Jump to content
Footballfirst

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

Recommended Posts

davemclaren
1 minute ago, Jarhead said:

I don’t think you’ll get your wish. 
At the AGM it was suggested that the next big ticket item would be to build our own dedicated training facility. 

That was by Ann who, a bit reluctantly, gave that as a good example when put on the spot. I think that’s a long way away if it ever happens 

Share this post


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

So what's the point in the insistence that not a penny goes to the squad?

It is pure cosmetics. If we need say to relay the pitch again we can use FoH funds and have the money for players. But it is not just Justin Z's fungibility point, the concept of hypothecation (allocating the funds to specific spends) was ruled out in the governance "consultations" and the Articles of Association approved at the AGM prevent FoH interfering in club business.

In practice I think the most likely use of FoH funds for the first year or so will be to repay (in effect if not directly) Ann's later loan

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
o1djambo
6 minutes ago, 1971fozzy said:

 on future
It’s  been done to death so I won’t go on about it but can you imagine giving £1m a year to Levein for players . As well putting a match to it.
That’s my point.

this is emergency times with hopefully a manager that knows what he is doing.

thats all I’ll say on this

 

6 minutes ago, 1971fozzy said:


It’s  been done to death so I won’t go on about it but can you imagine giving £1m a year to Levein for players . As well putting a match to it.
That’s my point.

this is emergency times with hopefully a manager that knows what he is doing.

thats all I’ll say on this

 

12 minutes ago, Section Q said:

When FoH take over the running of the club, I hope we can have a clean sweep of the board and lay down our vision and blue print for the club's future. I know we all get a bit hysterical on here, usually about the minor things, but the last 2-3 seasons haven't been much to talk about in a footballing sense. By setting out a clear goal we can all agree with and support, and with an experienced CEO to lead us, I'm sure the majority of us will keep pledging our few bob a month. Budge was never meant to be running a football and the lon willger she does, the more it shows. The future's definitely bright...

Under the present FOH governance agreement it is not possible to direct money to our playing budget. The Bidco/Mrs Budge money will be paid off in April for accountancy reasons. We require now to focus on best future use of FOH monies.

Share this post


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

It is pure cosmetics. If we need say to relay the pitch again we can use FoH funds and have the money for players. But it is not just Justin Z's fungibility point, the concept of hypothecation (allocating the funds to specific spends) was ruled out in the governance "consultations" and the Articles of Association approved at the AGM prevent FoH interfering in club business.

I don't think it was ruled out but it’s just not necessary? If the club board wanted a specific objective funded by FoH contributions they could still do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
132goals1958
10 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

That was by Ann who, a bit reluctantly, gave that as a good example when put on the spot. I think that’s a long way away if it ever happens 

 

She also said the existing facilities were very expensive  so arguably this overhead could  be partly subsidised from FOH funds. Would be a huge investment project in terms of a new training ground unless we identify a coo field half way to Berwick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
1 minute ago, 132goals1958 said:

 

She also said the existing facilities were very expensive  so arguably this overhead could  be partly subsidised from FOH funds. Would be a huge investment project in terms of a new training ground unless we identify a coo field half way to Berwick.

Absolutely massive project but thankfully not a lot of seats required. 😄

Share this post


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

That was by Ann who, a bit reluctantly, gave that as a good example when put on the spot. I think that’s a long way away if it ever happens 

I actually agree with the principal that FoH money is spent on infrastructure.

In a roundabout way it frees other club income to be spent on players without members getting upset when their donations are directly spunked on a duff player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boab
Just now, Jarhead said:

I actually agree with the principal that FoH money is spent on infrastructure.

In a roundabout way it frees other club income to be spent on players without members getting upset when their donations are directly spunked on a duff player.


Big time. Keep it separate. Would only increase the ire, justified or no !

Share this post


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

I actually agree with the principal that FoH money is spent on infrastructure.

In a roundabout way it frees other club income to be spent on players without members getting upset when their donations are directly spunked on a duff player.

That’s my view as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jr ewing
12 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

That’s my view as well. 

