Jump to content
Bull's-eye

Latest FOH email - have your say on supermajority

Recommended Posts

Francis Albert
13 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. 

Fair point. If the concern is that a small minority could block something critical to our future then we should also be concerned that a small minority of members could throw us into the arms of unscrupulous owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Getintaethem

We have around 7500 member I believe.  If it ever came to this vote, would it be 90% of the total membership required, or 90% of votes cast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy
30 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


We have no guarantees the investors intention won’t asset strip the Club. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambof3tornado
3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Fair point. If the concern is that a small minority could block something critical to our future then we should also be concerned that a small minority of members could throw us into the arms of unscrupulous owners.

But could a small minority throw us into the arms of unscrupulous owners?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambof3tornado
1 minute ago, Getintaethem said:

We have around 7500 member I believe.  If it ever came to this vote, would it be 90% of the total membership required, or 90% of votes cast?

Always of votes cast I believe.

Share this post


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


We have no guarantees the investors intention won’t asset strip the Club. 

This. 
over at Hibs who knows what Ron Gordon’s end game is ?  Would harbour a guess he's in it to make money. Stuff that for us. I’ve never heard of any owner who isn’t in it to make a buck, and if they don’t then the club go to admin or worse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst

Hypothetical scenario:

 

Hibs, Aberdeen and Spartans all manage to attract external investment over the next 15 years that is significantly in excess of what FOH can generate. They are regularly getting into Europe and participating in cup finals. Hearts is unable to compete financially and is consigned to annual relegation dogfights, having rejected several potential investors who wanted a controlling shareholding.

 

How do you break that cycle if you can't attract an equivalent level of investment?

 

Never say never. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambof3tornado

Can somebody put a wee poll up just to see how representative jkb is?

 

I went to do it but didn't want to arse up something so important!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy
21 minutes ago, windsor1874 said:

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.

 

 

 


I highlighted it earlier as part of the paragraph it was in. There is a serious player sniffing about. IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
Just now, Jambof3tornado said:

But could a small minority throw us into the arms of unscrupulous owners?

As I understand it (and I may be wrong) the proposal is that a 75% majority of votes at an AGM or EGM would be required to approve a sale of FoH's shares. If say only 500 members vote that would require only 375 votes in favour. If 1000 votes, only 750.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Getintaethem
5 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Always of votes cast I believe.


That would seem the only sensible answer, and in that case I’d like it to remain at 90%, as I think any vote may have a fairly small turnout.  Potentially the sale of shares could be agreed by a small number of members if the threshold was 75%.

Edited by Getintaethem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scott herbertson
1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

Hypothetical scenario:

 

Hibs, Aberdeen and Spartans all manage to attract external investment over the next 15 years that is significantly in excess of what FOH can generate. They are regularly getting into Europe and participating in cup finals. Hearts is unable to compete financially and is consigned to annual relegation dogfights, having rejected several potential investors who wanted a controlling shareholding.

 

How do you break that cycle if you can't attract an equivalent level of investment?

 

Never say never. 

 

 

I wouldn't say never.


But I wouldn't say now either, when none of that has happened and it isn't certain that it would be good for them in the long run anyway. Romanov seemed to be delivering that for us but it was a poisoned chalice (or in this case a poisoned Cup). I will be voting to keep it at 90% for now - no reason why we can't come back to it once we've had  a few years of  fan ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jr ewing
7 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Hypothetical scenario:

 

Hibs, Aberdeen and Spartans all manage to attract external investment over the next 15 years that is significantly in excess of what FOH can generate. They are regularly getting into Europe and participating in cup finals. Hearts is unable to compete financially and is consigned to annual relegation dogfights, having rejected several potential investors who wanted a controlling shareholding.

 

How do you break that cycle if you can't attract an equivalent level of investment?

 

Never say never. 

Never happen. Trust me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy
6 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Can somebody put a wee poll up just to see how representative jkb is?

 

I went to do it but didn't want to arse up something so important!!!


Ive create one 😬 I hope it’s clear and self explanatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1971fozzy
11 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Can somebody put a wee poll up just to see how representative jkb is?

 

I went to do it but didn't want to arse up something so important!!!

What’s the point. Place is infested with vermin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peakybunnet

I voted 75% as I believe the overwhelming majority won’t sell out. However if somebody did bid I asked we set a minimum level 3 times the amount we have paid into the foundation. IE at least £30million. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambof3tornado
13 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

As I understand it (and I may be wrong) the proposal is that a 75% majority of votes at an AGM or EGM would be required to approve a sale of FoH's shares. If say only 500 members vote that would require only 375 votes in favour. If 1000 votes, only 750.

