Present and future governance of the club.

[Cruickshankforscotland]

I have no doubt the idea of the club being “fan owned but not fan run” is correct. The present governance structure guiding the HMFC/FOH relationship is also overall sound. However, as 75% majority shareholders I do think FOH should, in principle, have the ability to have a bigger say in how the club is run. 
I have always had doubts about the 75% shareholder only having a minority number of only 2 directors on the Club board. Should FOH be in a position to have a stronger influence on the board?

The club should not be fan run, but should there be the possibility for the club to be run in a way that reflects the overall attitude of the FOH membership? The board ultimately is answerable to the shareholders, and have a responsibility to reflect their attitudes/views. They must be accountable to the majority shareholder. 
The question of how FOH gather and react/respond to the membership views/attitudes is another big question. I think FOH have to address this question as a priority.

[Thomaso]

1 minute ago, John mcCartney said:

Its beyond me that Budge can be seen as a good business woman when an overspend of twelve ****ing million
kicks the spuds of any fecking increase in turnover she has made.
Twelve million on that stand,a basic steel and precast concrete structure with corrugated roofing panels,basic seating
is fecking criminal.Why hasnt there been an enquiry into that n all I wonder.
We should never stop questioning Ann Budges tenure at Hmfc.

Have you actually been in the new stand? The “basic structure” includes state of the art changing rooms, Press centre, warm up area, 5 corporate lounges, a roof terrace, the Club shop, fans bar, TV studio, not to mention the landscape plaza.

[John mcCartney]

My ST is main stand chief .I like it there altho I dont use the faciities admittedly.
My point is that a design and construct of the structure of a modern football stand,an overspend of 12 big ones is
seriously alarming.12 fecking million !!!!
That surely has knocked the club back a few years .

[Thomaso]

8 minutes ago, John mcCartney said:

My ST is main stand chief .I like it there altho I dont use the faciities admittedly.
My point is that a design and construct of the structure of a modern football stand,an overspend of 12 big ones is
seriously alarming.12 fecking million !!!!
That surely has knocked the club back a few years .

If you get the chance to view the facilities you may be a bit more impressed than just judging from your seat ‘chief’.

Your description of a basic steel and concrete stand (like say the Wheatfield) was wide of the mark.

There is a massive thread on the cost over run and the reason for it, and relax, funds were put in place to ensure the Club has not been knocked back a few years - Levein did that all on his own!

Edited August 12, 2020 by Thomaso

[jr ewing]

12 minutes ago, John mcCartney said:

My ST is main stand chief .I like it there altho I dont use the faciities admittedly.
My point is that a design and construct of the structure of a modern football stand,an overspend of 12 big ones is
seriously alarming.12 fecking million !!!!
That surely has knocked the club back a few years .

Worth every penny. Done the tour. Impressive. 

[John mcCartney]

4 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

If you get the chance to view the facilities you may be a bit more impressed than just judging from your seat ‘chief’.

Your description of a basic steel and concrete stand (like say the Wheatfield) was wide of the mark.

There is a massive thread on the cost over run and the reason for it, and relax, funds were put in place to ensure the Club has not been knocked back a few years - Levein did that all on his own!

tbh,Im not that impressed .
Im in the building trade and can see from looking around the place and looking up at the floors.Its a simple structure with a basic fit out from what I surmise at the moment and thats where my concerns lie.Il get onto that thread you mention at some point when I have time.
 

[MTS1874]

5 hours ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

Personally i hope Mrs Budge is running the buisness side of the club for many more years 

 

This 👍

[graygo]

5 hours ago, graygo said:

Is JJ not 70 this year? 

 

What exactly are the football decisions that the board got wrong?

 

4 replies to this post and not one of them with an answer.

 

FTR JJ is absolutely the right person, mentioning his age was in response to the op who said he was way too old at 73.

 

Again, can anyone tell me what footballing decisions the board got wrong other than not relieving CL and his management team sooner.

[georgiehearts66]

48 minutes ago, Cruickshankforscotland said:

I have no doubt the idea of the club being “fan owned but not fan run” is correct. The present governance structure guiding the HMFC/FOH relationship is also overall sound. However, as 75% majority shareholders I do think FOH should, in principle, have the ability to have a bigger say in how the club is run. 
I have always had doubts about the 75% shareholder only having a minority number of only 2 directors on the Club board. Should FOH be in a position to have a stronger influence on the board?

