Jump to content

Latest FOH email - have your say on supermajority


Bull's-eye

Recommended Posts

Guest ToqueJambo
8 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:


Basically, I find it easier to imagine 10% of our pledgers doing something stupid, than I do 75%. If anything it’s a compliment.

 

I see the opposite 😂 Let's never forget how large a number of fans appeared to want Neilson out.

 

I have tried to think of someone who took over a club when they're relatively stable and made them better without incurring millions in debt. I can't think of anyone - certainly not a foreign investor or someone not a fan or not from the city. The best owners we've seen in Scotland recently have come in to save clubs, like Ann Budge or Fergus McCann. Celtic are in a great position now with their current owners but a monkey could own Celtic and make money.

 

We've worked hard to get to a point where we're sustainable. Why risk throwing it away? Any "investor" would want to spend money. We'd end up in debt to them or their financial institutions - back to where we started basically. It's mental to even consider leaving ourselves open to that again, especially without giving fan ownership a shot.

 

What's wrong with sitting tight for a few years and see how we do compared to Hibs, Aberdeen and Dtd and their American investors?

Edited by ToqueJambo
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

10 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

I see the opposite 😂 Let's never forget how large a number of fans appeared to want Neilson out.

 

I have tried to think of someone who took over a club when they're relatively stable and made them better without incurring millions in debt. I can't think of anyone - certainly not a foreign investor or someone not a fan or not from the city. The best owners we've seen in Scotland recently have come in to save clubs, like Ann Budge or Fergus McCann. Celtic are in a great position now with their current owners but a monkey could own Celtic and make money.

 

We've worked hard to get to a point where we're sustainable. Why risk throwing it away? Any "investor" would want to spend money. We'd end up in debt to them or their financial institutions - back to where we started basically. It's mental to even consider leaving ourselves open to that again, especially without giving fan ownership a shot.

 

What's wrong with sitting tight for a few years and see how we do compared to Hibs, Aberdeen and Dtd and their American investors?


I absolutely don’t think we will attract an investor who will be better for us than our current set up and £1.4m p/a, as I’ve stated repeatedly on this very thread. I think 75% is still too big a percentage for us to be at risk. I don’t want an outside investor anyway, I want us to be the investors, and for us to use the money we put in to make us stronger on the pitch.

Edited by Special Officer Doofy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Borders Jambo

How many when VR came on the scene and promised Champions League, World Cup players etc said I'll have that.

 

I know I did and partly based on CR and the Murray field situation.

 

If that situation arose now how many would vote for VR?  I know the situation is different, however I don't think we have ever seen any great benefits from external owners.

 

Mercer was probably the best and with AB deserves credit for what they did. Other recent "owners" much less so and should be remembered for racking up debt and almost finishing the Club.

 

90% for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

portobellojambo1
On 10/02/2020 at 19:58, Jamhammer said:

I'm just playing devil's advocate here but supposing the investor had the funds to take the club to the next level player wise, sort of a not mental Romanov

 

I have cast my vote via the option made available and went went for retention of 90%. I've had a glance through what others have said on here and taken on board what you have posted above, although ahd cast my vote before reading parts of this thread. For me fan ownership means the shares should stay in the control of fans of the club. Other than the club itself they are then the closest you can get to a constant. Potential owners are business people, who are only interested in making money and when they stop making money they will then lose interest, a la Romanov. And once they lose interest the club then effectively becomes a noose around their necks. There is no way to predict the future, at some point in the future will a mega, mega rich person or persons come forward with an offer, who knows. If there were HMFC fans out there at the moment with the sort of money that a Saudi/Middle East family might have at their disposal then I'd be inclined to think they would already be involved with HMFC. There again there might well be HMFC fans floating about with shitloads of cash but with no interest in investing it all in the club. I feel even our recent history shows that while an individual investor might bring some pleasure for a short time they can also bring a lot of misery. The fans will or should only have one inclination, and that is the welfare of the club above everything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst

I think that a few posters appear to believe that FOH has either a buyer in lined up, or has an intention to sell the club. There is neither a buyer lined up, nor an intention to sell, today, tomorrow, or any other day in the future.