Would such low numbers vote given such a crucial scenario?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dc-jambo
37 minutes ago, Jambo_Gaz said:

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


check your junk folder - that’s where I find mine, after learning on here that they’ve been sent 🤭

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambof3tornado
3 minutes ago, 1971fozzy said:

What’s the point. Place is infested with vermin

Place is always infested.

 

Hopefully people are reading the email fully before voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1971fozzy
12 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Hypothetical scenario:

 

Hibs, Aberdeen and Spartans all manage to attract external investment over the next 15 years that is significantly in excess of what FOH can generate. They are regularly getting into Europe and participating in cup finals. Hearts is unable to compete financially and is consigned to annual relegation dogfights, having rejected several potential investors who wanted a controlling shareholding.

 

How do you break that cycle if you can't attract an equivalent level of investment?

 

Never say never. 


hibs have. Let’s see how that goes 😂

 

I don’t want some Far East syndicate investing in our club. I’d rather it went tits up than put it in the hands of folk that don’t get us or take the huff because they can’t beat the arse cheeks and leave us in the shit.

 

why some can’t see this I will never know. I would never want a Ron Gordon . Ever. We stay fan owned and live within our means. Even if that means going down and down. We never again should contemplate risking our future to charlatans. Leave that to our neighbours and sevco etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sandylejambo
18 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Hypothetical scenario:

 

Hibs, Aberdeen and Spartans all manage to attract external investment over the next 15 years that is significantly in excess of what FOH can generate. They are regularly getting into Europe and participating in cup finals. Hearts is unable to compete financially and is consigned to annual relegation dogfights, having rejected several potential investors who wanted a controlling shareholding.

 

How do you break that cycle if you can't attract an equivalent level of investment?

 

Never say never. 

Equally, if the owner turns out to be another charlatan (like the last two halfwits) and puts us in the shite? any investment by non supporters is at some point going to dry up, lets not have any rug pulled from under us like it did in the past. If we are struggling the board can still come to us )the new owners and we will decide if we can help or not).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Veonms

Why can’t we have it capped so that investors can only have 49%, while we retain 51%? Clubs in Germany do this, IIRC, to protect the club. Means that if any investors wish to invest by purchasing shares we still hold the majority voting rights.
 

In that case I would say 75% would be right but as it stands I would go with 90%, as other posters have echoed previously, I wouldn’t want the club to have the possibility of having another Vlad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
15 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Would such low numbers vote given such a crucial scenario?

Don't know. What was the turnout in the AGM vote to approve the proposed governance arrangements? Has FoH told us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saint Jambo
30 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Hypothetical scenario:

 

Hibs, Aberdeen and Spartans all manage to attract external investment over the next 15 years that is significantly in excess of what FOH can generate. They are regularly getting into Europe and participating in cup finals. Hearts is unable to compete financially and is consigned to annual relegation dogfights, having rejected several potential investors who wanted a controlling shareholding.

 

How do you break that cycle if you can't attract an equivalent level of investment?

 

Never say never. 

 

In this scenario the membership could still vote to transfer shares to the investor. The only difference is that 90% rather than 75% would have to believe that the external investor was the right move. I know you know this, but felt the post above gave the impression that keeping the threshold at 90% would somehow block FOH ever handing over control.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Merse

75% is the only answer.

 

You can’t have 10.1% of fans being able to block the wishes of such an overwhelming majority.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S Form
33 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Hypothetical scenario:

 

Hibs, Aberdeen and Spartans all manage to attract external investment over the next 15 years that is significantly in excess of what FOH can generate. They are regularly getting into Europe and participating in cup finals. Hearts is unable to compete financially and is consigned to annual relegation dogfights, having rejected several potential investors who wanted a controlling shareholding.

 

How do you break that cycle if you can't attract an equivalent level of investment?

 

Never say never. 

I’m pretty certain your proposed scenario would never happen. Hibs already have US ‘investment’. What has he told the fans? ‘Pony up’.

Aberdeen have a very rich fan on their board. Is there massive investment there as a result? No.

Fans who think some rich sugar daddy will come along and transform a Scottish club that isn’t part of the OF are deluding themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy

Any investor will want a return on the money and will tie up assets in their favour should it all go belly up. Is that what we want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saint Jambo
57 minutes ago, windsor1874 said:

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.

 

I have to say the timing of this does seem odd.

