Latest FOH email - have your say on supermajority

[Jeff]

18 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

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.

 

Thanking you

[Boris]

1 hour ago, Rannoch said:

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.

Arguably, Ann Budge is our Fergus McCann. 

 

She he has also been able to secure outside investment I.e. The benefactors.

 

our problem potentially lies when FoH subs dry up. 

 

Many invested in FoH as it was about the survival of the club. What happens when subscribers pass away, or circumstances mean they can't afford it? 

 

Is is there a policy to recruit new members?

 

I suppose what I'm trying to say is how future proofed, or what longevity does FoH have?

[Francis Albert]

45 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

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

About half a dozen people have been taking about it and they have generally been ridiculed as nit picking obsessives.

[Rocky jamboa]

I couldn't think of anything worse than having another foreign investor involved with Hearts. Why would anyone with no connection to the club want to invest millions in us, other than there being something in it for them and looking to take more out than they put in.

 

We've worked so hard to achieve fan ownership. We will always be in the hands of the people that matter most - the fans. Why would we ever want that to change?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

6 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

About half a dozen people have been taking about it and they have generally been ridiculed as nit picking obsessives.

Correct. I know my first post on this thread was sardonic but this is the exact reason why.

[Hungry hippo]

14 minutes ago, kevins_barnet said:

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. 

 

Not sure how anyone thinks FoH can help anyone into power. Will need at least 75% of us to vote for it and I'm not sure who you mean by FoH if you think there could be a secret agreement. The board members will have no more control over shareholding than any other FoH members.

[Coco]

There used to be people on here who wanted to move the club from Tynecastle because they wanted more corporate facilities and car parking!  Those things were to bring in so much money we'd be challenging Rangers and Celtic!  It's not so much of a stretch to see them falling for the charms of an Allen Stanford.  Plenty fell for how the Pieman was going to right Mercer's wrongs.

 

Where I see the FoH and Ann Budge as having gone wrong is that they haven't styled themselves as the custodians of the football club for the supporters.  Both have talked fan owned but are not walking the walk.  Budge has referred to herself as the owner rather than temporary custodian.  And FoH are already attempting to structure how they would sell the club.  Put the club and ground in trust for the Hearts supporters.  

[Francis Albert]

14 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

You are right to highlight that sentence, although I don't agree with your interpretation of why the FOH Board are seeking confirmation of the 90% or 75%.

 

The highlighted part acknowledges that approaches (plural) have been made. We have only had one approach confirmed, to Bidco prior to the Hibs takeover.

 

If there has been a second or more approach, then the common factor is that all have been rejected.  The timing of such an approach was always going to be incompatible with where FOH is/was in terms of its ownership intentions.

 

The apparent quickness of a decision, isn't really that quick. It was part of the original governance proposals back in May 2017. However, this is the last opportunity to adjust the proposals before the proposals come into effect with the transfer of ownership. 

 

It's an issue that has come up again now because I and others have asked for it to be reconsidered. It probably wouldn't have come up at all had the FOH Board not insisted that the governance proposals be put through as "all or nothing", rather than get a consensus on each element.

 

To be fair to the FOH they are not recommending 90% or 75%. They have provided arguments for both numbers, but left it up to the membership to decide.

 

The use of the 90% or 75% is not a today issue. It's intention is to have the right figure in place for the future. However, if it is set at 90% now, then it needs a 90% vote to change it in the future. Even if there was a groundswell to change it to 75% in the future, because of the circumstances that the club might find itself under FOH ownership, then that same dissenting 10% would still be able to block the change.   

 

Why do you think FOH was happy to push through 90% less than two months ago but has now an open mind?  Apart of course from your advocacy at the AGM! Which they ignored before.

[deejtee]

75 % voting for something is better than 90 to me as there may well in the future be a good way forward blocked by a small number. How many issues would ever get 90% agreement from Hearts fans? 

[Jambo-Fox]

Alas, I sense that in the long term the FOH is not sustainable. The fan owned vs run model will lead to too many unhealthy ongoing debates. Investing c. £1.5mm+ per year for no return on investment (dividends, member benefits eg discounted prices etc) is hard to justify. If you pay annually to be a member of a club eg a golf club you will get benefits of membership over non members.

 

If the FOH (us) vote to sell shares then Ann Budge will be critical in ensuring another voice is heard in the boardroom, assuming she doe not accept the obligatory offer for her shares. 
 

