Jump to content

Latest FOH email - have your say on supermajority


Bull's-eye

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 573
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Beast Boy

    38

  • Francis Albert

    31

  • Jambo-Fox

    27

  • Saint Jambo

    22

Psychedelicropcircle

This is a breach of trust from the FOH. It’s not even day 1 yet & were seen as bait. 

 

Whens the the next round of voting out ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychedelicropcircle
2 minutes ago, ford donald said:

 Well if people don't vote, they can have no complaints.

Let’s pay into something for 6 years so we can get our breeks pulled down and end back at square one!

 

deary me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst

Although I voted in favour of 75% rather than 90%, I think FOH has got this wrong in governance terms, and should NOT be convening an EGM to reverse the AGM position.

 

My reason is that the poll conducted to gauge opinion, itself failed to get a 75% vote, which would validate an EGM being called. It requires a 75% vote to change the articles, so the failure to get a 75% indicative vote should have led to it being left at 90%, as it stood following the AGM.

 

FOH will now convene an EGM for a vote on a single motion. That will be at a cost to FOH and the EGM may struggle to achieve a quorum of 51 members in attendance in any event.  If it does achieve a quorum, then it won't take very many members to sway the final result either way.  Limiting the vote to members present at the meeting is, in my opinion, not democratic for a change to the Articles of Association.

 

The full email

 

Quote

 

REVIEW OF SUPERMAJORITY: 90%-v-75%

Dear Member

Thank you to all the members who participated in our online survey seeking members’ views on the question of whether the majority required under our governance structure to approve a disposal of the Foundation’s shares in the Club should be 90% or 75%.

A total of 1407 members participated in the survey, representing just under 20% of our overall membership.  The result of the survey was:

73% voted in favour of the 75% supermajority

27% voted in favour of the 90% supermajority

When we launched the survey, we promised to pay close attention to the result.  Although the turnout in the survey was relatively low, the majority in favour of a 75% supermajority was clear-cut and decisive.  In light of that, the directors have decided to take the necessary steps to reduce the supermajority requirement in our articles of association from 90% to 75%.

We will shortly send out a formal notice convening a general meeting of the Foundation for that purpose.  We have not yet fixed the date of the meeting, but it is likely to be towards the end of March.  The resolution to amend our articles of association will be proposed as a special resolution and requires the approval of three-quarters of the votes cast at the meeting.

We are grateful to those members who provided comments on the supermajority issue in their survey responses.  It is not possible to address these comments in this e-mail, but we intend to cover them in our next blog, which will be issued before the date of the general meeting.

Finally, in case there is any residual uncertainty, I should perhaps make it clear that the agreed supermajority percentage relates to the percentage of votes cast and not to a percentage of the total membership.  This means that the outcome of any vote would be determined exclusively by the members who vote and not by members who, for whatever reason, decided not to cast their vote.  We believe this is an important principle.

Regards
Stuart Wallace
Chair, Foundation of Hearts
24 February 2020e
 
Copyright © 2020 Foundation of Hearts. All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
Foundation of Hearts Limited, c/o Heart of Midlothian Football Club,
Tynecastle Park, Gorgie Road, EDINBURGH EH11 2NL
 

 

 

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bend It Like Barasa

Headline for me is that just over 1000 fans have decided something for Hearts. Hopefully the turnout would be significantly higher for something like a US   takeover bid. If a similar number of fans voted something like that through, I’d be gutted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big Slim Stylee
10 minutes ago, Barack said:

7k couldn't be arsed. I include myself in that.

 

Gonna be a hell of a ride, this fan-ownership thing.

 

:lol:

 

And that’s always the worry. The majority that can’t be arsed get railroaded😀

 

They should adopt a minimum quorum for seismic events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the original email, joined in/read some of the debate here on JKB. Formed an opinion but never actually went on to complete the survey...

 

A blend of not that fussed/don’t really care enough either way/forgot all about it...

 

Happy to follow my team and also to pay my dues to FOH as I support the concept but that’s about if for me...

 

Given the survey numbers, meeting turnouts, etc. would seem there are many more like me...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you that are not seeing FoH emails:

 

1. We are seeing some pledgers (presumably inadvertently) unsubscribing from the mailing list. If you think this may apply to you, please click this link:

 

http://eepurl.com/CtudD

 

If you are already subscribed, it will tell you at some point during the process and you don't need to do anything else.

