FoH disposal of shares.

[Don Dan]

See this email and vote your preference. 
 

 

OUR GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK – HAVE YOUR SAY ON THE SUPERMAJORITY Dear Member We have decided to revisit an important aspect of our future governance arrangements, and we would like your views.  We attach a short Q&A with this email, the background to which is set out below. 1.    What’s this all about? Our future governance arrangements contain a restriction on any disposal of the Foundation’s shares in the Club acquired from Bidco.  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%? 2.    Why is the board re-opening this topic now? The review is prompted by two factors.  Firstly, feedback at the AGM in December.  At that meeting, we were urged to look again at the issue, with views being expressed that 90% was too high.  Secondly, awareness of investment trends in Scottish football (see 5.3 below). We have a window in which to address the topic.  At present, if we decide to change the majority requirement, we need a 75% vote in favour at a general meeting of members.  However, once the ownership of the Club passes to the Foundation (an event scheduled for April), we would need a 90% vote in favour at a general meeting and the logistics of organising that meeting become more complicated.  It therefore makes sense to review the issue over the next few weeks. 3.    Was the 90% requirement discussed in the governance consultation? Yes.  The 90% requirement was part of our governance proposals throughout the consultation process which ran from April 2017 to November 2018.  At that time, this particular point generated little, if any, comment. At the end of the consultation period, the members overwhelmingly approved the final proposals.  This approval related to the proposals in their totality, and there were no separate votes on any constituent elements of the proposals.  The request raised at the AGM is effectively that the 90% requirement should now be considered separately. 4.    What are the arguments in favour of a 90% requirement? [Note: the discussion in 4 and 5 below is framed in terms of the Foundation transferring majority ownership to a new owner.  An alternative scenario of the Foundation transferring a minority interest is, however, also possible.  The 90% approval requirement would extend to that latter scenario.] 4.1    Transferring majority ownership of the Club to a new owner would undoubtedly be the biggest collective decision the Foundation members would ever take. We would be deciding who the new owner should be, with all the responsibility that places on us.  We would have to decide - are they the right people to own the Club?  Will they have the best interests of the Club at heart, and do they have the financial backing to sustain the Club financially? A decision of this importance should only be taken with the support of a substantial majority of the voting members. 4.2    A meeting to consider a proposed transfer would be organised so as to maximise the voter turnout.  Early voting (electronically or by mail) would be possible, as well as voting at the meeting in person or by proxy.  A good turnout of members would reduce the risk of a small unrepresentative group of dissident members being able to block the sale.  See 5.1 below. 5.    What are the arguments against a 90% requirement? 5.1    A 90% majority requirement increases the risk of a small and unrepresentative minority being able to block a sale which might be supported by a large majority of members.  Depending on the overall size of the Foundation membership at the time and the proportion of that membership which participates in the vote, the fate of the Club could be decided by a small number of people.  This risk would be reduced if the majority requirement was 75%. 5.2    Football regulation has mechanisms to protect clubs against unscrupulous or untrustworthy individuals acquiring ownership.  A prospective owner or director must be a fit and proper person, and financial regulations are designed to stop clubs careering into financial turmoil.  It is an exaggeration, therefore, to say that a supermajority is required to provide this protection. [Note: Having said this, it has been suggested at times that the regulatory protections are insufficient in practice, in that prospective owners are not effectively vetted by the football authorities, while financial regulations are subject to numerous caveats and are not strictly enforced.  The shortcomings were highlighted by Bury FC, which was expelled from the English Football League in 2019 as a direct result of poor ownership and longstanding financial problems.] 5.3    The Scottish football scene has changed in the past 12-18 months.  There has been an increase in external investment into our clubs.  A lot of this investment has come from overseas, particularly the US.  Scottish clubs are currently seen as viable assets to attract long-term investment.  The Scottish Premiership is a very competitive league and the pressure on owners to maintain investment and keep pace with their rivals is intense.  If a need for unplanned capital expenditure arises at a club, the fan ownership model is generally not regarded as well-suited to deliver funding. Approaches to the Club by potential investors have already been made (through Bidco).  If this current climate in Scottish football continues, it is possible that such approaches might start to arrive with even greater frequency. Against that background, it is arguable that a 75% majority requirement would be more appropriate and more in keeping with normal business practice.  It provides greater flexibility and room for manoeuvre, while nevertheless still requiring a substantial majority in favour of a sale. 6.    How will the views of members on this issue be sought? We are going to conduct an online survey of our members over a one-week period.  Members will be asked to indicate which majority requirement – 90% or 75% - they favour.  There is also space in the survey to tell us about any comments, questions or concerns you may have.  We will anonymise the identities of respondents. Click Here to access the survey form. Please enter the email address associated with your FoH Account. You can complete the survey on your computer or mobile phone.  The survey is open now and will close at 5.00pm on Monday 17 February.  We will release the result of the survey shortly afterwards. 7.    After the survey has been completed, what will happen next? The survey will be consultative only.  It will inform the decision-making process, as the directors will pay close attention to members’ views, especially if a significant proportion of members have participated. If the directors conclude that the 90% majority requirement should be retained in its present form, no further action will be needed, as the requirement is already part of the future governance structure. If the directors conclude that a 75% majority requirement is more appropriate, it will be necessary to alter the articles of association, and we will convene a general meeting of members for that purpose.  For reasons explained in 2 above, we would seek to do that before the Foundation acquires majority ownership of the Club. I hope you will take the opportunity to give us your views. Regards Stuart Wallace Chair, Foundation of Hearts 10 February 2020 Copyright © 2020 Foundation of Hearts. All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: Foundation of Hearts Limited, c/o Heart of Midlothian Football Club, Tynecastle Park, Gorgie Road, EDINBURGH EH11 2NL   unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences

[Jambof3tornado]

Cheers mate.

[dc-jambo]

90 per cent

 

together forever 😀

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

Going to be close. 

 

Gone 90, we could always change that at a later date I assume. 

 

Feeling a bit too much too soon gut feeling,  but not got experience to have a strong view 

 

 

[Castle rock]

90 all day long 

HMFC belongs to us now and forever

HHGH🇱🇻

[Famous 1874]

75%, 90 is too high imo 

[Jamhammer]

Currently undecided. Was erring towards 75 but not sure

[Niemi’s gloves]

Stupid question from someone new to JKB but what do I do to register a vote in this vote about a vote (I’ve already voted in the real FOH poll)?

[StevenNaismith]

75% is the sensible option for the reasons laid out in the email.

[Jambof3tornado]

Gone 75. It just makes sense to me.

[Don Dan]

22 minutes ago, Niemi’s gloves said:

Stupid question from someone new to JKB but what do I do to register a vote in this vote about a vote (I’ve already voted in the real FOH poll)?

@davemclaren or @Maple Leaf maybe able to advise you. 

[Jeff]

Think point 5.1 turned it for me. Quite ironic really 

[Squirt]

Surely 75?

 

High enough that a huge majority is still required but not so high that some rouge group of supporters could stifle progress. 

[Cruyff]

75% for me but I think surely there is ways and means to compromise on that. 

 

Maybe a cap on minimum votes. 90% for under 1,000 votes, 75% over 1000. Or perhaps it needs 50% of all eligible votes for 75%. 

Or for run of the mill motions 90%, "extraordinary" motions 75% or vice versa. 

 

I don't have the answers but I don't see why it needs to be so black and white. 

 

In general though, I think 75% is more democratic. 

[Mikey1874]

You have to vote on the link on the email. 

 

Doesn't count on here. 

[kevins_barnet]

90% - I haven’t paid into FOH for the last 6 years just to have our club sold to some American speculator who spots the opportunity to make a quick buck in Scottish football. 

[Jambof3tornado]

1 minute ago, kevins_barnet said:

90% - I haven’t paid into FOH for the last 6 years just to have our club sold to some American speculator who spots the opportunity to make a quick buck in Scottish football. 

75% stops that happening too without risking a rogue 10% group stopping potential investment??

 

 

[kingantti1874]

1 minute ago, Jambof3tornado said:

75% stops that happening too without risking a rogue 10% group stopping potential investment??