Ditto 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DETTY29

 

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

It is pure cosmetics. If we need say to relay the pitch again we can use FoH funds and have the money for players. But it is not just Justin Z's fungibility point, the concept of hypothecation (allocating the funds to specific spends) was ruled out in the governance "consultations" and the Articles of Association approved at the AGM prevent FoH interfering in club business.

In practice I think the most likely use of FoH funds for the first year or so will be to repay (in effect if not directly) Ann's later loan

Per the AGM she expects the £1.6m loan to be repaid back within 2 years.

 

Until FOH funds flows directly into working capital post April, I wouldn't be surprised to see the loan figure from her being increased up to circa £2m to support funding the removal of players, staff and bringing new ones in.

 

So I don't think you are that far off the mark.

 

Another £1.5m is needed to fund the final stages of the stand development but some offset is that the other aspects of the main stand development are income generators as their capital expenditure is complete.  If you break down the development as a individual work streams, business cases.  However that is another £1.5m that needs up front funding and personally I'm not sure I'd want that to come from AB*

 

Other factors that could reduce how much she is owed or repayment timeline hastened-

 

Cup run

More benefactor money

Sale and loan back of Hickey

 

* There is a lot of me that now thinks that FOH directors on the board should really be challenging any further capital expenditure on the main stand unless its free.  I.e a donation.

Edited by DETTY29

Share this post


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

I don't think it was ruled out but it’s just not necessary? If the club board wanted a specific objective funded by FoH contributions they could still do it. 

It isn't necessary for the club board, which is free to hypothecate the funds it receives from FoH and elsewhere. My point was that FoH, under the terms of the Articles of Association, have ruled out making funding conditional - they can't interfere in club business. Telling the club how to spend money would seem to fall into that category.

 

I can understand why FoH and the club might maintain a fiction that FoH funding doesn't contribute to player funding … for the reason others have stated. Failed expenditure on players is all too visible to fans. Failed or inefficient spending on infrastructure is less easy to identify '. As we know.

 

But at the end of the day it is really smoke and mirrors. 

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
Just now, Francis Albert said:

It isn't necessary for the club board, which is free to hypothecate the funds it receives from FoH and elsewhere. My point was that FoH, under the terms of the Articles of Association, have ruled out making funding conditional - they can't interfere in club business. Telling the club how to spend money would seem to fall into that category.

 

I can understand why FoH and the club might maintain a fiction that FoH funding doesn't contribute to player funding … for the reason others have stated. Failed expenditure on players is all too visible to fans. Failed or inefficient spending on infrastructure is less easy to identify '. As we know.

 

But t the end of the day it is really smoke and mirrors. 

But important smoke and mirrors imo. 😄

Share this post


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

But important smoke and mirrors imo. 😄

Prudent at any rate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mitch41

The hardest job i recon the FOH board will have is after appointing the HEARTS board, of which i'd want a majority of FOH members on it, will be employing a CEO in place of Ann Budge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
o1djambo
2 hours ago, 132goals1958 said:

 

She also said the existing facilities were very expensive  so arguably this overhead could  be partly subsidised from FOH funds. Would be a huge investment project in terms of a new training ground unless we identify a coo field half way to Berwick.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
o1djambo
2 minutes ago, o1djambo said:

 

£500,000 per annum to fund the Oriam training facility Mrs Budge stated. So far not much to show from our Academy or Oriam.  A coo field seems like a good budget option to me. The FOH now require to refocus objectives towards having a competitive first team .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wavydavy
3 hours ago, Section Q said:

When FoH take over the running of the club, I hope we can have a clean sweep of the board and lay down our vision and blue print for the club's future. I know we all get a bit hysterical on here, usually about the minor things, but the last 2-3 seasons haven't been much to talk about in a footballing sense. By setting out a clear goal we can all agree with and support, and with an experienced CEO to lead us, I'm sure the majority of us will keep pledging our few bob a month. Budge was never meant to be running a football and the longer she does, the more it shows. The future's definitely bright...

 

As I understand it the make-up of the Board will remain the same with two members from FOH.

 

FF is the man to ask about all of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
annushorribilis III
3 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

As I understand it the make-up of the Board will remain the same with two members from FOH.

