Jump to content

FoH - final installment of BidCo payment made - share transfer likely in April


Footballfirst

Recommended Posts

Francis Albert
3 hours ago, John Findlay said:

Always wise after the event FA.

So you are one of those in the "should have taken our medicine camp"?

I did to be fair offer a word of caution about getting gung ho and overconfident on the on the basis of a QCs opinion. Cue much mockery! But no I was not against our response to the SPFL's and club's actions. 

Not really the point though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 786
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • davemclaren

    66

  • Francis Albert

    62

  • Beast Boy

    27

  • Footballfirst

    24

10 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Not really. "Hearts have decided" are the first words. Not really Hearts decision if FoH applied the terms of the Bidco/FOH  agreement. The FoH quotes are very unconvincing. I think we could have welcomed something to celebrate and we were certainly not consulted on the pretty fundamental decision to not take ownership under the terms of the FoH agreement with Bidco. Which of course need not have had any impact on the management of our legal claim or indeed anything else.

 

We must be taking a leaf out of the SPFL by giving mixed messages FS. Further down the article it states this, quote.

 

FoH chairman Stuart Wallace told members in an email: "Given the troubled situation, the board of the Foundation of Hearts has taken the decision that this is not the time to be adding any further potential disruption by pushing forward with the handover of the majority shareholding.

 

It could be Sky Sports giving an incorrect Headline. Now that would be a surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queensland Jambo said:

I've contributed since the start and as far as I'm concerned it's for life.

 

I also think it's a sensible move to delay transfer given the current circumstances, and I'm pleased that - despite a few mistakes - Ann is staying on for the foreseeable.

 

However, I also think the criticism of FOH is fair - this isn't the first time when the lack of communication looks poor or even arrogant.  They have much work to do on that.


Not so sure it is either poor or arrogant but more of a case that there might be a disparity between how businesses would normally communicate to shareholders and what FOH members who are more emotionally attached than normal shareholders would like to see communicated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody Loves Baz!

FA round about the topic like a fly on shite.

Predictable.

Like others have said, why bother supporting the team?

My DD is for life, and for that, I expect nothing in return. Sounds like FA wants a seat at the table and nothing less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

davemclaren
1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Probably close to 100% in favour pf whatever FOH recommended. As usual.

 

I agree. The key point here, for me, is that the FoH board must have the power to make this decision or you would assume they would revert to the membership. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wavydavy said:

 

We must be taking a leaf out of the SPFL by giving mixed messages FS. Further down the article it states this, quote.

 

FoH chairman Stuart Wallace told members in an email: "Given the troubled situation, the board of the Foundation of Hearts has taken the decision that this is not the time to be adding any further potential disruption by pushing forward with the handover of the majority shareholding.

 

It could be Sky Sports giving an incorrect Headline. Now that would be a surprise.

What a ridiculous statement.

I agree with the decision but the wording is way off.

Having said that - it would be far better to put together a short term & long term plan : short term (possibly 2 years) to get the club through Covid & the potentially financially disastrous impact of "relegation" and the the longer term going forward post handover. 

 

In the meantime, what are the FoH directors ACTUALLY doing ? Seems to me, apart from failing in their duties to see that executive directors do THEIR jobs properly , they are simply sitting on their hands waiting for the transfer to happen. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam_the_legend

I don’t think anything dodgy is going on but the reasoning by hearts/FOH and on here doesn’t quite work imo. The transfer doesn’t have to be a big deal. What would fundamentally change if the transfer took place? AB would still be running the show, certainly in the short to medium term. I just think the whole “disruption” argument doesn’t quite work. @Francis Albert is getting a hard time but I think you have to ask questions, following blindly never ends well, in any walk of life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

davemclaren
22 minutes ago, Adam_the_legend said:

I don’t think anything dodgy is going on but the reasoning by hearts/FOH and on here doesn’t quite work imo. The transfer doesn’t have to be a big deal. What would fundamentally change if the transfer took place? AB would still be running the show, certainly in the short to medium term. I just think the whole “disruption” argument doesn’t quite work. @Francis Albert is getting a hard time but I think you have to ask questions, following blindly never ends well, in any walk of life. 

There is a cost of £100k to complete the transfer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam_the_legend
6 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

There is a cost of £100k to complete the transfer. 