 

This vote is not about preparing the club for a sale, but defining the process by which FOH could, at some point in the future, sell part, or its full shareholding in the club.

 

Even if there was a viable approach and a buyer lined up, the FOH Board could not sell the shareholding even if they wanted to. That is a decision for the FOH membership. The only question is whether a 75% or 90% vote is sufficient to facilitate a sale.

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ToadKiller Dog

75% move to me gives out signals to potential privateers that we are open to a deal , I would expect offers to come in pretty sharply after we made the change .

What guarantee is there that over time a drop from 75 % to a simple majority couldnt be sneaked through ?.

90% says we want to give fan ownership a real go and only real serious offers would be considered .

Fan ownership will not get the chance to breathe see if it works if the board ,membership have to spend a lot of time considering new owners. 

 

 

Edited by ToadKiller Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Anyone investing in a Scottish football club with the expectation of a 2-4% annual return would have to be bonkers!

If you are right that’s why no one will ever invest unless they are bonkers!!
 

What are the FOH playing at???? Don’t answer it’s not a financial investment!

 

However I don’t see why a well run and managed club could not give a 2-4% return on an investment ..... eg buy the Hearts for c. £10mm and give yourself a return of £200m - £400m per annum .... why not? I’d do it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jambo-Fox said:

If you are right that’s why no one will ever invest unless they are bonkers!!
 

What are the FOH playing at???? Don’t answer it’s not a financial investment!

 

However I don’t see why a well run and managed club could not give a 2-4% return on an investment ..... eg buy the Hearts for c. £10mm and give yourself a return of £200m - £400m per annum .... why not? I’d do it!!

Honestly?? What a pile of shite there is not a club in Scotland doing that well other than Celtic also why would anybody want to chance their hard earned in a football club to TRY to get some money when 2-4% is possible in a lowish risk fund?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, weehammy said:

Some of us doubt that the £1.4m p/a will be sustained.

I think that is the big concern that drives this debate ..... well done for highlighing it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, weehammy said:

Some of us doubt that the £1.4m p/a will be sustained.


Obviously that would change things significantly. I think it will probably settle at somewhere over a million, but I would not be surprised to see us largely maintain the current amount. Worth also considering though, if we dropped from £1.4m to £1m say, then those remaining pledgers would be more enthusiastic about the fan ownership cash injection system of investment, and so it would be even harder for anyone to convince 75% of them to sell up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I think that a few posters appear to believe that FOH has either a buyer in lined up, or has an intention to sell the club. There is neither a buyer lined up, nor an intention to sell, today, tomorrow, or any other day in the future.

 

This vote is not about preparing the club for a sale, but defining the process by which FOH could, at some point in the future, sell part, or its full shareholding in the club.

 

Even if there was a viable approach and a buyer lined up, the FOH Board could not sell the shareholding even if they wanted to. That is a decision for the FOH membership. The only question is whether a 75% or 90% vote is sufficient to facilitate a sale.

Agree .... BUT ... can’t help but think that some “sniffing” has triggered this debate!

 

Remember The Portsmouth Supporters Trust ..... owned the club for 4 years then sold to Eisner ... [no buyer lined up ... but one came along!], why did they (PST) sell out? I’m not close to anybody in the PST, nor have I followed the ‘story’ closely but I believe the trust came to the conclusion that they could not take their club to the

‘next level’.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jock _turd said:

Honestly?? What a pile of shite there is not a club in Scotland doing that well other than Celtic also why would anybody want to chance their hard earned in a football club to TRY to get some money when 2-4% is possible in a lowish risk fund?

Ehh can you please share your lowish risk funds so your fellow Jambos can get some action??

 

Are Hearts currently profitable? If so why not invest?

Edited by Jambo-Fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
1 hour ago, Special Officer Doofy said:


Basically, I find it easier to imagine 10% of our pledgers doing something stupid, than I do 75%. If anything it’s a compliment.

In a nutshell. The whole issue of 75% vs 90% summed up neatly.

 

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If fans chose to stop pledging after FoH takes over the club are they no longer considered worthy of a say on the club's future..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine 89% of fans wanted to sell to an outstanding investor.