 

 

Exactly, 75% is a massive majority.. and if 75% vote then the outcome should be respected..

 

If 89% of fans wanted a sale and it was blocked it would ridiculous.. and would only serve to disenfranchise contributors

[Psychedelicropcircle]

The FOH haven’t even sat their hole on the throne yet & already asking if we’re up for not being fan owned!

 

Think they’d have asked that at the beginning?

 

who are the investors mr Wallace?

[Jambof3tornado]

4 minutes ago, Psychedelicropcircle said:

The FOH haven’t even sat their hole on the throne yet & already asking if we’re up for not being fan owned!

 

Think they’d have asked that at the beginning?

 

who are the investors mr Wallace?

I think it would take some deal on the table to get voted in to be honest.

[kevins_barnet]

9 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

75% stops that happening too without risking a rogue 10% group stopping potential investment??

 

 

It’s not 75% of all fans or members of FOH though. It is just 75% of those who vote. Only need to look at the turnout for the previous vote or attendance at AGMs to see it possibly wouldn’t take much to get the numbers. 

[Jambof3tornado]

Just now, kevins_barnet said:

It’s not 75% of all fans or members of FOH though. It is just 75% of those who vote. Only need to look at the turnout for the previous vote or attendance at AGMs to see it possibly wouldn’t take much to get the numbers. 

In a key vote most would use theirs surely?

[Don Dan]

Over and above the FoH vote other shareholders would have a say. You would have to include their views in a situation like this. 

[kevins_barnet]

18 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

In a key vote most would use theirs surely?

Always difficult to encourage people out to vote for the status quo.

 

Say in a couple of years we hit a patch of poor form similar to just now and some Craig Whyte figure turns up promising the world in exchange for giving up our fan ownership - how many folk do you think would vote to sell?

 

In October, how many folk do you think would have been happy to sell the club to someone if they promised to get rid of Levein?

 

What is being advocated here is the opportunity to experience short term success with an investor at the expense of long term fan ownership. 
 

Fan ownership is forever, for all of us. I have paid into FOH for my kids, I want them to continue owning the club once I’m gone and their kids after them. 

Edited February 10, 2020 by kevins_barnet
wrong word

[ToadKiller Dog]

1 minute ago, kevins_barnet said:

Always difficult to encourage people out to vote for the status quo.

 

Say in a couple of years we hit a patch of poor form similar to just now and some Craig Whyte figure turns up promising the world in exchange for giving up our fan ownership - how many folk do you think would vote to sell?

 

In October, how many folk do you think would have been happy to sell the club to someone if they promised to get rid of Levein?

 

What is being advocated here is the opportunity to experience short term expense with an investor at the expense of long term fan ownership. 
 

Fan ownership is forever, for all of us. I have paid into FOH for my kids, I want them to continue owning the club once I’m gone and their kids after them. 

I'm with you 

[Snedescu]

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

Anyone have any further details about this?

[Poseidon]

Some of the contributions should be being ringfenced in case large capital projects come up. Not pissing it all on the first team then having to sell chunks off to Americans.

 

I never want to be in a position where we have to sell so 90% for me.

[Poseidon]

19 minutes ago, kevins_barnet said:

Always difficult to encourage people out to vote for the status quo.

 

Say in a couple of years we hit a patch of poor form similar to just now and some Craig Whyte figure turns up promising the world in exchange for giving up our fan ownership - how many folk do you think would vote to sell?

 

In October, how many folk do you think would have been happy to sell the club to someone if they promised to get rid of Levein?

 

What is being advocated here is the opportunity to experience short term success with an investor at the expense of long term fan ownership. 
 

Fan ownership is forever, for all of us. I have paid into FOH for my kids, I want them to continue owning the club once I’m gone and their kids after them. 

Well said

[redjambo]

You know the situation where some votes in the SPFL need 11 votes to 1 to pass and thus the Old Firm can easily (and very happily) veto all the other clubs? Well that is similar to having a 90% majority on the Foundation vote.

 

I can imagine that 75% would be very difficult to obtain in real life given the number of members who wouldn't want to sell to anther owner, no matter what. 90% would be nigh-on impossible.