Also I hope she (Ann) doesn’t sell her shares because then a compulsory purchase by the new owner (owning 90%+ of shares) could result and I like many others would be compelled to sell our shares which would be a sad day! [NB it always surprised me that Romanov never went for all the shares]

 

Big decisions ahead I sense ..... the 75% gives flexibility and would allow advantage to be taken quickly on any opportunities that came along whilst retaining a high threshold to rebuff any unwanted advances.

[Francis Albert]

5 minutes ago, Hungry hippo said:

 

Not sure how anyone thinks FoH can help anyone into power. Will need at least 75% of us to vote for it and I'm not sure who you mean by FoH if you think there could be a secret agreement. The board members will have no more control over shareholding than any other FoH members.

I don't believe the conspiracy theory but the FoH directors can certainly influence things. There is understandably a high level of loyalty to the FOH directors and founding members who have got us to where are. To the extent that anyone questioning them has often been treated as some sort of  traitor or enemy.

[Francis Albert]

7 minutes ago, windsor1874 said:

Fair enough. Perhaps I was slightly cynical about the foh motives. I just find the whole timing more than coincidence.

 

I just feel for an issue as huge as selling the club then almost all members should be in agreement. For me 90% is almost all members, 75% is not.

Voters not members.

[kevins_barnet]

7 minutes ago, Hungry hippo said:

 

Not sure how anyone thinks FoH can help anyone into power. Will need at least 75% of us to vote for it and I'm not sure who you mean by FoH if you think there could be a secret agreement. The board members will have no more control over shareholding than any other FoH members.

Anything Stuart Wallace and the FOH board propose will automatically get heavily backed by the majority of voters. Have any FOH proposals ever lost a vote? 

[Zinc Finger]

Of course there has been approaches from investors. Hearts are extremely well run financially and in the black. Plus a new stand is almost complete which will be a long term income generator. Very tempting for a businessman. Historically,  most clubs struggle while they are redeveloping their grounds eg St Johnstone or Rangers with Ibrox. FOH has saved hearts, built a  new stand while managing at the same time to put £3 million aside a year for redevelopment. That phase will finish soon and the team can become stronger as a result.

 

I've no objection to investors getting naming rights or publicity or even a share of the profits as long as they dont own the club. We mustn't pass the club back to another rich guy who will always be doing it as some kind of vanity project which always ends in tears and relies on another sugar daddy coming along to bail us out. A successful Hearts will increase income in several ways and become stronger. Also, the soul of the club as an Edinburgh Club with links throughout the community is very important or,  do you want to become a carbon copy soulless english premiership club utterly dependant on finance and mercenary players.

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Alas, I sense that in the long term the FOH is not sustainable. The fan owned vs run model will lead to too many unhealthy ongoing debates. Investing c. £1.5mm+ per year for no return on investment (dividends, member benefits eg discounted prices etc) is hard to justify. If you pay annually to be a member of a club eg a golf club you will get benefits of membership over non members.

 

If the FOH (us) vote to sell shares then Ann Budge will be critical in ensuring another voice is heard in the boardroom, assuming she doe not accept the obligatory offer for her shares. 
 

Also I hope she (Ann) doesn’t sell her shares because then a compulsory purchase by the new owner (owning 90%+ of shares) could result and I like many others would be compelled to sell our shares which would be a sad day! [NB it always surprised me that Romanov never went for all the shares]

 

Big decisions ahead I sense ..... the 75% gives flexibility and would allow advantage to be taken quickly on any opportunities that came along whilst retaining a high threshold to rebuff any unwanted advances.

Kind of agree on your first paragraph.

But if someone gets 75.1% ownership by buying FOH's share Ann's 17.4 % won't stop.them.doing retty much whatever they want.

[Rudy T]

Just now, kevins_barnet said:

Anything Stuart Wallace and the FOH board propose will automatically get heavily backed by the majority of voters. Have any FOH proposals ever lost a vote? 

 

Most members don’t particularly care, is why imo. They just contribute and let them get on with it. So long as the club is safe then it’s not an issue. I don’t think this decision will be too much different either. 

[Unknown user]

1 hour 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 do get this argument but I just think it's an over reaction, albeit an understandable one.

 

To me, if 75% of Hearts fans/FoH members are convinced by something then it should happen. We all have concerns about being bought over which means it would have to be a pretty damn watertight proposal to get 75% on board and surely that's safety net enough. I don't think an 11% minority should be allowed to prevent something the vast majority had been convinced of.

[Jambo-Fox]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Kind of agree on your first paragraph.