 

11% of fans want to say no.

 

Investor then invests in rival club and Hearts are left behind.

 

All because a mere 11% are permanently entrenched in 2013 FoH idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:


Obviously that would change things significantly. I think it will probably settle at somewhere over a million, but I would not be surprised to see us largely maintain the current amount. Worth also considering though, if we dropped from £1.4m to £1m say, then those remaining pledgers would be more enthusiastic about the fan ownership cash injection system of investment, and so it would be even harder for anyone to convince 75% of them to sell up. 

A big concern would be if FOH income reduced from £1.4mm to £1mm per annum. On straight member numbers that would mean c. 5,500 subscribers / members. That’s equivalent to less than <50% of current season ticket holder numbers so can’t help but think that would be the beginning of the end of the FOH!

Edited by Jambo-Fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
5 minutes ago, Section Q said:

If fans chose to stop pledging after FoH takes over the club are they no longer considered worthy of a say on the club's future..?

No. They are still entitled to vote on the issue this thread is all about ... sale of FOH shares ... and sale of Tynecastle and I think change of colours or name.

Which is good and a late concession by FOH in the governance debate because it makes the electorate on these key decisions broader. In fact if ever it comes to it the wider fan base should be given the chance to at least express their views even if they don't have a vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
3 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

A big concern would be if FOH income reduced from £1.4mm to £1mm per

annum. On straight member numbers that would mean c. 5,500 subscribers / members. That’s equivalent to less than <50% of current season ticket holder numbers so can’t help that would be the beginning of the end of the FOH!

Would certainly make FOH less representative of Hearts supporters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, weehammy said:

Some of us doubt that the £1.4m p/a will be sustained.

Even if it isn't we can still finance ourselves.

If it appears that FOH is actually looking to weaken their majority shareholding people will think why bother and stop subscribing.

If FOH are united in their desire to keep the majority of shares then subscriptions will hold up fine imo.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

No. They are still entitled to vote on the issue this thread is all about ... sale of FOH shares ... and sale of Tynecastle and I think change of colours or name.

Which is good and a late concession by FOH in the governance debate because it makes the electorate on these key decisions broader. In fact if ever it comes to it the wider fan base should be given the chance to at least express their views even if they don't have a vote.

I think FoH should maybe clarify that pledgers who choose to stop their donations after the club handover takes place will still be entitled to a say/vote on any future direction the club chooses to go. After all some fans might decide to stop giving money but have been there since day one.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
4 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

By experience I meant seeing how football in Scotland develops and the likelihood of some of the developments FOH see as drivers for the switch to 75%. With 90% we are stuck with 90%.

 

I agree your point about the risk of a small minority of members voting something through as a result of apathy or non-participation or a "they know best" reverence for the FOH board by others. This could perhaps be addressed by a further change providing some threshold percentage of members voting in favour. The details would take longer to work through than the very short time FOH has made available and I think the priority is not to lock in a 90% rule which would be very difficult to amend in future.

 

 

We'll have to agree to differ on your last point, but I do think as a failsafe a minimum percentage of total number members voting on such an important change would be sensible - even if it was as low as 50%, and that could be achieved on the FOH site via logging in and voting online over a period if enough notice is given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

A big concern would be if FOH income reduced from £1.4mm to £1mm per annum. On straight member numbers that would mean c. 5,500 subscribers / members. That’s equivalent to less than <50% of current season ticket holder numbers so can’t help but think that would be the beginning of the end of the FOH!

Don't agree at all £1 million guaranteed income on top of income generated by ST /match ticket sales,TV money and sponsorship etc which are all no risk income streams is not to be sniffed at.

I would go even further and suggest that voting percentages required for change should be based on total membership and not just votes cast.

To obtain change either 90%or 75% of the total membership have to cast their votes in favour of change. 

This would ensure that if people want change they have to actually vote for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, scott herbertson said:

 

In the light of experience? If the experience was a transfer of shares which we regretted, then changing it back would be too late surely? 

