Annual report and financials

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Marooned Abroad said:

Dear Member Update on election of directors On 18 October, the board invited eligible members of the Foundation to come forward as candidates for election as directors. The period for nomination of candidates closed on 8 November, and we can advise that no candidates came forward. In those circumstances, there will be no election contest in the lead-up to the AGM.  Resolutions to re-appoint the two current directors who are retiring by rotation – Stuart Wallace and Alastair Bruce – will be proposed at the meeting. The AGM will take place in the Gorgie Suite on 17 December at 6pm, and the formal papers will be issued later this month.  They will include a proxy form, so that members who are unable to attend the meeting in person can still vote on the resolutions.

Copyright © 2019 Foundation of Hearts. All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: Foundation of Hearts Limited, c/o Heart of Midlothian Football Club, Tynecastle Park, Gorgie Road, EDINBURGH   TO ALL THE WHINGERS ON THIS THREAD   YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE TO STAND UP AND BE COUNTED.

An interesting take on democracy. Only those who stand for election should comment on the performance of those elected or indeed standing for election. Could certainly shorten the GE campaign.

 

Of course FoH cannot force people to stand but as I have posted often before they could do more to encourage a wider range of candidates. But that's the subject of another thread. No doubt there will be one before the FoH AGM.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

An interesting take on democracy. Only those who stand for election should comment on the performance of those elected or indeed standing for election. Could certainly shorten the GE campaign.

 

Of course FoH cannot force people to stand but as I have posted often before they could do more to encourage a wider range of candidates. But that's the subject of another thread. No doubt there will be one before the FoH AGM.

It would also be a tad difficult if you live abroad too.

[Francis Albert]

11 hours ago, XB52 said:

You. You said the money could have been used for other things, I just pointed the fact that the money was solely for use in the stand. Quite simple really

A number of posts said the benefactors also contributed to "bringing in players we couldn't otherwise afford". But (leaving aside the fact that none of us know the terms of the donations) it is a distinction without much of a difference. The more that the benefactors donate the more the club has to put to other uses.

Now that we have beaten the worst team in the league the ultra-loyalists/worshippers (not aimed at you particularly) are back in full force raging against any comment that disputes any part of their views, or indeed questions anything.

And expressing some extraordinary views themselves eg it doesn't matter how much we spend on stadium redevelopment as long as the club breaks even! Even by JKB standards one of the stupidest statements made.

[davemclaren]

35 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

An interesting take on democracy. Only those who stand for election should comment on the performance of those elected or indeed standing for election. Could certainly shorten the GE campaign.

 

Of course FoH cannot force people to stand but as I have posted often before they could do more to encourage a wider range of candidates. But that's the subject of another thread. No doubt there will be one before the FoH AGM.

I was quite surprised there were no new candidates this year. Every member was emailed, so they understood how to stand, but I don’t think it’s a particularly good thing to have uncontested appointments. 

[Governor Tarkin]

Folk on here are beginning to make me hate Hearts.

 

It's a good thing that people in real life generally aren't as much of a tit as the internet allows them to be.

[XB52]

1 hour ago, Governor Tarkin said:

Folk on here are beginning to make me hate Hearts.

 

It's a good thing that people in real life generally aren't as much of a tit as the internet allows them to be.

It's sad that so many posters seem to make a career out of slagging off the club any chance they get. I just don't understand it. 

Edited November 19, 2019 by XB52

[Mikey1874]

2 years ago today we played first league game at Tynecastle with the new stand. 

[FarmerTweedy]

17 hours ago, luckydug said:

Was it really that low ?

I had it in my head that 11/12 million was the estimate.

It's still quite an increase though.

I'm sure the question will crop up at the AGM and will need answered to everyone's satisfaction. 

It remains as the one big blot on the Budge administration in non football terms imo.

In my view I believe that the original costing was somewhat optimistic while we have spent money on other upgrades thanks to the benefactors donations.

We shall find out next month.