But if someone gets 75.1% ownership by buying FOH's share Ann's 17.4 % won't stop.them.doing retty much whatever they want.

It won’t but the 24.9% (Ann & us minor investors) would be an irritating ‘thorn in the side’!

[Footballfirst]

14 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Why do you think FOH was happy to push through 90% less than two months ago but has now an open mind?  Apart of course from your advocacy at the AGM! Which they ignored before.

That I don't know.  It is possible that an approach had been made before the AGM so it struck a chord.

 

However, if the issue hadn't been raised from the floor of the AGM, I suspect that it would just have gone through and there would be no further debate, or vote.

[Beast Boy]

7 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Alas, I sense that in the long term the FOH is not sustainable. The fan owned vs run model will lead to too many unhealthy ongoing debates. Investing c. £1.5mm+ per year for no return on investment (dividends, member benefits eg discounted prices etc) is hard to justify. If you pay annually to be a member of a club eg a golf club you will get benefits of membership over non members.

Disagree. I think most would prefer us to have greater resources than every other non-OF club and realise the advantage that will give us when we no longer need to spend it on paying for things like shares and stands.

 

That £1.4m investment is greater than anything we could attract externally. It also comes without a risk to our future attached.

 

You ask why fans would continue to put the money in without a return. I say they will get a return, a healthier football club and lets face it, that’s what we want as a return as fans, not money in our pockets. I’d be more worried about what sort of return an outside investor would want for that sort of money, because success on the field probably won’t cut it for someone with no emotional ties to the club.

[Niemi’s gloves]

20 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

About half a dozen people have been taking about it and they have generally been ridiculed as nit picking obsessives.

I believe that in the past some posters have raised the subject of Ann Budge’s 15% holding in the club (the Quantum shares) and the amount paid for them.

 

I have previously thought this was irrelevant. No prospect of dividends and substantial majority fan ownership for the foreseeable future implied (I thought) that these  shares had no real value. But that surely changes with the situation being discussed here.

 

Thoughts?

[wavydavy]

3 hours 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.

 

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.

 

Firstly thanks for the answer to my question. I did think it was somewhere around the 20% mark.

 

So am I correct then in assuming from what you say that this vote "review" relates purely to the FOH donators and no other shareholders?

 

Was it not  a bit shortsighted of those who drew up the Governance in the first place to suggest 90% and now all of a sudden decide that it might be better reducing it to 75%.?

 

Has something happened to prompt this change of heart because the wording of the proposal does seem to come out on the side of reducing to 75%.?

[wavydavy]

2 hours ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Always of votes cast I believe.

 

It would have to be otherwise the only way this would work would be to have a compulsory vote which would never happen

[Beast Boy]

I suspect that the thing that has happened, that has prompted this question to be asked of us; is simply that the loan is about to be repaid. I’m glad they are asking questions... remember we kept getting told that questions are healthy? Well here we are.

[Saint Jambo]

9 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

That I don't know.  It is possible that an approach had been made before the AGM so it struck a chord.

 

However, if the issue hadn't been raised from the floor of the AGM, I suspect that it would just have gone through and there would be no further debate, or vote.

 

The FOH Board have been reluctant/ unwilling to have separate votes on other issues that were raised during the previous consultations and on which there was a clear diversity of views, for example who counts as a member or whether FOH funding should be ring-fenced in the future. Added to the fact that they are limiting this consultation to a single issue of super-majorities rather than all super-majorities, I'm finding it hard to believe that this consultation is down solely or even mainly to you raising it at the AGM. On top of that the email seems heavily skewed in favour of one outcome (lowering the threshold to 75%) and puts a surprising emphasis on the current Scottish football financial environment, if the reason for this proposal is some unlikely future hypothetical.

 

Given your expertise in Scottish football, do you think that there is evidence to back up the claim that "the Scottish football scene has changed in the past 12-18 months" and that " Scottish clubs are currently seen as viable assets to attract long-term investment"?

[kevins_barnet]

If we sell to a new owner and give up on fan ownership in the future - what mechanisms are then in place to stop any new owner moving us away from Tynecastle?

[Hungry hippo]

28 minutes ago, kevins_barnet said:

Anything Stuart Wallace and the FOH board propose will automatically get heavily backed by the majority of voters. Have any FOH proposals ever lost a vote? 

 

Selling the shares would not get the "automatic" backing of any members IMO. Any potential investor would be subject to massive scrutiny - not least on JKB.

 

The comparison with the FoH votes we've had so far doesn't really mean anything as they have all been issues which you would really struggle to find any disagreement even on here!