I’m aware. That’s why it should’ve gone to a vote. Let the people who pumped over £10m into the club with the promise of ownership be the ones who decide. Like when the funds were directed to building the stand And the handover delayed. It just seems odd to me that the decision has been taken unilaterally 🤷🏼‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NANOJAMBO said:

What a ridiculous statement.

I agree with the decision but the wording is way off.

Having said that - it would be far better to put together a short term & long term plan : short term (possibly 2 years) to get the club through Covid & the potentially financially disastrous impact of "relegation" and the the longer term going forward post handover. 

 

In the meantime, what are the FoH directors ACTUALLY doing ? Seems to me, apart from failing in their duties to see that executive directors do THEIR jobs properly , they are simply sitting on their hands waiting for the transfer to happen. 

 

I have wondered that myself unless there are things going on behind the scenes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As well as delaying the purchase of the club the FoH are also currently attempting to make it easier to sell the club by changing the supermajority threshold.  Hopefully enough members can thwart this by opposing the shift to 75% from 90%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
2 hours ago, NANOJAMBO said:

What a ridiculous statement.

I agree with the decision but the wording is way off.

Having said that - it would be far better to put together a short term & long term plan : short term (possibly 2 years) to get the club through Covid & the potentially financially disastrous impact of "relegation" and the the longer term going forward post handover. 

 

In the meantime, what are the FoH directors ACTUALLY doing ? Seems to me, apart from failing in their duties to see that executive directors do THEIR jobs properly , they are simply sitting on their hands waiting for the transfer to happen. 

 

 

 

Wallace's statement is a bit Doncaster-esque. Vague scary words to justify a short term decision with no clarification of where we go from here. What exactly is the " any potential further disruption" (if any!)? What is the "troubled situation"? Coronavirus and its impact on Hearts and football? If so are we talking about a deferral of transfer of ownership until a vaccine is found? Or until Hearts recover from the financial damage of expulsion? Until we return to the Premiership whenever that is?

 

The only reason I can see as justifiable is that Hearts are so financially strapped that they need the £100,000 which FoH would otherwise spend on the shares. There is no suggestion anything about the running of the club would change. Ann would still be CEO. FoH would still have a minority of two members on the club Board as now, no more no less, and still exercising their "hands off" policy on the running of the club.

 

At the very least I would expect FoH and Bidco/Ann to have confirmed that there is no change in the commitment to transfer ownership, and some indication of when that will happen. or what will trigger it happening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

davemclaren
16 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Wallace's statement is a bit Doncaster-esque. Vague scary words to justify a short term decision with no clarification of where we go from here. What exactly is the " any potential further disruption" (if any!)? What is the "troubled situation"? Coronavirus and its impact on Hearts and football? If so are we talking about a deferral of transfer of ownership until a vaccine is found? Or until Hearts recover from the financial damage of expulsion? Until we return to the Premiership whenever that is?

 

The only reason I can see as justifiable is that Hearts are so financially strapped that they need the £100,000 which FoH would otherwise spend on the shares. There is no suggestion anything about the running of the club would change. Ann would still be CEO. FoH would still have a minority of two members on the club Board as now, no more no less, and still exercising their "hands off" policy on the running of the club.

 

At the very least I would expect FoH and Bidco/Ann to have confirmed that there is no change in the commitment to transfer ownership, and some indication of when that will happen. or what will trigger it happening. 

It’s a fair enough point. Perhaps Ann prefers being majority shareholder while we still owe her significant sums? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
2 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

It’s a fair enough point. Perhaps Ann prefers being majority shareholder while we still owe her significant sums? 

What do we owe her apart from the £100k for the shares? Sorry if I missed something but what has she put in and on what terms? Watever it was, was it  conditional on an amendment to the Bidco/FoH agreement?  If so why weren't we told about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NANOJAMBO said:

What a ridiculous statement.

I agree with the decision but the wording is way off.

Having said that - it would be far better to put together a short term & long term plan : short term (possibly 2 years) to get the club through Covid & the potentially financially disastrous impact of "relegation" and the the longer term going forward post handover. 

 

In the meantime, what are the FoH directors ACTUALLY doing ? Seems to me, apart from failing in their duties to see that executive directors do THEIR jobs properly , they are simply sitting on their hands waiting for the transfer to happen. 