 

We now know:

- FOH are about to take control of the club

- Budge has concerns about fan ownership

- Budge will remain as Chair and CEO of the club

- A mystery benefactor has been putting money into the club

- There have been approaches to buy (at least some of) the club.

- FOH are looking to rush through last minute changes to the governance model they proposed, which would make it easier to sell the club.

- FOH aren't just talking about hypothetical future scenarios to support this move, but also the current Scottish football economic climate.

 

I can't say I'd be shocked if there was a summer move by someone, most likely the mystery benefactor, to buy the club from FOH. To my mind that feels much more likely than the other hypothetical scenarios of all our closest competitors securing major outside investment or a Man City-esque investor appearing at some time in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rannoch
29 minutes ago, 1971fozzy said:

This. 
over at Hibs who knows what Ron Gordon’s end game is ?  Would harbour a guess he's in it to make money. Stuff that for us. I’ve never heard of any owner who isn’t in it to make a buck, and if they don’t then the club go to admin or worse

Fergus McCann made money for himself but also turned Celtic into a profitable enterprise. The right type of investor could take HMFC to a higher level but yes there is always risk. The current model means fan owned , not fan run ; in other words to be managed as a business but with the security that it can’t be taken over. This will limit access to capital so I wouldn’t be averse to a dynamic entrepreneur with the right business acumen investing. A small minority of 10% blocking such a move would not be right . I’m voting for the 75% option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Findlay
49 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Hypothetical scenario:

 

Hibs, Aberdeen and Spartans all manage to attract external investment over the next 15 years that is significantly in excess of what FOH can generate. They are regularly getting into Europe and participating in cup finals. Hearts is unable to compete financially and is consigned to annual relegation dogfights, having rejected several potential investors who wanted a controlling shareholding.

 

How do you break that cycle if you can't attract an equivalent level of investment?

 

Never say never. 

Apart from Steve Gibson at Middlesbrough. How many owners are in for the long haul as supporters are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo_Gaz
38 minutes ago, dc-jambo said:


check your junk folder - that’s where I find mine, after learning on here that they’ve been sent 🤭

You were right. 🥴

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BervieJambo

75% of total votes cast seems a bit risky to me - it’s not strong enough to stop something being railroaded through. However 75% of all members means a sizeable majority are for the motion and a positive effort has to be made to convince everyone that this is the correct option.
90% of either can be too restrictive of change and open to a very small clique controlling against the wishes of the masses. As someone said earlier, you could probably round up 10% of Hearts fans who would have kept Levein on as manager. It’s not healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamhammer
1 hour ago, Dannie Boy said:


We have no guarantees the investors intention won’t asset strip the Club. 

Totally. So far I haven't responded to my FOH e mail as I'm giving it proper consideration. I believed, sad though I was that West Ham leaving the Boleyn was necessary for the club to move forward. I was wrong but I believed the shysters who own the club that they were taking us to the "next level". The Heart and Soul has been ripped out of that club and we, the fans let it happen.

I think 90% is high but it might need to be to stop something similar happening here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pans Jambo

Maybe there are are investors who are willing to give money in return for some shares but not a controlling stake. FoH retain 51% or whatever and then they get a large chunk of money to invest in the club. I wouldnt want FoH to sell Hearts unless someone could prove they were in it for the long term and had a serious wedge to invest. 
Fan owned is my preference but I think 75% is the correct amount for decision voting.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rob

Genuinely not sure what to vote on this. It concerns me that we are talking about arrangements for selling the club before the FoH has even taken control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scott herbertson
4 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Maybe there are are investors who are willing to give money in return for some shares but not a controlling stake. FoH retain 51% or whatever and then they get a large chunk of money to invest in the club. I wouldnt want FoH to sell Hearts unless someone could prove they were in it for the long term and had a serious wedge to invest. 
Fan owned is my preference but I think 75% is the correct amount for decision voting.
 

 

 

I can see your point but if a benign investor of that sort came forward and more than 10% voted against, could we not THEN have a vote to change the governance to allow a lower threshold? A benign investor could surely wait a few months? The danger to me is a lower threshold makes a riskier investment possible. As has been mentioned Hibs are currently with someone whose intentions are not fully clear. We have been in the past. I don't see the need at this moment for us to increase the risk.

Share this post


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

Genuinely not sure what to vote on this. It concerns me that we are talking about arrangements for selling the club before the FoH has even taken control.

As good a time as any to talk about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Borders Jambo

I just keep thinking of VR and the Pieman and the prospect of Murrayfield with 5000 supporters.