The club should not be fan run, but should there be the possibility for the club to be run in a way that reflects the overall attitude of the FOH membership? The board ultimately is answerable to the shareholders, and have a responsibility to reflect their attitudes/views. They must be accountable to the majority shareholder. 
The question of how FOH gather and react/respond to the membership views/attitudes is another big question. I think FOH have to address this question as a priority.

No they don't.

Certainly, for the past few years the FOH's and the direct access via it's executive directors upon the club's general board has been discussed and explained. You may not like or agree. Nevertheless, no matter how many times it's explained you and others seem unable to accept this reality.

 

The FOH works superbly well in the format constructed to secure the club's future financial and ownership protection. It's two non executive directors are not...nor shall they...be conduits of fan various ... Often overtop emotional...questions. I actually feel sorry for the incumbents and quite understand why few are willing to serve.

[OldGorgie]

39 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

4 replies to this post and not one of them with an answer.

 

FTR JJ is absolutely the right person, mentioning his age was in response to the op who said he was way too old at 73.

 

Again, can anyone tell me what footballing decisions the board got wrong other than not relieving CL and his management team sooner.

He’s not 73. Went to school in same year as me and I’m 70.

[graygo]

6 minutes ago, OldGorgie said:

He’s not 73. Went to school in same year as me and I’m 70.

 

I can see how you would think that I was saying JJ was 73 but if you read it again you'll see that it could also be the op I was referring to. JJ is 70 in November.

I could have used better punctuation to make myself clearer tbf.

 

Wait, if you went to school with the op then I'm screwed. 🥴

Edited August 12, 2020 by graygo

[Bazzas right boot]

6 hours ago, GinRummy said:

There are some exceptionally clever people on here. 

 

I wouldn't have said "exceptionally", but thank you, thank you very much 😳

[OldGorgie]

3 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

I can see how you would think that I was saying JJ was 73 but if you read it again you'll see that it could also be the op I was referring to. JJ is 70 in November.

I could have used better punctuation to make myself clearer tbf.

 

Wait, if you went to school with the op then I'm screwed. 🥴

No just JJ. 

[Lone Striker]

1 hour ago, Cruickshankforscotland said:

I have no doubt the idea of the club being “fan owned but not fan run” is correct. The present governance structure guiding the HMFC/FOH relationship is also overall sound. However, as 75% majority shareholders I do think FOH should, in principle, have the ability to have a bigger say in how the club is run. 
I have always had doubts about the 75% shareholder only having a minority number of only 2 directors on the Club board. Should FOH be in a position to have a stronger influence on the board?

The club should not be fan run, but should there be the possibility for the club to be run in a way that reflects the overall attitude of the FOH membership? The board ultimately is answerable to the shareholders, and have a responsibility to reflect their attitudes/views. They must be accountable to the majority shareholder. 
The question of how FOH gather and react/respond to the membership views/attitudes is another big question. I think FOH have to address this question as a priority.

 

That's a pertinent point.  At the moment we're pretty much united  in purpose by our  anger towards the SPFL/SFA mafia,  and happy to chuck lots more money to FoH  to help support the club in its season of need.  Once we take ownership of the shareholding, the dynamic will change a fair bit.   It wouldn't take much for fans to start grumbling about the manager, the chairwoman, the head scout, player X etc - basically the sentiment that made those guys hire a plane 4 years ago.   Do we just send  complaining emails to the FoH reps on the board and hope they agree ?   You're right - the  FoH board need to give  a lot of thought about what their role will be on the board as reps of the majority shareholder

 

25 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

4 replies to this post and not one of them with an answer.

 

FTR JJ is absolutely the right person, mentioning his age was in response to the op who said he was way too old at 73.

 

Again, can anyone tell me what footballing decisions the board got wrong other than not relieving CL and his management team sooner.

 

Graygo is getting some unfair flack for asking this, imo.  We can argue about the merits of having all her football eggs in Levein's basket for too long - and whatever the  reasons were for ignoring the 4 interviewed candidates and appointing Levein instead - but it's not clear just how a  "football CEO" would act differently.   How many dud managers would a "football CEO" be allowed to appoint before the board decided to fire him ?    Seem to me Levein pretty much WAS the "football CEO".

 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

1 hour ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

Have you actually been in the new stand? The “basic structure” includes state of the art changing rooms, Press centre, warm up area, 5 corporate lounges, a roof terrace, the Club shop, fans bar, TV studio, not to mention the landscape plaza.

