ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Not sure you understand the meaning of "Inside" in the title of the programme. Given the SPFL didn't want the court case to be public we won't see any of it. I expect we'll hear the thoughts of a lot of people at Hearts about how last season was ended by the SPFL though.

Not sure you realise what "inside" Tyncastle would have actually been like last season, and we won't see any of it. 

Craig Levein and Ann Budge will be nowhere to be seen either. 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

Just now, Greedy Jambo said:

Not sure you realise what "inside" Tyncastle would have actually been like last season, and we won't see any of it. 

Craig Levein and Ann Budge will be nowhere to be seen either. 

 

Levein, to his credit, made himself for interviews and was very critical of his own role in where we were in the league. You don't often hear people in football admit they failed. Budge was all over the programme. Inside means behind the scenes. It's a behind the scenes documentary of how a club works, so it's not about fans. Actually fans were quoted quite a bit in the first one though. Did you even watch the first one?

[Greedy Jambo]

1 minute ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Levein, to his credit, made himself for interviews and was very critical of his own role in where we were in the league. You don't often hear people in football admit they failed. Budge was all over the programme. Inside means behind the scenes. It's a behind the scenes documentary of how a club works, so it's not about fans. Actually fans were quoted quite a bit in the first one though. Did you even watch the first one?

 

Turned it off halfway through,

I've heard a lot of pundits reviews on it and they share my opinion. 

Craig Levein has said himself that he only did a retrospective part in it 6 weeks ago. 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

8 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

 

Turned it off halfway through,

I've heard a lot of pundits reviews on it and they share my opinion. 

Craig Levein has said himself that he only did a retrospective part in it 6 weeks ago. 

 

A number of people have sounded very disappointed Hearts didn't get a complete doing in it. Hibs and St Mirren fans mostly. Most hearts fans I'd imagine are quite happy we're coming out of it quite well. In the pandemic episode people at Hearts will get to talk some more about how unfairly the season ended which will annoy our detractors - maybe including you? - even more.

Edited November 16, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[WoolfordsHearts]

3 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

A number of people have sounded very disappointed Hearts didn't get a complete doing in it. Hibs and St Mirren fans mostly. Most hearts fans I'd imagine are quite happy we're coming out of it quite well. In the pandemic episode people at Hearts will get to talk some more about how unfairly the season ended which will annoy our detractors - maybe including you? - even more.

Well put sir.

 

A lot of hockey pucks were wanting this to be a cluster**** pantomime laugh-a-thon at the Hearts.

 

Glad it's not been.

[Greedy Jambo]

9 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

A number of people have sounded very disappointed Hearts didn't get a complete doing in it. Hibs and St Mirren fans mostly. Most hearts fans I'd imagine are quite happy we're coming out of it quite well. In the pandemic episode people at Hearts will get to talk some more about how unfairly the season ended which will annoy our detractors - maybe including you? - even more.

 

You're just a brush it under the carpet type guy, i get it, that sort of attitude doesn't do us any favours though, i hope you realise that. 

[XB52]

On 14/11/2020 at 22:15, 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.

Talk about the understatement of the century

[luckydug]

51 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

I'm not going to bother watching this one, i expect more of the same. 

It's not a fly on the wall documentary, it won't show you the anger of the fans and it will show you bugger all about the court case.

Yep no juicy tit bits for all those Hibs fans to be salivating over. 

What a shame, hope you're not too disappointed. 😏

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

33 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

A number of people have sounded very disappointed Hearts didn't get a complete doing in it. Hibs and St Mirren fans mostly. Most hearts fans I'd imagine are quite happy we're coming out of it quite well. In the pandemic episode people at Hearts will get to talk some more about how unfairly the season ended which will annoy our detractors - maybe including you? - even more.

Come on Toque. Anything that lets us come out of last season “quite well”’ is propaganda, plain and simple. This is a documentary with no serious independent control and the BBC shouldn’t have wasted their time.

 

More to the point, as a club we should never have agreed to the documentary in the first place. But Budge, showing standard ineptitude, couldn’t see the shit show that was coming. 

[Randy Marsh]

48 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

 

Turned it off halfway through,

I've heard a lot of pundits reviews on it and they share my opinion. 

Craig Levein has said himself that he only did a retrospective part in it 6 weeks ago. 

There would have been something in it for Levein.  Maybe some gambling tokens or something.  Or maybe he agreed to the interview as long as he was kept on the payroll.   

Edited November 16, 2020 by Randy Marsh

[Greedy Jambo]

Just now, luckydug said:

Yep no juicy tit bits for all those Hibs fans to be salivating over. 

What a shame, hope you're not too disappointed. 😏

 

Yawn. 

The proclaimers were decent to be fair. 

 

Ohhhh jean! oohhhh Jean! you let me get lucky wae you!

 

 

[bradleyHMFC]

Not showing on IPlayer schedule, anyone else got it?

[gashauskis9]

What’s this house shite with Annie Lennox all about?

[DETTY29]

5 minutes ago, bradleyHMFC said:

Not showing on IPlayer schedule, anyone else got it?

BBC had a 10 min eff up delay with Panorama, which put Eastenders back....

 

And impact to ensure 10 o'clock news starts on time yet to be determined. 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2020 by DETTY29

[kila]

Oh dear 🤣

[neilnunb]

Damour looking bored as ****. Fecking wage thief. 🤬

[Fitzroy Pointon]

Can see this being edited to make Stendal the Brent character. 

[Cruyff]

Bless Daniel. Trying hard as **** and the whole team ****ing blank Sievers. Classy bunch.