 

2. If you're finding FoH emails are going into your spam / junk folders, right click the email and select "not spam" and this should fix it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Although I voted in favour of 75% rather than 90%, I think FOH has got this wrong in governance terms, and should NOT be convening an EGM to reverse the AGM position.

 

My reason is that the poll conducted to gauge opinion, itself failed to get a 75% vote, which would validate an EGM being called. It requires a 75% vote to change the articles, so the failure to get a 75% indicative vote should have led to it being left at 90%, as it stood following the AGM.

 

FOH will now convene an EGM for a vote on a single motion. That will be at a cost to FOH and the EGM may struggle to achieve a quorum of 51 members in attendance in any event.  If it does achieve a quorum, then it won't take very many members to sway the final result either way.  Limiting the vote to members present at the meeting is, in my opinion, not democratic for a change to the Articles of Association.

 

The full email

 

 

Basically it's saying that all our fans across the world have no say in this decision. Only those who can attend the meeting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, kila said:

I am surprised they are going forward with this

 

It was an advisory vote using an insecure method for a start...

 

 

The Russians have got something to do with this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pettigrewsstylist

Dissapointed. Acting on less than 20% of membership with so little guidance  seems surprising. Explaining the parameters whilst announcing the result.......

Does anyone know if  members have to attend the General Meeting to be entitled to vote?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, jake said:

Only 20% of us voted .

 

It’s like a general election. All members are given a vote and it’s up to the individual to exercise his or her vote. No excuses as it was an online vote and took all of two seconds to choose an option.  No leaving the house to venture out in the rain for this one. Disappointing turnout (1407 members) for this vote. Must mean our subscribers have tailed off to 7035 members in total. The legacy of Craig Levein I should imagine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

Dissapointed. Acting on less than 20% of membership with so little guidance  seems surprising. Explaining the parameters whilst announcing the result.......

Does anyone know if  members have to attend the General Meeting to be entitled to vote?

 

I think so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
2 minutes ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

Does anyone know if  members have to attend the General Meeting to be entitled to vote?

 

Yes, going by the email.

 

"The resolution to amend our articles of association will be proposed as a special resolution and requires the approval of three-quarters of the votes cast at the meeting."

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

pettigrewsstylist
2 minutes ago, Saughton Jambo said:

It’s like a general election. All members are given a vote and it’s up to the individual to exercise his or her vote. No excuses as it was an online vote and took all of two seconds to choose an option.  No leaving the house to venture out in the rain for this one. Disappointing turnout (1407 members) for this vote. Must mean our subscribers have tailed off to 7035 members in total. The legacy of Craig Levein I should imagine. 

I thought it was a survey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Saughton Jambo said:

It’s like a general election. All members are given a vote and it’s up to the individual to exercise his or her vote. No excuses as it was an online vote and took all of two seconds to choose an option.  No leaving the house to venture out in the rain for this one. Disappointing turnout (1407 members) for this vote. Must mean our subscribers have tailed off to 7035 members in total. The legacy of Craig Levein I should imagine. 

Maybe most had no preference either way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pettigrewsstylist
1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

Yes, going by the email.

 

"The resolution to amend our articles of association will be proposed as a special resolution and requires the approval of three-quarters of the votes cast at the meeting."

Oh dear...what a shambles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychedelicropcircle

How many on here thought that the 75% was 75% of the membership?

 

if so you’ve just been took had & misled.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not happy with his at all.  It should be 75% of FoH membership not of votes cast.  This potentially leaves the fate of the club open again. For the record I voted for 90%. 

Edited by Heartsofgold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

I thought it was a survey.

It was a survey. I just meant the process in itself is similar to the election ie one person one vote.
 

If we can’t be arsed to take part on the say so future running of our club then what chance do we stand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, iainmac said:

For those of you that are not seeing FoH emails:

 

1. We are seeing some pledgers (presumably inadvertently) unsubscribing from the mailing list. If you think this may apply to you, please click this link:

 

http://eepurl.com/CtudD

 

If you are already subscribed, it will tell you at some point during the process and you don't need to do anything else.

 

2. If you're finding FoH emails are going into your spam / junk folders, right click the email and select "not spam" and this should fix it.

 

I'm the opposite. I'm not a pledger (currently, was previously and will be again in the future) but I receive the emails as if I still was...an example being the ones about this topic.

Edited by Taffin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
36 minutes ago, kila said:

I am surprised they are going forward with this

 

It was an advisory vote using an insecure method for a start...

 

 


yeh. That low turnout is a real indictment of the lack of engagement. The success of this whole fan ownership thing depends on engaging fans - both existing members and potential members.

