Jump to content
Bull's-eye

Latest FOH email - have your say on supermajority

Recommended Posts

Jambo-Fox
58 minutes ago, gorgieheart said:

there are some trumpets on here !

 

seriously, some would find any tiny thing to have a p*ss and moan about !

 

gonnae wind it in... !

 

JKB, used to be a decent forum.  Its turning into an utter joke

That’s why fan ownership is fine BUT fan run would be a disaster!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bring on the Future
10 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

75 for me..

 

that’s a clear enough majority for any decision no matter how material, it would seriously unfair if 89% wanted something to happen and it was blocked by a few hundred fans

 

the only outcome in that scenario would be people cancelling pledges in their droves. 
 

think people. 

 

My concern about 75% is that too many of our support don't have the adequate knowledge or access to appropriate background information in order to scrutinise the potential investor and inform a massive decision like this, from which there would be no way back.

 

The PR machine around all potential investments is designed to excite and have people dreaming about the promised land, and I think it would be quite easy to convince 75% how this investment is going to be the missing link to us breaking the Old Firm Duopoly- we only have to think back to Vlad or the SMG investment as evidence of this. 

 

With FoH as owners (i.e. the support committing affordable amounts to play the role of owner), our future is assured regardless. I believe it would be relatively easy for the wrong investor to turn the heads of 3/4 people (not all of whom will have even tried to investigate them properly). I see 90% as a much tougher challenge and therefore the right move. 

Edited by Bring on the Future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jamboiain13
2 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Why would they be looking for a way out? This was a legitimate point raised and discussed at the agm and it’s good they are consulting on it. 

I don't know but maybe that's just what I am reading into this latest email.  
I am not suggesting that FoH have been inviting offers or touting the club to potential suitors.  I simply wondered about the timing.  Were the interested parties discussed at the AGM?  If so, then I apologise for questioning the timing and for not being there or reading through the minutes.  
I have also stated that I am NOT against potentially transferring ownership to the right people.  After all we are a club in a far better financial position because of FoH and all the fans who pledge / have pledged.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elshin
2 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Depends how much you trust the members to decide I suppose. None of us know how football ownership models will

look in 20, 30 or 50 years. 

Completly agree.

 

But thats why i would prefer 90%.

 

We could have a great new owner for 5 or 10years, the risk then becomes when they want to offload again.    My whole life hearts have been in some way at risk.

 

I would just prefer us to be locked down as much as possible.

 

But part of fan ownership is discussion and votes like this on forums 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pettigrewsstylist

90% for me. Protect the club once and for all. 

Never again etc. 

Edited by pettigrewsstylist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
1 minute ago, jamboiain13 said:

I don't know but maybe that's just what I am reading into this latest email.  
I am not suggesting that FoH have been inviting offers or touting the club to potential suitors.  I simply wondered about the timing.  Were the interested parties discussed at the AGM?  If so, then I apologise for questioning the timing and for not being there or reading through the minutes.  
I have also stated that I am NOT against potentially transferring ownership to the right people.  After all we are a club in a far better financial position because of FoH and all the fans who pledge / have pledged.  
 

I don’t recall any mention of interested parties at the AGM in December.  I don’t think there is any intention to sell the club anytime soon, given we are still seeing high levels of fan contributions.  However, should that decline over the long term and/or our peer clubs receive external investment giving them a significant advantage then opening up to an external investor ( or investors ) may be seen as the right thing to do by the support. It would still need a minimum 75% of members to agree to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick

A hard one for those who "don't care about Governance" on here. Personally, I don't think it matters as the number of people who question anything FoH does can be counted on less than one hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Portable Badger

Have I got this right?

 

We will only have 75.1% of the overall shares when Ann signs them over to the FoH

 

Approving a 75% limit - 75% FoH vote mean (75% * 75%) that effectively only 56% of all the shares would be needed to approve any potential investment from external bid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee

I think if 75% of members agree then that should be enough to say there's consensus. 

 

90% is mental IMO, 89% could agree it's a great idea and it wouldn't go through, that's not right for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamboelite
3 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

A hard one for those who "don't care about Governance" on here. Personally, I don't think it matters as the number of people who question anything FoH does can be counted on less than one hand.

Thanks for your input Geoff very enlightening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saint Jambo
1 minute ago, Portable Badger said:

Have I got this right?

 

We will only have 75.1% of the overall shares when Ann signs them over to the FoH

 

Approving a 75% limit - 75% FoH vote mean (75% * 75%) that effectively only 56% of all the shares would be needed to approve any potential investment from external bid

 

No, you've not go this right.

 

The decision of whether FOH sells its shares in the club would be one for FOH alone. So it would be 75% of FOH members that would have to vote. The overall club shareholding is irrelevant here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick
3 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

Thanks for your input Geoff very enlightening.

