Latest FOH email - have your say on supermajority

[wavydavy]

3 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

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.

 

Don't think I had.

 

 

[Francis Albert]

5 minutes ago, jambo-in-furness said:

 

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.

So we don't discuss important issues relating to Hearts on JKB because of Hobos? Strange and a bit of an insult to JKB members to suggest they can't think for themselves and will be influenced by interlopers. 

[Beast Boy]

Just now, wavydavy said:

 

Don't think I had.

 

 

 

Fair enough then, apologies. I thought you had.

[wavydavy]

1 minute ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Fair enough then, apologies. I thought you had.

👍

[Jambof3tornado]

8 minutes ago, jambo-in-furness said:

 

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.

Because its a forum for debate. Its a subject worth debating. 

[Jambof3tornado]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

So we don't discuss important issues relating to Hearts on JKB because of Hobos? Strange and a bit of an insult to JKB members to suggest they can't think for themselves and will be influenced by interlopers. 

Well said. Have you decided which way to vote FA? 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour 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.

I  think that would defeat the objective as I understand it. If (and I think it is a big if) Scottish football attracts such massive investment that we could not compete and that (as I think almost certain)  big investors want control, you suggestion just leaves a small minority voting block in place.

[Beast Boy]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

So we don't discuss important issues relating to Hearts on JKB because of Hobos? Strange and a bit of an insult to JKB members to suggest they can't think for themselves and will be influenced by interlopers. 

 

Whilst I agree in general, there are plenty Hearts supporters out there that nod along when their vermin mates try and take the piss and who are very easily led. You see a lot of their shite patter being parroted by Hearts supporters tbh. If you ever read forums where supporters of different teams mix together, you see it quite regularly. We have some easily led supporters in our number.

 

We shouldn't ever let that stop us discussing things on our own team's forum obviously, but you would hope everything that can be done, is being done, to prevent these jealous little creatures from infesting these discussions.

[Francis Albert]

9 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Well said. Have you decided which way to vote FA? 

I have opposed the supermajority requirement in previous consultations for the reasons set out by FoH and will vote for 75%. (The very late Damascene conversion by FoH  still puzzles me a little).  

 

75 % is still a very high hurdle provided FoH is clear about the terms and as FF has pointed out we are aware of the protections and binding guarantees which need to be built into any sale. And provided FoH communicates all this without hiding behind commercial confidentiality and does everything to encourage a large turn out in the vote. 

[Bull's-eye]

90% for me, I'd prefer it to be as tough as possible for change to take place.

 

There won't be any invester as there is no return on your investment, if some rich Oil baron fancies donating, because a donation is what it really is then there is nothing to stop then, we could always just call them benefactors 😉

 

 

[iainmac]

1 hour ago, wavydavy said:

 

 

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

 

Yes as only FoH pledgers would've taken part in the consultation exercise or attended the FoH AGM. 

[iainmac]

37 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

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.

 

Unless you think that FoH should consult on every single aspect of the Governance document  -  no organisation would do that IMO - there is clear evidence in my original post that they are prepared to be flexible on certain aspects of it. 

 

There was a working party set up and spent months on the Governance  document and then the overall final version was put to a vote of the members.  

 

I've given you nothing but facts but you're suggesting that these facts are "over simple and convenient analysis". 

[Chaka Demus & pliers]

9 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. 

What are the current rules around eligibility to vote or where can I find them please?

[Jambof3tornado]

25 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I have opposed the supermajority requirement in previous consultations for the reasons set out by FoH and will vote for 75%. (The very late Damascene conversion by FoH  still puzzles me a little).  

 

75 % is still a very high hurdle provided FoH is clear about the terms and as FF has pointed out we are aware of the protections and binding guarantees which need to be built into any sale. And provided FoH communicates all this without hiding behind commercial confidentiality and does everything to encourage a large turn out in the vote. 

I consider you to be one of the most sceptical posters in regards to the detail of all things FOH( not having a pop). Many of us just seem happy to pay our subs and have blind faith in those running things. The fact you consider the 75% as protective enough should be a sign for anyone doubting the 75/90 issue.