 

In saying that, I assume that such a vote would be put to all members in a postal/online ballot where members have a specific (and lengthy) period in which to cast their votes. This period of voting must be long enough to allow all members who want to vote to do so, including those members living around the world. I would have thought that this period of voting and other technicalities (such as the system used and the information that should be provided to the members) should be agreed on as part of the 75%/90% decision and written down on tablets of stone. If not, an unscrupulous organiser (not that any exist, of course, but you always have to prepare for eventualities) could organise a meeting at very short notice and thus limit the opportunities of those who want to vote. Here's hoping, for example, that the one-week period used for the present consultation is not representative of how things will be done.

 

All in my opinion, of course.

[Bend It Like Barasa]

47 minutes ago, kevins_barnet said:

Always difficult to encourage people out to vote for the status quo.

 

Say in a couple of years we hit a patch of poor form similar to just now and some Craig Whyte figure turns up promising the world in exchange for giving up our fan ownership - how many folk do you think would vote to sell?

 

In October, how many folk do you think would have been happy to sell the club to someone if they promised to get rid of Levein?

 

What is being advocated here is the opportunity to experience short term success with an investor at the expense of long term fan ownership. 
 

Fan ownership is forever, for all of us. I have paid into FOH for my kids, I want them to continue owning the club once I’m gone and their kids after them. 

Good post. I agree with you. 

[Poseidon]

My son has also voted 90% 👍

[Saint Jambo]

18 minutes ago, redjambo said:

You know the situation where some votes in the SPFL need 11 votes to 1 to pass and thus the Old Firm can easily (and very happily) veto all the other clubs? Well that is similar to having a 90% majority on the Foundation vote.

 

I can imagine that 75% would be very difficult to obtain in real life given the number of members who wouldn't want to sell to anther owner, no matter what. 90% would be nigh-on impossible.

 

In saying that, I assume that such a vote would be put to all members in a postal/online ballot where members have a specific (and lengthy) period in which to cast their votes. This period of voting must be long enough to allow all members who want to vote to do so, including those members living around the world. I would have thought that this period of voting and other technicalities (such as the system used and the information that should be provided to the members) should be agreed on as part of the 75%/90% decision and written down on tablets of stone. If not, an unscrupulous organiser (not that any exist, of course, but you always have to prepare for eventualities) could organise a meeting at very short notice and thus limit the opportunities of those who want to vote. Here's hoping, for example, that the one-week period used for the present consultation is not representative of how things will be done.

 

All in my opinion, of course.

 

A number of posters have now made this comparison to the SPFL 11-1 voting model. But I really don't think it is a good analogy. The reason the SPFL voting structure is a serious issue is that all members have a self-interested motivation for voting. Scottish football has structural and historical issues why the self-interest of two clubs requires a very different approach from the self-interest of the rest of the clubs. Therefore, a voting system that requires all bar one club to vote in favour effectively vetos any change that isn't in the interest of those two clubs.

 

In the case of FOH, the self-interests of all members are the same - the success of Hearts. While they may disagree on how to achieve that, all members are effectively trying to achieve the same thing.

[redjambo]

4 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

A number of posters have now made this comparison to the SPFL 11-1 voting model. But I really don't think it is a good analogy. The reason the SPFL voting structure is a serious issue is that all members have a self-interested motivation for voting. Scottish football has structural and historical issues why the self-interest of two clubs requires a very different approach from the self-interest of the rest of the clubs. Therefore, a voting system that requires all bar one club to vote in favour effectively vetos any change that isn't in the interest of those two clubs.

 

In the case of FOH, the self-interests of all members are the same - the success of Hearts. While they may disagree on how to achieve that, all members are effectively trying to achieve the same thing.

 

Yup, I only just saw the other, busier, thread.

 

All members are effectively trying to achieve the same thing, but they may have different ideas on how to achieve that as you say. Some may feel that a very wealthy benefactor would be a better bet if the possibility comes around. The bar should never be set so high that change is nigh-on unobtainable without North Korea election-type results.