 

 

Basic steel stand... 

Ffs, not too mention the time scales and disposal of the old number 

 

We built the museum as well. 

 

Basic steel stand. 

 

This is what we had before... 

 

 

 

 

We now have

 

 

Folk moan about it as well😳

Edited August 12, 2020 by Smith's right boot

[redjambo]

1 hour ago, graygo said:

 

4 replies to this post and not one of them with an answer.

 

FTR JJ is absolutely the right person, mentioning his age was in response to the op who said he was way too old at 73.

 

Again, can anyone tell me what footballing decisions the board got wrong other than not relieving CL and his management team sooner.

 

Look, this is just my opinion and I don't want to re-ignite the debate, but as far as I am concerned the other major footballing decision that the board got wrong was in hiring Daniel Stendel. He's a great guy, and given time his methods might have produced positive results, but in the rough and tumble of a mid-table/relegation battle in Scotland? Nope. We needed a battle-worn trooper experienced in the Scottish game, not an experimental coach. Oh, and Ian Cathro. Does he not count as another incorrect footballing decision (including waiting till the start of the new season before finally punting him)? He was another "experimental" coach that failed to gel in the Scottish game.

 

Anyway, there you go. You have an answer now. I just hope that Robbie lives up to the expectations of all of us given the disappointments of recent years.

 

[graygo]

6 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Look, this is just my opinion and I don't want to re-ignite the debate, but as far as I am concerned the other major footballing decision that the board got wrong was in hiring Daniel Stendel. He's a great guy, and given time his methods might have produced positive results, but in the rough and tumble of a mid-table/relegation battle in Scotland? Nope. We needed a battle-worn trooper experienced in the Scottish game, not an experimental coach. Oh, and Ian Cathro. Does he not count as another incorrect footballing decision (including waiting till the start of the new season before finally punting him)? He was another "experimental" coach that failed to gel in the Scottish game.

 

Anyway, there you go. You have an answer now. I just hope that Robbie lives up to the expectations of all of us given the disappointments of recent years.

 

 

Thanks for the reply Red.

 

I appreciate the 2 issues are your opinion and are backed up with the benefit of hindsight but the majority of this board thought that both Cathro and Stendal were great appointments. Both were seen as out of the box thinking which is what is needed if you don't want things to stay the same.

 

 

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/185534-daniel-stendel/

 

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/165385-ian-cathro-confirmed-as-head-coach-merged-threads/page/18/

 

[Tynecastlesmychurch]

7 hours ago, David Black said:

  Barcelona

Good post. But! And I hate to be that guy. But Barcelona’s football department is a mess they have almost unlimited firepower and several superstars in their squad however for all that they’ve wasted around £250 million alone on philippe coutinho and ousmane dembele and that’s not even counting their wages! I won’t even bother going into the £100 million plus debacle of Antoine Griezmann 

the point I’m trying to make is these things are very difficult and unlike some clubs we don’t have endless wealth to waste on mistakes! 

[Johnny Sandiego]

32 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Thanks for the reply Red.

 

I appreciate the 2 issues are your opinion and are backed up with the benefit of hindsight but the majority of this board thought that both Cathro and Stendal were great appointments. Both were seen as out of the box thinking which is what is needed if you don't want things to stay the same.

 

 

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/185534-daniel-stendel/

 

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/165385-ian-cathro-confirmed-as-head-coach-merged-threads/page/18/

 

The problem wasn't appointing Cathro as on paper it sounded like a good idea. It was more that we didnt fire him quick enough, and that is the board and Ann's biggest fault.

 

They were too slow to fire Cathro then faffed about with interviews before giving it to Levein. Same thing happened again last season, too slow to punt Levein then 2 months later we finally appoint Stendel.

 

A football board can't wait that long to make the big decisions. For me going forward we need a more decisive CEO who has previous experience of working in a decent sized football club. 

[graygo]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sandiego said:

The problem wasn't appointing Cathro as on paper it sounded like a good idea. It was more that we didnt fire him quick enough, and that is the board and Ann's biggest fault.

 

They were too slow to fire Cathro then faffed about with interviews before giving it to Levein. Same thing happened again last season, too slow to punt Levein then 2 months later we finally appoint Stendel.

 

A football board can't wait that long to make the big decisions. For me going forward we need a more decisive CEO who has previous experience of working in a decent sized football club. 

