Jump to content
Bull's-eye

Latest FOH email - have your say on supermajority

Recommended Posts

sac

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saint Jambo
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Disco Dave

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saint Jambo
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.)

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saint Jambo
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saint Jambo
Just now, davemclaren said:

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

 

Various things have been specifically raised and discussed at FOH AGMs. Up until now there has been no appetite from FOH Board to give members a vote on individual aspects of governance reform. There is no indication as to why that has changed now. If the FOH Board feel they have got this point wrong, it would have been helpful if they had said so in the email. The membership have voted on this aspect along with all other aspects of the governance reform all ready. The FOH board considered that good enough for all other elements of governance, even those that generated discussion at AGMs in the past, but have seen this one very narrow point as different. I am unclear why as no reason has been provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
14 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Various things have been specifically raised and discussed at FOH AGMs. Up until now there has been no appetite from FOH Board to give members a vote on individual aspects of governance reform. There is no indication as to why that has changed now. If the FOH Board feel they have got this point wrong, it would have been helpful if they had said so in the email. The membership have voted on this aspect along with all other aspects of the governance reform all ready. The FOH board considered that good enough for all other elements of governance, even those that generated discussion at AGMs in the past, but have seen this one very narrow point as different. I am unclear why as no reason has been provided.

I mentioned that last night. Iirc there were three specific governance points, including the one we are discussing, raised during the last agm. The other two were on how funds were used and the direct influence of FoH on the club board. I assume there must be more doubts on the FoH board over this one than the others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TWF
22 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I mentioned that last night. Iirc there were three specific governance points, including the one we are discussing, raised during the last agm. The other two were on how funds were used and the direct influence of FoH on the club board. I assume there must be more doubts on the FoH board over this one than the others. 

As I understand it, this "poll" is for advisory purposes only.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst

Looking back at the original governance proposals launched in May 2017,  they actually included a proposal to place a super majority on certain decisions by the Club, in addition to those proposed for FOH. 

 

Such a scenario could have led to a single Club shareholder with more than 10%, i.e. Ann Budge, being able to block proposals by the majority shareholder, FOH.

 

When the response to the consultation was published in July 2018, the imposition on the Club was dropped, but the FOH requirement was retained.   

Share this post


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

 

Various things have been specifically raised and discussed at FOH AGMs. Up until now there has been no appetite from FOH Board to give members a vote on individual aspects of governance reform. There is no indication as to why that has changed now. If the FOH Board feel they have got this point wrong, it would have been helpful if they had said so in the email. The membership have voted on this aspect along with all other aspects of the governance reform all ready. The FOH board considered that good enough for all other elements of governance, even those that generated discussion at AGMs in the past, but have seen this one very narrow point as different. I am unclear why as no reason has been provided.

Although I support the switch to 75% (with some caveats such as ensuring a wide participation in any vote, including a threshold percentage of members voting) I agree with what you say about FoH 's approach to this "consultation". This is not a new issue - it was raised by FF and others n the response to the consultation on the "final" "governance proposals approved at the AGM in December (and indeed before that consultation). I am not aware that anything new was added at  the December AGM.  The reasons given for FoH's change of heart in the few weeks since the AGM are unconvincing. The claim fact that the league is "very competitive" at a time when in fact it is less competitive than it has been in the last 15 years … indeed arguably ever. (It is more competitive for Hearts  because of how crap we have been due to mismanagement of the football business over the last few years). There is no evidence that the sugar daddy model adopted by Hibs and others is going to be any more successful than it has in the past. There is no evidence that the approaches to Bidco have any more substance than those of the tyre kickers derided by FoH during administration. As you say FoH could just have said they have changed their minds and that locking in a 90% majority is an unnecessary long term risk give uncertainties about how the game will develop. Instead they go as usual for (in this case unconvincing and unnecessary) spin.

 

But at least it has got us the widest debate on governance this board has seen!

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
9 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Looking back at the original governance proposals launched in May 2017,  they actually included a proposal to place a super majority on certain decisions by the Club, in addition to those proposed for FOH. 

 

Such a scenario could have led to a single Club shareholder with more than 10%, i.e. Ann Budge, being able to block proposals by the majority shareholder, FOH.

 

When the response to the consultation was published in July 2018, the imposition on the Club was dropped, but the FOH requirement was retained.   

By a remarkable coincidence I came across this just a few minutes before you posted. I can't remember if this absurdity was dropped because of responses to the consultation (by you?) or just because they realised how silly it was. There certainly wasn't a vote on the change!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
luckydug
3 hours ago, jock _turd said:

 

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 !

