Jump to content

Latest FOH email - have your say on supermajority


Bull's-eye

Recommended Posts

Just now, Dannie Boy said:


We have no guarantees the investors intention won’t asset strip the Club. 

This. 
over at Hibs who knows what Ron Gordon’s end game is ?  Would harbour a guess he's in it to make money. Stuff that for us. I’ve never heard of any owner who isn’t in it to make a buck, and if they don’t then the club go to admin or worse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 573
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Beast Boy

    38

  • Francis Albert

    31

  • Jambo-Fox

    27

  • Saint Jambo

    22

Footballfirst

Hypothetical scenario:

 

Hibs, Aberdeen and Spartans all manage to attract external investment over the next 15 years that is significantly in excess of what FOH can generate. They are regularly getting into Europe and participating in cup finals. Hearts is unable to compete financially and is consigned to annual relegation dogfights, having rejected several potential investors who wanted a controlling shareholding.

 

How do you break that cycle if you can't attract an equivalent level of investment?

 

Never say never. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambof3tornado

Can somebody put a wee poll up just to see how representative jkb is?

 

I went to do it but didn't want to arse up something so important!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, windsor1874 said:

Also not quite sure why this sentence has bypassed so many people-

 

Approaches to the Club by potential investors have already been made (through Bidco).

 

Basically someone wants to buy the club and the foh are trying to quickly get a change to governance rules in order to make this easier. 90% every time.

 

 

 


I highlighted it earlier as part of the paragraph it was in. There is a serious player sniffing about. IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
Just now, Jambof3tornado said:

But could a small minority throw us into the arms of unscrupulous owners?

As I understand it (and I may be wrong) the proposal is that a 75% majority of votes at an AGM or EGM would be required to approve a sale of FoH's shares. If say only 500 members vote that would require only 375 votes in favour. If 1000 votes, only 750.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Always of votes cast I believe.


That would seem the only sensible answer, and in that case I’d like it to remain at 90%, as I think any vote may have a fairly small turnout.  Potentially the sale of shares could be agreed by a small number of members if the threshold was 75%.

Edited by Getintaethem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

Hypothetical scenario:

 

Hibs, Aberdeen and Spartans all manage to attract external investment over the next 15 years that is significantly in excess of what FOH can generate. They are regularly getting into Europe and participating in cup finals. Hearts is unable to compete financially and is consigned to annual relegation dogfights, having rejected several potential investors who wanted a controlling shareholding.

 

How do you break that cycle if you can't attract an equivalent level of investment?

 

Never say never. 

 

 

I wouldn't say never.


But I wouldn't say now either, when none of that has happened and it isn't certain that it would be good for them in the long run anyway. Romanov seemed to be delivering that for us but it was a poisoned chalice (or in this case a poisoned Cup). I will be voting to keep it at 90% for now - no reason why we can't come back to it once we've had  a few years of  fan ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Hypothetical scenario:

 

Hibs, Aberdeen and Spartans all manage to attract external investment over the next 15 years that is significantly in excess of what FOH can generate. They are regularly getting into Europe and participating in cup finals. Hearts is unable to compete financially and is consigned to annual relegation dogfights, having rejected several potential investors who wanted a controlling shareholding.

 

How do you break that cycle if you can't attract an equivalent level of investment?

 

Never say never. 

Never happen. Trust me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Can somebody put a wee poll up just to see how representative jkb is?

 

I went to do it but didn't want to arse up something so important!!!


Ive create one 😬 I hope it’s clear and self explanatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Can somebody put a wee poll up just to see how representative jkb is?

 

I went to do it but didn't want to arse up something so important!!!

What’s the point. Place is infested with vermin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted 75% as I believe the overwhelming majority won’t sell out. However if somebody did bid I asked we set a minimum level 3 times the amount we have paid into the foundation. IE at least £30million. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambof3tornado
13 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

As I understand it (and I may be wrong) the proposal is that a 75% majority of votes at an AGM or EGM would be required to approve a sale of FoH's shares. If say only 500 members vote that would require only 375 votes in favour. If 1000 votes, only 750.

Would such low numbers vote given such a crucial scenario?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Jambo_Gaz said:

I've not had an email since the 2/12 from FoH. Anyone else not getting them?


check your junk folder - that’s where I find mine, after learning on here that they’ve been sent 🤭

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambof3tornado
3 minutes ago, 1971fozzy said:

What’s the point. Place is infested with vermin

Place is always infested.