Pretty much the same view as mine. The initial estimate was clearly well below the actual cost to deliver what was originally planned, but what has been/is being delivered is also well above what was originally planned, both in terms of the nature and the quality of the facilities. Some of the extra delivered has clearly been due to the initial plans being shown to be inadequate in certain areas once work started (and in some cases was completed, eg toilet provision), but there's also been more done in terms of things like conferencing/meeting facilities because the club have seen the potential for these things to generate considerable revenue, and I believe the benefits of that additional spending are now being realised. It might be helpful if the club were to outline how much of the spending has been of this nature.

 

Regarding the clearly unrealistic initial estimate, I've wondered in the past whether that may have, at least in part, been a deliberate plan in order to actually get the project off the ground. Funding a development project of £11-12m cost seemed big, but achievable, back at the time of the announcement of the plans. If the cost had been estimated at £17-18m back then, I wonder if that would have been likely to be regarded as completely unachievable by too many people, meaning that getting the backing of the support and in particular the agreement of the FoH membership to redirect £3m of contributions towards the project, might not have been possible. 

[Independence]

40 minutes ago, XB52 said:

It's sad that so many posters seem to make a career out of slagging off the club any chance they get. I just don't understand it. 

It can be a mix of H1b5 fans, keyboard warriors and general ‘know it alls’. Don’t let them grind you down, that’s their objective. Either ignore, as I often do, or fight back. Kickback used to be good till infiltrators took over. They clearly have nothing better to do so just amuse them. I am sure Mrs Budge won’t spend too much time on here......thank goodness !

[Beast Boy]

2 hours ago, Governor Tarkin said:

Folk on here are beginning to make me hate Hearts.

 

It's a good thing that people in real life generally aren't as much of a tit as the internet allows them to be.

I agree with you on this, although I suspect you may be referring to different posters to the ones that make me feel this way. Either way, even if you mean me, I agree with the sentiment entirely, and feel the same.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, FarmerTweedy said:

Pretty much the same view as mine. The initial estimate was clearly well below the actual cost to deliver what was originally planned, but what has been/is being delivered is also well above what was originally planned, both in terms of the nature and the quality of the facilities. Some of the extra delivered has clearly been due to the initial plans being shown to be inadequate in certain areas once work started (and in some cases was completed, eg toilet provision), but there's also been more done in terms of things like conferencing/meeting facilities because the club have seen the potential for these things to generate considerable revenue, and I believe the benefits of that additional spending are now being realised. It might be helpful if the club were to outline how much of the spending has been of this nature.

 

Regarding the clearly unrealistic initial estimate, I've wondered in the past whether that may have, at least in part, been a deliberate plan in order to actually get the project off the ground. Funding a development project of £11-12m cost seemed big, but achievable, back at the time of the announcement of the plans. If the cost had been estimated at £17-18m back then, I wonder if that would have been likely to be regarded as completely unachievable by too many people, meaning that getting the backing of the support and in particular the agreement of the FoH membership to redirect £3m of contributions towards the project, might not have been possible. 

Mmmm. Even we Hibs fans, keyboard warriors and know-alls have never come close to accusing FoH of obtaining money under false pretences!

 

Your first paragraph is probably pretty near the mark 

[Governor Tarkin]

45 minutes ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

I agree with you on this, although I suspect you may be referring to different posters to the ones that make me feel this way. Either way, even if you mean me, I agree with the sentiment entirely, and feel the same.

 

Don't take it personally, it's a general observation.

I include myself in this, obviously.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Governor Tarkin

[Unknown user]

I don't mind what names are thrown my way but I would like to know in detail why there's such a massive difference between what we budgeted for and what we'll end up paying.

 

As I've said before, the lack of transparency in the face of rising costs is pretty alarming. 8 million quid is a LOT of money in Scottish football terms. We should all be taking this very seriously, the "it'll be fine!" attitude worries me.

 

Ann Budge means well but that doesn't mean mistakes can't happen, things can't be misjudged, or even that we can't face bad luck.

[Beast Boy]

19 minutes ago, Smithee said:

I don't mind what names are thrown my way but I would like to know in detail why there's such a massive difference between what we budgeted for and what we'll end up paying.

 

As I've said before, the lack of transparency in the face of rising costs is pretty alarming. 8 million quid is a LOT of money in Scottish football terms. We should all be taking this very seriously, the "it'll be fine!" attitude worries me.

 

Ann Budge means well but that doesn't mean mistakes can't happen, things can't be misjudged, or even that we can't face bad luck.