 

Personally, I would rather the club stayed in the hands of the fans for all time, but times change and you don't want to hamstring yourself regarding future possibilities.

[luckydug]

Keep the vote at 90%.

We have been stung too many times in the past. We are well capable of generating enough cash ourselves to compete in Scotland.

Why take the risk? 

 

[1971fozzy]

90%
never again

[1971fozzy]

1 hour ago, kevins_barnet said:

Always difficult to encourage people out to vote for the status quo.

 

Say in a couple of years we hit a patch of poor form similar to just now and some Craig Whyte figure turns up promising the world in exchange for giving up our fan ownership - how many folk do you think would vote to sell?

 

In October, how many folk do you think would have been happy to sell the club to someone if they promised to get rid of Levein?

 

What is being advocated here is the opportunity to experience short term success with an investor at the expense of long term fan ownership. 
 

Fan ownership is forever, for all of us. I have paid into FOH for my kids, I want them to continue owning the club once I’m gone and their kids after them. 

could not put it better. Well said sir

[1971fozzy]

What’s to stop infiltrators pledging and making up numbers. I mean what’s the point in it all if not to protect this club. We pay in to protect it from the Craig whites / Ronald Gordon’s etc.

come on people. Don’t let it even be an option. 90% minimum 

Edited February 11, 2020 by 1971fozzy

[Guest ToqueJambo]

4 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

See this email and vote your preference. 
 

 