 

 

 

 

Probably doing what AB wants them to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

What do we owe her apart from the £100k for the shares? Sorry if I missed something but what has she put in and on what terms? Watever it was, was it  conditional on an amendment to the Bidco/FoH agreement?  If so why weren't we told about it?

We were. She is the clubs bank at the moment and the club has taken loans from her. She said that she didn’t think she should hand over the shares until that debt had been repaid and the Club was debt free as per the original agreement with FoH that the club would be debt-free at the point of handover to FoH. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
22 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

We were. She is the clubs bank at the moment and the club has taken loans from her. She said that she didn’t think she should hand over the shares until that debt had been repaid and the Club was debt free as per the original agreement with FoH that the club would be debt-free at the point of handover to FoH. 

Thanks. I did not recall being told. I don't remember being debt free being a condition of the share transfer under the FoH/Bidco agreement but I will check. "She didn't think she should" suggests it was not a condition. If this is the reason I'd have thought FoH (and the club) might have been a bit clearer in their explanation of the deferred transfer of shares rather than waffle about "any further potential disruption" and the "troubled situation". 

Do we as prospective owners know what we owe her?

And the shares are not exactly being "handed over". Apart from the £100,000 cost of the purchase of the shares themselves FoH has put in over £10m to date to get hold of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Thanks. I did not recall being told. I don't remember being debt free being a condition of the share transfer under the FoH/Bidco agreement but I will check. "She didn't think she should" suggests it was not a condition. If this is the reason I'd have thought FoH (and the club) might have been a bit clearer in their explanation of the deferred transfer of shares rather than waffle about "any further potential disruption" and the "troubled situation". 

Do we as prospective owners know what we owe her?

And the shares are not exactly being "handed over". Apart from the £100,000 cost of the purchase of the shares themselves FoH has put in over £10m to date to get hold of them.

Not sure it’s in the actual agreement but both her and Wallace have said on more than one occasion that there is no intention to hand the club to FoH with debt attached. That May mean that she will write that debt off or it may mean that the shares dong transfer until the debt is repaid. Regardless in answer to your original question, both parties have said on more than occasion that the club will not transfer to FoH carrying debt. Hope that’s clear. 
At the time the we’re talking about share transfer happening in June this year we were pre-Covid and pre-relegation. I suspect both those events may have changed our financial outlook possibly not for the better so any outstanding loans may not be repaid as soon as expected. Indeed further loans may be required. 
As to ‘do we know what we owe her’ I’m sure the FoH guys on the Board have a very good idea of what is owed and to whom. The funds for the repayment of the money she put up to bring the club out of administration plus further spending on the stand have all been repaid. All that‘s left to give her is the agreed £100k share transfer fee.  On top of that she has advanced loans to the club to assist cash flow and working capital requirements at several times over last five years. It’s some of these loans that are outstanding. 
 

I’m pretty sure you know all this as it’s been explained to you by several posters over the last 18 months or so. Time to pay attention or stop acting the fool I think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

davemclaren
51 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Thanks. I did not recall being told. I don't remember being debt free being a condition of the share transfer under the FoH/Bidco agreement but I will check. "She didn't think she should" suggests it was not a condition. If this is the reason I'd have thought FoH (and the club) might have been a bit clearer in their explanation of the deferred transfer of shares rather than waffle about "any further potential disruption" and the "troubled situation". 

Do we as prospective owners know what we owe her?

And the shares are not exactly being "handed over". Apart from the £100,000 cost of the purchase of the shares themselves FoH has put in over £10m to date to get hold of them.

The loans from Ann were detailed n the last set of accounts. About £1m iirc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Independence
57 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Thanks. I did not recall being told. I don't remember being debt free being a condition of the share transfer under the FoH/Bidco agreement but I will check. "She didn't think she should" suggests it was not a condition. If this is the reason I'd have thought FoH (and the club) might have been a bit clearer in their explanation of the deferred transfer of shares rather than waffle about "any further potential disruption" and the "troubled situation". 

Do we as prospective owners know what we owe her?

And the shares are not exactly being "handed over". Apart from the £100,000 cost of the purchase of the shares themselves FoH has put in over £10m to date to get hold of them.