 

They need a community manager or something, plus regular content about football, Hearts and fans, not just updates about governance. Otherwise it will wither and die. 
 

If you engage members around what they really care about - Hearts and football, not governance - they will then be more likely to get involved or at least vote in surveys like this.

Edited by ToqueJambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Yes, going by the email.

 

"The resolution to amend our articles of association will be proposed as a special resolution and requires the approval of three-quarters of the votes cast at the meeting."

 

Which is the statutory provisions in the articles I presume.Proxy votes will also count so It is up to everyone to register their vote as otherwise there can be no complaints. My own opinion fwiw is a special resolution requiring 75per cent is a general norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Yes, going by the email.

 

"The resolution to amend our articles of association will be proposed as a special resolution and requires the approval of three-quarters of the votes cast at the meeting."

 

Clause 26.1 of the Articles of Association mentions voting by proxy and says that Members who submit a proxy vote count towards the quorum

 

 

26. PROCEDURE AT GENERAL MEETINGS 26.1 51 Members (or, if less, one tenth of the total number of Members at the time) present in person or by proxy and entitled to attend and to vote on the business to be transacted at a general meeting shall be a quorum for all purposes.

 

https://www.foundationofhearts.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FOH-ARTICLES201388472_1.pdf

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
1 hour ago, Jack Torrance said:

Very disappointed. 

 

Same. Ach well it's not like this could severely impact the whole future of the club and leave us in the hands of a chancer again!

 

It's lucky we're not at threat of relegation which would mean cost-cutting and potentially make us attractive to a D Utd stye takeover from the States, who then has us in massive debt a couple of years after taking over... 

 

Edited by ToqueJambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
On 15/02/2020 at 09:00, Smithee said:

 

I didnt really read the email, I'd assumed it would take 90% to pass, my bad.

 

To those concerned about low turn outs there's a simple answer - put a qualifying turnout in place, say 50%

 

This will need to be done now I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ford donald said:

 Well if people don't vote, they can have no complaints.

This is where I’m at. Took me time to think about it then voted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Psychedelicropcircle said:

How many on here thought that the 75% was 75% of the membership?

 

if so you’ve just been took had & misled.

 

 

Hadn't really thought about it too closely but it's now obvious to me that if we do ever have to decide on something that requires a super majority the FOH make the biggest effort possible to provide a variety of voting methods and engage as many members as possible. It can't be left to the number of people who bother to turn up at an AGM/EGM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack Torrance
10 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Same. Ach well it's not like this could severely impact the whole future of the club and leave us in the hands of a chancer again!

 

It's lucky we're not at threat of relegation which would mean cost-cutting and potentially make us attractive to a D Utd stye takeover from the States, who then has us in massive debt a couple of years after taking over... 

 

 

Since you put it like that,  I dunno what I've been worried about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
39 minutes ago, Psychedelicropcircle said:

How many on here thought that the 75% was 75% of the membership?

 

if so you’ve just been took had & misled.

 

 

Nope. It was discussed at length on here and it was written in plain text.

 

However, if you feel strongly enough, go along to the EGM and vote against it. I'm glad this is the only issue in town though, not what the performance of the two FoH directors has been like as we prop up the fecking table!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
27 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:


yeh. That low turnout is a real indictment of the lack of engagement. The success of this whole fan ownership thing depends on engaging fans - both existing members and potential members.

 

They need a community manager or something, plus regular content about football, Hearts and fans, not just updates about governance. Otherwise it will wither and die. 
 

If you engage members around what they really care about - Hearts and football, not governance - they will then be more likely to get involved or at least vote in surveys like this.

Correct, and yet the reaction on here when people were discussing the original Governance proposals (the boring bits to most folk) was generally "Doesn't matter. I trust them and I pledge for life". Maybe now people will realise "them" is actually "us" and with that comes a responsibility to take an interest in shit you can't normally be bothered with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Nope. It was discussed at length on here and it was written in plain text.

 

However, if you feel strongly enough, go along to the EGM and vote against it. I'm glad this is the only issue in town though, not what the performance of the two FoH directors has been like as we prop up the fecking table!

 

That'll be the two FoH directors who it has been stated will not have any input into first team football matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
Just now, graygo said:

 

That'll be the two FoH directors who it has been stated will not have any input into first team football matters.