I agree with you but the only reason we would be making a loss without benefactor and FOH donations is because of the New Stand expenditure.  Once the stand has been completed we will be in a very strong financial position even without donations as long as the club is run prudently by people with the 'Clubs' interests at heart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo
2 hours 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.

 

Indeed - I thought it had no relevance to the principal question being asked, which is a long-term one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DETTY29
47 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Looking back at the original governance proposals launched in May 2017,  they actually included a proposal to place a super majority on certain decisions by the Club, in addition to those proposed for FOH. 

 

Such a scenario could have led to a single Club shareholder with more than 10%, i.e. Ann Budge, being able to block proposals by the majority shareholder, FOH.

 

When the response to the consultation was published in July 2018, the imposition on the Club was dropped, but the FOH requirement was retained.   

Which would to an extent make sense as FOH is one member one vote, so there would be no 'block' possibility whereas this is different with club shareholding.

 

Would have been interesting at the last club AGM if Levein was standing to be re-elected and 'all those in favour' question asked and only one hand went up, the one that mattered.  Resolution passed.

 

I'm still minded at 90% but could be swayed if certain criteria were met in terms of the mechanics of the final vote - cannot be an 'in person' thing'; cut off dates for members eligible to vote and what criteria distinguishes an acceptance at 75% i.e a percentage of members that need to vote for motion to carry and so on.

 

Ultimately it is up to the FOH directors to provide a compelling case to ensure that their recommendations are passed and if not, it really is a vote of no confidence which than has more far reaching consequences, notably as recently, not a great deal of interest in others putting themselves forward as potential candidates.

Share this post


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

By a remarkable coincidence I came across this just a few minutes before you posted. I can't remember if this absurdity was dropped because of responses to the consultation (by you?) or just because they realised how silly it was. There certainly wasn't a vote on the change!

I did include it in my initial response to the proposals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saint Jambo
1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

Looking back at the original governance proposals launched in May 2017,  they actually included a proposal to place a super majority on certain decisions by the Club, in addition to those proposed for FOH. 

 

Such a scenario could have led to a single Club shareholder with more than 10%, i.e. Ann Budge, being able to block proposals by the majority shareholder, FOH.

 

When the response to the consultation was published in July 2018, the imposition on the Club was dropped, but the FOH requirement was retained.   

 

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

By a remarkable coincidence I came across this just a few minutes before you posted. I can't remember if this absurdity was dropped because of responses to the consultation (by you?) or just because they realised how silly it was. There certainly wasn't a vote on the change!

 

I raised this issue at the governance consultation event, pointing out that effectively it would be FOH buying the club and then voluntarily giving significant influence to a minority shareholder. From memory, it was in a conversation at the end of the evening (rather than in the full meeting) that I was told that it was a mistake to include it and that the Board intended to remove it from the final proposals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst

Off topic but worth posting as a warning to others. I received the following message from a friend earlier today. 

 

Stuart Wallace mentioned at HMSA last week that FOH has introduced a new one off donation facility, so I thought I'd try it. Unfortunately, I didn't realise that by entering the decimal point that £10 became £1,000 and there was no opportunity offered to review or amend the figure. I am pleased to say that a quick call to Stuart managed to unravel my error very quickly and all is well again. Lesson learned, although I got the impression that I wasn't the first fool to make this blunder.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874
3 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Various things have been specifically raised and discussed at FOH AGMs. Up until now there has been no appetite from FOH Board to give members a vote on individual aspects of governance reform. There is no indication as to why that has changed now. If the FOH Board feel they have got this point wrong, it would have been helpful if they had said so in the email. The membership have voted on this aspect along with all other aspects of the governance reform all ready. The FOH board considered that good enough for all other elements of governance, even those that generated discussion at AGMs in the past, but have seen this one very narrow point as different. I am unclear why as no reason has been provided.

 

Because the whole governance proposals have already been approved.

 

This is about changing one thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
3 hours ago, TWF said:

As I understand it, this "poll" is for advisory purposes only.

 

It is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poseidon

How would they go about actually putting it into their governance proper? Does that require ratification by way of another member poll once they know the preferred position (subject to it being a change to the current)?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874
15 minutes ago, Poseidon said:

How would they go about actually putting it into their governance proper? Does that require ratification by way of another member poll once they know the preferred position (subject to it being a change to the current)?

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Another poll and / or vote at a meeting if this vote goes for the 75%.

No need to do anything if 90% because that has already been formally agreed with the governance being approved at the AGM.

