Latest FOH email - have your say on supermajority

[Beast Boy]

52 minutes ago, Locky said:

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.

If someone wants to pay to advertise their company through sponsorship of our shirts or stadium, then we can talk to them. That’s the deal though, they give us money to have their name on our belongings. No need to give them any shares in return. They wouldn’t have a controlling stake anyway, so what would be in it for them to have shares in a club?

 

I shudder at the thought of someone buying in to us like has happened at Hibs and United. If either of those “investors” want to make some money, then they have to either take a cut of profits, or sell something. No thanks.

 

Aberdeen? Let’s just wait and see what happens to their debt when this stadium is built, shall we?

 

Genuine question. Can you name one foreigner investor or consortium that has made a non-OF club in Scotland successful whilst not leaving that club in a precarious/perilous position?

 

 

[Allowayjambo1874]

I haven’t read the whole thread but I would say that there is previous on fan ownership being transferred back to a single investor in Scottish football.
 

Dundee went down the tubes, managed to get fan ownership, along came an American who promised them the world, got ownership of the club and now they are again in the brown stuff, making losses and in the second tier of Scottish football. All the discussion around some mega rich person coming in to take over and willing to spend vast sums sends shivers down my spine, I just don’t trust anyone anymore.

 

Also has anyone answered what happens to the cash if someone buys the FOH shares, where does that go?

 

I understand the argument for 75% but think that people can very easily let their heart rule their head when it comes to football ( there are still huge amounts of hearts fans who think Vlad was brilliant for us) whereas personally I never want to see us lose control of the club again. Maybe I’m being selfish but it’s 90% for me. 

[Locky]

8 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

If someone wants to pay to advertise their company through sponsorship of our shirts or stadium, then we can talk to them. That’s the deal though, they give us money to have their name on our belongings. No need to give them any shares in return. They wouldn’t have a controlling stake anyway, so what would be in it for them to have shares in a club?

 

I shudder at the thought of someone buying in to us like has happened at Hibs and United. If either of those “investors” want to make some money, then they have to either take a cut of profits, or sell something. No thanks.

 

Aberdeen? Let’s just wait and see what happens to their debt when this stadium is built, shall we?

 

Genuine question. Can you name one foreigner investor or consortium that has made a non-OF club in Scotland successful whilst not leaving that club in a precarious/perilous position?

 

 

A small share could benefit them by having their own corporate box or whatever, I don't know. Just thinking out loud really. Point is, as you rightly mention, we'd have the controlling stake. If someone wants buy 495 and pump millions in then why not, we get the final say.

 

It's early days on that front. Dundee hasn't worked out and have suffered relegation under the ownership, United have spent longer than they should've down there, and it's early days for Hibs and Aberdeen. No one has really benefited from foreign investment like you say, but that's not to say it can't in future with the right structures in place. The 50+1 model in Germany shows it can work well. Foreign investment only really came to Scotland in the 90's and the problem was, everyone wanted to spend big and that's why it all came crashing down. We've recovered though, and I genuinely think that there could be some appeal to investing in Scottish football, provided it's done in the right way.

[Allowayjambo1874]

1 hour ago, Locky said:

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.

Hibs and Aberdeen have seen no discernible increase in spending despite investment and the two Dundee clubs are in the second tier with Dundee in particular at best treading water at the moment. Honestly I just don’t see what these investors have brought to the table, the old firm still dominate and the clubs mentioned are still in the same position in the leagues as  they have been in the last 20 years. 
 

Im not being disrespectful or rude but in my opinion your post highlights the weakness that we all hold (including myself), the promises made by some rich investor will not match the ambition and in the long term not a lot will change but we could end up back in a situation whereby the club is in mountains of debt. 
 

If 90% of people are required to transfer ownership of the FOH shares then I hope that would be enough to save us from ourselves!! 

[Beast Boy]

1 minute ago, Allowayjambo1874 said:

I haven’t read the whole thread but I would say that there is previous on fan ownership being transferred back to a single investor in Scottish football.
 

Dundee went down the tubes, managed to get fan ownership, along came an American who promised them the world, got ownership of the club and now they are again in the brown stuff, making losses and in the second tier of Scottish football. All the discussion around some mega rich person coming in to take over and willing to spend vast sums sends shivers down my spine, I just don’t trust anyone anymore.

