Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dannie Boy

FoH disposal of shares.

FoH GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK – HAVE YOUR SAY ON THE SUPERMAJORITY  

280 members have voted

  1. 1. Which way will you vote.

    • 90%
      107
    • 75%
      173


Recommended Posts

Poseidon
5 minutes ago, Ribble said:

 

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?

We need to be able to stand on our own two feet.

 

Man City invest massively in our club for a 10% share - yeah, and pigs will fly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambogaza

Voted 75%.

 

That’s still a high percentage and it leaves open the possibility for change - who know what the next 5, 10 or 15 years will bring. 

 

Yes we need to protect ourselves against dodgy foreign investment but we shouldn't completely isolate ourselves from that market.

 

I'd be open to a scenario, for example, where we have a significant minority shareholder. 5 years under the spot light then sell enough shares to give him or her a majority. There are different ways to do it, if an appropriate opportunity came up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
1 hour ago, Smithee said:

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

Totally agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Fox

75% ..... gives flexibility that may be required in future years - I trust 75% of FOH Members to make the correct decision (if and when one has to be made).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
colinmaroon

Somewhat reluctantly I have gone for 75%

 

Seeing what a small minority of bottom dwellers can do on here makes me very wary of putting too much power in the hands of only 10% of the vote.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Gio
2 hours ago, Ribble said:

 

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

Fair point of course 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TynieJT

If the FOH did sell some of the shares, where would the money go? Initially it would presumably go into the FOH coffers, then what. Would it be donated to the club as a one off payment, or repaid to those of us who bought the shares in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
7 hours ago, Poseidon said:

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

 

No offence mate but if you don't see what people are getting at I'm not going to waste my energy on hypothetical situations for you to pick apart. 

 

Some will never be persuaded, no matter what, that's pretty much the point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
22 minutes ago, TynieJT said:

If the FOH did sell some of the shares, where would the money go? Initially it would presumably go into the FOH coffers, then what. Would it be donated to the club as a one off payment, or repaid to those of us who bought the shares in the first place?

 

That would be part of the conversation if something came along - if we wanted to sell, say, 10% to allow an investor a foothold we could do it on the basis the funds go to the club, for example. 

 

It's not really the point though, all we're talking about here is having the door left ajar for future possibilities, no one's committing to anything or arranging anything, and given how skittish we are it would have to be a very very attractive proposition to get 75% of us onboard anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Slim Stylee

Voted for 75% but I believe 75% is still too high. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Fox
43 minutes ago, TynieJT said:

If the FOH did sell some of the shares, where would the money go? Initially it would presumably go into the FOH coffers, then what. Would it be donated to the club as a one off payment, or repaid to those of us who bought the shares in the first place?

Covered in constitution (or whatever it’s called) .... does not go back to those that contributed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eyesandears

75%. Still high enough bar to withstand opportunists but allows us a realistic threshold to engage with genuine investors. 

 

Fan owned is not enough for me. Fan owned and footballing success is the aim.

 

If we can't deliver trophies as a fan owned club then we should engage with investors that can deliver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Slim Stylee
17 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

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.

 

I think you’re right. I’d be surprised if we’re majority fan-owned a decade hence, tbh. We’ll hit a ceiling -as we always have done in my lifetime- and we’re a very demanding support.

 

If the opportunity to challenge further was on the table, it would be a close run thing. 

 

I understand the “never in this position again” ideals but they’ll erode over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Frenchman Returns

Undecided, have only skimmed the debate, as long as this is not a vehicle to allow Budge to cheaply buy more shares I am leaning towards 75%

Edited by The Frenchman Returns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToqueJambo
24 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

That would be part of the conversation if something came along - if we wanted to sell, say, 10% to allow an investor a foothold we could do it on the basis the funds go to the club, for example. 

 

It's not really the point though, all we're talking about here is having the door left ajar for future possibilities, no one's committing to anything or arranging anything, and given how skittish we are it would have to be a very very attractive proposition to get 75% of us onboard anyway. 

 

Asked this on the other thread. What future possibilities could we miss out on? We've seen multiple shysters and criminals pass through Scottish football promising the earth and destroying clubs - both foreign and local.

 

Why would anyone invest in Scottish football when the game is run for the Old Firm and MASSIVE sustained investment is needed to just get close to them. Maybe if there were 5 European spots again, but there are only one non-OF spot for these lower level investors to fight over.