 

7 months Cathro was at the club, including a close season.

 

A club can't wait that long?

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by graygo

[redjambo]

49 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Thanks for the reply Red.

 

I appreciate the 2 issues are your opinion and are backed up with the benefit of hindsight but the majority of this board thought that both Cathro and Stendal were great appointments. Both were seen as out of the box thinking which is what is needed if you don't want things to stay the same.

 

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/185534-daniel-stendel/

 

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/165385-ian-cathro-confirmed-as-head-coach-merged-threads/page/18/

 

 

Personally I was quite happy at the time that Cathro was appointed - I thought he could do the business. Most of JKB did realise that he wasn't going to make the grade though well before the decision was finally made to punt him. However, my opinion about Daniel was not made in hindsight. I thought he was the wrong choice from the get-go, the wrong choice that is for us at that moment in time, rather than the wrong choice for any club. I still think he will come good but he was absolutely not what we needed at the time.

 

Anyway, the conclusion as to which decisions the club's board (which is what I thought we were talking about) got wrong shouldn't be based on whether JKB agreed with those decisions at the time or not. It should be based on whether those decisions worked. They didn't, not even reasonably well.

 

And there you go, this makes me look like a wrecker. I'm still hopeful for the future. I just don't think you can get away with saying that keeping Levein on for too long a period was the only footballing mistake that our club has made during the current régime.

[graygo]

6 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Personally I was quite happy at the time that Cathro was appointed - I thought he could do the business. Most of JKB did realise that he wasn't going to make the grade though well before the decision was finally made to punt him. However, my opinion about Daniel was not made in hindsight. I thought he was the wrong choice from the get-go, the wrong choice that is for us at that moment in time, rather than the wrong choice for any club. I still think he will come good but he was absolutely not what we needed at the time.

 

Anyway, the conclusion as to which decisions the club's board (which is what I thought we were talking about) got wrong shouldn't be based on whether JKB agreed with those decisions at the time or not. It should be based on whether those decisions worked. They didn't, not even reasonably well.

 

And there you go, this makes me look like a wrecker. I'm still hopeful for the future. I just don't think you can get away with saying that keeping Levein on for too long a period was the only footballing mistake that our club has made during the current régime.

 

Fair enough. I personally don't think it's right to criticise the board and demand changes when the majority of fans would have made the same appointments. Both those managers/coaches were backed to the hilt while at the club, them and the players they brought in are more culpable in my mind.

[JamboAl]

35 minutes ago, Johnny Sandiego said:

The problem wasn't appointing Cathro as on paper it sounded like a good idea. It was more that we didnt fire him quick enough, and that is the board and Ann's biggest fault.

 

They were too slow to fire Cathro then faffed about with interviews before giving it to Levein. Same thing happened again last season, too slow to punt Levein then 2 months later we finally appoint Stendel.

 

A football board can't wait that long to make the big decisions. For me going forward we need a more decisive CEO who has previous experience of working in a decent sized football club. 

We could have done what Watford did.  Oh wait, they got relegated, not demoted.

[Thomaso]

3 hours ago, John mcCartney said:

tbh,Im not that impressed .
Im in the building trade and can see from looking around the place and looking up at the floors.Its a simple structure with a basic fit out from what I surmise at the moment and thats where my concerns lie.Il get onto that thread you mention at some point when I have time.
 

I was in the building industry for 40 years and was also heavily involved with the construction of the new stand.

With the greatest respect if you have not even been inside the stand apart from queuing for your pie, how can you judge the facilities or standard of the fit out.

[redjambo]

31 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Fair enough. I personally don't think it's right to criticise the board and demand changes when the majority of fans would have made the same appointments. Both those managers/coaches were backed to the hilt while at the club, them and the players they brought in are more culpable in my mind.

 

Ok. We differ perhaps in that I think that the board should know better than the fans. That's what they're there for, to make sounds decisions based on their (hopefully) extensive acumen and experience. In saying that, however, I have no gripe whatsoever with the board. We all make mistakes. The most important thing is to learn from them.

 

Anyway, nice talking about the issue with you.

[Harry Potter]

13 hours ago, Last Laff said:

When was the great seasons? 

I must of been washing my hair, the season with 2 away wins ?

[RobNox]

7 hours ago, graygo said:

 

Thanks for the reply Red.