OUR GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK – HAVE YOUR SAY ON THE SUPERMAJORITY Dear Member We have decided to revisit an important aspect of our future governance arrangements, and we would like your views.  We attach a short Q&A with this email, the background to which is set out below. 1.    What’s this all about? Our future governance arrangements contain a restriction on any disposal of the Foundation’s shares in the Club acquired from Bidco.  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%? 2.    Why is the board re-opening this topic now? The review is prompted by two factors.  Firstly, feedback at the AGM in December.  At that meeting, we were urged to look again at the issue, with views being expressed that 90% was too high.  Secondly, awareness of investment trends in Scottish football (see 5.3 below). We have a window in which to address the topic.  At present, if we decide to change the majority requirement, we need a 75% vote in favour at a general meeting of members.  However, once the ownership of the Club passes to the Foundation (an event scheduled for April), we would need a 90% vote in favour at a general meeting and the logistics of organising that meeting become more complicated.  It therefore makes sense to review the issue over the next few weeks. 3.    Was the 90% requirement discussed in the governance consultation? Yes.  The 90% requirement was part of our governance proposals throughout the consultation process which ran from April 2017 to November 2018.  At that time, this particular point generated little, if any, comment. At the end of the consultation period, the members overwhelmingly approved the final proposals.  This approval related to the proposals in their totality, and there were no separate votes on any constituent elements of the proposals.  The request raised at the AGM is effectively that the 90% requirement should now be considered separately. 4.    What are the arguments in favour of a 90% requirement? [Note: the discussion in 4 and 5 below is framed in terms of the Foundation transferring majority ownership to a new owner.  An alternative scenario of the Foundation transferring a minority interest is, however, also possible.  The 90% approval requirement would extend to that latter scenario.] 4.1    Transferring majority ownership of the Club to a new owner would undoubtedly be the biggest collective decision the Foundation members would ever take. We would be deciding who the new owner should be, with all the responsibility that places on us.  We would have to decide - are they the right people to own the Club?  Will they have the best interests of the Club at heart, and do they have the financial backing to sustain the Club financially? A decision of this importance should only be taken with the support of a substantial majority of the voting members. 4.2    A meeting to consider a proposed transfer would be organised so as to maximise the voter turnout.  Early voting (electronically or by mail) would be possible, as well as voting at the meeting in person or by proxy.  A good turnout of members would reduce the risk of a small unrepresentative group of dissident members being able to block the sale.  See 5.1 below. 5.    What are the arguments against a 90% requirement? 5.1    A 90% majority requirement increases the risk of a small and unrepresentative minority being able to block a sale which might be supported by a large majority of members.  Depending on the overall size of the Foundation membership at the time and the proportion of that membership which participates in the vote, the fate of the Club could be decided by a small number of people.  This risk would be reduced if the majority requirement was 75%. 5.2    Football regulation has mechanisms to protect clubs against unscrupulous or untrustworthy individuals acquiring ownership.  A prospective owner or director must be a fit and proper person, and financial regulations are designed to stop clubs careering into financial turmoil.  It is an exaggeration, therefore, to say that a supermajority is required to provide this protection. [Note: Having said this, it has been suggested at times that the regulatory protections are insufficient in practice, in that prospective owners are not effectively vetted by the football authorities, while financial regulations are subject to numerous caveats and are not strictly enforced.  The shortcomings were highlighted by Bury FC, which was expelled from the English Football League in 2019 as a direct result of poor ownership and longstanding financial problems.] 5.3    The Scottish football scene has changed in the past 12-18 months.  There has been an increase in external investment into our clubs.  A lot of this investment has come from overseas, particularly the US.  Scottish clubs are currently seen as viable assets to attract long-term investment.  The Scottish Premiership is a very competitive league and the pressure on owners to maintain investment and keep pace with their rivals is intense.  If a need for unplanned capital expenditure arises at a club, the fan ownership model is generally not regarded as well-suited to deliver funding. Approaches to the Club by potential investors have already been made (through Bidco).  If this current climate in Scottish football continues, it is possible that such approaches might start to arrive with even greater frequency. Against that background, it is arguable that a 75% majority requirement would be more appropriate and more in keeping with normal business practice.  It provides greater flexibility and room for manoeuvre, while nevertheless still requiring a substantial majority in favour of a sale. 6.    How will the views of members on this issue be sought? We are going to conduct an online survey of our members over a one-week period.  Members will be asked to indicate which majority requirement – 90% or 75% - they favour.  There is also space in the survey to tell us about any comments, questions or concerns you may have.  We will anonymise the identities of respondents. Click Here to access the survey form. Please enter the email address associated with your FoH Account. You can complete the survey on your computer or mobile phone.  The survey is open now and will close at 5.00pm on Monday 17 February.  We will release the result of the survey shortly afterwards. 7.    After the survey has been completed, what will happen next? The survey will be consultative only.  It will inform the decision-making process, as the directors will pay close attention to members’ views, especially if a significant proportion of members have participated. If the directors conclude that the 90% majority requirement should be retained in its present form, no further action will be needed, as the requirement is already part of the future governance structure. If the directors conclude that a 75% majority requirement is more appropriate, it will be necessary to alter the articles of association, and we will convene a general meeting of members for that purpose.  For reasons explained in 2 above, we would seek to do that before the Foundation acquires majority ownership of the Club. I hope you will take the opportunity to give us your views. Regards Stuart Wallace Chair, Foundation of Hearts 10 February 2020 Copyright © 2020 Foundation of Hearts. All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: Foundation of Hearts Limited, c/o Heart of Midlothian Football Club, Tynecastle Park, Gorgie Road, EDINBURGH EH11 2NL   unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences

 

90% for the reasons laid out in 4.1 primarily.

 

The arguments in favour of 75% are very weak and unsubstantiated for me.

 

5.1 This is very unlikely. If the proposed owner is good enough to get 89% more than likely it would pass pretty much unanimously. The vast majority would be spending lots of time winning over any sceptics.

 

5.2 These measures don't work. Evidence: Romanov and many others. The motives of the Hibs and D Utd American owners are still murky some time after they took over.

 

5.3 Scottish football has NOT changed that much in 12-18 months. The same two clubs are in the top 2 positions and the rest are fighting it out. The only outlier is ourselves after an unusually bad 18 months. Apart from that it's business as usual. Aberdeen have been getting unprecedented funding for years now and they're currently behind fan owned Motherwell. What makes Scottish football so attractive now? Nothing has changed? Arguably the time to invest was when Rangers were in the doldrums. We're also potentially facing another 2008-like economic collapse.

 

In any case, yes you could say some foreign investment has come into Scottish football the last couple of years but fans have also stepped up to take ownership. Time will tell which is better long-term but there's plenty of evidence rich (according to themselves) owners promising the earth never ends well. That's the whole point of FoH.