 

I've found myself almost backing the 75%ers tonight (despite slightly favouring 90%) because the concerns that this is about avoiding fan ownership don't stack up.

 

The only reason I'm edging towards the 90% is because I know how fickle fans are and I'd rather avoid general discontent in the future impacting long term decisions. Having said that 75% SHOULD be enough to avoid that too so I don't see it as a big issue either way.

Edited February 10, 2020 by Hungry hippo

[Francis Albert]

7 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

Firstly thanks for the answer to my question. I did think it was somewhere around the 20% mark.

 

So am I correct then in assuming from what you say that this vote "review" relates purely to the FOH donators and no other shareholders?

 

Was it not  a bit shortsighted of those who drew up the Governance in the first place to suggest 90% and now all of a sudden decide that it might be better reducing it to 75%.?

 

Has something happened to prompt this change of heart because the wording of the proposal does seem to come out on the side of reducing to 75%.?

Yes you are correct that this relates solely to FOH shares and members. And the change in FOH view since two.months ago does seem slightly odd.

[Poseidon]

I would much rather FoH ringfenced half a million a year from subscriptions to use for future projects rather than hand over it all to the club to spend as they want. That to me gets rid of one of the concerns about not having capital at the right time. 

 

I would even up my contribution if that was the way it went. We've done a huge amount to gain control and I never went us to let go so 90% for me

[wavydavy]

2 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

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.

 

Good points and do you think this benefactor would be able to buy up AB's stake in the club?

[Poseidon]

3 minutes ago, kevins_barnet said:

If we sell to a new owner and give up on fan ownership in the future - what mechanisms are then in place to stop any new owner moving us away from Tynecastle?

None

[kevins_barnet]

11 minutes ago, Hungry hippo said:

 

Selling the shares would not get the "automatic" backing of any members IMO. Any potential investor would be subject to massive scrutiny - not least on JKB.

 

The comparison with the FoH votes we've had so far doesn't really mean anything as they have all been issues which you would really struggle to find any disagreement even on here!

 

I've found myself almost backing the 75%ers tonight (despite slightly favouring 90%) because the concerns that this is about avoiding fan ownership don't stack up.

 

The only reason I'm edging towards the 90% is because I know how fickle fans are and I'd rather avoid general discontent in the future impacting long term decisions. Having said that 75% SHOULD be enough to avoid that too so I don't see it as a big issue either way.

How much scrutiny would there actually be? If an investor turns up promising the world there would be plenty of fans rolling out the red carpet without much thought of the consequences. If we were having this debate 15 odd years ago do you think the fans would have voted for or against selling to Romanov? Without hindsight do you think Rangers fans would have voted for or against selling to “billionaire” Craig Whyte if they’d been given a vote?

Edited February 10, 2020 by kevins_barnet
typo

[Poseidon]

Just now, kevins_barnet said:

How much scrutiny would there actually be? If an investor turns up promising the world there would be plenty of fans rolling out the red carpet without much thought of the consequences. If we were having this debate 15 odd years ago do you think the fans would have voted for or against selling to Romanov? Without hindsight do you think Rangers fans would have voted for or against selling to “billionaire” Craig Whyte is they’d been given a vote?

Well said.

[Hungry hippo]

7 minutes ago, kevins_barnet said:

How much scrutiny would there actually be? If an investor turns up promising the world there would be plenty of fans rolling out the red carpet without much thought of the consequences. If we were having this debate 15 odd years ago do you think the fans would have voted for or against selling to Romanov? Without hindsight do you think Rangers fans would have voted for or against selling to “billionaire” Craig Whyte if they’d been given a vote?

 

That's why I'm in the 90% club. I just disagree that there is any secret agreement between FoH and a potential investor.

 

Edit to add that it would still be mega scrutinised with the examples given very much discussed. Even this hypothetical scenario is being scrutinised.

Edited February 10, 2020 by Hungry hippo

[Jambof3tornado]

17 minutes ago, kevins_barnet said:

If we sell to a new owner and give up on fan ownership in the future - what mechanisms are then in place to stop any new owner moving us away from Tynecastle?

The same mechanisms that stopped the pieman!!!

[Jambo-Fox]

34 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Disagree. I think most would prefer us to have greater resources than every other non-OF club and realise the advantage that will give us when we no longer need to spend it on paying for things like shares and stands.

 

That £1.4m investment is greater than anything we could attract externally. It also comes without a risk to our future attached.