 

FF is the man to ask about all of this.

I'd suggest the desire for change / criticism of the board is to do with the make up of it, not it's structure. It's certainly where i'm at.  I'm underwhelmed by their performance and anyone associated with the crazy overspend on the new stand needs to be held to account. They've also been ineffective  in keeping AB under control re the neglect of the football side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wavydavy
4 minutes ago, annushorribilis III said:

I'd suggest the desire for change / criticism of the board is to do with the make up of it, not it's structure. It's certainly where i'm at.  I'm underwhelmed by their performance and anyone associated with the crazy overspend on the new stand needs to be held to account. They've also been ineffective  in keeping AB under control re the neglect of the football side. 

 

This is taken from the FOH Governance Proposal Document.

 

 

In relation to the Club, we propose that:

 

o so far as possible, the existing business structures of the Club will be retained, in order to provide continuity and stability;

 

o as at present, the Club Board will include two Nominated Directors from the Foundation Board. The other directors will be a combination of executive and non-executive directors, as appropriate, and one of the non-executive directors will be an external independent director. The Club Board will choose its chairman from among the directors;

 

o a nomination committee will make recommendations to the Club Board on the appointment of any chief executive or external independent director. Its members will comprise the chairman of the Club Board, the independent non-executive director, and the two Nominated Directors;

 

o the Club board will oversee the executive management of the Club, and will carry ultimate responsibility for its success. The Club Board will meet regularly and, in the conduct of its proceedings, it will observe generally accepted principles of corporate governance; o certain matters will be reserved for decision by the Club’s shareholders. These are matters considered to be important and emotive issues for supporters, such as a potential sale of the Stadium or a change of the team’s name;

 

o certain matters will be reserved for decision by the full Club Board and so cannot be delegated to a committee or the management team;

 

o the Foundation will not become directly involved in the running of the Club’s business – that is the responsibility of the Club’s executive management under the leadership of the chief executive; and

 

o the Foundation and the Club will put in place a “working together” document, which will establish parameters for the relationship between them - including many of the proposals summarised above - and promote good governance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
annushorribilis III
2 hours ago, DETTY29 said:

 

Per the AGM she expects the £1.6m loan to be repaid back within 2 years.

 

Until FOH funds flows directly into working capital post April, I wouldn't be surprised to see the loan figure from her being increased up to circa £2m to support funding the removal of players, staff and bringing new ones in.

 

So I don't think you are that far off the mark.

 

Another £1.5m is needed to fund the final stages of the stand development but some offset is that the other aspects of the main stand development are income generators as their capital expenditure is complete.  If you break down the development as a individual work streams, business cases.  However that is another £1.5m that needs up front funding and personally I'm not sure I'd want that to come from AB*

 

Other factors that could reduce how much she is owed or repayment timeline hastened-

 

Cup run

More benefactor money

Sale and loan back of Hickey

 

* There is a lot of me that now thinks that FOH directors on the board should really be challenging any further capital expenditure on the main stand unless its free.  I.e a donation.

I totally agree : this is an out of control project which FoH is being asked to fund. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
annushorribilis III
2 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

This is taken from the FOH Governance Proposal Document.

 

 

In relation to the Club, we propose that:

 

o so far as possible, the existing business structures of the Club will be retained, in order to provide continuity and stability;

 

o as at present, the Club Board will include two Nominated Directors from the Foundation Board. The other directors will be a combination of executive and non-executive directors, as appropriate, and one of the non-executive directors will be an external independent director. The Club Board will choose its chairman from among the directors;

 

o a nomination committee will make recommendations to the Club Board on the appointment of any chief executive or external independent director. Its members will comprise the chairman of the Club Board, the independent non-executive director, and the two Nominated Directors;

 

o the Club board will oversee the executive management of the Club, and will carry ultimate responsibility for its success. The Club Board will meet regularly and, in the conduct of its proceedings, it will observe generally accepted principles of corporate governance; o certain matters will be reserved for decision by the Club’s shareholders. These are matters considered to be important and emotive issues for supporters, such as a potential sale of the Stadium or a change of the team’s name;

 

o certain matters will be reserved for decision by the full Club Board and so cannot be delegated to a committee or the management team;

 

o the Foundation will not become directly involved in the running of the Club’s business – that is the responsibility of the Club’s executive management under the leadership of the chief executive; and

 

o the Foundation and the Club will put in place a “working together” document, which will establish parameters for the relationship between them - including many of the proposals summarised above - and promote good governance.