 

I would feel this way too, if it wasn't for the fact that the bulk of the rising costs were not coming out of FoH donations. The benefactors' contributions towards the infrastructure work has rendered most of the rising costs pretty inconsequential to me. Not great that it was over-budget, and not great that it has cost the club more to complete it, but I don't see it as having had a major impact on our finances in terms of what we would be spending on the team.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Icon of Symmetry

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

 

I would feel this way too, if it wasn't for the fact that the bulk of the rising costs were not coming out of FoH donations. The benefactors' contributions towards the infrastructure work has rendered most of the rising costs pretty inconsequential to me. Not great that it was over-budget, and not great that it has cost the club more to complete it, but I don't see it as having had a major impact on our finances in terms of what we would be spending on the team.

 

I want to know what mistakes and misjudgements have led us to this position 

 

We've struck it lucky with this benefactor, and I'm sure some of the massive overspend has only happened because his money was available, but Ann Budge promised transparency when she took over and this project has been anything but.

 

We also have no idea how much of the overspend could have been spent on the first team, so who really knows what effect it's had?

 

If we'd written "what does success look like?" at the start of the stand project, would 8 million over budget and still not fully realised 2 years after the intended completion date be on there?

 

Too much is being taken on a nod and a wink for me to be comfortable with.

[Sid]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

I want to know what mistakes and misjudgements have led us to this position 

 

We've struck it lucky with this benefactor, and I'm sure some of the massive overspend has only happened because his money was available, but Ann Budge promised transparency when she took over and this project has been anything but.

 

We also have no idea how much of the overspend could have been spent on the first team, so who really knows what effect it's had?

 

If we'd written "what does success look like?" at the start of the stand project, would 8 million over budget and still not fully realised 2 years after the intended completion date be on there?

 

Too much is being taken on a nod and a wink for me to be comfortable with.

Was £1m of that not the pitch which is totally separate. It was a required spend and, rather than short-term new turf, we did a full long-term job saving tens of thousands in ongoing upkeep. I don’t think that requires further transparency and I am very grateful for it being done. 

[Beast Boy]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

I want to know what mistakes and misjudgements have led us to this position 

 

We've struck it lucky with this benefactor, and I'm sure some of the massive overspend has only happened because his money was available, but Ann Budge promised transparency when she took over and this project has been anything but.

 

We also have no idea how much of the overspend could have been spent on the first team, so who really knows what effect it's had?

 

If we'd written "what does success look like?" at the start of the stand project, would 8 million over budget and still not fully realised 2 years after the intended completion date be on there?

 

Too much is being taken on a nod and a wink for me to be comfortable with.

If you calculate it only on how much fans’ money and the club’s turnover has been put in, then it is a relatively small amount for the improvement it provides. Benefactor money that has only materialised thanks to Budge, and was only ever designated towards the project doesn’t translate to club resources wasted imo. 

[Governor Tarkin]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

I want to know what mistakes and misjudgements have led us to this position.

 

 

Cardigan's cry of "Charge!" at Balaclava surely has to take some measure of blame imo.

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, Sid said:

Was £1m of that not the pitch which is totally separate. It was a required spend and, rather than short-term new turf, we did a full long-term job saving tens of thousands in ongoing upkeep. I don’t think that requires further transparency and I am very grateful for it being done. 

 

The budget was for the whole Stadium redevelopment according to the link above, not just a new stand. 

The project is 8 million+ over budget. If you're at peace with that then good on you.

 

Me, I want to know why, and I don't apologise for it.

 

 

[Maple Leaf]

2 minutes ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

If you calculate it only on how much fans’ money and the club’s turnover has been put in, then it is a relatively small amount for the improvement it provides. Benefactor money that has only materialised thanks to Budge, and was only ever designated towards the project doesn’t translate to club resources wasted imo. 

 

Correct.  If the benefactors are happy to provide voluntary donations for the stand, why should anyone else have an issue?

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

If you calculate it only on how much fans’ money and the club’s turnover has been put in, then it is a relatively small amount for the improvement it provides. Benefactor money that has only materialised thanks to Budge, and was only ever designated towards the project doesn’t translate to club resources wasted imo. 