 

You ask why fans would continue to put the money in without a return. I say they will get a return, a healthier football club and lets face it, that’s what we want as a return as fans, not money in our pockets. I’d be more worried about what sort of return an outside investor would want for that sort of money, because success on the field probably won’t cut it for someone with no emotional ties to the club.

Your points are well made!

 

External investments ... how much?

 

FOH if sustained at current level for next 10 years c. £15mm income

vs

New external 3rd party purchasing the FOH 75% share of the club ... for how much?

 

What are the Hearts worth? Let’s say hypothetically £20mm, so the FOH would get £15mm for their 75% share! FOH invest it straight into Hearts .... that’s 10 years FOH money in 1 year! And of course the FOH would continue to exist (hopefully) raising money for Hearts c. £1.5mm per year! Now that would make some financial muscle power!

 

NB value of Hearts is an interesting discussion! Just spent £22mm on a new stand how much less (or more) is the total club worth?! 

[Beast Boy]

1 minute ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Your points are well made!

 

External investments ... how much?

 

FOH if sustained at current level for next 10 years c. £15mm income

vs

New external 3rd party purchasing the FOH 75% share of the club ... for how much?

 

What are the Hearts worth? Let’s say hypothetically £20mm, so the FOH would get £15mm for their 75% share! FOH invest it straight into Hearts .... that’s 10 years FOH money in 1 year! And of course the FOH would continue to exist (hopefully) raising money for Hearts c. £1.5mm per year! Now that would make some financial muscle power!

 

NB value of Hearts is an interesting discussion! Just spent £22mm on a new stand how much less (or more) is the total club worth?! 

I see what you are saying mate, but if an external investor put £15m in to Hearts, and all they got in return was shares, I’d be immediately wondering where they would look to make their money back. Ron Gordon down at the dockyards has put floating charges over all of Hibs’ properties... you have to question why. To protect his investment? If I was Hibs I’d be very twitchy about how he hopes to make money for himself. 
 

For me, I’d sooner we were the investors. The only return I want to see for my investment is success on the pitch and a sustainably run football club. I suspect most FoH contributors feel the same way.

 

I don’t think we could attract a big enough investment from the outside to match what we put in, or to tempt us to sell our stake. Sure they could maybe put in that figure you suggested £15m, but they wouldn’t just hand that over without wanting something in return. I’d sooner we saved up the £1.4m for 11 years and then used that if we were to attempt such a splurge! On the other hand though, I’d rather we kept some money to pay for infrastructure projects and some towards other expenditures so we could free up more of our football generated income like tickets and TV to spend on maintaining a better squad. 👍

 

 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

90% all the way. Do we want to be fan owned or not?

 

We will always get the b or c list investors from america anyhow. The ones not rich enough for England but who still want to join the club. 
 

D Utd are on the surface doing well with theirs but are overspending at a crazy rate.

 

Hibs are arguably going backwards with theirs. Dundee too.

 

In England we have first hand experience with Barnsley.
 

The sensible foreign owners like Fergus McCann have been thin on the ground in Scotland.

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Beast Boy]

1 minute ago, ToqueJambo said:

90% all the way. Do we want to be fan owned or not?

 

We will always get the b or c list investors from america anyhow. The ones not rich enough for England but who still want to join the club. 
 

D Utd are on the surface doing well with theirs but are overspending at a crazy rate.

 

Hibs are arguably going backwards with theirs.
 

The sensible foreign owners like Fergus McCann have been thin on the ground in Scotland.

 

If you listen to the Dundee United owners being interviewed on Radio Scotland a few weeks ago, they were quite clear in stating that they want to make a profit for themselves. I’d be a bit concerned if I was a United fan tbh. Supporters love the getting rid of the rats part, but they often start to question whether or not they need to pay the piper afterwards...

[Jambo-Fox]

I wonder if there are any lessons to be learnt from the Portsmouth Trust experience? They bought the club and owned it for 4 years. Then sold it to the US head of Disney!
 

There were caveats in the sale preventing certain changes (although those I quote below were slightly changed in the final agreement);

 

PST Board Statement on the proposed sale
• Change to the name of the Club
• Change to the primary playing colours of the Club
• Change to the crest of the Club
• Relocation of the Club
Tornante have confirmed in their final offer that they will provide a Heritage Share that has a life of 50 years with a veto anticipated to be exercisable by the Heritage and Advisory Board, with PST votes on that board enabling the PST to exercise the vetoes on its own, over any .....

 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

3 hours 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. 