 

Hopefully people are reading the email fully before voting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Hypothetical scenario:

 

Hibs, Aberdeen and Spartans all manage to attract external investment over the next 15 years that is significantly in excess of what FOH can generate. They are regularly getting into Europe and participating in cup finals. Hearts is unable to compete financially and is consigned to annual relegation dogfights, having rejected several potential investors who wanted a controlling shareholding.

 

How do you break that cycle if you can't attract an equivalent level of investment?

 

Never say never. 


hibs have. Let’s see how that goes 😂

 

I don’t want some Far East syndicate investing in our club. I’d rather it went tits up than put it in the hands of folk that don’t get us or take the huff because they can’t beat the arse cheeks and leave us in the shit.

 

why some can’t see this I will never know. I would never want a Ron Gordon . Ever. We stay fan owned and live within our means. Even if that means going down and down. We never again should contemplate risking our future to charlatans. Leave that to our neighbours and sevco etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Hypothetical scenario:

 

Hibs, Aberdeen and Spartans all manage to attract external investment over the next 15 years that is significantly in excess of what FOH can generate. They are regularly getting into Europe and participating in cup finals. Hearts is unable to compete financially and is consigned to annual relegation dogfights, having rejected several potential investors who wanted a controlling shareholding.

 

How do you break that cycle if you can't attract an equivalent level of investment?

 

Never say never. 

Equally, if the owner turns out to be another charlatan (like the last two halfwits) and puts us in the shite? any investment by non supporters is at some point going to dry up, lets not have any rug pulled from under us like it did in the past. If we are struggling the board can still come to us )the new owners and we will decide if we can help or not).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can’t we have it capped so that investors can only have 49%, while we retain 51%? Clubs in Germany do this, IIRC, to protect the club. Means that if any investors wish to invest by purchasing shares we still hold the majority voting rights.
 

In that case I would say 75% would be right but as it stands I would go with 90%, as other posters have echoed previously, I wouldn’t want the club to have the possibility of having another Vlad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
15 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Would such low numbers vote given such a crucial scenario?

Don't know. What was the turnout in the AGM vote to approve the proposed governance arrangements? Has FoH told us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Hypothetical scenario:

 

Hibs, Aberdeen and Spartans all manage to attract external investment over the next 15 years that is significantly in excess of what FOH can generate. They are regularly getting into Europe and participating in cup finals. Hearts is unable to compete financially and is consigned to annual relegation dogfights, having rejected several potential investors who wanted a controlling shareholding.

 

How do you break that cycle if you can't attract an equivalent level of investment?

 

Never say never. 

 

In this scenario the membership could still vote to transfer shares to the investor. The only difference is that 90% rather than 75% would have to believe that the external investor was the right move. I know you know this, but felt the post above gave the impression that keeping the threshold at 90% would somehow block FOH ever handing over control.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Hypothetical scenario:

 

Hibs, Aberdeen and Spartans all manage to attract external investment over the next 15 years that is significantly in excess of what FOH can generate. They are regularly getting into Europe and participating in cup finals. Hearts is unable to compete financially and is consigned to annual relegation dogfights, having rejected several potential investors who wanted a controlling shareholding.

 

How do you break that cycle if you can't attract an equivalent level of investment?

 

Never say never. 

I’m pretty certain your proposed scenario would never happen. Hibs already have US ‘investment’. What has he told the fans? ‘Pony up’.

Aberdeen have a very rich fan on their board. Is there massive investment there as a result? No.

Fans who think some rich sugar daddy will come along and transform a Scottish club that isn’t part of the OF are deluding themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any investor will want a return on the money and will tie up assets in their favour should it all go belly up. Is that what we want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, windsor1874 said:

Also not quite sure why this sentence has bypassed so many people-

 

Approaches to the Club by potential investors have already been made (through Bidco).

 

Basically someone wants to buy the club and the foh are trying to quickly get a change to governance rules in order to make this easier. 90% every time.

 

I have to say the timing of this does seem odd.

 

We now know:

- FOH are about to take control of the club

- Budge has concerns about fan ownership

- Budge will remain as Chair and CEO of the club

- A mystery benefactor has been putting money into the club

- There have been approaches to buy (at least some of) the club.

- FOH are looking to rush through last minute changes to the governance model they proposed, which would make it easier to sell the club.