 

Thanks for your openness.

[davemclaren]

7 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

Unless you think that FoH should consult on every single aspect of the Governance document  -  no organisation would do that IMO - there is clear evidence in my original post that they are prepared to be flexible on certain aspects of it. 

 

There was a working party set up and spent months on the Governance  document and then the overall final version was put to a vote of the members.  

 

I've given you nothing but facts but you're suggesting that these facts are "over simple and convenient analysis". 

To be fair ( to all sides 😎 ) FoH amended the proposal around lapsed members and are now consulting around the supermajority.
 

The only other key points raised ( on here but also at the agm ) that I can recall were the level of influence on the club board and the level of influence around the use of FoH funds. These are not being directly consulted on but any consultation is a positive. 
 

[jock _turd]

18 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

We have seen some foreign investors come into the Scottish football market, some welcome, although some unwelcome. What if there was a Sheik Mansur type figure looking to buy a well known Scottish club and take them to a new level (in a Scottish context), a bit like Man City. Let's say an offer came in to buy the majority shareholding for £25m and a legally binding agreement to invest a further £5m a season for the next 5 years.  FOH could only dream of making such an investment.

 

See when this sort of stuff is even thought about... I loose faith in the principal of what the FOH is about. If chasing money is all that matters we may as well give up now. Some on here may not agree with me but Hearts are and always will be a very medium sized football club. We have even at the height of our powers been such... what is actually wrong with that? We have had substantial experience of large investments being made in the club... in real terms they did little to help us save one good season. The other thing about large investment in Scottish football... it makes no sense there is no money to be made unless you get into Euro league situations and that is not going to be a given when you see how much Celtic and rangers are spending... over and above all that being the skeptic that I am no matter how much was pumped into Hearts we would never be allowed to be successful by "the powers that be". But to finish surely what FOH is about is to see that the club remains ... not necessarily that it is successful, although success would be nice.

[Francis Albert]

16 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

Unless you think that FoH should consult on every single aspect of the Governance document  -  no organisation would do that IMO - there is clear evidence in my original post that they are prepared to be flexible on certain aspects of it. 

 

There was a working party set up and spent months on the Governance  document and then the overall final version was put to a vote of the members.  

 

I've given you nothing but facts but you're suggesting that these facts are "over simple and convenient analysis". 

To be fair to FoH they have consulted on every aspect of the Governance document. The first version I came across was dated April 2017, almost 3 years ago. There may have been earlier versions. Comments were invited on every aspect and comments submitted by me and others. As far as I recall this is the very first formal (albeit advisory) vote on a specific element, being held just a few weeks before the arrangements take effect.

I think the above is "nothing but facts" but if I have got any facts wrong please let me know.

[glynnlondon]

75% seems a more reasonable threshold than 90% imo.

I'll be voting for the former.

[johnking123]

75% for me. Club our size will always need investment to improve. Would we all mind if our benefactors wanted to give us money every year and all they wanted is a small percentage of us in exchange.  

[Mister Dee]

This was always about fan ownership for me,  I never want us going down the road with another Romanov character. 
90% for me is fine. 
It will be interesting to watch how Hibs new owner operates in the coming months. 

[wavydavy]

54 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

Yes as only FoH pledgers would've taken part in the consultation exercise or attended the FoH AGM. 

 

Who are Affilliate Members do you know?

[Allowayjambo1874]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

 

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. 

Like most on here I very much respect your opinions FF but let’s be very clear here, Vlad would have passed a due diligence test and he’s pretty much the reason we’ve ended up in this situation. With that in mind I’ve zero faith in this kind of checking. 
 

Let’s be honest Rangers fan base has the same proportion of dafties, level headed supporters and wealthy fans as we do and they welcomed Craig Whyte like the next messiah. He had the press in his pocket and spin going on 24/7. I’ve no doubt that sort of thing could reoccur With us which is why I’m so fearful that someone could come along and sucker us all in. For people who think that we aren’t that gullible there are already people posting on here saying that if such and such a poster says 75% is the way to go then that’s good enough for them! 