 

I appreciate the 2 issues are your opinion and are backed up with the benefit of hindsight but the majority of this board thought that both Cathro and Stendal were great appointments. Both were seen as out of the box thinking which is what is needed if you don't want things to stay the same.

 

 

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/185534-daniel-stendel/

 

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/165385-ian-cathro-confirmed-as-head-coach-merged-threads/page/18/

 

 

I agree with Redjambo.  I see Stendel as the right appointment at the wrong time.  In the state we were in, we needed a steady hand.  It wasn't the right time to try and change things so much, although I will admit that hindsight is a wonderful gift.

 

I see Cathro as the right appointment to the wrong role.  I don't think he's cut out to be a manager, but could have benefited us greatly if we'd employed him in a coaching capacity, maybe to oversee the Academy.

 

 

[Paul Shark]

10 hours ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

Have you actually been in the new stand? The “basic structure” includes state of the art changing rooms, Press centre, warm up area, 5 corporate lounges, a roof terrace, the Club shop, fans bar, TV studio, not to mention the landscape plaza.

Were all these things missing from the original drawings and then added as an afterthought hence the massive overspend ? Probably not.

[Last Laff]

1 hour ago, Harry Potter said:

I must of been washing my hair, the season with 2 away wins ?

  

[Bull's-eye]

Regurgitated drivel.

[jambos are go!]

We need transparency and its high time the faction feeding an anti Ann Budge agenda on JKB came out into the open rather than using mouthpieces to do their dirty work. That's my opinion anyway. 

Edited August 13, 2020 by jambos are go!
Grammer

[Beast Boy]

It’s when you read a thread like this, that you can hear the distant patter of trotters as all the little self-important piggies start to jostle for position at the trough... that’s when I thank my lucky stars we will be fan owned and not fan run. The thought of all those fat wee gammon titans of business making decisions about the future direction of my football club gives me the absolute fear. I hope Budge stays for many years to come, and that she hires someone with a football background to oversee that side of things.

[graygo]

7 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

Ok. We differ perhaps in that I think that the board should know better than the fans. That's what they're there for, to make sounds decisions based on their (hopefully) extensive acumen and experience. In saying that, however, I have no gripe whatsoever with the board. We all make mistakes. The most important thing is to learn from them.

 

Anyway, nice talking about the issue with you.

 

Thanks again. Good to hear a different viewpoint without it descending into a stushie, doesn't always have to be one person trying to change the mind of another. 👍

[loveofthegame]

17 hours ago, David Black said:

To clarify I am in no way criticising Ann Budge or any of of Directors for the overwhelming good work they have done over the past 6 years, except the catastrophic running of the football department. 

 

Stopped reading here. We're a football club.

[Last Laff]

4 minutes ago, loveofthegame said:

 

Stopped reading here. We're a football club.

It’s difficult to remember that at time’s tbf.  We’re only allowed to speak about the amazing off the field and without AB there would be no benefactor but not now allowed to speak of the complete cluster**** of the past few seasons, managerial appointments and millions wasted leading to the position in now, that gets latched upon as boring and repetitive somehow.  Then there’s the Foundation of Hearts, who are meant to represent the support never communicating with the support or ever asking questions of the club of the shambles on the pitch, telling the support to pipe down criticising Levein and he will know when it’s best to leave 🤣🤣 then there was the job interviews before appointing the prick because nobody wanted to work with him.  Years and years of back Budge and back Levein and they know best and it will all come together, we only need this and that and complain or show concern you’re shouted down big time as a Hibs fan or the other buzz word an agenda against Levein 😁.  Now it’s just to all be forgotten and it’s all fine.  Still no apology from anyone at the club for ending up in the championship.  Still no recognition to the support that pump in millions every year that they have Bawsed it up on nearly all football matters.  Just this never speak about the past on the pitch now because it means having some kind of “agenda” but it’s all good to look back to the good stuff off the pitch when praising Budge.  I’m not going to reply to the loads of posts ripping and slagging me off for having a difference of opinion on dear leader, many others probably don’t have the guts to post similar because of the peer pressure on here. 

[Thomaso]

1 hour ago, Paul Shark said:

Were all these things missing from the original drawings and then added as an afterthought hence the massive overspend ? Probably not.

My point to him was that the stand is just not a basic steel and concrete structure as he was suggesting.

For answers to your question please refer to the massive new stand thread that detailed the reasons for the over spend ad naseum.