It is always good to 'challenge'. Indeed it is essential. However, continually asking the same questions, refusing to accept the evidence and going over and over old ground does make me wonder what your agenda is. What is it? Can you not accept the answers given? Do you have some evidence that all is not good with FoH? If so please share as I am content with all the answers given to your many, many questions over the years. Perhaps you should (hopefully) move on to something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
13 minutes ago, Independence said:

It is always good to 'challenge'. Indeed it is essential. However, continually asking the same questions, refusing to accept the evidence and going over and over old ground does make me wonder what your agenda is. What is it? Can you not accept the answers given? Do you have some evidence that all is not good with FoH? If so please share as I am content with all the answers given to your many, many questions over the years. Perhaps you should (hopefully) move on to something else?


FOH’s communication is shite. Let’s be honest. For a fanbase who have donated £10m. It’s terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Independence
1 minute ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


FOH’s communication is shite. Let’s be honest. For a fanbase who have donated £10m. It’s terrible.

I am content with it. Ido not wish money spent on communication. The money is for Hearts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
Just now, Independence said:

I am content with it. Ido not wish money spent on communication. The money is for Hearts.


What? They don’t have to spend money to speak to us ffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
5 minutes ago, Independence said:

Okay, thanks.


Congratulations on reaching Final Boss Level of deflection though. Outstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
17 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

What money is currently coming from Ann's deep pockets?

All I see is a massive overspend on the stand, a disastrous management of the "football department" and a failed and expensive adventure in the courts.

 

That's "all you see"? Says it all really.

 

Budge has put lots of money in herself and has persuaded other people to put lots of money in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
Just now, ToqueJambo said:

 

That's "all you see"? Says it all really.

 

Budge has put lots of money in herself and has persuaded other people to put lots of money in.


Even though I don’t want Budge here anymore, this is a genuine question - when she is paid back, how much will she have put in net?

Edited by Dusk_Till_Dawn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
10 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


FOH’s communication is shite. Let’s be honest. For a fanbase who have donated £10m. It’s terrible.

 

I could be wrong but I believe the people running FoH are doing it on a voluntary basis. They all have jobs and lives. If you have skills you can offer in this area I'm sure you can write to them and offer. Personally I would like it to become more of a membership/club type thing with a proper community manager and a comms strategy that delivers content, etc. That takes money but FoH will need to change going forward once the initial aim of fan ownership is achieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
2 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


Even though I don’t want Budge here anymore, this is a genuine question - when she is paid back, how much will she have put in net?

 

Don't know and don't care as she saved the club along with FoH, so it's worth every penny. We do know she's not been taking a salary though. You could try to add up how much that would have cost us to have paid someone to spend the same amount of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
26 minutes ago, Independence said:

It is always good to 'challenge'. Indeed it is essential. However, continually asking the same questions, refusing to accept the evidence and going over and over old ground does make me wonder what your agenda is. What is it? Can you not accept the answers given? Do you have some evidence that all is not good with FoH? If so please share as I am content with all the answers given to your many, many questions over the years. Perhaps you should (hopefully) move on to something else?

What answers have I had to.my questions?.More abuse for asking than answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Thanks. I did not recall being told. I don't remember being debt free being a condition of the share transfer under the FoH/Bidco agreement but I will check. "She didn't think she should" suggests it was not a condition. If this is the reason I'd have thought FoH (and the club) might have been a bit clearer in their explanation of the deferred transfer of shares rather than waffle about "any further potential disruption" and the "troubled situation". 

Do we as prospective owners know what we owe her?

And the shares are not exactly being "handed over". Apart from the £100,000 cost of the purchase of the shares themselves FoH has put in over £10m to date to get hold of them.

 

Being a contrarian seems like an awfy lot of work to achieve not very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
1 minute ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Don't know and don't care as she saved the club along with FoH, so it's worth every penny. We do know she's not been taking a salary though. You could try to add up how much that would have cost us to have paid someone to spend the same amount of time.


You said she’s put money in. So how much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
7 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Football is famously a results business. We have not had many results recently on or off the pitch.

 

From a club management/owber perspective:

 

Saved the club - 1-0

Promotion at first attempt - 2-0

Into Europe at first attempt - 3-0

Saved Tynecastle forever - 4-0

Problems with stand - 4-1

Problems with pitch - 4-2

Attracted benefactors - 5-2

Appointed Cathro - 5-3

Appointed Levein - 5-4

Got to a cup final - 6-4

Failed to sack Levein earlier - 6-5

Appointed Stendel - 7-5

Backed all managers to the hilt in the transfer market - 8-5

Took too long to appoint Stendel - 8-6

Got relegated - 8-7

Appointed Neilson - 9-7

Fought the club's corner against unfair demotion - 10-7

Attracted even more funding for the next 5 years to provide stability - 11-7

Facilitated fan ownership - 12-7

 

All to play for but a comfortable lead overall. It was 8-6 when the season was called so even more to play for then but she's done very well since.