You're missing my point : I've never advocated FoH starting a revolution or running the club. I'm saying the current board has proved it's not up to the job for reasons well documented already.

In that regard , the FoH as non exec directors have a responsibility to hold the exec directors to account and that does not mean interfering in the day to day business of the club - which i totally agree with. 

 

The FoH nominees are perfectly entitled to question the performance of the board and any individuals as they see fit and they should be doing so to protect their members' interests. There has been more than ample grounds for them to do so over the last 3 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wavydavy
2 minutes ago, annushorribilis III said:

You're missing my point : I've never advocated FoH starting a revolution or running the club. I'm saying the current board has proved it's not up to the job for reasons well documented already.

In that regard , the FoH as non exec directors have a responsibility to hold the exec directors to account and that does not mean interfering in the day to day business of the club - which i totally agree with. 

 

The FoH nominees are perfectly entitled to question the performance of the board and any individuals as they see fit and they should be doing so to protect their members' interests. There has been more than ample grounds for them to do so over the last 3 years. 

 

I was not advocating that FOH should be interferring in the day to day business of the club just showing the restrictions of the current agreement.

 

I have no idea what the two FOH board members are saying to the rest of the board and they are certainly not communicating that to their contributors.

 

If in fact they are making known their and the fans displeasure as per your first sentence then there is absolutely nothing they can do if the rest of the board are happy with what is going on.

 

The majority of the current Board members are AB appointments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
graygo
On 13/01/2020 at 12:30, Heartsofgold said:


Eh, no she didn’t. It was Alex Mackie, Donald Park and Brian Cormack if memory serves. She was invited in as a very wealthy Hearts supporter with the potential capital resources we needed. She did not in any way start or even suggest the foundation. 
 

Edit- forgot Jamie Halliday and Garry Bryant. 

 

No, you forgot Garry Halliday and Jamie Bryant. 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
annushorribilis III
Just now, wavydavy said:

 

I was not advocating that FOH should be interferring in the day to day business of the club just showing the restrictions of the current agreement.

 

I have no idea what the two FOH board members are saying to the rest of the board and they are certainly not communicating that to their contributors.

 

If in fact they are making known their and the fans displeasure as per your first sentence then there is absolutely nothing they can do if the rest of the board are happy with what is going on.

 

The majority of the current Board members are AB appointments.

Sure - we are agreed on that. 

 

Going forward, I'd like to see what the FoH nominees are actually doing. I get the point that members have kind of taken a back seat on this , being more interested in a football team than the running of the club , but I don't think it needs members to point out obvious failings.

 

Do members actually get to see anything on this point - ie what have the FoH nominees published so far ?

Maybe one for FF or FA (no offence!). 

 

Regarding your final para - as i understand it, directors have to stand for re election (at least ?) every three years so there is an opportunity to have  a say here and I think that is important going forward.  

 

:thumbs_up:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coburg Hearts
7 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Since day 1 I haven't been able to get my head round this POV, we have a million quid a year advantage, let's ****ing use it! Every single time you see clubs doing these type of contribution systems they emphasise that it's going to the player budget, but not us, we're determined that not one penny goes to player budget. Its ****ing mental!

 

The stadium's nice, the training ground's in place, let's get over obsessing with infrastructure and start improving the ****ing team. Success brings people, brings money, brings growth.

 

I want FoH money going to the team.

Couldn't agree more with this post. The main selling point other clubs use, who do anything remotely similar, is that all money raised will go towards the team. It's crazy for us to do the opposite. There is nothing to stop us also doing other things with FOH money, but a high percentage should be ring fenced for the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coburg Hearts
4 hours ago, Jarhead said:

I actually agree with the principal that FoH money is spent on infrastructure.

In a roundabout way it frees other club income to be spent on players without members getting upset when their donations are directly spunked on a duff player.