[Thomaso]

1 hour ago, Beast Boy said:

It’s when you read a thread like this, that you can hear the distant patter of trotters as all the little self-important piggies start to jostle for position at the trough... that’s when I thank my lucky stars we will be fan owned and not fan run. The thought of all those fat wee gammon titans of business making decisions about the future direction of my football club gives me the absolute fear. I hope Budge stays for many years to come, and that she hires someone with a football background to oversee that side of things.

OINK! OINK!

[Beast Boy]

10 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

OINK! OINK!

👑🐖🐖🐖🐖🐖🐖🐖

[Nookie Bear]

12 hours ago, jr ewing said:

Worth every penny. Done the tour. Impressive. 

 

Saves watching the team, i suppose.

[Rousset1]

18 hours ago, GinRummy said:

There are some exceptionally clever people on here. 

 

Mostly blowhards and barrack-room lawyers, mostly.

[Cruickshankforscotland]

11 hours ago, georgiehearts66 said:

No they don't.

Certainly, for the past few years the FOH's and the direct access via it's executive directors upon the club's general board has been discussed and explained. You may not like or agree. Nevertheless, no matter how many times it's explained you and others seem unable to accept this reality.

 

The FOH works superbly well in the format constructed to secure the club's future financial and ownership protection. It's two non executive directors are not...nor shall they...be conduits of fan various ... Often overtop emotional...questions. I actually feel sorry for the incumbents and quite understand why few are willing to serve.

There’s no doubt in my mind that FOH has been a tremendous success. The people who set it up and the people who currently run and work for it deserve a great amount of gratitude from the Club and all the fans. 
The present governance set up, separating the roles of the Club Board and FOH, is completely appropriate. It is of course most probably unique in football. I certainly would not want FOH to be required to act on every and any views of the membership. I do think though that as this unique project goes forward it should be able to adapt and evolve, if required. 
Amongst the heavy burdens on FOH, I think they are required to gather and reflect on the views/attitudes of the membership, at any given time. Can they in some way measure the mood of the membership as we evolve. A question is, how would they carry out such a process? 
I think Stuart Wallace, amongst others, has expressed an opinion that FOH would like to be able to garner thoughts and ideas from the membership. I believe they would see this as a positive. How this could be done, and how regularly, would be worth investigating. 
One time of the year when this could be of more importance is at the AGMs. I feel the FOH AGM should be held a number of weeks prior to the Club AGM. Any issues/views of the membership worthy of attention could then be aired and discussed. The FOH Board could then take cognisance of these views and act appropriately.

i would stress I am greatly appreciative and in full support of FOH and the people who invest their time and efforts on our behalf. The opportunity to have discussions on how we progress is healthy.

[Beast Boy]

This little piggy owns a pie shop,

This little piggy builds homes,

This little piggy is a fans chief,

This little piggy’s spit is foam,

and this little piggy went blah blah blah in the pub all day long.

 

 

[Bull's-eye]

13 minutes ago, Beast Boy said:

 

This is my story, this is my song.

This little piggy owns a pie shop,

This little piggy builds homes,

This little piggy is a fans chief,

This little piggy’s spit is foam,

H...E...A....R....T....S

and this little piggy went blah blah blah in the pub all day long.

 

 

 

Ftfy

[Beast Boy]

1 minute ago, Bull's-eye said:

 

Ftfy

Nut. Preferred my version.

 

[Harry Potter]

2 hours ago, Last Laff said:

It’s difficult to remember that at time’s tbf.  We’re only allowed to speak about the amazing off the field and without AB there would be no benefactor but not now allowed to speak of the complete cluster**** of the past few seasons, managerial appointments and millions wasted leading to the position in now, that gets latched upon as boring and repetitive somehow.  Then there’s the Foundation of Hearts, who are meant to represent the support never communicating with the support or ever asking questions of the club of the shambles on the pitch, telling the support to pipe down criticising Levein and he will know when it’s best to leave 🤣🤣 then there was the job interviews before appointing the prick because nobody wanted to work with him.  Years and years of back Budge and back Levein and they know best and it will all come together, we only need this and that and complain or show concern you’re shouted down big time as a Hibs fan or the other buzz word an agenda against Levein 😁.  Now it’s just to all be forgotten and it’s all fine.  Still no apology from anyone at the club for ending up in the championship.  Still no recognition to the support that pump in millions every year that they have Bawsed it up on nearly all football matters.  Just this never speak about the past on the pitch now because it means having some kind of “agenda” but it’s all good to look back to the good stuff off the pitch when praising Budge.  I’m not going to reply to the loads of posts ripping and slagging me off for having a difference of opinion on dear leader, many others probably don’t have the guts to post similar because of the peer pressure on here. 

