FOH

[JamboGraham]

5 minutes ago, Psychedelicropcircle said:

at least ask the fans via a poll wot they think! 

 

Right now the FOH message is they support the club. Very hard for any Hearts supporter not to align themselves (at least partly) with that.

 

Say a poll (even with just two options) was put in place. Option A or B? Option A wins by a slim majority and  the FOH support for the club is now conditional on Option A. What happens to all who wanted option B when the FOH no longer represents them?

 

Would this be better or worse for the outlook of our club.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

1 minute ago, JamboGraham said:

 

Right now the FOH message is they support the club. Very hard for any Hearts supporter not to align themselves (at least partly) with that.

 

Say a poll (even with just two options) was put in place. Option A or B? Option A wins by a slim majority and  the FOH support for the club is now conditional on Option A. What happens to all who wanted option B when the FOH no longer represents them?

 

Would this be better or worse for the outlook of our club.

Not everything should be decided by us. In fact, next to nothing should. But the point is, FOH doesn’t address anything when there’s a risk of upsetting Ann.

[gorgie rd eh11]

22 minutes ago, Neil Dongcaster said:

You’ve missed the point. It’s ok, it happens.

 

 

No i haven't. The FOH is not holding Hearts back. 

[Leveins Battalion]

If things don't improve sooner or later there will be a vote of No Confidence in this Board at our club.Personally think its close.

 

 

 

 

However the one shining light and constant performer is the FOH,they should exempt from any criticism imo.

 

 

 

 

[Ethan Hunt]

25 minutes ago, Neil Dongcaster said:

I’m supposed to ask ‘what about me’ and you’re supposed to give some smarmy and vague reply.  We all get it Ethan, you’re a big clever guy that just gets things. Well done you.

 

Grand. Now did you answer @Beast Boy?

[Ethan Hunt]

9 minutes ago, Leveins Battalion said:

If things don't improve sooner or later there will be a vote of No Confidence in this Board at our club.Personally think its close.

 

 

 

 

However the one shining light and constant performer is the FOH,they should exempt from any criticism imo.

 

 

 

 

Who is going to propose the vote of no confidence in the board?

[Leveins Battalion]

4 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Who is going to propose the vote of no confidence in the board?

 

Sadly because of the make up of our Board I doubt we will see anybody question Ann's decision making.

 

However the FOH and Federation of Hearts supporters in particular have been very vocal over previous custodians of the club,not one entity associated with HMFC can be pleased with our Boards performance.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

2 hours ago, Neil Dongcaster said:

As a member of FOH since the beginning I’m starting to feel rather alienated by the organisation. I don’t feel those running the foundation represent what I feel Hearts should be about.  I commend SW and the like for putting their neck on the line and doing the job. I just don’t feel any sort of connection with the hierarchy. 
 

The foundation is fantastic, it should give us a massive advantage in the pitch and I will continue to pledge because it just feels right.
 

So far, beyond still having a club - and yes I understand some people can’t see past this point, but for me it was 6 and a half years and nearly £11million membership fees later, I find myself wondering if we are getting value for money.

 

Am I alone in feeling this way?

 

 

 

 

Did you sign up to save the club and then buy the club for the fans? If so, they are doing exactly what they said they would do.

 

If you signed up for something else then you didn't understand what FoH was for.

[taylor75]

2 hours ago, Neil Dongcaster said:

As a member of FOH since the beginning I’m starting to feel rather alienated by the organisation. I don’t feel those running the foundation represent what I feel Hearts should be about.  I commend SW and the like for putting their neck on the line and doing the job. I just don’t feel any sort of connection with the hierarchy. 
 

The foundation is fantastic, it should give us a massive advantage in the pitch and I will continue to pledge because it just feels right.
 

So far, beyond still having a club - and yes I understand some people can’t see past this point, but for me it was 6 and a half years and nearly £11million membership fees later, I find myself wondering if we are getting value for money.

 

Am I alone in feeling this way?

 

 

 

Dont think they do enough ..think elected foh  should be seated away from the directors box and seated in the wheatfeild... .. 

[Neil Dongcaster]

31 minutes ago, gorgie rd eh11 said:

 

 

No i haven't. The FOH is not holding Hearts back. 

You have. Your the only person that mentioned throwing FOH away. Your also the only person saying FOH is holding Hearts back. 

[Psychedelicropcircle]

34 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Not everything should be decided by us. In fact, next to nothing should. But the point is, FOH doesn’t address anything when there’s a risk of upsetting Ann.

THIS

[graygo]

2 hours ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

What a mean is they weren't told officially from within Hearts and they as disappointed as we are 

 

Is it normal to inform FOH before we loan a player before we do it?

[Guest ToqueJambo]

Do people really think the board gets involved in loan deals?

[Ethan Hunt]

1 minute ago, ToqueJambo said:

Do people really think the board gets involved in loan deals?

Seems so. It seems that some of those people also think they themselves should also have a say in it 😂

[soonbe110]

4 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

Do people really think the board gets involved in loan deals?

It’s a glimpse of what’s coming. Carnage on here after every game, every decision. 

[Neil Dongcaster]

12 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Did you sign up to save the club and then buy the club for the fans? If so, they are doing exactly what they said they would do.

 

If you signed up for something else then you didn't understand what FoH was for.

Common Toque - we all get that and that’s what we all signed up for - 6 years ago. FOH has been incredibly successful at what set out to do. Unfortunately FOH has been the only successful part of Hearts for a number of years. 
 

I don’t think FOH going forward should be solely a vehicle to drive revenues into the club. It should be a lot more. After all it is (or will be) our club.

 

What concerns me is that the transfer of shares will happen and Ann will continue to run the club whilst FOH representatives sit meekly in the corner being told what to say and when to say it.