 

To me the 'votes cast' bit is critical. Assuming the quorum for a General meeting is still 51 members there is too much scope to me for a decision which could be taken hastily and in effect by a few active people (not necessarily malicious but without real general consent). Remembering that any proposal transfer presented to us by FOH is likely to be backed by the FOH board and therefore a big proportion of the active members I remain unconvinced that the longer term interests would be safeguarded  by a '75% of votes cast' option.


But I guess i am probably in the minority here.

 

You may well be so that makes at least two of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
33 minutes ago, Hearts_fan said:

Imagine 89% of fans wanted to sell to an outstanding investor.

 

11% of fans want to say no.

 

Investor then invests in rival club and Hearts are left behind.

 

All because a mere 11% are permanently entrenched in 2013 FoH idea. 

 

Or maybe because 11% want the fans to own the club? Or maybe because the 11% aren't convinced about the longer term with an investor rather than shared ownership amongst the supporters who proved they wouldn't let the club die.

 

 

 

Or maybe because its 11% of those voting but 30 or 40% of FOH members

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
2 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Don't agree at all £1 million guaranteed income on top of income generated by ST /match ticket sales,TV money and sponsorship etc which are all no risk income streams is not to be sniffed at.

I would go even further and suggest that voting percentages required for change should be based on total membership and not just votes cast.

To obtain change either 90%or 75% of the total membership have to cast their votes in favour of change. 

This would ensure that if people want change they have to actually vote for it.

 

No problem with that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Special Officer Doofy said:


Obviously that would change things significantly. I think it will probably settle at somewhere over a million, but I would not be surprised to see us largely maintain the current amount. Worth also considering though, if we dropped from £1.4m to £1m say, then those remaining pledgers would be more enthusiastic about the fan ownership cash injection system of investment, and so it would be even harder for anyone to convince 75% of them to sell up. 

Even if contributions drop to £1m per annum, that is pretty amazing and no other owner/investor would do the same, without looking to recoup that in future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
1 hour ago, Jambo-Fox said:

If you are right that’s why no one will ever invest unless they are bonkers!!
 

What are the FOH playing at???? Don’t answer it’s not a financial investment!

 

However I don’t see why a well run and managed club could not give a 2-4% return on an investment ..... eg buy the Hearts for c. £10mm and give yourself a return of £200m - £400m per annum .... why not? I’d do it!!

 

If your view is a common one that's why we need 90% approval!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
1 hour ago, Borders Jambo said:

How many when VR came on the scene and promised Champions League, World Cup players etc said I'll have that.

 

I know I did and partly based on CR and the Murray field situation.

 

If that situation arose now how many would vote for VR?  I know the situation is different, however I don't think we have ever seen any great benefits from external owners.

 

Mercer was probably the best and with AB deserves credit for what they did. Other recent "owners" much less so and should be remembered for racking up debt and almost finishing the Club.

 

90% for me.

 

Even Mercer wanted to merge Hearts and Hibs FFS 😂 And he's one of our best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jack Torrance said:

 

It's absolutely the right thing to tie the club to a small minority. What's the point in the past few years and the FOH if we don't?

 

We've just saved our club from "genuine bidders willing to take the club to a new level". The option to sell even a tiny part of the club should never be on the table again. 90% is the way forward and the FOH focus should then be on attracting investment for other returns. We should be focusing on growing organically and always living within our means instead of chasing $$$. I want the club to be there for my grandson and future generations. I'm not bothered about big investors.

Well said.

 

If we aim to remain fan owned, the club will be in safe hands forever.

 

Selling out to some multi millionaire yank, with no interest in the club, other than to make a fast buck, is guaranteed to end only one way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
1 hour ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Agree .... BUT ... can’t help but think that some “sniffing” has triggered this debate!

 

Remember The Portsmouth Supporters Trust ..... owned the club for 4 years then sold to Eisner ... [no buyer lined up ... but one came along!], why did they (PST) sell out? I’m not close to anybody in the PST, nor have I followed the ‘story’ closely but I believe the trust came to the conclusion that they could not take their club to the

‘next level’.

 

 

The next level for us, if we assume we return to regularly challenging for 3rd and cups, is 2nd or league winners. No investor will ever be able to take us to that next level. Not consistently anyhow.