Yes, because the club has had no other issues at all such as stand overspends, managerial appointment delays, the structure of the football department....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Correct, and yet the reaction on here when people were discussing the original Governance proposals (the boring bits to most folk) was generally "Doesn't matter. I trust them and I pledge for life". Maybe now people will realise "them" is actually "us" and with that comes a responsibility to take an interest in shit you can't normally be bothered with.

 

Governance is boring though. That's why FoH need to build a community around supporting Hearts and enjoying watching football as that's what we all have in common. Right now I get the impression people think FoH is a bunch of suits sitting around discussing rules and regulations. As you say, it's actually all of the people in the plot ceremony pictures and whose names are on the FoH shirt. That needs to be the focus. When you create a community, it'll be much easier to campaign on issues, communicate important messages and encourage participation in votes, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychedelicropcircle
5 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Nope. It was discussed at length on here and it was written in plain text.

 

However, if you feel strongly enough, go along to the EGM and vote against it. I'm glad this is the only issue in town though, not what the performance of the two FoH directors has been like as we prop up the fecking table!

Do you think on the original email it would have said this will be decided by 75% of the people that vote? It looked more like a survey! 

 

Does anyone have the origina email  if so put it on here.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Yes, because the club has had no other issues at all such as stand overspends, managerial appointment delays, the structure of the football department....

 

How can anyone on here know enough about those situations to enable them to question the performance of the two FoH directors? The collective board maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
Just now, graygo said:

 

How can anyone on here know enough about those situations to enable them to question the performance of the two FoH directors? The collective board maybe.

 

You answered your own question. They are part of the collective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
4 minutes ago, Psychedelicropcircle said:

Do you think on the original email it would have said this will be decided by 75% of the people that vote? It looked more like a survey! 

 

Does anyone have the origina email  if so put it on here.

 

 

 

 

There should be a vote next. They must allow for postal and other votes though on such an important issue surely? It can't just be people who can make the meeting in person.

 

 

Dear Member

We have decided to revisit an important aspect of our future governance arrangements, and we would like your views.  We attach a short Q&A with this email, the background to which is set out below.

1.    What’s this all about?
Our future governance arrangements contain a restriction on any disposal of the Foundation’s shares in the Club acquired from Bidco.  Before such a disposal to a third party can proceed, it must be put to a vote of Foundation members (including Affiliate Members) and sanctioned by a majority of not less than 90% of the votes cast.
The issue is: Is this 90% requirement too high?  Should the requirement be reduced to 75%?

2.    Why is the board re-opening this topic now?
The review is prompted by two factors.  Firstly, feedback at the AGM in December.  At that meeting, we were urged to look again at the issue, with views being expressed that 90% was too high.  Secondly, awareness of investment trends in Scottish football (see 5.3 below).

We have a window in which to address the topic.  At present, if we decide to change the majority requirement, we need a 75% vote in favour at a general meeting of members.  However, once the ownership of the Club passes to the Foundation (an event scheduled for April), we would need a 90% vote in favour at a general meeting and the logistics of organising that meeting become more complicated.  It therefore makes sense to review the issue over the next few weeks.

3.    Was the 90% requirement discussed in the governance consultation?
Yes.  The 90% requirement was part of our governance proposals throughout the consultation process which ran from April 2017 to November 2018.  At that time, this particular point generated little, if any, comment.
At the end of the consultation period, the members overwhelmingly approved the final proposals.  This approval related to the proposals in their totality, and there were no separate votes on any constituent elements of the proposals.  The request raised at the AGM is effectively that the 90% requirement should now be considered separately.

4.    What are the arguments in favour of a 90% requirement?
[Note: the discussion in 4 and 5 below is framed in terms of the Foundation transferring majority ownership to a new owner.  An alternative scenario of the Foundation transferring a minority interest is, however, also possible.  The 90% approval requirement would extend to that latter scenario.]

4.1    Transferring majority ownership of the Club to a new owner would undoubtedly be the biggest collective decision the Foundation members would ever take.
We would be deciding who the new owner should be, with all the responsibility that places on us.  We would have to decide - are they the right people to own the Club?  Will they have the best interests of the Club at heart, and do they have the financial backing to sustain the Club financially?
A decision of this importance should only be taken with the support of a substantial majority of the voting members.

4.2    A meeting to consider a proposed transfer would be organised so as to maximise the voter turnout.  Early voting (electronically or by mail) would be possible, as well as voting at the meeting in person or by proxy.  A good turnout of members would reduce the risk of a small unrepresentative group of dissident members being able to block the sale.  See 5.1 below.