I understand this, but there could be/will be projects carried out that may not be necessary, perhaps a vanity project, but are only being done because of that policy. That is money that could have went on the team but never will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarhead
22 minutes ago, Coburg Hearts said:

I understand this, but there could be/will be projects carried out that may not be necessary, perhaps a vanity project, but are only being done because of that policy. That is money that could have went on the team but never will be.

That’s a fair point. I also wouldn’t like to see unnecessary expenditure simply because the money has to be spent. 
I suspect there will be a long list of infrastructure claims for a while though. Off the top of my head, take your pick if any of these floats your boat; new training facility, upgrade of older 3 stands, safe standing, giant screens, stadium WiFi, another new pitch or maybe even filling in the corners 😜
 

It’s much safer for FoH to be seen paying for the academy, for example, than for first team players. Imagine the uproar if FoH money had been used to buy Oshaniwa, Wighton or Martin 🤯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
40 minutes ago, Coburg Hearts said:

I understand this, but there could be/will be projects carried out that may not be necessary, perhaps a vanity project, but are only being done because of that policy. That is money that could have went on the team but never will be.

It’s old hat as the debate has been had and it’s not an issue but I don’t think anyone would be against transferring money to the team in times of mortal danger, like now.  

Share this post


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

It’s old hat as the debate has been had and it’s not an issue but I don’t think anyone would be against transferring money to the team in times of mortal danger, like now.  

The debate has been had. Oddly, Stuart Wallace has expressed the view that he would like the FOH cash invested in infrastructure. However AB has requested that she be given "flexibility" on how the funds are used. AB got what she wanted

 

All FOH will get in return is a statement of how the funds were used after the event, which is a nonsense.  I'm sure that the first year's communication of "used" will cover a number of things, like repayment of loans, maintenance and upgrade of stadium facilities, new pitch lighting arrays etc., regardless of how the funds were actually used. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mitch41
5 hours ago, Jarhead said:

I actually agree with the principal that FoH money is spent on infrastructure.

In a roundabout way it frees other club income to be spent on players without members getting upset when their donations are directly spunked on a duff player.

More season ticket money to be directed to the team and FOH going into the bank and infrastructure makes sense although it has to be the aim of our team to make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst

Infrastructure projects should provide a return on investment for many years. That ROI can then be invested in the team.

 

Investment directly in transfer fees or players wages goes straight out the door. Recent experience suggests it is equally likely to provide no return whatsoever, as it is to improve the team's performances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heartsofgold
2 hours ago, graygo said:

 

No, you forgot Garry Halliday and Jamie Bryant. 🤔

Oops was typing too fast😀😀😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
annushorribilis III
32 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The debate has been had. Oddly, Stuart Wallace has expressed the view that he would like the FOH cash invested in infrastructure. However AB has requested that she be given "flexibility" on how the funds are used. AB got what she wanted

 

All FOH will get in return is a statement of how the funds were used after the event, which is a nonsense.  I'm sure that the first year's communication of "used" will cover a number of things, like repayment of loans, maintenance and upgrade of stadium facilities, new pitch lighting arrays etc., regardless of how the funds were actually used. 

 

 

 

 

I completely agree with your general point.

 

The reality is , it just goes "into the pot". FoH cash may or may not be specifically earmarked for any specific purpose (I'm not saying it should be) but in the end it doesn't matter one way or the other : the club will know the FoH cash is rolling in and budget accordingly. 

The club can then claim it has spent the FoH cash on anything that they feel appropriate (I'm not accusing the club of anything underhand). 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tolcross lad
1 hour ago, annushorribilis III said:

I'd suggest the desire for change / criticism of the board is to do with the make up of it, not it's structure. It's certainly where i'm at.  I'm underwhelmed by their performance and anyone associated with the crazy overspend on the new stand needs to be held to account. They've also been ineffective  in keeping AB under control re the neglect of the football side. 

 

That we are in so much debt at the transfer of ownership is disappointing to say the least.The problem is that we dont know how our Reps have gone about their business on the board.Being kind to them their hands may have been well and truly tied and they decided  pragmatically to dig in until the ultimate goal was reached.