No probs. The other cynical viewpoint is that 75% has more chance of getting money for more Liam Boyces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
km7bhf
1 hour ago, gorgieheart said:

there are some trumpets on here !

 

seriously, some would find any tiny thing to have a p*ss and moan about !

 

gonnae wind it in... !

 

JKB, used to be a decent forum.  Its turning into an utter joke

I agree. I think I’d trust Mad Vlad to make sensible decisions on behalf of the club rather than some of the morons on here. Fan ownership doesn’t concern me. 
 

What if investment into the Scottish game is such that every club in the top flight has at least £50m per year to spend on facilities and playing staff. However hard we try we would be restricted on half that or less. Do we just accept that and watch other clubs move past us? Or........put in place sensible safe guards that protect our status whilst allowing flexibility to move with the times. 


Remember the Labour Party? They are dying because their voting structure has hamstrung them into a position where the unions will not allow them to modernise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hungry hippo
35 minutes ago, jamboiain13 said:

I just find the idea of working so hard towards 'fan ownership' to be effectively told that the club has been approached by several interested parties to become the owner of HMFC just as we pay of Ann Budge and before 75.1% of shares are transferred to FoH.  Recent poster makes a good point about the fabulous owners of Liverpool and Man City et al but the EPL and the Scottish Premiership are MILES apart in attractiveness to potential new owners with the deepest of pockets.  My genuine worry is that we sell our shares to someone who leaves us in the lurch after getting bored or realising there is no way of getting a return on his / her money in the same way they would by buying a Liverpool for example.
That said if the potential new owner is bona fide and their credentials stack up then I don't see any reason why 90% of FoH members wouldn't vote for it.  Just seems like FoH are sh***ing themselves and looking for a way out.  Happy to be proved wrong

 

That makes no sense. We are FoH and this has only been brought forward because Football First raised it at the AGM that he believes 90% of the vote is too high and might stop progress in the future.

 

Personally, I like the high threshold but there is no problem discussing it and reaching  consensus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
weehammy

As is now customary FF has provided a rational and succinct summary of the situation. Understandably, Romanov’s stewardship has tainted the views of many regarding outside investment - but that was only entered into when the club was up the creek under Robinson. I believe that FOH pledges will fall in future unless funds are targeted at specific projects and that potentially closing the door completely to investors is shortsighted. The Man City example, on a significantly smaller scale, does provide food for thought. Some of the knee jerk 90% reactions seem a bit on the ‘I’m Spartacus’ side!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Portable Badger
9 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

No, you've not go this right.

 

The decision of whether FOH sells its shares in the club would be one for FOH alone. So it would be 75% of FOH members that would have to vote. The overall club shareholding is irrelevant here.

👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy

If we sell to an investor there are guarantees any privately owned shares won’t be diluted by Dave King type moves. 

Share this post


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

 

One caveat: The bar on distributing funds to members is (or will be) in the FOH Articles of Association. The Articles can be changed with a special resolution passed with a 75% vote. It isn't clear to me whether there is another safeguard I've missed, to prevent the "non-distribution of funds" clause being removed. If there isn't another safeguard, in theory that would mean that an EGM could be called with two proposals, one to allow distribution of funds and another to accept a sale of the shares.

 

@Footballfirst maybe you can provide greater insight on this point?

Once the "super majority" requirement is enshrined in the FOH AoA, then it will also take a "super majority" to change those specific articles.

 

Any other articles can still be changed with a 75% vote, e.g. change the current restrictions on the distribution of any windfall funds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marvin
2 hours ago, 1971fozzy said:

90% for me

 

Yeah thats what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cruyff

75%, so if we have 8500 pledgers, 89% vote for something, (which would be 7565) 11% vote against, (935) stop that motion from passing. Pish! 

75% all day long. 

Edited by Cruyff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toxteth O'Grady

75% is fine. If I is 90% there is a chance that there could be 10% of people who don’t understand a proposal or don’t read it properly could stop something positive happening 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick
8 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

75%, so if we have 8500 pledgers, 89% vote for something, (which would be 7565) 11% vote against, (935) stop that motion from passing. Pish! 

75% all day long. 

When do we ever get 935 votes, let alone 935 voting against?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
7 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

When do we ever get 935 votes, let alone 935 voting against?

I agree there is a general apathy but I think a motion to pass control to another party would get much greater interest and participation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
2 hours ago, wavydavy said:

Can someone please remind me of what percentage shareholding AB will hold once Bidco shares are transferred to FOH?

Just over 19% - 19.2 or 19.4 from memory. I don't think it is relevant to the question which is about sale of FoH's share of 75.1%. Ann is free to sell or not sell her share at any time, which won't affect FoH's controlling interest or that of any buyer of FoH's share.