- FOH aren't just talking about hypothetical future scenarios to support this move, but also the current Scottish football economic climate.

 

I can't say I'd be shocked if there was a summer move by someone, most likely the mystery benefactor, to buy the club from FOH. To my mind that feels much more likely than the other hypothetical scenarios of all our closest competitors securing major outside investment or a Man City-esque investor appearing at some time in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, 1971fozzy said:

This. 
over at Hibs who knows what Ron Gordon’s end game is ?  Would harbour a guess he's in it to make money. Stuff that for us. I’ve never heard of any owner who isn’t in it to make a buck, and if they don’t then the club go to admin or worse

Fergus McCann made money for himself but also turned Celtic into a profitable enterprise. The right type of investor could take HMFC to a higher level but yes there is always risk. The current model means fan owned , not fan run ; in other words to be managed as a business but with the security that it can’t be taken over. This will limit access to capital so I wouldn’t be averse to a dynamic entrepreneur with the right business acumen investing. A small minority of 10% blocking such a move would not be right . I’m voting for the 75% option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Hypothetical scenario:

 

Hibs, Aberdeen and Spartans all manage to attract external investment over the next 15 years that is significantly in excess of what FOH can generate. They are regularly getting into Europe and participating in cup finals. Hearts is unable to compete financially and is consigned to annual relegation dogfights, having rejected several potential investors who wanted a controlling shareholding.

 

How do you break that cycle if you can't attract an equivalent level of investment?

 

Never say never. 

Apart from Steve Gibson at Middlesbrough. How many owners are in for the long haul as supporters are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, dc-jambo said:


check your junk folder - that’s where I find mine, after learning on here that they’ve been sent 🤭

You were right. 🥴

Link to comment
Share on other sites

75% of total votes cast seems a bit risky to me - it’s not strong enough to stop something being railroaded through. However 75% of all members means a sizeable majority are for the motion and a positive effort has to be made to convince everyone that this is the correct option.
90% of either can be too restrictive of change and open to a very small clique controlling against the wishes of the masses. As someone said earlier, you could probably round up 10% of Hearts fans who would have kept Levein on as manager. It’s not healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dannie Boy said:


We have no guarantees the investors intention won’t asset strip the Club. 

Totally. So far I haven't responded to my FOH e mail as I'm giving it proper consideration. I believed, sad though I was that West Ham leaving the Boleyn was necessary for the club to move forward. I was wrong but I believed the shysters who own the club that they were taking us to the "next level". The Heart and Soul has been ripped out of that club and we, the fans let it happen.

I think 90% is high but it might need to be to stop something similar happening here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe there are are investors who are willing to give money in return for some shares but not a controlling stake. FoH retain 51% or whatever and then they get a large chunk of money to invest in the club. I wouldnt want FoH to sell Hearts unless someone could prove they were in it for the long term and had a serious wedge to invest. 
Fan owned is my preference but I think 75% is the correct amount for decision voting.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genuinely not sure what to vote on this. It concerns me that we are talking about arrangements for selling the club before the FoH has even taken control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
4 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Maybe there are are investors who are willing to give money in return for some shares but not a controlling stake. FoH retain 51% or whatever and then they get a large chunk of money to invest in the club. I wouldnt want FoH to sell Hearts unless someone could prove they were in it for the long term and had a serious wedge to invest. 
Fan owned is my preference but I think 75% is the correct amount for decision voting.
 

 

 

I can see your point but if a benign investor of that sort came forward and more than 10% voted against, could we not THEN have a vote to change the governance to allow a lower threshold? A benign investor could surely wait a few months? The danger to me is a lower threshold makes a riskier investment possible. As has been mentioned Hibs are currently with someone whose intentions are not fully clear. We have been in the past. I don't see the need at this moment for us to increase the risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Borders Jambo

I just keep thinking of VR and the Pieman and the prospect of Murrayfield with 5000 supporters.

 

I think we as supporters plus FOH and AB have created something that lots of other Clubs are envious of.

 

For the above reasons and probably because I'm a bit of a Luddite, I went for 90%. I respect those who think 75% and can understand their views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambof3tornado
4 minutes ago, Doc Rob said:

Genuinely not sure what to vote on this. It concerns me that we are talking about arrangements for selling the club before the FoH has even taken control.