5.    What are the arguments against a 90% requirement?
5.1    A 90% majority requirement increases the risk of a small and unrepresentative minority being able to block a sale which might be supported by a large majority of members.  Depending on the overall size of the Foundation membership at the time and the proportion of that membership which participates in the vote, the fate of the Club could be decided by a small number of people.  This risk would be reduced if the majority requirement was 75%.

5.2    Football regulation has mechanisms to protect clubs against unscrupulous or untrustworthy individuals acquiring ownership.  A prospective owner or director must be a fit and proper person, and financial regulations are designed to stop clubs careering into financial turmoil.  It is an exaggeration, therefore, to say that a supermajority is required to provide this protection.

[Note: Having said this, it has been suggested at times that the regulatory protections are insufficient in practice, in that prospective owners are not effectively vetted by the football authorities, while financial regulations are subject to numerous caveats and are not strictly enforced.  The shortcomings were highlighted by Bury FC, which was expelled from the English Football League in 2019 as a direct result of poor ownership and longstanding financial problems.]

5.3    The Scottish football scene has changed in the past 12-18 months.  There has been an increase in external investment into our clubs.  A lot of this investment has come from overseas, particularly the US.  Scottish clubs are currently seen as viable assets to attract long-term investment.  The Scottish Premiership is a very competitive league and the pressure on owners to maintain investment and keep pace with their rivals is intense.  If a need for unplanned capital expenditure arises at a club, the fan ownership model is generally not regarded as well-suited to deliver funding.
Approaches to the Club by potential investors have already been made (through Bidco).  If this current climate in Scottish football continues, it is possible that such approaches might start to arrive with even greater frequency.
Against that background, it is arguable that a 75% majority requirement would be more appropriate and more in keeping with normal business practice.  It provides greater flexibility and room for manoeuvre, while nevertheless still requiring a substantial majority in favour of a sale.

6.    How will the views of members on this issue be sought?
We are going to conduct an online survey of our members over a one-week period.  Members will be asked to indicate which majority requirement – 90% or 75% - they favour.  There is also space in the survey to tell us about any comments, questions or concerns you may have.  We will anonymise the identities of respondents.

Click Here to access the survey form. Please enter the email address associated with your FoH Account.

You can complete the survey on your computer or mobile phone.  The survey is open now and will close at 5.00pm on Monday 17 February.  We will release the result of the survey shortly afterwards.

7.    After the survey has been completed, what will happen next?
The survey will be consultative only.  It will inform the decision-making process, as the directors will pay close attention to members’ views, especially if a significant proportion of members have participated.
If the directors conclude that the 90% majority requirement should be retained in its present form, no further action will be needed, as the requirement is already part of the future governance structure.
If the directors conclude that a 75% majority requirement is more appropriate, it will be necessary to alter the articles of association, and we will convene a general meeting of members for that purpose.  For reasons explained in 2 above, we would seek to do that before the Foundation acquires majority ownership of the Club.

I hope you will take the opportunity to give us your views.
 

Edited by ToqueJambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 132goals1958 said:

 

Which is the statutory provisions in the articles I presume.Proxy votes will also count so It is up to everyone to register their vote as otherwise there can be no complaints. My own opinion fwiw is a special resolution requiring 75per cent is a general norm.

 

Indeed there has to be an option for proxy voting. There is a question as to how accessible you make that. Do you go with the more expensive option of an online facility that is effectively allowing online voting or do you require people to fill out a form and post it back.

 

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

Although I voted in favour of 75% rather than 90%, I think FOH has got this wrong in governance terms, and should NOT be convening an EGM to reverse the AGM position.

 

My reason is that the poll conducted to gauge opinion, itself failed to get a 75% vote, which would validate an EGM being called. It requires a 75% vote to change the articles, so the failure to get a 75% indicative vote should have led to it being left at 90%, as it stood following the AGM.

 

FOH will now convene an EGM for a vote on a single motion. That will be at a cost to FOH and the EGM may struggle to achieve a quorum of 51 members in attendance in any event.  If it does achieve a quorum, then it won't take very many members to sway the final result either way.  Limiting the vote to members present at the meeting is, in my opinion, not democratic for a change to the Articles of Association.

I have some sympathy with the FoH Board. A 73% result feels like the nightmare outcome from their point of view. A clear majority in favour, but not enough that if this was the official result it would lead to change. I think the argument could be made that it is close enough to suggest it should now be put to a formal vote to get a definitive view from the membership. The difficulty now, as you suggest, is that a far, far smaller number of members could vote at the meeting and make the actual decision. If they don't vote in favour, indeed even if it gets exactly 73% in favour and therefore doesn't go through, I anticipate a whole lot of confusion and some anger.