 

Investors like the HIbs guy want complete control so they can make decisions for THEIR benefit primarily. They want to be able to sell and get out quickly if they need to. And if they can't sell the club, they want to asset strip. A fan owned club always has the interests of the club at heart first.

 

I'd rather vote to use FoH funds for playing budget before leaving ourselves open to another chancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Slim Stylee
22 minutes ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

Undecided, have only skimmed the debate, as long as this is not a vehicle to allow Budge to cheaply buy more shares I am leaning towards 75%

 

Dear God! Why comment if you’re really that ignorant of a 7 year process?? That’s just utterly laughable 😀😀😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
38 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Asked this on the other thread. What future possibilities could we miss out on? We've seen multiple shysters and criminals pass through Scottish football promising the earth and destroying clubs - both foreign and local.

 

Why would anyone invest in Scottish football when the game is run for the Old Firm and MASSIVE sustained investment is needed to just get close to them. Maybe if there were 5 European spots again, but there are only one non-OF spot for these lower level investors to fight over.

 

Investors like the HIbs guy want complete control so they can make decisions for THEIR benefit primarily. They want to be able to sell and get out quickly if they need to. And if they can't sell the club, they want to asset strip. A fan owned club always has the interests of the club at heart first.

 

I'd rather vote to use FoH funds for playing budget before leaving ourselves open to another chancer.

Oh I dunno, say great uncle smithee dies and leaves the smithee billions to some gobshite on the internet. He wants in for all the right reasons, puts safeguards in place, ensures the club is safe and that if anything goes wrong it reverts, free of charge, back to the foh.

 

But a stubborn 10.1% say "no means no!"

 

Look how cynical we are, it would have to be one hell of a proposal to get 75% on board and that's safeguard enough I think. And anyway, to my mind if 75% of us want something that should be enough to justify it, that's fair to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToqueJambo
8 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Oh I dunno, say great uncle smithee dies and leaves the smithee billions to some gobshite on the internet. He wants in for all the right reasons, puts safeguards in place, ensures the club is safe and that if anything goes wrong it reverts, free of charge, back to the foh.

 

But a stubborn 10.1% say "no means no!"

 

Look how cynical we are, it would have to be one hell of a proposal to get 75% on board and that's safeguard enough I think. And anyway, to my mind if 75% of us want something that should be enough to justify it, that's fair to me.

 

You can invest the smithee billions now, like benefactors have given money to the club. Your return will be the joy of us winning everything.

 

The problem is that's not enough for investors in football. They either want a financial return or some sort of status or other business benefit, or it's a weird hobby. Either way it's always selfish reasons nothing to do with Hearts or football. And they'll always want out eventually. The exception is local fan investors like Budge. For me, it's partly the principle of the thing. 90% is a commitment to fan ownership which I think will be good for football in general.

 

Plus the whole idea that there are somehow all these rich people laying low waiting to invest in a Scottish football club is laughable. First it was the Russians, then the Middle East now the Americans. It's just a fad for them. Where are all the rich Scottish people? There are some but they know Scottish football and know it will a lot of money for little or no return to get anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
16 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

You can invest the smithee billions now, like benefactors have given money to the club. Your return will be the joy of us winning everything.

 

The problem is that's not enough for investors in football. They either want a financial return or some sort of status or other business benefit, or it's a weird hobby. Either way it's always selfish reasons nothing to do with Hearts or football. And they'll always want out eventually. The exception is local fan investors like Budge. For me, it's partly the principle of the thing. 90% is a commitment to fan ownership which I think will be good for football in general.

 

Plus the whole idea that there are somehow all these rich people laying low waiting to invest in a Scottish football club is laughable. First it was the Russians, then the Middle East now the Americans. It's just a fad for them. Where are all the rich Scottish people? There are some but they know Scottish football and know it will a lot of money for little or no return to get anywhere.

I get the commitment to fan ownership, that's the core of the argument, but I'm more into a commitment to the fans' voice being heard. 75% is a very fair line to say "this is what the fans want"

 

With the 90% threshold if they had a vote and a very high turnout of say 70% of 7800 members, it would mean 547 fans could shoot down the best proposal we've ever seen, - I just think it's crazy letting that kind of minority control things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToqueJambo
6 minutes ago, Smithee said:

I get the commitment to fan ownership, that's the core of the argument, but I'm more into a commitment to the fans' voice being heard. 75% is a very fair line to say "this is what the fans want"

 

With the 90% threshold if they had a vote and a very high turnout of say 70% of 7800 members, it would mean 547 fans could shoot down the best proposal we've ever seen, - I just think it's crazy letting that kind of minority control things.