 

Also has anyone answered what happens to the cash if someone buys the FOH shares, where does that go?

 

I understand the argument for 75% but think that people can very easily let their heart rule their head when it comes to football ( there are still huge amounts of hearts fans who think Vlad was brilliant for us) whereas personally I never want to see us lose control of the club again. Maybe I’m being selfish but it’s 90% for me. 

Dundee and Livingston should be massive great red flags to us. 
 

The sort of sums needed to challenge for the title in Scotland, are life threatening to a non-OF club, if they don’t manage it. Unless that investor is prepared to just through their money away, then it ends up stuck on the club’s debt. Dundee brought in players like Caballero, Caniggia, Burley, Kahizinashvii (sp?) and Ravaneli when they were splurging. Didn’t win anything and went back in to debt and administration.

 

Livingston brought in guys like Fernandes, Quino, Bartley etc, and again they didn’t make enough money through success to afford them.

 

With is it was Jankauskas, Aguiar, Bednar, Skacel, Pinilla and co. When we missed out on the CL group stages, that became a millstone around our neck and made an already unsustainable level of debt even bigger.

 

Not for me, I’m afraid. We survived it once, no guarantee would again, and it’s unlikely we would get enough coming in to guarantee success. @JamboFox mentioned £15m as an investment figure that might tempt us earlier. Celtic spent almost that amount just on Eduoard’s signing fee. 
 

 

[Locky]

7 minutes ago, Allowayjambo1874 said:

Hibs and Aberdeen have seen no discernible increase in spending despite investment and the two Dundee clubs are in the second tier with Dundee in particular at best treading water at the moment. Honestly I just don’t see what these investors have brought to the table, the old firm still dominate and the clubs mentioned are still in the same position in the leagues as  they have been in the last 20 years. 
 

Im not being disrespectful or rude but in my opinion your post highlights the weakness that we all hold (including myself), the promises made by some rich investor will not match the ambition and in the long term not a lot will change but we could end up back in a situation whereby the club is in mountains of debt. 
 

If 90% of people are required to transfer ownership of the FOH shares then I hope that would be enough to save us from ourselves!! 

I think in defence of Hibs ownership, only their fans seemed to think they were going to be in a position to splash the cash. Budge essentially invested in Hearts, albeit in more drastic circumstances, and she's done wonders for the club. On the park, we can debate all we want how good her legacy is, but off it, we're a fantastically run football club with a long, successful future ahead. There's more goes on with investment than just spending in the transfer market.

[Beast Boy]

We are the investors in HMFC, and our only desires return for our investment is infield success.

 

In order for me to be tempted to agree to sell shares, they would need to guarantee that they would plough in more than the £1.4m p/a we do currently, and also guarantee that it doesn’t get put on our debt, or give them ownership of our assets.

 

No way that’s going to ever be offered imo.  

[Beast Boy]

Just now, Locky said:

I think in defence of Hibs ownership, only their fans seemed to think they were going to be in a position to splash the cash. Budge essentially invested in Hearts, albeit in more drastic circumstances, and she's done wonders for the club. On the park, we can debate all we want how good her legacy is, but off it, we're a fantastically run football club with a long, successful future ahead. There's more goes on with investment than just spending in the transfer market.

The biggest differences between ourselves and Hibs, are that we will own all our assets, and not have someone with no affinity or emotional attachment sitting there with floating charges over all of our properties, and a controlling stake that allows them to do whatever they want.

 

Once Hibs fans are told to start ponying up, they won’t get any security over their club’s assets in return. When we pony up, it’s money to help a club that we all own, not some random Cuban dude, who’s motives we know nothing about.

[Allowayjambo1874]

8 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

We are the investors in HMFC, and our only desires return for our investment is infield success.

 

In order for me to be tempted to agree to sell shares, they would need to guarantee that they would plough in more than the £1.4m p/a we do currently, and also guarantee that it doesn’t get put on our debt, or give them ownership of our assets.

 

No way that’s going to ever be offered imo.  