As good a time as any to talk about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Doc Rob said:

Genuinely not sure what to vote on this. It concerns me that we are talking about arrangements for selling the club before the FoH has even taken control.

which was my concern but I seem to not be making any sense...go figure!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Doc Rob said:

Genuinely not sure what to vote on this. It concerns me that we are talking about arrangements for selling the club before the FoH has even taken control.

We’ve been talking about it for over a year already as part of the governance proposals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

King Of The Cat Cafe
1 hour ago, windsor1874 said:

Also not quite sure why this sentence has bypassed so many people-

 

Approaches to the Club by potential investors have already been made (through Bidco).

 

Basically someone wants to buy the club and the foh are trying to quickly get a change to governance rules in order to make this easier. 90% every time.

 

 

 

 

 

Was that not the guy who approached AB and was told "no" then went and bought Hibs instead? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These hypothetical investors that people are discussing would need to put in over £2.4m p/a in order to make us better off than where we are with FoH as our owners. Has anyone ever put that much in to a Scottish club outside of Ibrox or Parkhead without adding to the debt and/or wanting their stake back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

These hypothetical investors that people are discussing would need to put in over £2.4m p/a in order to make us better off than where we are with FoH as our owners. Has anyone ever put that much in to a Scottish club outside of Ibrox or Parkhead without adding to the debt and/or wanting their stake back?


Too late to edit this post ^^. Typo, should read £1.4m p/a, not “£2.4m”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

These hypothetical investors that people are discussing would need to put in over £2.4m p/a in order to make us better off than where we are with FoH as our owners. Has anyone ever put that much in to a Scottish club outside of Ibrox or Parkhead without adding to the debt and/or wanting their stake back?


This is a very good point.  I don’t see subscriptions dropping much after the fan takeover is complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Where do I vote? email said there was a Q&A attached but I see nada

 

I think it is poorly worded and the "attached" Q&A is the Q&A contained in the body of the text.

 

If you look under number 6, the second paragraph starts with a "click here" link to access the survey/vote. It is on Survey Monkey and you need to enter your email address.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

I can see your point but if a benign investor of that sort came forward and more than 10% voted against, could we not THEN have a vote to change the governance to allow a lower threshold? A benign investor could surely wait a few months? The danger to me is a lower threshold makes a riskier investment possible. As has been mentioned Hibs are currently with someone whose intentions are not fully clear. We have been in the past. I don't see the need at this moment for us to increase the risk.

I dont disagree with any of that but if FoH are courting giving someone a majority share for a large investment then the baw is entirely burst IMO. 
The FoH/club have been lucky with “benefactors”. Maybe its one of them who would like to give more but just want something in return this time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Getintaethem said:


This is a very good point.  I don’t see subscriptions dropping much after the fan takeover is complete.


Look at previous takeovers:

 

The Bonettis at Dundee

Massone at Livingston

Masterson at Dunfermline

Romanov with us

 

Amongst others... I’d sooner stick with the FoH and £1.4m p/a personally. Safer and not going to take us back to the brink. The trick is how you use it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kevins_barnet
1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

Hypothetical scenario:

 

Hibs, Aberdeen and Spartans all manage to attract external investment over the next 15 years that is significantly in excess of what FOH can generate. They are regularly getting into Europe and participating in cup finals. Hearts is unable to compete financially and is consigned to annual relegation dogfights, having rejected several potential investors who wanted a controlling shareholding.

 

How do you break that cycle if you can't attract an equivalent level of investment?

 

Never say never. 


What your suggesting is the fans giving up on the fan ownership dream we have all worked towards just because Hibs or Aberdeen experience a period of short term success. 
 

Once we agree to sell to an investor that’s fan ownership done, there’s no changing our mind and going back to that model. Look at Hibs and their Gordon fella, first thing he did was close down their fan ownership scheme. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kevins_barnet
6 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

I dont disagree with any of that but if FoH are courting giving someone a majority share for a large investment then the baw is entirely burst IMO. 
The FoH/club have been lucky with “benefactors”. Maybe its one of them who would like to give more but just want something in return this time. 


Wouldn’t surprise me if the benefactor has been donating on the agreement that FOH will help them into power once Budge moves on, very sceptical of how this is being railroaded through in the last couple of weeks, surely they could have seen this issues for years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

I can see your point but if a benign investor of that sort came forward and more than 10% voted against, could we not THEN have a vote to change the governance to allow a lower threshold? A benign investor could surely wait a few months? The danger to me is a lower threshold makes a riskier investment possible. As has been mentioned Hibs are currently with someone whose intentions are not fully clear. We have been in the past. I don't see the need at this moment for us to increase the risk.