 

For the reasons FF has long argued I think 75% makes more sense. 90% represents a risk of a small minority preventing  something that might be necessary at some future time for Hearts ability to compete or even survive.

 

I find the timing a bit surprising - the issue has been around and debated in the governance consultations for years. Why the urgency to consult a few weeks before the transfer of shares to FoH? I am also a bit sceptical that investors are or will be queuing up any time soon to put money into our "very competitive league" as FoH describe it. 

I also have a concern about Geoff's point about how little interest there has been in governance and the fact that FoH to date has won  near unanimous approval on a small "turn out" for anything it proposes. We will need more open-ness and greater participation to ensure that  a 75% vote is  wide and representative and not just passed by a small minority of members.

 

But 75% for me.

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cruyff
9 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

When do we ever get 935 votes, let alone 935 voting against?

True but its the principle. 

 

Say fan ownership fails in 10 years, for whatever reason. Someone wants to buy the club with a vision, finances and our best interests at heart. Then a small minority of eejits get to stop that from happening when the majority agree. 

 

Feck that for a game of soldiers! 

 

You're correct though, generally we would be lucky to get 935 people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1971fozzy
15 minutes ago, Toxteth O'Grady said:

75% is fine. If I is 90% there is a chance that there could be 10% of people who don’t understand a proposal or don’t read it properly could stop something positive happening 

Yet put into the FOH their hard earned.

same could be said for the other figure . To say people don’t understand is a tad disrespectful. Not having a go btw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
Just now, 1971fozzy said:

Yet put into the FOH their hard earned.

same could be said for the other figure . To say people don’t understand is a tad disrespectful. Not having a go btw

He isn't saying that, he's saying that something that could be great for the club could be voted down by a relatively small number who don't get it for whatever reason.

 

It's an overreaction to previous regimes IMO. Understandable but regrettable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambof3tornado
1 hour ago, davemclaren said:

The real question, for me, is should 10% of the members be able to able to block what 90% think is in the best interests of the club. Personally, I now agree with FF on this one and think that 75% should be sufficient. 

This. 

 

All aboard the 75.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick
12 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I agree there is a general apathy but I think a motion to pass control to another party would get much greater interest and participation. 

I sincerely hope you are correct on that. I'd also hope that there wasn't other parties asking to do that, unless their name was Vladimir Romanov. :glorious:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamhammer
3 hours ago, Jamboelite said:

Cause it might restrict Investment and with 90% requirement that could mean a small minority are holding the other 89.9% who want the change.

 

25% seems to be a more sensible number and would indicate a reasonable number for something not to proceed.

This is pretty much where I am. I dare say there were maybe over 10% who wanted Levein to stay as manager. 75% seems more realistic to me and should be enough to stop a daft takeover

Share this post


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

Just over 19% - 19.2 or 19.4 from memory. I don't think it is relevant to the question which is about sale of FoH's share of 75.1%. Ann is free to sell or not sell her share at any time, which won't affect FoH's controlling interest or that of any buyer of FoH's share.

Bidco currently has 88.3%, but I believe it also controls the 4.2% held by HOM 2005. HOM 2005 has been dissolved, but as they were part of UBIG their shares should have been handed over at the takeover time.

 

When HOM 2005 was dissolved, it's remaining assets (Hearts shares) fell to the Crown.  However, following a petition to the Court of Session, the Queen's representative relinquished it's claim, probably because Bidco claimed ownership.

 

So once the 75.1% is handed over, Bidco will have 13.2% plus the HOM 2005 4.2% making 17.4%.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake
3 hours ago, Psychedelicropcircle said:

90%! the reason I’ve paid into this is that we never again have a mad man in charge. 

 

Why would we want the thing that hasn’t served us well over the past 30 years. 

 

 

Initially I was where you are.

I'm still undecided mostly because 10% to veto 90% doesnt seem right.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamhammer
2 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:


Or a bigger diddy  25.1%. The reason(s) the fans bought the Club was to save it and keep it in fans hands. Sell it, even part of it to some investor was not part of it.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
windsor1874

I genuinely think that in a few years time after perhaps a couple of trophy-less seasons and with the memory of Romanovs disaster fading, that 75% of hearts fans could easily be fooled into backing another Romanov style owner.

 

Not for me. 90%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sac
3 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

One interesting thing I gleaned from the email is,

“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.” 

Are we prepared to sell the family silver and gold for some shyster or dubious Whyte characters to strip us bear? We need to make this work for the fans and the club through the fans and through raising monies by winning and advertising.


As shareholders, how would these “Approaches” from potential investors be communicated to FoH? 
After what’s happened across the city with the failed HSL scheme, I’d expect “all pledgers & benefactors” to have the opportunity to debate and vote for/against any investor proposal rather than a select few who may make the wrong decision.