 

The next level for me is getting into Europe regularly and taking it seriously - building a stronger squad that could maybe compete in the lower European competitions and sustain a league campaign. And being financially string enough to repel bids for our best players. 

 

If an investor came in and said those would be priorities for funding, I could buy into that. But anyone coming in and saying vague "next level" nonsense or saying we'll challenge the OF or develop players to sell at a profit - no ta.

Edited by ToqueJambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

The next level for us, if we assume we return to regularly challenging for 3rd and cups, is 2nd or league winners. No investor will ever be able to take us to that next level. Not consistently anyhow.

 

The next level for me is getting into Europe regularly and taking it seriously - building a stronger squad that could maybe compete in the lower European competitions and sustain a league campaign. And being financially string enough to repel bids for our best players. 

 

If an investor came in and said those would be priorities for funding, I could buy into that. But anyone coming in and saying vague "next level" nonsense or saying we'll challenge the OF or develop players to sell at a profit - no ta.

👍 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

If your view is a common one that's why we need 90% approval!

🤷‍♂️ that’s why 75% makes sense!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our financial troubles started when we allowed outside 'investors ' to supposedly buy into the club.

SMG invested £8 million into the club back in the late 1990s.  It was an option to buy shares in the club .We spent the money and due to a downturn in their business they didn't buy the shares.

We had to return the funding back to them. 

The shareholders voted overwhelmingly in favour of the proposal to accept

SMGs investment it seemed a good idea at the time. 😕

The events surrounding Vlad are well documented but the fact is that on those occasions when we have embraced outside finance we have had our fingers well and truly burned when those providing that finance have hit the skids themselves.

We don't need any more false promises we can support ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Our financial troubles started when we allowed outside 'investors ' to supposedly buy into the club.

SMG invested £8 million into the club back in the late 1990s.  It was an option to buy shares in the club .We spent the money and due to a downturn in their business they didn't buy the shares.

We had to return the funding back to them. 

The shareholders voted overwhelmingly in favour of the proposal to accept

SMGs investment it seemed a good idea at the time. 😕

The events surrounding Vlad are well documented but the fact is that on those occasions when we have embraced outside finance we have had our fingers well and truly burned when those providing that finance have hit the skids themselves.

We don't need any more false promises we can support ourselves.

Tbh as a shareholder I don’t remember getting a vote on that (SMG investment), however, it was a long time ago and I’ve probably forgotten!! And even if I did get a vote on it (which I don’t remember) as a minor shareholder it would not have made any difference. I’m sure Robinson and his cohorts saw it through without much ‘fan consultation’ or ‘endorsement’!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:


Basically, I find it easier to imagine 10% of our pledgers doing something stupid, than I do 75%. If anything it’s a compliment.

 

This is the correct answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Even Mercer wanted to merge Hearts and Hibs FFS 😂 And he's one of our best.

 

That was no merger mate. 😉

 

After all these years I wish he'd pulled it off!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's 90% for me. The one consistent in all my years watching Hearts has been poor management from owners. From my formative experiences watching Hearts become a yo-yo club in the 70s to the Mercer, Robinson and Romanov regimes that all started brightly and ended badly: the latter ending so badly that the club almost disappeared. I never want to experience that again. I would also question the motives of any overseas investor who suddenly wanted to spend large amounts of money on a non Old Firm club. I think being fan-owned and the story behind that is something quite incredible and something we should cherish. The idea that a few million will help us challenge the Old Firm is naive. I would be happy for us to consistently be the best of the rest, to qualify for Europe regularly, to win Cups more often and grow the club through that. These are possible with the club being fan owned. Success might take longer to achieve, but it is more likely to be sustainable than have somebody come in, put us at financial risk, and then lose interest when they realise how difficult it would be to break the OF dominance. Hibs were desperate for a more hands on owner, they got regime change and I wonder what their fans think now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Paulp74 said:

Even if contributions drop to £1m per annum, that is pretty amazing and no other owner/investor would do the same, without looking to recoup that in future. 


Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Ehh can you please share your lowish risk funds so your fellow Jambos can get some action??

 

Are Hearts currently profitable? If so why not invest?