Edited by Mikey1874

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Psychedelicropcircle

If we ever allow ourselves to give up being the major shareholder it’ll be our last outing in power. The FOH model only worked because we were the last resort. If you need a guideline to a club we’re the fans would like to be the MSH look no further that HSL. I doubt the appetite to regain the position of a club in debt but able to trade would appeal. 

 

Chat like folk still buying into FOH 2013 wow 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DETTY29
1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

Off topic but worth posting as a warning to others. I received the following message from a friend earlier today. 

 

 

 

I was 25 to 2500 a while back.

 

Garry Halliday sorted out for me v. quickly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jock _turd
4 hours ago, luckydug said:

I agree with you but the only reason we would be making a loss without benefactor and FOH donations is because of the New Stand expenditure.  Once the stand has been completed we will be in a very strong financial position even without donations as long as the club is run prudently by people with the 'Clubs' interests at heart. 

 

No worries mate my reply was to the other guy who thinks that by spending 10 million a would be owner is going to ragdoll the club for 400k per annum ... there are going to be far less costly ways for £10M to make money than buy a football club.

FWIW I agree that we could be sitting pretty in the near future if the team can turn this season around but as we see time and again football is a costly business... when we do turn things around we may need to spend even more on players next year to go forward. That is why what the FOH members are doing is so important to the club it frees up money to be spent on things other than the players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poseidon
5 hours ago, Psychedelicropcircle said:

If we ever allow ourselves to give up being the major shareholder it’ll be our last outing in power. The FOH model only worked because we were the last resort. If you need a guideline to a club we’re the fans would like to be the MSH look no further that HSL. I doubt the appetite to regain the position of a club in debt but able to trade would appeal. 

 

Chat like folk still buying into FOH 2013 wow 

Good shout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
weehammy
21 hours ago, luckydug said:

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.

 

In my view, now that we’ve saved the club, subscriptions will only hold up if they are ring-fenced to support particular projects. My subscription is easily affordable but I won’t being continuing if it goes towards player wages, transfers, etc. as I believe the club has to be self-sufficient where these are concerned. But I would be happy, for example, for FOH funds to support completion of the main stand.

Other pledgers, of course, will feel differently, but I doubt if I’m alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
big-jambo

it is a difficult one - there are pros and cons on either side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hungry hippo

Do we need a 90% super majority to drop Pereira?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perth to Paisley

My one concern is that one individual/groupwill own circa 25% post transfer in May.

So if they want something to happen  they only need to convince 50% of the populace to make it happen. 

... or am I being ignorant.

 

Anne will own that 25% but she (or her family) could choose to sell it to Mr Wideboy in due course.

 

Torn..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Fox
1 hour ago, Perth to Paisley said:

My one concern is that one individual/groupwill own circa 25% post transfer in May.

So if they want something to happen  they only need to convince 50% of the populace to make it happen. 

... or am I being ignorant.

 

Anne will own that 25% but she (or her family) could choose to sell it to Mr Wideboy in due course.

 

Torn..

The 75% FOH shareholding will be totally separate from whatever % (18 I believe) of shares Ann Budge will own. Either party can choose to do whatever they want with their holding.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
5 hours ago, weehammy said:

In my view, now that we’ve saved the club, subscriptions will only hold up if they are ring-fenced to support particular projects. My subscription is easily affordable but I won’t being continuing if it goes towards player wages, transfers, etc. as I believe the club has to be self-sufficient where these are concerned. But I would be happy, for example, for FOH funds to support completion of the main stand.

Other pledgers, of course, will feel differently, but I doubt if I’m alone.

 

While I won't be likely to keep mine up if it looks like we're trying to find projects to spend it on.

The ownership emergency's over, the infrastructure emergency's over - **** projects, we're a football club, spend it on the football. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert

Just noticed I didn't get the email. I think a few others didn't either. Has anyone checked with the club if you have to re-register your e-mail  address for your vote to count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hearts_fan
On 11/02/2020 at 23:36, scott herbertson said:

 

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

 

 

You're talking about 11% as if 11% is a majority.

 

Your second line, who gets to vote in this scenario? I understood that only FoH members would get a vote. 

 

Therefore, how could 11% of those voting constitute up to 40% of the voting group? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hearts_fan
On 12/02/2020 at 09:29, Saint Jambo said:

 

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.)

 

If a whopping 89% of members voted in favour of something, would it not be democratic for their voice to be heard?