 

I think we as supporters plus FOH and AB have created something that lots of other Clubs are envious of.

 

For the above reasons and probably because I'm a bit of a Luddite, I went for 90%. I respect those who think 75% and can understand their views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jamboiain13
5 minutes ago, Doc Rob said:

Genuinely not sure what to vote on this. It concerns me that we are talking about arrangements for selling the club before the FoH has even taken control.

which was my concern but I seem to not be making any sense...go figure!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
9 minutes ago, Doc Rob said:

Genuinely not sure what to vote on this. It concerns me that we are talking about arrangements for selling the club before the FoH has even taken control.

We’ve been talking about it for over a year already as part of the governance proposals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
King Of The Cat Cafe
1 hour ago, windsor1874 said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Was that not the guy who approached AB and was told "no" then went and bought Hibs instead? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Special Officer Doofy

These hypothetical investors that people are discussing would need to put in over £2.4m p/a in order to make us better off than where we are with FoH as our owners. Has anyone ever put that much in to a Scottish club outside of Ibrox or Parkhead without adding to the debt and/or wanting their stake back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff

Where do I vote? email said there was a Q&A attached but I see nada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Special Officer Doofy
16 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

These hypothetical investors that people are discussing would need to put in over £2.4m p/a in order to make us better off than where we are with FoH as our owners. Has anyone ever put that much in to a Scottish club outside of Ibrox or Parkhead without adding to the debt and/or wanting their stake back?


Too late to edit this post ^^. Typo, should read £1.4m p/a, not “£2.4m”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Getintaethem
16 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

These hypothetical investors that people are discussing would need to put in over £2.4m p/a in order to make us better off than where we are with FoH as our owners. Has anyone ever put that much in to a Scottish club outside of Ibrox or Parkhead without adding to the debt and/or wanting their stake back?


This is a very good point.  I don’t see subscriptions dropping much after the fan takeover is complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saint Jambo
7 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Where do I vote? email said there was a Q&A attached but I see nada

 

I think it is poorly worded and the "attached" Q&A is the Q&A contained in the body of the text.

 

If you look under number 6, the second paragraph starts with a "click here" link to access the survey/vote. It is on Survey Monkey and you need to enter your email address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pans Jambo
36 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

I can see your point but if a benign investor of that sort came forward and more than 10% voted against, could we not THEN have a vote to change the governance to allow a lower threshold? A benign investor could surely wait a few months? The danger to me is a lower threshold makes a riskier investment possible. As has been mentioned Hibs are currently with someone whose intentions are not fully clear. We have been in the past. I don't see the need at this moment for us to increase the risk.

I dont disagree with any of that but if FoH are courting giving someone a majority share for a large investment then the baw is entirely burst IMO. 
The FoH/club have been lucky with “benefactors”. Maybe its one of them who would like to give more but just want something in return this time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Special Officer Doofy
Just now, Getintaethem said:


This is a very good point.  I don’t see subscriptions dropping much after the fan takeover is complete.


Look at previous takeovers:

 

The Bonettis at Dundee

Massone at Livingston

Masterson at Dunfermline

Romanov with us

 

Amongst others... I’d sooner stick with the FoH and £1.4m p/a personally. Safer and not going to take us back to the brink. The trick is how you use it.

 

Share this post


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

Hypothetical scenario:

 

Hibs, Aberdeen and Spartans all manage to attract external investment over the next 15 years that is significantly in excess of what FOH can generate. They are regularly getting into Europe and participating in cup finals. Hearts is unable to compete financially and is consigned to annual relegation dogfights, having rejected several potential investors who wanted a controlling shareholding.

 

How do you break that cycle if you can't attract an equivalent level of investment?

 

Never say never. 


What your suggesting is the fans giving up on the fan ownership dream we have all worked towards just because Hibs or Aberdeen experience a period of short term success. 
 

Once we agree to sell to an investor that’s fan ownership done, there’s no changing our mind and going back to that model. Look at Hibs and their Gordon fella, first thing he did was close down their fan ownership scheme. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kevins_barnet
6 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

I dont disagree with any of that but if FoH are courting giving someone a majority share for a large investment then the baw is entirely burst IMO. 
The FoH/club have been lucky with “benefactors”. Maybe its one of them who would like to give more but just want something in return this time. 


Wouldn’t surprise me if the benefactor has been donating on the agreement that FOH will help them into power once Budge moves on, very sceptical of how this is being railroaded through in the last couple of weeks, surely they could have seen this issues for years. 

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...