 

As I said to the other guy, this project's 8 million+ over budget and I want to know why. I can't get my head round why anyone would find that weird given our history. 

[Beast Boy]

Just now, Smithee said:

 

As I said to the other guy, this project's 8 million+ over budget and I want to know why. I can't get my head round why anyone would find that weird given our history. 

I don’t find it weird, mate. I’m just not that concerned personally, for the reasons I’ve given. 

[Beast Boy]

2 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Correct.  If the benefactors are happy to provide voluntary donations for the stand, why should anyone else have an issue?

That’s what I mean. If it was all being funded by FoH and club turnover, I’d be very concerned indeed. As it is? Meh.

[Unknown user]

9 minutes ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

That’s what I mean. If it was all being funded by FoH and club turnover, I’d be very concerned indeed. As it is? Meh.

 

As of the last agm 6.75 million of benefactor's money had gone in to an 8.5 million overspend, so another 1.75 million has come from somewhere.

 

Aside from that, pretty soon we're likely to be asked if we want to keep Ann Budge on after buying the shares out and I'd like to make an informed decision.

 

Forgot to add - the initial forecasts show 3 million coming from club resources. As of last November the actual figure was 6.7

Edited November 19, 2019 by Smithee

[annushorribilis III]

7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

The budget was for the whole Stadium redevelopment according to the link above, not just a new stand. 

The project is 8 million+ over budget. If you're at peace with that then good on you.

 

Me, I want to know why, and I don't apologise for it.

 

 

I'm in the same boat.

There's two ways to look at it :

 

the money is being spent on the basis that the benefactors are providing it ie the additional spend (or part of it) was already covered by their generosity. 

 

the benefactors are bailing out the club. 

[Beast Boy]

7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

As of the last agm 6.75 million of benefactor's money had gone in to an 8.5 million overspend, so another 1.75 million has come from somewhere.

 

Aside from that, pretty soon we're likely to be asked if we want to keep Ann Budge on after buying the shares out and I'd like to make an informed decision.

 

Forgot to add - the initial forecasts show 3 million coming from club resources. As of last November the actual figure was 6.7

It’s a more simplistic thing for me, when it comes to the project, the plan, the cost, the projected impact of the cost, and the end result.

 

When Ann took over (and indeed before), she saw relocation and building a new stadium as the obvious way to go about bringing the club’s infrastructure in to this century. She was then won over by the feeling of the fans, and our affection for Tynecastle and Gorgie. Throw in to the mix the council and the nursery, and she made the correct decision to ask the HMFC community/family/FoH pledgers what we wanted to do. Did we just want to use her resources to save the club and she would hand over the reins to us with a move away from our spiritual home on the cards once she had been laid back and left, or did she hand over a saved club with a top modern infrastructure behind it?

 

We now have our club safe and almost debt-free, we have a tantalisingly close to complete stadium with modern facilities, and we have our finances well in the black.

 

Building modern stadia has liquidated other Scottish football clubs. With others still it has seen them in and out of administration and spending seasons outside the top-flight or their equivalent natural level. Clubs who have suffered from investing in their infrastructure against a background of no money have been dealt killer blows in terms of survival and ability to compete. Not is though. Through a series of circumstances we find ourselves pretty much debt-free and amongst the top three or four in terms of facilities.

For me, any overspend that gets picked up by benevolent rich Jambos who don’t want the money paid back to them, and who were only there to find the overspend in the first place thanks to Ann Budge, is fine by me.

 

What caused the overspend that the benefactors have covered? Nope. No ****s to give. 👍

 

 

 

[Beast Boy]

35 minutes ago, annushorribilis III said:

I'm in the same boat.

There's two ways to look at it :

 

the money is being spent on the basis that the benefactors are providing it ie the additional spend (or part of it) was already covered by their generosity. 

 

the benefactors are bailing out the club. 

Good on them, eh? Happy days. If they hadn’t been prepared to do so during a period of exceptional necessary outlay, then we might have found ourselves massively in debt through mortgages and open to being taken over by the likes of Ron Gordon.

[Francis Albert]

45 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

As I said to the other guy, this project's 8 million+ over budget and I want to know why. I can't get my head round why anyone would find that weird given our history. 