Some very good points, and as i have said before, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[David Black]

1 hour ago, Cruickshankforscotland said:

There’s no doubt in my mind that FOH has been a tremendous success. The people who set it up and the people who currently run and work for it deserve a great amount of gratitude from the Club and all the fans. 
The present governance set up, separating the roles of the Club Board and FOH, is completely appropriate. It is of course most probably unique in football. I certainly would not want FOH to be required to act on every and any views of the membership. I do think though that as this unique project goes forward it should be able to adapt and evolve, if required. 
Amongst the heavy burdens on FOH, I think they are required to gather and reflect on the views/attitudes of the membership, at any given time. Can they in some way measure the mood of the membership as we evolve. A question is, how would they carry out such a process? 
I think Stuart Wallace, amongst others, has expressed an opinion that FOH would like to be able to garner thoughts and ideas from the membership. I believe they would see this as a positive. How this could be done, and how regularly, would be worth investigating. 
One time of the year when this could be of more importance is at the AGMs. I feel the FOH AGM should be held a number of weeks prior to the Club AGM. Any issues/views of the membership worthy of attention could then be aired and discussed. The FOH Board could then take cognisance of these views and act appropriately.

i would stress I am greatly appreciative and in full support of FOH and the people who invest their time and efforts on our behalf. The opportunity to have discussions on how we progress is healthy.

Your last paragraph is an excellent idea. I have attended every Club and FOH AGM and have always thought that the two were held far to close to each other. You are more or less hearing the same things . What you are suggesting should encourage more to attend thereby bringing up any issues we may wish FOH to bring to the attention of the club board.

[The Fonz]

I think a competent CEO has to be one of our priorities just now. If Budge is to stay on it should only be in an ambassadorial capacity or as a link to these wealthy benefactors that she knows. 

 

Had we been relegated rather than demoted (very likely given our form) there would have been riots outside Tynecastle.

Ending up in the championship should be the end of the road for any Chairperson or board at Hearts and rightly so. It's even more galling given the huge amount of investment in the club and the platform that we have, all pissed away through sheer incompetence.

In terms of the other board members, I don't know too much about how good they are at their day jobs however you would have to question why none of them were able to intervene in the Levein fiasco when it was abundantly clear that he had to go.

 

If the other board members, particularly our FoH reps weren't able to force a decision then you'd have to question their purpose. Either they will have pushed for change and not been able to affect things, or they stood idly by and watched while Levein turned us into pound for pound probably the worst team in the UK.

 

With the FoH funds, we still have a good platform to build from (despite being relegated/demoted and set back years). One thing Budge and FoH have been great at is bringing money into the club and turnover is good. Their downfall has been a complete inability to use that money effectively. The millions blown on the football department and the huge overspend on the stand are appalling (FWIW my ST is in the Main Stand and it's decent) but the spend on it and the *questionable* procurement is shocking.

 

If run properly there is no reason why we shouldn't be Top 4 every season, competing in Europe regularly and challenging for cups. Relegation* is something that no chairperson at Hearts should survive. We have a fantastic and generous fanbase pumping money into the club through ST's and FoH, the board has to be far more accountable than they have been so far. 

[Lfhearts]

20 hours ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

Personally i hope Mrs Budge is running the buisness side of the club for many more years 

You can be the clubs Secretary, JIG in charge of youth development etc

[David Black]

13 hours ago, graygo said:

 

Thanks for the reply Red.

 

I appreciate the 2 issues are your opinion and are backed up with the benefit of hindsight but the majority of this board thought that both Cathro and Stendal were great appointments. Both were seen as out of the box thinking which is what is needed if you don't want things to stay the same.

 

 

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/185534-daniel-stendel/

 

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/165385-ian-cathro-confirmed-as-head-coach-merged-threads/page/18/

 

Small point on your previous post. I will be 75 just after the next elections, not 73. 

[graygo]

6 minutes ago, David Black said:

Small point on your previous post. I will be 75 just after the next elections, not 73. 

 

Apologies, I thought you said you were 73 just now not 74.