I am hoping that as voting rights are transferred we will see FOH Reps asserting themselves even if it means upsetting the applecart.

 I hope that we will see fresh faces on the board.

A good strong football savvy CEO is a priority.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
annushorribilis III
1 minute ago, tolcross lad said:

 

That we are in so much debt at the transfer of ownership is disappointing to say the least.The problem is that we dont know how our Reps have gone about their business on the board.Being kind to them their hands may have been well and truly tied and they decided  pragmatically to dig in until the ultimate goal was reached.

I am hoping that as voting rights are transferred we will see FOH Reps asserting themselves even if it means upsetting the applecart.

 I hope that we will see fresh faces on the board.

A good strong football savvy CEO is a priority.

 

 

I agree with all you said. 

I'm not being uber critical of FoH reps and certainly not under the current board/voting  structure : my perception is, their hands were well & truly tied by a weak board & an all powerful owner. But I agree, things must change going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coburg Hearts
56 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

It’s old hat as the debate has been had and it’s not an issue but I don’t think anyone would be against transferring money to the team in times of mortal danger, like now.  

I know, Dave, but I don't think I'd put my tuppence-worth in, not that it's up to much.

I do understand that money spent on essential infrastructure from FOH funds, means more going to the team from other sources, like season tickets, etc. 

Whatever they decide I'll always pledge. Like getting a pet at Christmas, it's for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coburg Hearts
1 hour ago, Jarhead said:

That’s a fair point. I also wouldn’t like to see unnecessary expenditure simply because the money has to be spent. 
I suspect there will be a long list of infrastructure claims for a while though. Off the top of my head, take your pick if any of these floats your boat; new training facility, upgrade of older 3 stands, safe standing, giant screens, stadium WiFi, another new pitch or maybe even filling in the corners 😜
 

It’s much safer for FoH to be seen paying for the academy, for example, than for first team players. Imagine the uproar if FoH money had been used to buy Oshaniwa, Wighton or Martin 🤯

Agree, I have no problem with stuff getting done that needs to be done. 

Now when do we get our .....................sliding roof.

 

image.jpeg.d55d9f8ae504c255058f847d86e27b70.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Section Q

Initially I think the majority of fans who pledged money were focussed primarily on saving the club.

The last couple of years our worry has been the product on the park.

Hopefully we will soon turn our attention to the board and who's on it, and who is responsible for appointing a new CEO when Budge leaves. I assume it's the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
Just now, Section Q said:

Initially I think the majority of fans who pledged money were focussed primarily on saving the club.

The last couple of years our worry has been the product on the park.

Hopefully we will soon turn our attention to the board and who's on it, and who is responsible for appointing a new CEO when Budge leaves. I assume it's the board.

It is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst

Just received a message saying that Stuart Wallace, speaking at tonight's HMSA get together, expects confirmation at tomorrow's FOH Board Meeting that the Bidco loan has been repaid in full.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ginger jambo98
5 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Just received a message saying that Stuart Wallace, speaking at tonight's HMSA get together, expects confirmation at tomorrow's FOH Board Meeting that the Bidco loan has been repaid in full.

Tremendous news !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clerry Jambo

Great stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambof3tornado
5 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Just received a message saying that Stuart Wallace, speaking at tonight's HMSA get together, expects confirmation at tomorrow's FOH Board Meeting that the Bidco loan has been repaid in full.

Great news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Selkirkhmfc1874

Brilliant news ! Well done to every single hearts supporter who's contributed, every single one of us is legends 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hector Riva

Great news.Well done everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
graygo

Ooft!!

 

:bravo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CJGJ
On 14/01/2020 at 14:28, annushorribilis III said:

I totally agree : this is an out of control project which FoH is being asked to fund. 

I disagree with you

 

simply taking out your frustration with no plan in place.

 

The stand is built we need money to complete the fit out which will bring more money into the club but you don't want to complete it..your point is totally illogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst

Another snippet: FOH hopes that AB will stay on for another year or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Famous 1874
1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

Another snippet: FOH hopes that AB will stay on for another year or two.

Disappointing

Share this post


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...