According to FF's analysis of the accounts we are currently looking at total project cost to date exceeding £24m, or £12m over the initial budget, with the project not yet complete. 

As you say the initial estimate of £12m was for "stadium redevelopment" as shown in FF's extract from the initial AGM presentation. Later presentations showed steadily growing funding without identifying how the scope of the stadium redevelopment project had changed from the original scope on which the £12m estimate was based. . That is the missing link I hope to see explained this year. Like you I don't understand why anyone thinks that is an unreasonable expectation.

[soonbe110]

55 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

As I said to the other guy, this project's 8 million+ over budget and I want to know why. I can't get my head round why anyone would find that weird given our history. 

It was largely explained at last years AGM. 

[Beast Boy]

8 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

According to FF's analysis of the accounts we are currently looking at total project cost to date exceeding £24m, or £12m over the initial budget, with the project not yet complete. 

As you say the initial estimate of £12m was for "stadium redevelopment" as shown in FF's extract from the initial AGM presentation. Later presentations showed steadily growing funding without identifying how the scope of the stadium redevelopment project had changed from the original scope on which the £12m estimate was based. . That is the missing link I hope to see explained this year. Like you I don't understand why anyone thinks that is an unreasonable expectation.

Reasonable enough to want to know where the benefactors’ cash was spent, but I am not sure anyone has an obligation to disclose that to you. The money that has gone towards it from FoH and Hearts’ money, you do.

[Unknown user]

10 minutes ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

Reasonable enough to want to know where the benefactors’ cash was spent, but I am not sure anyone has an obligation to disclose that to you. The money that has gone towards it from FoH and Hearts’ money, you do.

 

The benefactor has paid 6.75million overall (and very grateful I am too), but 3 million of that was part of the original 12. It's not like the overspend's covered according to the figures the club gave out- 3.75 million of it has been.

 

As of last november there was an 8.5 million overspend- 3.7 of that has come from club resources. 

 

We've spent 6.7 million instead of 3, and I doubt that's gone down. I'd like to know why. 

Edited November 19, 2019 by Smithee

[Coburg Hearts]

1 hour ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

I don’t find it weird, mate. I’m just not that concerned personally, for the reasons I’ve given. 

Could it not be that the overspend for the original plans are indeed over budget, but that the finished new Stand will bear no resemblance to those original plans, and that Ms. Budge only undertook the extra work because she knew where the money was coming from?

Indeed, when the new stand is finished, and related works, it may be that we got value for money. (or is that too simplistic?)

Did she not give an interview a few months ago explaining all this extra work, for transparency? 

[Bazzas right boot]

7 minutes ago, Coburg Hearts said:

Could it not be that the overspend for the original plans are indeed over budget, but that the finished new Stand will bear no resemblance to those original plans, and that Ms. Budge only undertook the extra work because she knew where the money was coming from?

Indeed, when the new stand is finished, and related works, it may be that we got value for money. (or is that too simplistic?)

Did she not give an interview a few months ago explaining all this extra work, for transparency? 

 

 

She did say she added things on as the opportunity arose. 

 

Even the seat issue allowed other stuff to be done iirc. 

 

She explained it pretty clearly. 

 

 

Folk evaluating/ judging Budge at all on a overspend and not the fact we stayed at Tynecastle and have  a cracking new stand, pitch and museum amongst other improvements really need to slap themselves about their heed. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2019 by Smith's right boot

[Coburg Hearts]

2 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

 

She did say she added things on as the opportunity arose. 

 

Even the seat issue allowed other stuff to be done iirc. 

 

She explained it pretty clearly. 

 

 

Folk evaluating/ judging Budge at all on a overspend and not the fact we stayed at Tynecastle and have  a cracking new stand, pitch and museum amongst other improvements really need to slap themselves about their heed. 

 

 

 

 

 

I concur. 

[Unknown user]

26 minutes ago, Coburg Hearts said:

Could it not be that the overspend for the original plans are indeed over budget, but that the finished new Stand will bear no resemblance to those original plans, and that Ms. Budge only undertook the extra work because she knew where the money was coming from?

Indeed, when the new stand is finished, and related works, it may be that we got value for money. (or is that too simplistic?)

Did she not give an interview a few months ago explaining all this extra work, for transparency? 