Exactly where I am and my worry is someone may promise the first part of the above but no way will promise second part ( they might be unable due to FFP) and fans will fall for the promise of on field success.  

[Locky]

27 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

We are the investors in HMFC, and our only desires return for our investment is infield success.

 

In order for me to be tempted to agree to sell shares, they would need to guarantee that they would plough in more than the £1.4m p/a we do currently, and also guarantee that it doesn’t get put on our debt, or give them ownership of our assets.

 

No way that’s going to ever be offered imo.  

I'm more than happy with that, it would just be interesting to see if someone wanted to invest, what they could offer. As long as we are still in control, I'm happy.

[Poseidon]

5 hours ago, JyTees said:

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. 🤨

How to win friends and influence people.

 

 

 

[Poseidon]

5 hours ago, iainmac said:

 

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. 

It has been raised through the consultation process and possibly at other times that we shouldn't be giving all the contributions to Hearts to spend as they see fit so why are they not re-consulting about that?

[Beast Boy]

10 minutes ago, Locky said:

I'm more than happy with that, it would just be interesting to see if someone wanted to invest, what they could offer. As long as we are still in control, I'm happy.

Yep, for me, that’s how we need to view ourselves/FoH - benevolent investors who put in £1.4m p/a and want nothing in return, other than success on the pitch. Might not deliver that success, but most external investors don’t either... not without placing their club in peril anyway.

 

What we should be thinking about, is how we spend that £1.4m p/a.

[3fingersreid]

Has the mystery benefactor suggested something ?

got to say I think the timing of this could’ve been better timed , we’ve just celebrated paying of BidCo , let it settle down for a bit .

Edited February 11, 2020 by 3fingersreid

[Disco Dave]

75% for me. Still represents a large enough majority to stop any stupid decisions being made.

 

90% is too high and gives a much smaller number of people the chance to potentially block sensible decisions.

[Poseidon]

3 minutes ago, Disco Dave said:

75% for me. Still represents a large enough majority to stop any stupid decisions being made.

 

90% is too high and gives a much smaller number of people the chance to potentially block sensible decisions.

Do you have an example of a sensible decision that you refer to?

[Poseidon]

I have emailed FoH about opening up consultation again about how the FoH money is distributed to Hearts and will see what they say. 

[Disco Dave]

2 minutes ago, Poseidon said:

Do you have an example of a sensible decision that you refer to?

Football First gave a couple of good examples earlier in the thread.

[Poseidon]

1 minute ago, Disco Dave said:

Football First gave a couple of good examples earlier in the thread.

I find them extremely unbelievable to be honest. If other teams come and spend the way Romanov did for us we have to take it on the chin and accept we might be up against it short term. Ultimately it'll come crashing down as it has in every other example of this happening in Scottish Football outwith Celtic. 

 

Rangers overspending under the EBT years led to just about ruin for Scottish football as every other team tried to spend to keep up. I'd hate for us to be selling off the silver to try and keep up in that way again

[Beast Boy]

6 minutes ago, Poseidon said:

I find them extremely unbelievable to be honest. If other teams come and spend the way Romanov did for us we have to take it on the chin and accept we might be up against it short term. Ultimately it'll come crashing down as it has in every other example of this happening in Scottish Football outwith Celtic. 

 

Rangers overspending under the EBT years led to just about ruin for Scottish football as every other team tried to spend to keep up. I'd hate for us to be selling off the silver to try and keep up in that way again

 

This is where I am at. Even the current incarnation of Rangers with their 40 odd thousand season ticket holders are struggling to keep pace with Celtic without their investors chucking money in to The Good Pit Ibrox. The sort of sums needed to spend to success in Scotland are life-threatening to a club our size.

 

The fact of the matter always comes back to this simple conundrum for me, there are limited ways in which anyone can make money from a Scottish football club outside of the OF:

 

1) Spending huge amounts of money in the short term to win the league and qualify for the CL group stages, then after years of consistency at that level, starting to take some of that money back through the rising profits and sponsorship.

2) A large salary.

3) Loans secured against the club's properties at a high interest rate.

4) A percentage of profits from teh sale of assets such as land, property, or players.

 

The first is absolute pie in the sky stuff unfortunately. The second and third are not beneficial to the club/fans. The fourth is the ultimate nightmare scenario.