 

Look I have a very simple Low/medium risk fund investment with SW's which has about 30k in it and last year I had an increase in the value of my fund shares of £1957 ... how do I know that? I just received my annual account return which is about 6%  and as it is an ISA its is tax free. People with millions to invest will be able to make money without spending all their cash buying a money pit that is a football club!

Are Hearts profitable... no! The accounts will show we made a profit BUT if you look at the actual figures had it not been for benefactor donations we would have been toiling and what about the monies being paid by FOH . If some fat cat had just bought the club would FOH still be plowing in cash ... I doubt it... that is what the fat cat down Leith wants the Hobos to do !

Edited by jock _turd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Paulp74 said:

Even if contributions drop to £1m per annum, that is pretty amazing and no other owner/investor would do the same, without looking to recoup that in future. 

This is where I'm at too.

 

£1m on top of what the club already generates is massive compared to over half the teams in this league manage and easily good enough to get us back to the days of finishing 3rd every other season and ocassionally challenging for cups and even higher league placement.

 

We can get to this level ourselves and it would need to be an amazing offer to suggest we could be taken to the next level beyond that. If someone was able to put such an offer forward then it they would surely have no bother getting g 90% approval

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Poseidon said:

This is where I'm at too.

 

£1m on top of what the club already generates is massive compared to over half the teams in this league manage and easily good enough to get us back to the days of finishing 3rd every other season and ocassionally challenging for cups and even higher league placement.

 

We can get to this level ourselves and it would need to be an amazing offer to suggest we could be taken to the next level beyond that. If someone was able to put such an offer forward then it they would surely have no bother getting g 90% approval

Well said! One saying that is always worth while bearing in mind is " if something looks to good to be true... it most probably is! " Wealthy people buying football clubs is a fad which is rife in the English football clubs because they are swamped with broadcasting cash... that may not go on for ever and you do not need me to tell you that the vast majority of EPL, Championship, Div 1 and Div 2 clubs are up to their necks with debt!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are our expectations under our present ownership model?

should we be finishing at least 3rd every season guaranteeing us a stab at Europa League qualification, & a decent run in both cup comps?

Do we need/want an investor, or stick with what we have or ideally add another couple of thousand pledgers to FoH?

Would like to see us grow our pledging numbers, but to do so we need to start improving year on year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

I think that a few posters appear to believe that FOH has either a buyer in lined up, or has an intention to sell the club. There is neither a buyer lined up, nor an intention to sell, today, tomorrow, or any other day in the future.

 

This vote is not about preparing the club for a sale, but defining the process by which FOH could, at some point in the future, sell part, or its full shareholding in the club.

 

Even if there was a viable approach and a buyer lined up, the FOH Board could not sell the shareholding even if they wanted to. That is a decision for the FOH membership. The only question is whether a 75% or 90% vote is sufficient to facilitate a sale.

 

I'm curious to how you know for a fact that there isn't a buyer lined up? The email seems to have disclosed approaches that FOH members hadn't previously been made aware of.

 

The reason that some are suggesting that there is an intention on behalf of the FOH board to at least consider selling in the short term is because the email says so. The FOH board have included the short-term Scottish football economic environment as one of the reasons to consider the change. If they have no intention of considering a sale in the short-term, they really shouldn't have included that as an argument in the email. If some members have got the wrong impression, then it is a mess of FOH's own making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10% is such a small number to be a blocker in key decision making. Not wanting to point at any particular supporters group but there have been times in years gone by  when a supporters group spokesman has been quoted in the press stating the views of “the fans” when in fact they represent a small proportion of the fanbase and I’ve thought you dont represent me nor are they my views.
 

A future relatively small group could theoretically become a powerful voice of “the fans” with the backing of only 10.00001% of the FOH membership. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Hearts_fan said:

Imagine 89% of fans wanted to sell to an outstanding investor.

 

11% of fans want to say no.

 

Investor then invests in rival club and Hearts are left behind.

 

All because a mere 11% are permanently entrenched in 2013 FoH idea. 