 

Possibly 75% would be a good enough safeguard but possibly not. For me the risk of getting the wrong person in is bigger than any possible return. And experience tells us there are more bad (or just incompetent and unrealistic) investors than good ones out there. The timing of this suggests that investors (very possibly American) are hovering, but that just means some people see a chance to make some money (where they get that idea from who knows!) and are jumping on the bandwagon.

 

I fail to see the great benefits. Large SMG and Romanov investments in the past didn't exactly herald great new eras. We won't win more cups with investment. That just needs a decent cup run and building up some momentum. Any Hearts team could win the cup with a bit of luck, including this season's team. As for the league, Aberdeen are proving that massive investment can lead to **** all at the end of the day. One LC in god knows how many years and currently trailing fan-owned Motherwell. As for Hibs, they abandoned possible fan ownership for what.... no-one knows yet because their owner and his motives is a mystery. It seems very likely he tried to get in with us before Hibs, suggesting he just wanted a Scottish football team because the latest American rich person's hobby is buying UK football teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
Just now, ToqueJambo said:

 

Possibly 75% would be a good enough safeguard but possibly not. For me the risk of getting the wrong person in is bigger than any possible return. And experience tells us there are more bad (or just incompetent and unrealistic) investors than good ones out there. The timing of this suggests that investors (very possibly American) are hovering, but that just means some people see a chance to make some money (where they get that idea from who knows!) and are jumping on the bandwagon.

 

I fail to see the great benefits. Large SMG and Romanov investments in the past didn't exactly herald great new eras. We won't win more cups with investment. That just needs a decent cup run and building up some momentum. Any Hearts team could win the cup with a bit of luck, including this season's team. As for the league, Aberdeen are proving that massive investment can lead to **** all at the end of the day. One LC in god knows how many years and currently trailing fan-owned Motherwell. As for Hibs, they abandoned possible fan ownership for what.... no-one knows yet because their owner and his motives is a mystery. It seems very likely he tried to get in with us before Hibs, suggesting he just wanted a Scottish football team because the latest American rich person's hobby is buying UK football teams.

And there's no way these guys would get 75% backing so job done. A proposal would have to be sturdy as **** with cast iron legal guarantees to safeguard the club, the ground etc to get 75% backing, I don't think many would take it lightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToqueJambo
12 minutes ago, Smithee said:

And there's no way these guys would get 75% backing so job done. A proposal would have to be sturdy as **** with cast iron legal guarantees to safeguard the club, the ground etc to get 75% backing, I don't think many would take it lightly.

 

You're probably right. I question why we bothered with the whole fan ownership thing in the first place though. And the reasons to switch to 75% laid out in the email were very weak and unsubstantiated.  I mean we have a great stadium - what other "large capital outlay" should we expect? 

 

On the other hand this reason they gave to stick with 90% is very compelling so I voted 90%:

 

"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 ClubWill 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."

 

And if they've had approaches tell us what they were, how much and what type of person. Would they have been suitable to put to a vote or were they chancers? I guess they can't tell us details but some more info would help people assess the supposed "opportunities" out there.

Edited by ToqueJambo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToqueJambo
21 hours ago, Jambof3tornado said:

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

 

 

 

Why would 10% block it if it's that great? The vast majority voted for the stadium revamp despite lots of people being against and questioning the investment. 

 

If it's a strong enough proposal it'll get majority backing. What the 90% means is the investor HAS to make it as strong a proposal as possible if they want the deal to be done. 

 

Basically the message we'd be sending is - if you want to be part of our club you have to be the absolute bees knees. None of this oh we're going to develop players and sell them for a profit nonsense. You have to give us money in the knowledge that you probably won't get it back and be happy with that.

 

So it's in our interests to keep it at 90%. Also, for fan ownership to work we really need to commit to it. 

Edited by ToqueJambo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
4 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

You're probably right. I question why we bothered with the whole fan ownership thing in the first place though. And the reasons to switch to 75% laid out in the email were very weak and unsubstantiated.  I mean we have a great stadium - what other "large capital outlay" should we expect? 

 

On the other hand this reason they gave to stick with 90% is very compelling so I voted 90%:

 

"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 ClubWill 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."

 

And if they've had approaches tell us what they were, how much and what type of person. Would they have been suitable to put to a vote or were they chancers? I guess they can't tell us details but some more info would help people assess the supposed "opportunities" out there.

 

I totally get the caginess, but that's exactly why 75% would be enough - imagine how good something would have to be to convince 75%! I'm wary as **** as well and I'd want to know everything, bloody everything before I gave a thumbs up.