 

TBF to FOH some of the confusion in posts above from the fact that the first poster today posted a partial email along with a misleading message. The email is clear that no final decision has yet been made and it will now go to a formal vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
7 minutes ago, weehammy said:

But there’s nothing to suggest they have collective responsibility. The board is a group who advise the CEO, in our case the owner. She can then decide to ignore any advice and do as she pleases. For all we know the two FOH reps have moaned incessantly about the matters you raise.
It’s clear that there is collective adherence to confidentiality, however.

 

If what you hypothesise is true, that would suggest a fundamental problem with, er, governance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Psychedelicropcircle said:

How many on here thought that the 75% was 75% of the membership?

 

if so you’ve just been took had & misled.

 

 

Surely very few that showed an interest thought that, there was a good conversation about it.

 

I still like the thought of a qualifying level of votes cast before anything requiring a super majority can be passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

portobellojambo1

I would think they need to do something to get a clearer indication of the thoughts of if not all, certainly a much larger percentage of the FoH contributors before making any changes. Via the voting option available for this survey the actual percentage who voted was c. 17.59% (based on 8,000 contributors), representing around 1,013 contributors voting in favour of the change. Not sure how many people would be able to make themselves available for an EGM, if that is the method which will then be used for ratification of anything.

 

It may well be the case that on a much higher vote the %age in favour of change will remain high, but the danger of moving forward and implementing changes without getting a clearer idea of the feelings of the vast majority of contributors is that a percentage may then consider there is no need for them to continue contributing, depending on their views on fan ownership and what is needed to then potentially override that position.

Edited by portobellojambo1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Borders Jambo
1 hour ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

I thought it was a survey.

This, I voted in a survey which was there I thought to gauge opinion 

 

I didn't realise it would simply be decided

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pettigrewsstylist
22 minutes ago, portobellojambo1 said:

I would think they need to do something to get a clearer indication of the thoughts of if not all, certainly a much larger percentage of the FoH contributors before making any changes. Via the voting option available for this survey the actual percentage who voted was c. 17.59% (based on 8,000 contributors), representing around 1,013 contributors voting in favour of the change. Not sure how many people would be able to make themselves available for an EGM, if that is the method which will then be used for ratification of anything.

 

It may well be the case that on a much higher vote the %age in favour of change will remain high, but the danger of moving forward and implementing changes without getting a clearer idea of the feelings of the vast majority of contributors is that a percentage may then consider there is no need for them to continue contributing, depending on their views on fan ownership and what is needed to then potentially override that position.

FOH needs to explore how to make voting facilities available to vast majority of membership on major/core issues like this; I am an absolute ignorant on such matters tbh.

Precedent is being set here though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychedelicropcircle

Is there a certain level of contribution before your allowed a say? I ask as cropcirclette set up a contribution that ran for a couple of months, & she tells me no emails are sent to her email?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Borders Jambo said:

This, I voted in a survey which was there I thought to gauge opinion 

 

I didn't realise it would simply be decided

You did vote in a survey. It hasn't simply been decided. The issue now goes forward for a formal vote at a meeting g of members (date TBC). It will require 75% of votes at that meeting to pass. There will be some sort of provision to cast your vote without attending

 

1 hour ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

FOH needs to explore how to make voting facilities available to vast majority of membership on major/core issues like this; I am an absolute ignorant on such matters tbh.

Precedent is being set here though.

In the past they allowed for both online voting over a reasonably long period and voting in person. Not really clear that the issue is voting facilities. Much more likely is that for whatever reason many members are not choosing to vote. Some probably aren't even opening the email, while others open it and decide it is to boring to spend their time on. I checked back and the vote on diverting funds to the new stand only attracted 3,800 votes. With that in mind and given this was a technical governance issue, I'm amazed they got over 1000 votes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Yes, going by the email.

 

"The resolution to amend our articles of association will be proposed as a special resolution and requires the approval of three-quarters of the votes cast at the meeting."

That surely can’t be correct? It must be possible to instruct the chairperson of the meeting  to vote on your behalf as you want ...... surely?

 

if not democracy is dead ... 

PS it surely means 75% of the votes cast at the meeting including those proxied to the chairperson in advance of the meeting?

Edited by Jambo-Fox
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...