 

Share this post


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

Bidco currently has 88.3%, but I believe it also controls the 4.2% held by HOM 2005. HOM 2005 has been dissolved, but as they were part of UBIG their shares should have been handed over at the takeover time.

 

When HOM 2005 was dissolved, it's remaining assets (Hearts shares) fell to the Crown.  However, following a petition to the Court of Session, the Queen's representative relinquished it's claim, probably because Bidco claimed ownership.

 

So once the 75.1% is handed over, Bidco will have 13.2% plus the HOM 2005 4.2% making 17.4%.   

Thanks.

17.4 was what I misremembered!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Psychedelicropcircle
2 minutes ago, Jamhammer said:

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

 Celtic currently paid in the region of 900k a month wages rangers 650k the rest of us 40k up to 150k. Nobody is coming in to increase a wage bill 4/500% our income. Killie finished 3rd through team spirit, this is our next level. 

 

Bored listening to fan owned not fan run....now we want to fleece ourselves.

 

  

549EA8F9-9D79-4319-89EF-BF466E5851E6.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cruyff

Why does it have to be this or that. Why can't we introduce a cap on it. 

 

Less than 1000 votes, 90% majority. 

Over 1000, 75% majority. 

 

Just a thought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dc-jambo

I’ve read this whole thread with an open mind.

 

My view is that the proposal being floated - the 75% - is basically a trap that would deprive of us of all that has been achieved. It opens the way to some flash so-and-so taking over the club, as soon as we run into trouble, with various promises that would never be fulfilled.

 

I am also suspicious of the timing - just as we assume ownership, someone is trying to prise the door open to a takeover.

 

So I conclude that 90 per cent is the appropriate barrier, to keep the club safe from predators, for ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo_Gaz

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
windsor1874

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saint Jambo

Can anyone explain why if the threshold was reduced to 75% on the grounds that this stops a minority blocking the will of a significant majority, this would only be applied to "selling" the club and not to other decisions set to require a 90% supermajority? From memory this included changing the club colours and selling the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Normthebarman

90% for me. 

 

The way I see it, we didn't go through all this shit to drop our knickers to the first Yank with disposable income. 

 

It has to be an overwhelming, no arguments to be had, decision if the club is ever sold on to somebody else. 

 

I'd be interested to see how the 90% thing is worded. Is it just a case of 90% of members have to vote in favour of selling shares held by FoH to an outside party? If, somewhere down the line investment was needed, could there be a way where less than 90% could authorise the creation of new shares and dilute the ownership that way? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1971fozzy
31 minutes ago, Smithee said:

He isn't saying that, he's saying that something that could be great for the club could be voted down by a relatively small number who don't get it for whatever reason.

 

It's an overreaction to previous regimes IMO. Understandable but regrettable. 


Personally I’d rather have 90% and the reason is that I don’t ever want to be in the position we were in before. Some may be tempted to vote for a sale in certain times. I say never. We’ve come too far to risk it. Just my opinion and of course I respect every single member who pays in. 
Id have it 90% minimum to be honest.

i know it’s a survey but have to say I would be very disappointed if it went to 75%. I don’t get that at all

Edited by 1971fozzy

Share this post


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

Once the "super majority" requirement is enshrined in the FOH AoA, then it will also take a "super majority" to change those specific articles.

 

Any other articles can still be changed with a 75% vote, e.g. change the current restrictions on the distribution of any windfall funds. 

 

Thanks. That confirms my thinking. On that basis the poster who I replied to who was only happy with a 75% threshold on the grounds that the proceeds of any sale wouldn't be distributed to members, should probably vote to retain the 90% threshold as the safeguard doesn't really exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
4 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

Can anyone explain why if the threshold was reduced to 75% on the grounds that this stops a minority blocking the will of a significant majority, this would only be applied to "selling" the club and not to other decisions set to require a 90% supermajority? From memory this included changing the club colours and selling the ground.

A reasonable question. 90% for changing the club colours is OK as I don't think that would ever be life or death or make or break

 Moving from Tynie might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake
11 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Why does it have to be this or that. Why can't we introduce a cap on it. 

 

Less than 1000 votes, 90% majority. 

Over 1000, 75% majority. 

 

Just a thought. 

Good one .

The thought you had.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Getintaethem
3 hours ago, wavydavy said:

 

So what are your views on the email then? Are you in favour of the change from 90% to 75%?


I’m still undecided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kingantti1874
1 hour ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

90% for me. Protect the club once and for all. 

Never again etc. 


sorry i have to say if it were the correct buyer, with a proven track record I would be more than happy to see the club Back in private hands..

 

let’s just be ridiculous by way of an example.. if the Man City owners fancied a Scottish club would we realisticly turn that away .. I just want hearts winning

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...