 

This is what I thought. Effectively block anyone for now. But if someone comes along and their intentions are clear, due diligence is done, could it be put to another vote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
2 hours ago, windsor1874 said:

Also not quite sure why this sentence has bypassed so many people-

 

Approaches to the Club by potential investors have already been made (through Bidco).

 

Basically someone wants to buy the club and the foh are trying to quickly get a change to governance rules in order to make this easier. 90% every time.

You are right to highlight that sentence, although I don't agree with your interpretation of why the FOH Board are seeking confirmation of the 90% or 75%.

 

The highlighted part acknowledges that approaches (plural) have been made. We have only had one approach confirmed, to Bidco prior to the Hibs takeover.

 

If there has been a second or more approach, then the common factor is that all have been rejected.  The timing of such an approach was always going to be incompatible with where FOH is/was in terms of its ownership intentions.

 

The apparent quickness of a decision, isn't really that quick. It was part of the original governance proposals back in May 2017. However, this is the last opportunity to adjust the proposals before the proposals come into effect with the transfer of ownership. 

 

It's an issue that has come up again now because I and others have asked for it to be reconsidered. It probably wouldn't have come up at all had the FOH Board not insisted that the governance proposals be put through as "all or nothing", rather than get a consensus on each element.

 

To be fair to the FOH they are not recommending 90% or 75%. They have provided arguments for both numbers, but left it up to the membership to decide.

 

The use of the 90% or 75% is not a today issue. It's intention is to have the right figure in place for the future. However, if it is set at 90% now, then it needs a 90% vote to change it in the future. Even if there was a groundswell to change it to 75% in the future, because of the circumstances that the club might find itself under FOH ownership, then that same dissenting 10% would still be able to block the change.   

 

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambof3tornado
1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

You are right to highlight that sentence, although I don't agree with your interpretation of why the FOH Board are seeking confirmation of the 90% or 75%.

 

The highlighted part acknowledges that approaches (plural) have been made. We have only had one approach confirmed, to Bidco prior to the Hibs takeover.

 

If there has been a second or more approach, then the common factor is that all have been rejected.  The timing of such an approach was always going to be incompatible with where FOH is/was in terms of its ownership intentions.

 

The apparent quickness of a decision, isn't really that quick. It was part of the original governance proposals back in May 2017. However, this is the last opportunity to adjust the proposals before the proposals come into effect with the transfer of ownership. 

 

It's an issue that has come up again now because I and others have asked for it to be reconsidered. It probably wouldn't have come up had the FOH not insisted that the governance proposals be put through as "all or nothing", rather than get a consensus on each element.

 

To be fair to the FOH they are not recommending 90% or 75%. They have provided arguments for both numbers, but left it up to the membership to decide.

 

The use of the 90% or 75% is not a today issue. It's intention is to have the right figure in place for the future. However, if it is set at 90% now, then it needs a 90% vote to change it in the future. Even if there was a groundswell to change it to 75% in the future, because of the circumstances that the club might find itself under FOH ownership, then that same dissenting 10% would still be able to block the change.   

 

Very good post. I do hope fans think carefully about exactly what their vote means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kevins_barnet said:


Wouldn’t surprise me if the benefactor has been donating on the agreement that FOH will help them into power once Budge moves on, very sceptical of how this is being railroaded through in the last couple of weeks, surely they could have seen this issues for years. 

I understand your suspicion but at 75% with full transparency on any bid to dilute to FoH share holding I think we will be OK. 
We should write into this that we can never have any less than 51% shareholding without a 90% agreement 75% for everything else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ToadKiller Dog

At 75 % I've no doubt we will be back in private hands in no time .

I expect an investor making big promises and plans which he doesnt really need to deliver on  after he took control could easily sway 75% more so in a time where our on the field performances are not great .

I get the sense of this being forced on us ,I would like to have enjoyed the fruits of our labour for a while at least .

90% gives security and more balance on major decisions in my view .

 

Dundee fc got rid of their fan ownership to quick ,now they are beholden to the American owner to cover losses ,how long will he last if the city  council continue to block his plan for moving from dens and development at camperdown ?.

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

Edited by ToadKiller Dog
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...