 

What is with this idea that somehow "the 11%" are the wisest people ever to have lived, unfoolable, like sages or elders looking after the legacy on behalf of the 89% who must be too stupid to critically analyse an opportunity for themselves. 

 

That a self-appointed 11% should have the power to vito a situation in which the other 89% want to proceed with is quite simply utter b*****ks.

Edited by Hearts_fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scott herbertson
1 hour ago, Hearts_fan said:

 

You're talking about 11% as if 11% is a majority.

 

Your second line, who gets to vote in this scenario? I understood that only FoH members would get a vote. 

 

Therefore, how could 11% of those voting constitute up to 40% of the voting group? 

 

 

Very badly phrased sorry.

 

I meant 11% of those voting might oppose

 

However 30-40% of members may be opposed, just not engaged enough to vote - it may be that if it is something the FOH board is pushing that a members meeting  would not necessarily be a mirror of the overall memberships views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sandylejambo

Investors only put money in to take out more, unless they are Hearts daft like me they don't put cash up without the promise of extra back. 90% is fine, there are only two or three things that require the 90% vote but they are important things so keep them in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee

We could discuss it for weeks, people are unlikely to shift, looks like it'll be staying at 90%

 

But I hope we're never in a position where the views of 89% are overruled, it'll turn really ugly. It's not right.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
9 hours ago, Hearts_fan said:

 

If a whopping 89% of members voted in favour of something, would it not be democratic for their voice to be heard?

 

What is with this idea that somehow "the 11%" are the wisest people ever to have lived, unfoolable, like sages or elders looking after the legacy on behalf of the 89% who must be too stupid to critically analyse an opportunity for themselves. 

 

That a self-appointed 11% should have the power to vito a situation in which the other 89% want to proceed with is quite simply utter b*****ks.

Veto, but agreed 100%, good post.

 

As someone said earlier in the thread, it's much easier to believe 11% of our support might do something stupid than 70%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pettigrewsstylist

A buyer? After last 25 yrs?

After hearing that its 90% for me.

The argument for 75% so it would be easier to sell us  again....Didnt hear that line much 2012-2019. Pretty sure 8k souls wouldnt have raised 10mill under that future governance banner. 

 

 

Edited by pettigrewsstylist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874
3 hours ago, Smithee said:

We could discuss it for weeks, people are unlikely to shift, looks like it'll be staying at 90%

 

But I hope we're never in a position where the views of 89% are overruled, it'll turn really ugly. It's not right.

 

The Poll on here with 290 voting has a 62% to 38% majority for 75%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mitch41
On 12/02/2020 at 09:25, Disco Dave said:

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. 

That's why I believe 75% is a safer percentage. Who knows what is down the line in 10 or 15 years from now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mitch41
1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

The Poll on here with 290 voting has a 62% to 38% majority for 75%. 

I think that is a reasonable number and I hope whoever wins the losers don't spit the dummy out of the pram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pettigrewsstylist

Awlways thought 90% is designed to stop flip floppers, the easily led and short termist populists threatening long term existence.....repeatedley!

 

We seem to be moving from 90% of memebership to 75% of votes cast?

75% of votes cast is very different from 75% of membership if course.

Perhaps 75% of membership is the answer..........

 

Edited by pettigrewsstylist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874
13 minutes ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

Awlways thought 90% is designed to stop flip floppers, the easily led and short termist populists threatening long term existence.....repeatedley!

 

We seem to be moving from 90% of memebership to 75% of votes cast?

75% of votes cast is very different from 75% of membership if course.

Perhaps 75% of membership is the answer..........

 

 

Any big vote needs to be done properly. Widest possible voting.

 

Deciding how votes are done is up to the FoH Board. They can choose to have a vote at a meeting. 200 people means vote passes with 150. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scott herbertson
40 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Any big vote needs to be done properly. Widest possible voting.

 

Deciding how votes are done is up to the FoH Board. They can choose to have a vote at a meeting. 200 people means vote passes with 150. 

 

ie less than 2% of the membership. I do hope it wont be a simple as that to change something as fundamental as the ownership of the club

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo
1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Any big vote needs to be done properly. Widest possible voting.

 

Deciding how votes are done is up to the FoH Board. They can choose to have a vote at a meeting. 200 people means vote passes with 150. 

 

Indeed. This is why, imo, this particular voting subject should have conditions attached to it in the constitution which specifically lay out that the vote should be given an adequate amount of response time (a month, say?) and that it should be exercised by a wide variety of means, including online and postal voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
6 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

The Poll on here with 290 voting has a 62% to 38% majority for 75%. 

 

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%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...