 

Equally, imagine 89% support it, the investor turns out to be one of the long line of outside investors that leads a club into financial ruin and it is one of our rivals that ends up in financial ruin. I'd say that is more likely because there are various examples in Scottish football of an outside investor being welcomed by the vast majority of fans and it going wrong. There are precisely no examples of one of our rivals getting outside investment and leaving Hearts behind. (You could argue Fergus McCann is an example but even in 1994 they weren't a comparable rival.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
2 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

I'm curious to how you know for a fact that there isn't a buyer lined up? The email seems to have disclosed approaches that FOH members hadn't previously been made aware of.

 

The reason that some are suggesting that there is an intention on behalf of the FOH board to at least consider selling in the short term is because the email says so. The FOH board have included the short-term Scottish football economic environment as one of the reasons to consider the change. If they have no intention of considering a sale in the short-term, they really shouldn't have included that as an argument in the email. If some members have got the wrong impression, then it is a mess of FOH's own making.

If there was a buyer lined up then FOH would have to consult the membership on the sale, not the process, which is what this consultation is about.  If they tried to present a sale as a fait accompli without prior discussions with the membership, then I'm certain that there would be a negative response to such a proposal.

 

I believe that it is right for the FOH Board to highlight the recent economic changes in the game, and how that may impact on Hearts in the short term as well as the longer term.

 

Personally, I don't believe that there is a short term risk that Hearts could miss out, but in the longer term the risk may well be higher. I think that it is prudent to ensure that FOH is not locked into super majority voting requirements for the future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

I'm curious to how you know for a fact that there isn't a buyer lined up? The email seems to have disclosed approaches that FOH members hadn't previously been made aware of.

 

The reason that some are suggesting that there is an intention on behalf of the FOH board to at least consider selling in the short term is because the email says so. The FOH board have included the short-term Scottish football economic environment as one of the reasons to consider the change. If they have no intention of considering a sale in the short-term, they really shouldn't have included that as an argument in the email. If some members have got the wrong impression, then it is a mess of FOH's own making.

Any approaches have been to Bidco ( as far I have understood the comms ) and not FOH. Bidco are legally obliged to sell to FoH. We will likely get onging tentative queries which are likely to be kept confidential at the request of the enquire unless it is such a good offer that the FoH board feel it appropriate to seek the views of members. The 75/90 rule isn’t going to change that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

If there was a buyer lined up then FOH would have to consult the membership on the sale, not the process, which is what this consultation is about.  If they tried to present a sale as a fait accompli without prior discussions with the membership, then I'm certain that there would be a negative response to such a proposal.

 

I believe that it is right for the FOH Board to highlight the recent economic changes in the game, and how that may impact on Hearts in the short term as well as the longer term.

 

Personally, I don't believe that there is a short term risk that Hearts could miss out, but in the longer term the risk may well be higher. I think that it is prudent to ensure that FOH is not locked into super majority voting requirements for the future. 

 

I understand that you believe that a 75% threshold is a sensible long-term governance arrangement.

 

I disagree that it was sensible for the FOH Board to partly justify a long-term arrangement on the basis of a short-term trend. It gives an impression some of us the impression there might be a short-term driver. I take from your post that you actually don't have any greater knowledge of the internal thinking of the FOH Board than is previously in the public domain.

 

If it is about ensuring greater "flexibility" generally at some undefined future date based on some undefined future set of circumstances, then the proposal would logically be to remove all super majorities from the governance arrangements, not just in relation to a sale of shares. Only wanting to change a single arrangement gives the impression that there is a driver for that change other than a general principle of flexibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

I understand that you believe that a 75% threshold is a sensible long-term governance arrangement.

 

I disagree that it was sensible for the FOH Board to partly justify a long-term arrangement on the basis of a short-term trend. It gives an impression some of us the impression there might be a short-term driver. I take from your post that you actually don't have any greater knowledge of the internal thinking of the FOH Board than is previously in the public domain.

 

If it is about ensuring greater "flexibility" generally at some undefined future date based on some undefined future set of circumstances, then the proposal would logically be to remove all super majorities from the governance arrangements, not just in relation to a sale of shares. Only wanting to change a single arrangement gives the impression that there is a driver for that change other than a general principle of flexibility.

It may give some that impression but it was specifically raised and discussed at the FoH agm. 

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...