 

No matter what the benefactor's done, an extra 3.7 million has come from club resources, that's a lot of money over and above the planned 3 million, and we should be asking questions about it.

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

The budget was for the whole Stadium redevelopment according to the link above, not just a new stand. 

The project is 8 million+ over budget. If you're at peace with that then good on you.

 

Me, I want to know why, and I don't apologise for it.

 

 

 

the overspend was caused by the weather - queen Ann released a statement at the time

 

 

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

the overspend was caused by the weather - queen Ann released a statement at the time

 

 

A wet summer in Edinburgh and shipping delays from the far East. A sort of perfect storm of misfortune!

Edited November 19, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Guest ToqueJambo]

This discussion of cost over-run is irrelevant without a basic breakdown of:

Original scope

Updated scope

 

As I understand it we've changed some things, added some things, etc, etc.

 

We've also spent a lot of money on the pitch - the temporary relay and then the new pitch although I don't know if that's listed elsewhere or included in group redevelopment budgets.

 

Anyhow, can anyone in the know do a quick breakdown of what the original scope for the stand was and what changed to increase costs?

 

To my mind, Budge knows what she's doing when she invests money in something, and that goes for the facilities too. She was criticised for spending money on the women's team, but Umbro just threw in an extra 6 figure sponsorship amount for the women's team. Over 1,000 people at a Hearts women's game as they had recently is fantastic. If we can get these sorts of crowds and bigger crowds, that could be a very significant revenue stream. It's not inconceivable in future we could get the sorts of crowds to our womens games Championship clubs get for their mens team - 2-3000 on a good day.

Edited November 19, 2019 by ToqueJambo

[Clerry Jambo]

23 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Quite. It's the same with the "I trust FoH" sheep.

 

As for Ann Budge's handling of things, it is completely right to question her handling of footballing decisions, the most important decision making at the club and to scrutinise how money is spent on capital investments. It doesn't mean she hasn't done an excellent job off the park.

Geoff, you were a renowned Vlad sheep and still are, why didn't you question his running of the club?

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

Reasonable enough to want to know where the benefactors’ cash was spent, but I am not sure anyone has an obligation to disclose that to you. The money that has gone towards it from FoH and Hearts’ money, you do.

I am not  aware of any ring fencing of FoH money, benefactors money or general revenue. In any event that is not  how public limited companies work. The board has a duty to answer reasonable questions from shareholders about use of funds whatever their source. I would be astonished if the board has not already presented a clear analysis of cost variations to FoH and the benefactors  based on a simple scope and cost variance analysis, which if the project is well managed will have been produced regularly throughout the project to date and until it is complete. 

 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

15 minutes ago, Clerry Jambo said:

Geoff, you were a renowned Vlad sheep and still are, why didn't you question his running of the club?

 

Vlad, shrewd businessman and football expert as he was, spent about the same or more as Budge spent on a brand new pitch for us on plans and designs and red tape stuff for a new stadium we all knew was never going to be built. Well over 1m quid for a model of a fantasy stadium. Lovely looking model mind you. He also paid our record transfer fee for a guy who made one good cross.

Edited November 19, 2019 by ToqueJambo

[Guest ToqueJambo]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

I am not  aware of any ring fencing of FoH money, benefactors money or general revenue. In any event that is not  how public limited companies work. The board has a duty to answer reasonable questions from shareholders about use of funds whatever their source. I would be astonished if the board has not already presented a clear analysis of cost variations to FoH and the benefactors  based on a simple scope and cost variance analysis, which if the project is well managed will have been produced regularly throughout the project to date and until it is complete. 

 

 

If money is not ring-fenced for a specific purpose, how could Hearts prove where it was spent? It could be put into the overall budget and spent on a range of things.

[Francis Albert]

1 minute ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

If money is not ring-fenced for a specific purpose, how could Hearts prove where it was spent? It could be put into the overall budget and spent on a range of things.

I don't expect it to be ring fenced just as FoH funding has not and will not in the future be ring fenced, It is not a question of proving where specific sources of funds are spent. It is simply a question of understanding what was in the scope of the original stadium development budget of £12m including contingencies, what has been added to or excluded to the  scope and how that and cost variations affects the expected total spend, currently £24m and counting.