 

I know this is a cynical way to look at the future but the only people I trust to look after the future of hearts are the supporters who have constantly and consistently dig deep and not some Jonny come lately who hadn’t heard of us until 5 mins ago! 

[FarmerTweedy]

15 hours 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.

Surely the more than 10% that voted against a sale would also vote against lowering the threshold???????

[1953]

Where did this 90% figure come from anyway? I've always thought it to be higher than required. 50/50 wouldn't be enough for a major decision such as selling our shareholding but by the same token 90/10 seems to be too far in the other direction. 75/25 would give more flexibility while retaining the requirement for a substantial majority, call it a compromise perhaps. 

[Pans Jambo]

3 hours 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.

I cant answer your questions on this Wavy. Just my opinion that we (the supporters and contributors to the FoH) should NEVER have any less than 51% share in Heart of Midlothian FC. Otherwise we are wide open for unscrupulous owners to do whatever the hell the want IF they own the majority shareholding.

 

IMO I think 75% on all matters unless its about selling shares that would then take us below the 51% ownership threshold then we would need a 90% vote agreement.

 

I think Ian Murray's last page of his book "This is our story" about how the fans saved the club says it well (& I quote):

 

"One thing is clear. We must always remember that we have come far too close to losing Heart of Midlothian Football Club.

We must never allow this to happen again. Our club was saved because of you, the supporters.

We grasped the opportunity to start afresh and it has been a whirlwind of progress. As one chapter in the history of the club ends, another begins.

The next 145 years are secured. Future generations can enjoy what we have always enjoyed - supporting Heart of Midlothian Football Club."

 

Remember this voting thing is a "consultation" and you better believe that they (the FoH board) read this forum.

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Pans Jambo

[scott herbertson]

30 minutes ago, FarmerTweedy said:

Surely the more than 10% that voted against a sale would also vote against lowering the threshold???????

Probably, though it would maybe be a slow burner as to the benefits. The 90% acts as a first line of defence. It might lead to an improved offer. Also I am not clear if it is 90% of members or 90% of those who vote. If 10% of voters voted against a transfer they might actually be representative of a larger non voting percentage. If it is 75% of all members I’d be more relaxed about it
 

 

[Heartsofgold]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I  think that would defeat the objective as I understand it. If (and I think it is a big if) Scottish football attracts such massive investment that we could not compete and that (as I think almost certain)  big investors want control, you suggestion just leaves a small minority voting block in place.

And therein lies the problem.  Like most FoH contributors, I never want the future of Hearts put in the hands of someone who can walk away after asset stripping us or worse.  Hearts should never be majority owned outside the FOH unless an OVERWHELMING majority of contributors agree.  Our contributors love the club, an investor (in the main) is looking for a return on that investment whether by a future sell on or taking a 'dividend' form the company.  I don't want that.  If an investor demands majority control we should tell them where to go.

 

And let's be honest, if an investor is stumping up the cold hard cash to try and buy us, then we will probably be doing quite well and be in a position where we can tell them to **** off it they make such a demand and we don't like it.

[JohnB]

20 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

Probably, though it would maybe be a slow burner as to the benefits. The 90% acts as a first line of defence. It might lead to an improved offer. Also I am not clear if it is 90% of members or 90% of those who vote. If 10% of voters voted against a transfer they might actually be representative of a larger non voting percentage. If it is 75% of all members I’d be more relaxed about it
 

 

That's what I assumed (perhaps wrongly) when I cast my vote for 75%. 

[Tasavallan]

A threshold of 75% appears more realistic than 90%, but my query would be that it applies "to all votes cast".

 

In which case, FOH must develop a simple voting system and ensure that all paid-up members are contacted/notified.  As has been stated previously, FOH emails do not always arrive.

 

 

[scott herbertson]

8 minutes ago, JohnB said:

That's what I assumed (perhaps wrongly) when I cast my vote for 75%. 

 

4 minutes ago, Tasavallan said:

A threshold of 75% appears more realistic than 90%, but my query would be that it applies "to all votes cast".