 

[scott herbertson]

11 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

I understand your suspicion but at 75% with full transparency on any bid to dilute to FoH share holding I think we will be OK. 
We should write into this that we can never have any less than 51% shareholding without a 90% agreement 75% for everything else. 

 

 

While I'm still in favour of 90% that's a good suggestion for a compromise

[Disco Dave]

11 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

I understand your suspicion but at 75% with full transparency on any bid to dilute to FoH share holding I think we will be OK. 
We should write into this that we can never have any less than 51% shareholding without a 90% agreement 75% for everything else. 

Agreed - Great shout

[Poseidon]

11 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

I understand your suspicion but at 75% with full transparency on any bid to dilute to FoH share holding I think we will be OK. 
We should write into this that we can never have any less than 51% shareholding without a 90% agreement 75% for everything else. 

I like this option too if it does change to 75%

[wavydavy]

11 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

I understand your suspicion but at 75% with full transparency on any bid to dilute to FoH share holding I think we will be OK. 
We should write into this that we can never have any less than 51% shareholding without a 90% agreement 75% for everything else. 

 

When you say we can never have less than a 51% shareholding that does stop the HMFC Board from doing what they want?

 

The HMFC current set up only allows for two FOH Directors to sit on what I think is currently a board of seven.

 

I know that there is the option to call an EGM ion the event of anything major that FOH disagree with however I think we need a lot more clarity on why this request is being made now.

[wavydavy]

7 hours ago, iainmac said:

 

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. 

 

 

That's fine if those people you refer to are members of FOH but are they?

[Beast Boy]

1 minute ago, wavydavy said:

 

When you say we can never have less than a 51% shareholding that does stop the HMFC Board from doing what they want?

 

The HMFC current set up only allows for two FOH Directors to sit on what I think is currently a board of seven.

 

I know that there is the option to call an EGM ion the event of anything major that FOH disagree with however I think we need a lot more clarity on why this request is being made now.

 

We are about to become the major shareholders by paying back Ann Budge. It seems like the most logical time to have said discussion, to me.

[Jambos1983]

75% all day long

[jake]

Veering towards 75 % atm.

 

[davemclaren]

10 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

 

That's fine if those people you refer to are members of FOH but are they?

Those that questioned it at the FoH agm were. 

[Beast Boy]

I think I am 75%. 90% is potentially the tail wagging the dog.

[Mdoug79]

TBH I would of said 90% but had never thought of the potential for a small group being able to stop something being voted through. I had only thought about the bigger number being needed to vote through. 
 

Having now read what the email says I am definately voting for 75% as the 90% vote would give far too much power to a small percentage of our members.

 

In short please vote 75% members. 

[davemclaren]

9 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

We are about to become the major shareholders by paying back Ann Budge. It seems like the most logical time to have said discussion, to me.

Correct. We are also about to implement the governance framework which, once done, would need a 90% majority to change the 90% majority. 🤔

[Heartsofgold]

75% for me but with the caveat that FoH cannot reduce their shareholding to below 51% of total issued share capital unless 90% of FoH members vote to allow a sale that takes us below that threshold.

[Beast Boy]

1 minute ago, davemclaren said:

Correct. We are also about to implement the governance framework which, once done, would need a 90% majority to change the 90% majority. 🤔

 

Too many shades of The OF veto and stymie potential with 90% imo.

[Jambo-Fox]

75% allows flexibility to deal with what ever comes along in future years

[Voice of reason]

16 hours 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 sums it up for me. 75% is sufficient to provide a sensible level of protection whilst avoiding a tiny minority blocking any change whatsoever, however good. 

[Footballfirst]

11 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

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"?

 

The Scottish football scene has changed in two directions, one towards fan ownership e.g. Hearts, Motherwell, St Mirren, the other is towards foreign investment, e.g. Hibs, Aberdeen and Rangers.  

 

Other clubs, including Celtic are largely foreign owned already.

 

Despite me favouring dispensing with super majority voting, I would also advocate that extremely critical due diligence be carried out on any buyer, including investigations into their previous business history, legally binding undertakings on investments etc.  I would see that as the means to exclude the shysters.