 

90% means a few hundred could stand in the way of what the fanbase want for whatever reason, noble or stubborn or whatever and I don't think that's right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToqueJambo
6 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I totally get the caginess, but that's exactly why 75% would be enough - imagine how good something would have to be to convince 75%! I'm wary as **** as well and I'd want to know everything, bloody everything before I gave a thumbs up.

 

90% means a few hundred could stand in the way of what the fanbase want for whatever reason, noble or stubborn or whatever and I don't think that's right.

 

I question whether they would though. I mean if this proposal is that great and 75% and over are madly backing it, those people will be under immense pressure from their pals and on this forum and elsewhere to vote for it. The 90% just adds that extra bit of security and sends out the message that we really want to be a fan-owned club.

 

I mean some people seemed to be against FoH and even seemed to try to scupper it. But it was such a great idea that most people saw that and it happened in the end.

Edited by ToqueJambo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kingantti1874

In any democracy 75% is a massive majority - 89% is a ludicrous majority and pretty much unheard off.

 

if 89% of hearts fans wanted something to happen and it was blocked by 11%  who felt differently (maybe for entirely legitimate reasons - not undermining that) then FOH would collapse overnight.

 

you cannot go against the majority of that size without dire consequences - why would anyone continue to voluntarily donate under those circumstances.? 

 

you may feel that a sale should never be considered regardless of the circumstances, however personal opinion on the a prospective sale and the governance structure of the club are two different things.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToqueJambo
1 minute ago, kingantti1874 said:

In any democracy 75% is a massive majority - 89% is a ludicrous majority and pretty much unheard off.

 

if 89% of hearts fans wanted something to happen and it was blocked by 11%  who felt differently (maybe for entirely legitimate reasons - not undermining that) then FOH would collapse overnight.

 

you cannot go against the majority of that size without dire consequences - why would anyone continue to voluntarily donate under those circumstances.? 

 

you may feel that a sale should never be considered regardless of the circumstances, however personal opinion on the a prospective sale and the governance structure of the club are two different things.

 

 

People already have been donating with the 90% in place. In your scenario I find it impossible to believe 89% of fans wouldn't be able to push this "imaginary massive investment by someone with the club's interests at heart and who wants no financial return" over the line and convince the ones holding out. 

Edited by ToqueJambo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
3 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

I question whether they would though. I mean if this proposal is that great and 75% and over are madly backing it, those people will be under immense pressure from their pals and on this forum and elsewhere to vote for it. The 90% just adds that extra bit of security and sends out the message that we really want to be a fan-owned club.

 

TBH I don't particularly care about being fan owned, I care about what's best for the club. Right now being fan owned seems best but I dont think anything should be locked down forever and I think there probably are a few hundred who would stick to the principle over what I would see as the practical.

75% represents fairly the will of the fans IMO 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
2 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

In any democracy 75% is a massive majority - 89% is a ludicrous majority and pretty much unheard off.

 

if 89% of hearts fans wanted something to happen and it was blocked by 11%  who felt differently (maybe for entirely legitimate reasons - not undermining that) then FOH would collapse overnight.

 

you cannot go against the majority of that size without dire consequences - why would anyone continue to voluntarily donate under those circumstances.? 

 

you may feel that a sale should never be considered regardless of the circumstances, however personal opinion on the a prospective sale and the governance structure of the club are two different things.

 

Good post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToqueJambo
2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

TBH I don't particularly care about being fan owned, I care about what's best for the club. Right now being fan owned seems best but I dont think anything should be locked down forever and I think there probably are a few hundred who would stick to the principle over what I would see as the practical.

75% represents fairly the will of the fans IMO 

 

All I want is the 51% fan-owned minimum so we don't fall into the wrong hands. I wish all clubs had to do that. Something like that works in Germany. But this proposal doesn't seem to guarantee 51% being kept in fan hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
4 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

All I want is the 51% fan-owned minimum so we don't fall into the wrong hands. I wish all clubs had to do that. Something like that works in Germany. But this proposal doesn't seem to guarantee 51% being kept in fan hands.

Neither does the 90% proposal, to be fair. 

Share this post


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

 

TBH I don't particularly care about being fan owned, I care about what's best for the club. Right now being fan owned seems best but I dont think anything should be locked down forever and I think there probably are a few hundred who would stick to the principle over what I would see as the practical.