We had massive investment under Romanov. It’s not how much, it’s how its used. We proved this most recently in 2014/15 by skooshing a league with better funded rivals in it.

Edited February 11, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Guest ToqueJambo]

10 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

If you listen to the Dundee United owners being interviewed on Radio Scotland a few weeks ago, they were quite clear in stating that they want to make a profit for themselves. I’d be a bit concerned if I was a United fan tbh. Supporters love the getting rid of the rats part, but they often start to question whether or not they need to pay the piper afterwards...

I’d be very concerned if I was a Utd fan. Losing 4m in a year is not going to end well. The Shankland outlay and their owner’s comments feels like Romanov’s speculate to accumulate policy.

 

Like Romanov found out it’s not as easy to play the transfer market like that. You might get lucky now and then, like we did with Sow or Gordon, but generally its hard for scottish clubs to get big fees.

 

The Hibs owner also talked about developing players to sell for a profit, like its that easy.

Edited February 11, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Guest ToqueJambo]

8 hours ago, Locky said:

Mine seem to just be getting snowed under in my junk.

 

I'm torn. 90% seems high, but as others said, if 10.1% don't agree, we could miss out on good opportunities. 

 

That said, we have morons in our support, and 75% might be low. Can we call it 82.5%?

 

Like what? Not having a go. I just wonder why anyone would invest and why now. The big opportunity for someone was when Rangers were down in the 3rd division. Then there was potential to challenge Celtic and it was easier to get into Europe. Yet we struggled to find someone to buy us even when being sold for pretty much a rock bottom price. 

 

There are rich people in Scotland yet very few invest in our national game. When they do it's to save a club like Farmer or Budge and/or they're local and the club means something to them. The reason they don't invest is because they know Scottish football and they know they're up against the OF, meaning the level of investment needed is vast to close that gap. They also know you don't need to spend millions to finish 3rd and win a cup.

[JyTees]

75% of Hearts fans is more than enough for the correct decision to be made, should it ever be required.

 

10.1% of Hearts fans able to stick a spanner in the works would be absolutely ridiculous, and not beyond the realms of possibility knowing the Gorgie faithful. 🤨

[iainmac]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Why do you think FOH was happy to push through 90% less than two months ago but has now an open mind?  Apart of course from your advocacy at the AGM! Which they ignored before.

 

Some people weren't happy about members who no longer contribute losing their voting rights. FOH listened, consulted & changed the status quo. 

 

Some people weren't happy about the 90% super majority requirement.  FoH listened and are now consulting. 

 

Let me know if you think I've got any of that wrong. 

[JyTees]

This is probably a stupid question, but should Sheikh Bin Jamtart decide his heart lies in Gorgie, and wants to plough his billions into the club, where does the money go that purchases the FoH shares?

[Locky]

5 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Like what? Not having a go. I just wonder why anyone would invest and why now. The big opportunity for someone was when Rangers were down in the 3rd division. Then there was potential to challenge Celtic and it was easier to get into Europe. Yet we struggled to find someone to buy us even when being sold for pretty much a rock bottom price. 

 

There are rich people in Scotland yet very few invest in our national game. When they do it's to save a club like Farmer or Budge and/or they're local and the club means something to them. The reason they don't invest is because they know Scottish football and they know they're up against the OF, meaning the level of investment needed is vast to close that gap. They also know you don't need to spend millions to finish 3rd and win a cup.

Because unlike back then, we don't have baggage and mountains of debt. Anyone who took us over in that state without a CVA agreed, would've been mad to take us over.

 

Now, there is a genuine chance to see some return for investment. Could be perhaps through lucrative sponsorship whereby offering say a 3 year shirt deal to a larger company in exchange for a small stake in the club.

 

All ifs and buts, but there will come a time when someone fancies solid investment. Hibs and Aberdeen, whether you actually agree with their 'projects', have recently been bought into, and the Dundee clubs too, are both owned by American businessmen. There seems to be a real appeal to the Yanks about buying into Scottish football.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Locky

[jkbam]

The whole Q&A seems heavily weighted to being for the 75% to me.  I'm voting keeping the 90%,  I never want to see Hearts being run by someone who could get bored of their "investment" again.  Once sold then we lose all control, whose to say the buyer doesn't then sell on to someone less agreeable.  

[steve123]

Not read whole thread and I have voted 75% however a bit perplexed that it is only advisory ( seems as though they have probably made there own mind up anyway either way )

 

 

 

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by steve123

[Finlay James]

Voted for 75%, this seems the logical threshold to me