If people are not interested in that question, or happy just to speculate then that's fine. 

But if others are then it is a perfectly reasonable question which should be easy to answer.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I don't expect it to be ring fenced just as FoH funding has not and will not in the future be ring fenced, It is not a question of proving where specific sources of funds are spent. It is simply a question of understanding what was in the scope of the original stadium development budget of £12m including contingencies, what has been added to or excluded to the  scope and how that and cost variations affects the expected total spend, currently £24m and counting.

If people are not interested in that question, or happy just to speculate then that's fine. 

But if others are then it is a perfectly reasonable question which should be easy to answer.

 

Gotcha. I'm interested in how the scope has changed (increased I assume unless it's all cost over-runs) definitely. Was hoping someone could chime in with details.

Edited November 19, 2019 by ToqueJambo

[Coburg Hearts]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

No matter what the benefactor's done, an extra 3.7 million has come from club resources, that's a lot of money over and above the planned 3 million, and we should be asking questions about it.

Perhaps, but if Ms. Budge is happy then I'm happy. Surely after all she has done for the club she deserves the benefit of the doubt? 

I'm content to wait until everything is finished and then we can judge whether we have value for money. 

[Jamboelite]

To dismiss £12m of a difference because we dont have any debt is bonkers.

 

We should ask questions, if nothing more than to make an informed decision on whether we want AB to continue on based on the complete picture on and off the field (and i do)

 

We should also ask questions for the simple reason being that no one should ever be above scrutiny at our club.

 

Clearly costs have gone up for a number of factors, so i’d like to know how much was additional improvements and how much waste in overspend or rework.

 

Asking questions is not an accusation just common sense, and something we as fans should always do to make sure history is never repeated.

 

 

Edited November 19, 2019 by Jamboelite

[Guest ToqueJambo]

Just now, Jamboelite said:

To dismiss £12m of a difference because we dont have any debt is bonkers.

 

We should ask questions if nothing more than to make an informed decision on whether we want AB to continue on based on the complete picture (and i do)

 

We should also ask questions for the simple reason being that no one should ever be above scrutiny at our club.

 

Clearly costs have gone up for a number of factors so i’d like to know how much was additional improvements and how much waste in overspend or rework.

 

Asking questions is not an accusation just common sense and something we as fans should always do to make sure history is never repeated.

 

 

 

I assume she'll be grilled on it at the next AGM.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Coburg Hearts said:

Perhaps, but if Ms. Budge is happy then I'm happy. Surely after all she has done for the club she deserves the benefit of the doubt? 

I'm content to wait until everything is finished and then we can judge whether we have value for money. 

 

She has the benefit of the doubt, I don't think for one second that anything dodgy or nasty is going on.

 

But I would like to know how spending an extra 3.7 million of club resources is justified.

 

4 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

To dismiss £12m of a difference because we dont have any debt is bonkers.

 

We should ask questions, if nothing more than to make an informed decision on whether we want AB to continue on based on the complete picture on and off the field (and i do)

 

We should also ask questions for the simple reason being that no one should ever be above scrutiny at our club.

 

Clearly costs have gone up for a number of factors, so i’d like to know how much was additional improvements and how much waste in overspend or rework.

 

Asking questions is not an accusation just common sense, and something we as fans should always do to make sure history is never repeated.

 

 

 

Agree fully, especially the bit in bold.

[Coburg Hearts]

41 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I don't expect it to be ring fenced just as FoH funding has not and will not in the future be ring fenced, It is not a question of proving where specific sources of funds are spent. It is simply a question of understanding what was in the scope of the original stadium development budget of £12m including contingencies, what has been added to or excluded to the  scope and how that and cost variations affects the expected total spend, currently £24m and counting.

If people are not interested in that question, or happy just to speculate then that's fine. 

But if others are then it is a perfectly reasonable question which should be easy to answer.

I don't think anyone could argue with that.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 hour ago, Clerry Jambo said:

Geoff, you were a renowned Vlad sheep and still are, why didn't you question his running of the club?

Because Mr Romanov obtained results and won trophies. Could he have done better? Absolutely.

 

Vlad wouldn't have farted about with Cathro or Levein.