75% represents fairly the will of the fans IMO 

I agree. None if us no where football

in Scotland will be in 30 to 50 years time? Who could have predicted in the 59s the wealth that subscription tv would bring to the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToqueJambo
1 minute ago, davemclaren said:

Neither does the 90% proposal, to be fair. 

 

True! But it feels more secure. As being discussed it would have to be a shit hot opportunity with a bunch of safeguards to get 90%, whereas a riskier,  just OK opportunity could be enough to convince 75%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToqueJambo
3 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I agree. None if us no where football

in Scotland will be in 30 to 50 years time? Who could have predicted in the 59s the wealth that subscription tv would bring to the game?

 

Has that wealth improved the game though? I watch more football on TV these days but enjoyed it more 30 years ago with more competitive leagues and fewer preening, overpaid footballers. I see fan ownership as a chance to return to those days, if enough clubs buy into it. That's the challenge and maybe that's the fear of people looking at Hibs and Aberdeen. Think we should stick to our guns personally or at least give it a while at 90% and then review things after all the massive investment opportunities have presented themselves. This feels like giving up on the idea of fan ownership before we've even tried it.

 

Maybe it would be prudent to see how things pan out at D Utd, Hibs and Aberdeen before making any big changes.

Edited by ToqueJambo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
2 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

True! But it feels more secure. As being discussed it would have to be a shit hot opportunity with a bunch of safeguards to get 90%, whereas a riskier,  just OK opportunity could be enough to convince 75%.

There’s no denying it’s a significantly higher barrier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
1 minute ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Has that wealth improved the game though? I watch more football on TV these days but enjoyed it more 30 years ago with more competitive leagues and fewer preening, overpaid footballers. I see fan ownership as a chance to return to those days, if enough clubs buy into it. That's the challenge and maybe that's the fear of people looking at Hibs and Aberdeen. Think we should stick to our guns personally or at least give it a while at 90% and then review things after all the massive investment opportunities have presented themselves. This feels like giving up on the idea of fan ownership before we've even tried it.

 

Maybe it would be prudent to see how things pan out at D Utd, Hibs and Aberdeen before making any big changes.

There are no changes proposed though except to the voting rules. Once it’s set at 90% it needs 90% to change it  

 

There is no offer on the table, at the moment.  I think people are more cautious now than they will be in 20/30 years as the pain and worries of administration start to fade out of living memory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Fox
2 hours ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

Undecided, have only skimmed the debate, as long as this is not a vehicle to allow Budge to cheaply buy more shares I am leaning towards 75%

Ooohhhhh Ann Budge yes please, bring her on!!
 

But she MUST pay the ‘market rate’. In Ann I trust!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToqueJambo
7 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

There are no changes proposed though except to the voting rules. Once it’s set at 90% it needs 90% to change it  

 

There is no offer on the table, at the moment.  I think people are more cautious now than they will be in 20/30 years as the pain and worries of administration start to fade out of living memory. 

 

Definitely. I'm still in shock at Hearts nearly going under. Anyhow, have voted 90% so we'll see what happens. I'm very skeptical about all these supposed hovering investors though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kingantti1874
39 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

People already have been donating with the 90% in place. In your scenario I find it impossible to believe 89% of fans wouldn't be able to push this "imaginary massive investment by someone with the club's interests at heart and who wants no financial return" over the line and convince the ones holding out. 


Even if 76% voted for change which was rejected you’d see drop outs..

 

Ignoring the wishes of such a large majority isn’t democratic, and for FOH to be successful long term is has to be fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToqueJambo
2 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:


Even if 76% voted for change which was rejected you’d see drop outs..

 

Ignoring the wishes of such a large majority isn’t democratic, and for FOH to be successful long term is has to be fair.

 

I disagree. As FoH themselves said in the email, it's the biggest decision FoH would ever have to make. My take is that 90% forces potential investors to come up with the best possible proposal to get it through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sandylejambo

90% for me, I just got ownership, I'm not ever going to put the club in the hands of another Robinson, nobody is just giving us money for nothing. unless like me they love the club, there will always be a price to pay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kingantti1874
6 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

I disagree. As FoH themselves said in the email, it's the biggest decision FoH would ever have to make. My take is that 90% forces potential investors to come up with the best possible proposal to get it through.


I think some fans would rather we remained fan owned regardless of the offer..

 

if I was one of 89% I would be extremely pissed if my wishes were blocked by a tiny minority.. in the scenario I’d pull out.

 

i don’t think I’d be alone, if a significant chunk felt the same FOH could crumble and leave the club open to an unwanted takeover..

