Jump to content
Bull's-eye

Latest FOH email - have your say on supermajority

Recommended Posts

Hearts_fan
23 hours ago, scott herbertson said:

 

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.

 

Yes, but the same argument could also be applied in the opposite direction – 89% may be lower than the real figure. 

 

Whichever side of the fence FoH members sit on any issue, if they don't bother voting then presumably they don't care enough about the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scott herbertson
19 hours ago, Hearts_fan said:

 

Yes, but the same argument could also be applied in the opposite direction – 89% may be lower than the real figure. 

 

Whichever side of the fence FoH members sit on any issue, if they don't bother voting then presumably they don't care enough about the outcome.

 

 

I don't think you can presume that. There is usually a lack of awareness among the membership of what is going on, an assumption that those in charge will sort things out on our behalf. I think for major changes there needs to be a far higher bar and much more communication than for regular FOH business. Hopefully that would be so in these cases. I do think we need to make voting very easy (online) rather than attendance and/or postal votes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HMFC86

Being changed to 75%

E48FB3F2-0783-49A2-8EAF-962EA97D3EB4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JyTees

75% it is then!

 

:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jr ewing

Seems more democratic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake

Only 20% of us voted .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scott herbertson

Disappointed, but it was a fair vote and delighted to see that 1407 voted which i think is good for a 'survey' . One of my key points in favour of 90% was my concern that a change could pass through on a low vote but this suggests we would do reasonably well if it comes to a vote on a transfer.

 

People should note  the clarification on it being a percentage of VOTES CAST, and not a percentage of MEMBERSHIP - this means it will be vital that if a change is proposed communication is extensive and a fair time is given for the proposals to be debated and considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambof3tornado
4 minutes ago, jake said:

Only 20% of us voted .

 

Bit disappointing turnout given it took seconds to vote but pleased with the overall result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Torrance

Very disappointed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
6 minutes ago, jake said:

Only 20% of us voted .

 

More concerning then anything else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ford donald
4 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

More concerning then anything else. 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barack

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

 

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

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kila

I am surprised they are going forward with this

 

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboGraham

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...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iainmac

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XB52
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jr ewing
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saughton Jambo
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jr ewing
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jr ewing
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heartsofgold

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saughton Jambo
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taffin
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
132goals1958
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gibbo
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

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamhammer
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1953
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poseidon

Not sure I've been on the winning side of a FoH vote yet. Disappointing but not in the slightest surprising 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
graygo
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
graygo
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

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...