 

Edited by ToqueJambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
7 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


You said she’s put money in. So how much?

 

We know what she put in at the start and we know she's spent a huge amount of time on the club. I don't know but enough to secure our future. As I say I don't care how much. Arguably the biggest thing she's done for us after saving us was bringing in the benefactors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
46 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

The loans from Ann were detailed n the last set of accounts. About £1m iirc. 

So why not just say transfer of shares won't happen until loans are repaid? Indeed why not tell us so when the loans were made?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
11 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Being a contrarian seems like an awfy lot of work to achieve not very much.

Being a door mat takes no effort whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Being a door mat takes no effort whatsoever.

 

You're saying Budge or FoH have been mistreating Hearts fans somehow 😂 That's the worst of all worst takes. They've done some things wrong but we're sitting here having raised over £10m (and after just seeing a record month), with a secure Tynecastle and a secure club about to be handed over to fans with zero debt as soon as that is possible. We also have guaranteed benefactor funding for 5 years during one of the worst crises the world has seen.

Edited by ToqueJambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

davemclaren
3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

So why not just say transfer of shares won't happen until loans are repaid? Indeed why not tell us so when the loans were made?

 

I’m just guessing as to a possible reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that the court case is settled and we have a manager in place I don’t see a reason why the handover should be delayed further. The ship is stable and we should be searching for a successor to AB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
5 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

You're saying Budge or FoH have been mistreating Hearts fans somehow 😂 That's the worst of all worst takes. They've done some things wrong but we're sitting here having raised over £10m (and after just seeing a record month), with a secure Tynecastle and a secure club about to be handed over to fans with zero debt as soon as that is possible. We also have guaranteed benefactor funding for 5 years during one of the worst crises the world has seen.

Mistreating? 

Well if being less open and straightforward than they should be yes if that is mistreatment.

When you say it is about to be "handed over" (sounds very charitable!) have you any idea when that might be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Independence
40 minutes ago, poultry said:

Does anyone have an exact number of FOH subscribers that contrabute each month ? Just interested to know.

Why do you want an exact number? Is it a fabrication that we are handing over £150,000 pm? Is it a full moon tonight? has the patients taken over the asylum? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
30 minutes ago, Independence said:

Why do you want an exact number? Is it a fabrication that we are handing over £150,000 pm? Is it a full moon tonight? has the patients taken over the asylum? 


:rofl:what’s wrong with you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
3 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

From a club management/owber perspective:

 

Saved the club - 1-0

Promotion at first attempt - 2-0

Into Europe at first attempt - 3-0

Saved Tynecastle forever - 4-0

Problems with stand - 4-1

Problems with pitch - 4-2

Attracted benefactors - 5-2

Appointed Cathro - 5-3

Appointed Levein - 5-4

Got to a cup final - 6-4

Failed to sack Levein earlier - 6-5

Appointed Stendel - 7-5

Backed all managers to the hilt in the transfer market - 8-5

Took too long to appoint Stendel - 8-6

Got relegated - 8-7

Appointed Neilson - 9-7

Fought the club's corner against unfair demotion - 10-7

Attracted even more funding for the next 5 years to provide stability - 11-7

Facilitated fan ownership - 12-7

 

All to play for but a comfortable lead overall. It was 8-6 when the season was called so even more to play for then but she's done very well since.

 

Failing to win more than 4 league 

games in 30 doesn't feature in your assessment of a results based football business?

 

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Mistreating? 

Well if being less open and straightforward than they should be yes if that is mistreatment.

When you say it is about to be "handed over" (sounds very charitable!) have you any idea when that might be?

 

If anything Budge has been too open, issuing too many statements to supporters. She just gets stick every time she does. Then she gets stick when she doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
31 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Failing to win more than 4 league 

games in 30 doesn't feature in your assessment of a results based football business?

 

 

No because that is covered by the three points against for appointing Levein, failing to sack him earlier and taking too long to appoint his successor. She doesn't play the games, train the team or sign the players.

Edited by ToqueJambo
Link to comment
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...