 

In which case, FOH must develop a simple voting system and ensure that all paid-up members are contacted/notified.  As has been stated previously, FOH emails do not always arrive.

 

 

 

my understanding of votes cast is pretty clear that it would be 75% of those voting not of the membership.

 

If I am right and if a lot of people are misunderstanding it then I think FOH should make it clearer what the actual voting mechanism would be. 
 

It will be too late to complain if a transfer happens with 751 of the membership voting for it against 249 with 7400 not voting

[iainmac]

20 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

my understanding of votes cast is pretty clear that it would be 75% of those voting not of the membership.

 

If I am right and if a lot of people are misunderstanding it then I think FOH should make it clearer what the actual voting mechanism would be. 
 

It will be too late to complain if a transfer happens with 751 of the membership voting for it against 249 with 7400 not voting

 

it would have to be 75% of the members that decided to vote I'd have thought?

 

Otherwise - how would be be able to come to any conclusion?

[wavydavy]

50 minutes ago, JohnB said:

That's what I assumed (perhaps wrongly) when I cast my vote for 75%. 

 

As I understand things it would be 75% of the actual vote. So if 1000 people voted 750 would be the minimum required not 75% of the total FOH Memebership.

[wavydavy]

19 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

it would have to be 75% of the members that decided to vote I'd have thought?

 

Otherwise - how would be be able to come to any conclusion?

 

How can you make people vote? 

[luckydug]

7 hours 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. 

This pretty much covers my view as well. 👍

Will some folks never learn from past mistakes ? 

[FarmerTweedy]

15 hours ago, Jambof3tornado said:

The same mechanisms that stopped the pieman!!!

The 'mechanism' that stopped the pieman moving us from Tynecastle was Romanov.  I doubt he'd be doing the same again in the future. 

[Bull's-eye]

1 hour ago, Heartsofgold said:

And therein lies the problem.  Like most FoH contributors, I never want the future of Hearts put in the hands of someone who can walk away after asset stripping us or worse.  Hearts should never be majority owned outside the FOH unless an OVERWHELMING majority of contributors agree.  Our contributors love the club, an investor (in the main) is looking for a return on that investment whether by a future sell on or taking a 'dividend' form the company.  I don't want that.  If an investor demands majority control we should tell them where to go.

 

And let's be honest, if an investor is stumping up the cold hard cash to try and buy us, then we will probably be doing quite well and be in a position where we can tell them to **** off it they make such a demand and we don't like it.

 

Well put. 

[scott herbertson]

33 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

it would have to be 75% of the members that decided to vote I'd have thought?

 

Otherwise - how would be be able to come to any conclusion?

If we have 8000 members then you could say 6000 (75%) need to agree with any proposal to transfer ownership. 
 

allow generous time for voting - say a month and online plus postal voting and email and text methods then I don’t think it would be unreasonable to say 75% of the membership required

 

if it has to be a percentage just of those voting I would be very much for 90%

[JohnB]

46 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

As I understand things it would be 75% of the actual vote. So if 1000 people voted 750 would be the minimum required not 75% of the total FOH Memebership.

If that's the case I would be plumping for 90%. I've seen too much (at Union meetings) of small turnout situations being taken advantage of. 

As Scott says above " FOH should make it clearer what the actual voting mechanism would be"

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, iainmac said:

 

it would have to be 75% of the members that decided to vote I'd have thought?

 

Otherwise - how would be be able to come to any conclusion?

Why "have to be". There are other options as others have suggested. 

[Francis Albert]

45 minutes ago, JohnB said:

If that's the case I would be plumping for 90%. I've seen too much (at Union meetings) of small turnout situations being taken advantage of. 

As Scott says above " FOH should make it clearer what the actual voting mechanism would be"

Though it would reduce the chances of my preferred option I agree with that. This is a pretty fundamental issue, of which FoH have been aware for a long time. It is ridiculous it is being addressed by a vote in a few days just a few weeks before the deadline for governance arrangements to be finalised.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

We should go the other way & buy up the 24.9 % take us off the market

 

a fair sized chuck of **** you investors

[jambo-in-furness]

5 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

So we don't discuss important issues relating to Hearts on JKB because of Hobos? Strange and a bit of an insult to JKB members to suggest they can't think for themselves and will be influenced by interlopers. 