 

I am not in favour of selling the club anytime soon. We have yet to see if fan ownership actually works for Hearts, particularly when measured against that of our peer group of clubs. If it works well, then I would have no hesitation in voting against a proposed sale. If it doesn't work and other clubs leave us behind, then I may take an alternative view. However, super majority voting is restrictive, and I don't want emotional considerations being able to block a well founded case for moving back to private ownership or to eventually move from Tynecastle some way down the line. 

[wavydavy]

53 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

We are about to become the major shareholders by paying back Ann Budge. It seems like the most logical time to have said discussion, to me.

 

I don't see that this has anything to do with my points.

[Beast Boy]

Just now, wavydavy said:

 

I don't see that this has anything to do with my points.

Are you not questioning the timing of the vote? I am suggesting that the timing makes sense.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

8 hours ago, JyTees said:

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?

Seen as no one else will answer this likely the FOH contributors will need to take a haircut back to zero  but don’t worry as sheikh bin Jamtart will invest the 2.4m & no one will be out of pocket. 

[gorgieheart]

17 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

I’ve skipped a lot of posts. What is it you are referring to specifically on this thread?

 

have a look !

 

[gorgieheart]

16 hours ago, Jambo-Fox said:

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

 

agreed !!

[gorgieheart]

16 hours ago, km7bhf said:

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. 

 

absolutely this !

[wavydavy]

2 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Are you not questioning the timing of the vote? I am suggesting that the timing makes sense.

 

This is what you replied to. Where do I question the timing?

 

When you say we can never have less than a 51% shareholding that does stop the HMFC Board from doing what they want?

 

The HMFC current set up only allows for two FOH Directors to sit on what I think is currently a board of seven.

 

I know that there is the option to call an EGM ion the event of anything major that FOH disagree with however I think we need a lot more clarity on why this request is being made now.

[wavydavy]

16 hours ago, Jambo-Fox said:

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

 

That isn't being questioned though. I think we all know that particularly AB who has openly said this.

[Beast Boy]

2 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

This is what you replied to. Where do I question the timing?

 

When you say we can never have less than a 51% shareholding that does stop the HMFC Board from doing what they want?

 

The HMFC current set up only allows for two FOH Directors to sit on what I think is currently a board of seven.

 

I know that there is the option to call an EGM ion the event of anything major that FOH disagree with however I think we need a lot more clarity on why this request is being made now.

Were you not questioning the timing of the vote in other posts? Apologies if not. If so, then I’ve obviously replied to the wrong post of yours.

[Poseidon]

16 hours ago, km7bhf said:

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. 

How do you come up with the idea that we'd be restricted to half that or less?

 

Your surely not suggesting that every club is going to get a rich owner who's going to throw £50m at them? 

 

😂 oh ma sides!

[jambo-in-furness]

 

why are we debating it on here, giving non members and dare I say Hobos a chance to voice their matterless opinion

 

 

FOH members ————— just vote.

Edited February 11, 2020 by jambo-in-furness

[EIEIO]

49 minutes ago, Heartsofgold said:

75% for me but with the caveat that FoH cannot reduce their shareholding to below 51% of total issued share capital unless 90% of FoH members vote to allow a sale that takes us below that threshold.

This is my view too.

[Francis Albert]

8 hours ago, iainmac said:

 

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. 

Some people hadn't been happy for some time about former contributing members losing their voting rights. FoH listened and changed the status quo (albeit in a fairly modest way) in revised proposals which were voted through as part of the new Governance arrangements at the AGM in their totality, with no doubt the usual near unanimous support.

 

Over the same time some members (I suspect the same half dozen who ever showed any interest in governance)  were unhappy with the super majority requirement which nevertheless remained part of the package in December. As a result there is a risk that what would no doubt have gone through as part of the whole governance proposals may be rejected and leave us stuck with the super majority rule which for the same reasons set out by previous objectors FoH now acknowledges may not be in the club's interests. Maybe it is simple as you suggest and that is only about FoH responding at a very late stage to a few members concerns. But "they would say that wouldn't they" and the last minute change of mind, coupled with news of recent offers to Bidco, gives rise to some questions beyond your perhaps over simple and convenient analysis. Perhaps.