 

getting the correct governance in place is key to long term sustainability of FOH.. 

 

I think it’s dangerous to base governance on hypothetical scenarios.. that’s not the right way

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToqueJambo
1 minute ago, kingantti1874 said:


I think some fans would rather we remained fan owned regardless of the offer..

 

if I was one of 89% I would be extremely pissed if my wishes were blocked by a tiny minority.. in the scenario I’d pull out.

 

i don’t think I’d be alone, if a significant chunk felt the same FOH could crumble and leave the club open to an unwanted takeover..

 

getting the correct governance in place is key to long term sustainability of FOH.. 

 

I think it’s dangerous to base governance on hypothetical scenarios.. that’s not the right way

 

 

 

Can we at least give it a try 😂 

 

This whole change in governance is being driven by the hypothetical scenario that some sort of Hearts-loving billionnaire is just sitting waiting by the phone for the go ahead to hand us his money for probably no return. I don't see what's wrong with forcing him to convince 90% instead of 75% of his intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kingantti1874
2 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Can we at least give it a try 😂 

 

This whole change in governance is being driven by the hypothetical scenario that some sort of Hearts-loving billionnaire is just sitting waiting by the phone for the go ahead to hand us his money for probably no return. I don't see what's wrong with forcing him to convince 90% instead of 75% of his intentions.


agree - it’d have to take something very special for me to consider voting yes in such a scenario.. however my opinion shouldn’t be worth more than your or anyone else’s .. 

 

I get that people think 90% would protect the club, that’s the obvious conclusion- I’m just saying that in reality, such a ludicrous majority may prove to be counter productive and actually undermine the thing you are trying to protect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToqueJambo
9 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:


agree - it’d have to take something very special for me to consider voting yes in such a scenario.. however my opinion shouldn’t be worth more than your or anyone else’s .. 

 

I get that people think 90% would protect the club, that’s the obvious conclusion- I’m just saying that in reality, such a ludicrous majority may prove to be counter productive and actually undermine the thing you are trying to protect. 

 

Totally get your view. The counter argument is that the 75% could be counter productive in that we could end up accepting a worse offer than if we forced a buyer to convince 90%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kingantti1874
8 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Totally get your view. The counter argument is that the 75% could be counter productive in that we could end up accepting a worse offer than if we forced a buyer to convince 90%.


it’s not a simple question tbh.. hopefully people think it through 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
waynefozzie

I voted 90%. I've been contributing because I understood that, along with thousands of others, I was going to own our club and safeguard it for future generations. I didn't plan on helping to buy it as gift for some billionaire. It's not right that so many people have given from their limited resources and that they should receive nothing back if what they've enabled to be built is sold to someone who sees a way to make money out of us. And if in the future some people want to leave a fan ownership scheme because they don't want it to be a fan ownership scheme, then obviously they could and should leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambof3tornado
2 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Why would 10% block it if it's that great? The vast majority voted for the stadium revamp despite lots of people being against and questioning the investment. 

 

If it's a strong enough proposal it'll get majority backing. What the 90% means is the investor HAS to make it as strong a proposal as possible if they want the deal to be done. 

 

Basically the message we'd be sending is - if you want to be part of our club you have to be the absolute bees knees. None of this oh we're going to develop players and sell them for a profit nonsense. You have to give us money in the knowledge that you probably won't get it back and be happy with that.

 

So it's in our interests to keep it at 90%. Also, for fan ownership to work we really need to commit to it. 

I'm as committed to it as the next man but see no need to have a 90% requirement when 75 is more than enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jr ewing

Fan ownership is the safest route. Learn from the past and never make the same mistake ever again. We may never get a second chance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Fox
2 hours ago, kingantti1874 said:


I think some fans would rather we remained fan owned regardless of the offer..

 

if I was one of 89% I would be extremely pissed if my wishes were blocked by a tiny minority.. in the scenario I’d pull out.

 

i don’t think I’d be alone, if a significant chunk felt the same FOH could crumble and leave the club open to an unwanted takeover..

 

getting the correct governance in place is key to long term sustainability of FOH.. 

 

I think it’s dangerous to base governance on hypothetical scenarios.. that’s not the right way

 

 

👍

 

I’m sure there are some that want to be fan owned forever come what may ....

 

”aye I’m one of the 10% that blocked investment ”

 

”I can remember when we were the

third biggest club in Scotland”


“Aye we are in the second division now and struggling BUT at least we are fan owned ... cannae beat it”!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...