 

If you feel like you need persuasion, or need to persuade others which way to vote you have little faith in those who contribute or you are a non contributor 

 

just vote ———— if you can.

[Francis Albert]

10 minutes ago, jambo-in-furness said:

 

If you feel like you need persuasion, or need to persuade others which way to vote you have little faith in those who contribute or you are a non contributor 

 

just vote ———— if you can.

You win the prize for the silliest post on the thread. Congratulations.

[Jack Torrance]

The FOH email clearly states:

 

"Before such a disposal to a third party can proceed, it must be put to a vote of Foundation members (including Affiliate Members) and sanctioned by a majority of not less than 90% of the votes cast.
The issue is: Is this 90% requirement too high?  Should the requirement be reduced to 75%?"

 

"OF THE VOTES CAST" (not of the membership)

 

90% for me.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Jack Torrance

[Guest ToqueJambo]

10 hours 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.

 

Take your points, but I'm really suspicious of anyone who's not a fan of a club "investing" in it. Generally investors want a financial return, unlike fans. They all think, like Romanov, all they have to do is sell players for a profit and pump a little money in and they all fail. And I honestly thing we get the b, c or d list investors in Scotland, not the mega rich ones.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

6 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

 

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. 

 

It's too early to say whether this investment in the 3 clubs you mention, plus D Utd, will pay off or lead to disaster. The signs so far at Hibs and D Utd don't seem good. Rangers are a different beast. Them and Celtic are the obvious places to invest as they have or are most likely to have access to regular Europe and CL money and status. The money Aberdeen are spending might mean they get someone like Dylan McGeough or Matty Kennedy instead of us or Hibs more often, but the standard of player they can afford and who will want to go there will still be way below Rangers and Celtic.

 

The other clubs need massive, sustained investment to close the gap with Rangers and especially Celtic right now. No-one is going to put that money into Hearts with our 20,000 seater stadium, and anyone who knows Scottish football knows that a million or 2 quid here and there doesn't;t make a huge difference, eg Aberdeen this season begins behind fan-owned Motherwell. At Hearts we need to pick a side, and I think fan ownership is the way to go to avoid the uncertainty of investors who are not fans and constant ownership changes.

[Francis Albert]

Another point occurs to me on which advice would be welcome (FF?).

If we leave disposal of FoH shares as a  supermajority (90%) issue then I understand it would require a 90% vote to change it to a 75% issue.

If we change it to a 75% issue and we change our minds in light of experience can it be moved back to a 90% issue by a 75% vote or does that require a 90% vote? 

 

 

[davemclaren]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Another point occurs to me on which advice would be welcome (FF?).

If we leave disposal of FoH shares as a  supermajority (90%) issue then I understand it would require a 90% vote to change it to a 75% issue.

If we change it to a 75% issue and we change our minds in light of experience can it be moved back to a 90% issue by a 75% vote or does that require a 90% vote? 

 

 

75% one would imagine. 

[Beast Boy]

19 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Take your points, but I'm really suspicious of anyone who's not a fan of a club "investing" in it. Generally investors want a financial return, unlike fans. They all think, like Romanov, all they have to do is sell players for a profit and pump a little money in and they all fail. And I honestly thing we get the b, c or d list investors in Scotland, not the mega rich ones.

I don’t think that was Romanov’s main concern tbh. He wanted a foot in the door of the UK banking sector. This was peak pre-2007/8 deregulated UK banking madness. If he’s successfully opened a bank here, he’d have made many many millions of pounds.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

10 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

I don’t think that was Romanov’s main concern tbh. He wanted a foot in the door of the UK banking sector. This was peak pre-2007/8 deregulated UK banking madness. If he’s successfully opened a bank here, he’d have made many many millions of pounds.

 

They all have their own reasons, and the reasons are all for their benefit not the club's.