 

The other consideration is that fan ownership is growing in popularity. That's what we want - 100% fan owned clubs I the league. If a successful scheme like ours sells out to the first American waving big wads of cash there's no hope for fan ownership as a whole.

 

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Mr Sifter]

90% for me. Not interested in ever selling out. Fan owned forever more for me. 

[Leveins Battalion]

The Scottish football scene has changed,weve been left behind,but not due to the FOH or club funding.Weve been left behind due to incompetant management.

 

Not quite sure how 100k plus a month form the FOH cant be seen as a viable income?And that we should consider foreign investment?

 

I all for extra funding but not at the expense of selling shares.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I'm going 75% but I'm not really that bothered one way or the other.

[davemclaren]

4 minutes ago, Leveins Battalion said:

The Scottish football scene has changed,weve been left behind,but not due to the FOH or club funding.Weve been left behind due to incompetant management.

 

Not quite sure how 100k plus a month form the FOH cant be seen as a viable income?And that we should consider foreign investment?

 

I all for extra funding but not at the expense of selling shares.

It’s not about making that decision it’s about allowing reasonable flexibility in the future for the members of FoH, at that time, to react to possible changing circumstances imo. 

[Poseidon]

We have a brilliant new main stand with loads of extra revenue streams on top of 13k season tickets. I would envisage this being the 3rd highest revenue in Scotland and more than enough to be challenging for 3rd every season and the cups. Occasuonally we'll even push the OF. If we supplement that with about half the FoH contributions then we will be in the best position financially we have ever been.

 

If FoH can keep some of the contributions back for a rainy day fund then we will be in a position to pay for extra stuff as and when its needed.

 

Not heard a single arguement against that plan or a compelling reason we'd want to consider selling.

 

[davemclaren]

3 minutes ago, Poseidon said:

We have a brilliant new main stand with loads of extra revenue streams on top of 13k season tickets. I would envisage this being the 3rd highest revenue in Scotland and more than enough to be challenging for 3rd every season and the cups. Occasuonally we'll even push the OF. If we supplement that with about half the FoH contributions then we will be in the best position financially we have ever been.

 

If FoH can keep some of the contributions back for a rainy day fund then we will be in a position to pay for extra stuff as and when its needed.

 

Not heard a single arguement against that plan or a compelling reason we'd want to consider selling.

 

There us no compelling reason, at the moment. 

[Poseidon]

11 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

There us no compelling reason, at the moment. 

Correct. And I've not seen a good future argument put forward either.  Even if FoH contributions dropped to zero (which they won't) we've still got a big advantage over 7/8 other teams in the league.

[David McCaig]

8 hours ago, 1971fozzy said:

What’s to stop infiltrators pledging and making up numbers. I mean what’s the point in it all if not to protect this club. We pay in to protect it from the Craig whites / Ronald Gordon’s etc.

come on people. Don’t let it even be an option. 90% minimum 

90% would actually make it easier for "infiltrators" to stymie any progressive change at the club!!

[Ribble]

12 hours ago, Sir Gio said:

Going to be close. 

 

Gone 90, we could always change that at a later date I assume. 

 

Feeling a bit too much too soon gut feeling,  but not got experience to have a strong view 

 

 

 

To change it after the transfer of ownership would require 90% to vote for the change to 75%

[Unknown user]

25 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

There us no compelling reason, at the moment. 

Exactly, it doesn't mean there will never be a compelling reason though.

[Ribble]

10 hours ago, Snedescu said:

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

Anyone have any further details about this?

 

Pretty sure one was Ron Gordon before he settled for the scum!

 

People should also remember this isn't just about FOH selling all our shares to an investor but the 90/75% vote would be required to sell any shares. Would folk be so against us say selling 10% of the shares (still leaving FOH as the majority shareholder) for a huge investment into the club by a Man City type club, bearing in mind that the current benefactors may not be so generous as and when Ann Budge's tenure ends?

[Poseidon]

6 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Exactly, it doesn't mean there will never be a compelling reason though.

Give me an example of a compelling reason that might change my mind