Before people jump the gun, I’m not against AB staying. What I’m in favour of is Hearts being more representative of the fans, we have gotten away from that in recent years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Neil Dongcaster]

6 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

Do people really think the board gets involved in loan deals?

 

4 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Seems so. It seems that some of those people also think they themselves should also have a say in it 😂

Perhaps a tiny minority think along these lines. That’s not an argument against FOH representing the fan base in a more vocal manner. 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

6 minutes ago, Neil Dongcaster said:

Common Toque - we all get that and that’s what we all signed up for - 6 years ago. FOH has been incredibly successful at what set out to do. Unfortunately FOH has been the only successful part of Hearts for a number of years. 
 

I don’t think FOH going forward should be solely a vehicle to drive revenues into the club. It should be a lot more. After all it is (or will be) our club.

 

What concerns me is that the transfer of shares will happen and Ann will continue to run the club whilst FOH representatives sit meekly in the corner being told what to say and when to say it.

Before people jump the gun, I’m not against AB staying. What I’m in favour of is Hearts being more representative of the fans, we have gotten away from that in recent years.

 

 

 

You just seem o want it to be more representative of you. We are "fan" run. Budge is a fan. The benefactors putting money in are fans. Everyone contributing money through FoH and buying STs is a fan. But we're never going to be "fans" run.

 

One major obvious example is the fact we're still at Tynecastle. That was a decision made that is totally representative of what fans want when there were other options. I'd argue the appointment of Stendel was also representative of fan wants at that time.

Edited September 13, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Saint Jambo]

2 hours ago, Neil Dongcaster said:

As a member of FOH since the beginning I’m starting to feel rather alienated by the organisation. I don’t feel those running the foundation represent what I feel Hearts should be about.  I commend SW and the like for putting their neck on the line and doing the job. I just don’t feel any sort of connection with the hierarchy. 
 

The foundation is fantastic, it should give us a massive advantage in the pitch and I will continue to pledge because it just feels right.
 

So far, beyond still having a club - and yes I understand some people can’t see past this point, but for me it was 6 and a half years and nearly £11million membership fees later, I find myself wondering if we are getting value for money.

 

Am I alone in feeling this way?

 

 

During the FOH governance review I gave the FOH board my views that the governance proposals, with members of FoH having absolutely no influence on the club, was saving up real problems for the future. I think this has begun to show over the past year. I think it will become an even more pronounced issue when we are belatedly majority owned by FoH. The trouble with the model is that while the slogan is "fan owned, not fan run", the reality of the situation is we will be "owner owned, not owner run". This will put us in a unique position in football. Those paying for ownership will understandably question why they are funding others (the non-FOH Board members of the club) to play at being football club owners despite not putting their money in, with no say themselves on the direction of the club.

 

One response to these type of complaints, as on this thread, is to typically say "if you're not happy with the FOH Board, why don't you stand for election". But it is clear that this would be met with hostility by the other FoH members. Standing against an existing FoH board member on a platform of being unhappy with the performance/ direction of the club, would be interpreted as an attack on the core FOH premise of "fan owned, not fan run" as it would suggest you felt that FOH should be influencing the running of the club. It is clear you would be treated as a pariah by the existing FOH Board members, which would mean you had zero influence. It is unsurprising in those circumstances that people are not (currently) choosing to put themselves up for election on that basis. The fact there is no acceptable way to effectively measure the performance of FOH board members means there is no basis for standing against incumbents. No great surprise that people aren't rushing to stand.

 

When we look at where this is heading, I think it will prove to be a significant mistake to allow Budge to give the impression that following transfer of ownership to FOH she is unilaterally making the decision to stay on as Chair and that she alone will decide when she leaves. Budge is popular but not universally so. It would have been far better to wait until the shares were transferred and then announce that FOH had invited Budge to stay on as Chair and she had accepted. More controversially I think it would have been good for this to have followed a vote by the FOH membership. I expect the issue of Budge's undemocratic continued control of the club to be a stick that she, FOH and the club are continually beaten with. I see this as entirely unnecessary as I suspect that if put to a vote of the membership, with the FOH Board's backing, there would be majority support for her continuing in her role.

 

My suggestion for how to deal with the underlying problem of needing to find a balance between "fan owned, not fan run" and the members making every decision was to suggest that the Board should present a strategy for the club to the membership every few years for endorsement. My experience in other membership organisations that take this approach is that by wrapping things up in a comprehensive strategy rather than issue-by-issue, it is normally possible to get overwhelming member endorsement for that strategy. It then becomes much harder for the membership to complain about the direction of the club because they have played a role in endorsing that strategy. Then it is just a case of the Board justifying where it has diverged from the strategy. It also opens the way for existing Board members standing for re-election of the basis of how well that strategy has been implemented and for existing Board members and new candidates to give their views on how they would look to influence the next strategy, with an understanding the strategy is a collective effort so unlike the Barcelona president model the candidate won't be in a position to make promises like "I'll sign player X". This isn't the only solution, but hopefully does demonstrate that I was willing to offer up solutions rather than just make complaints (another common response to criticism of FOH).

 

Another potential (partial) solution would be to radically improve communication and transparency. Unfortunately I don't see this happening. When I contacted FoH during the summer to raise my unhappiness with the actions being taken by the club (chairing the reconstruction commission) and the lack of communication of why they were taking these actions, the response I received from the Chair was basically, there is no chance that they were going to be transparent, member views were irrelevant, my communication (a few paragraphs long) was too detailed to respond to properly, and they don't really care if members' unhappiness means they stop donating. That response neither convinced me that contacting them in future was a more effective approach than sounding off on JKB. It was also a pretty staggering response from a membership organisation.

 

I don't know how this current tension in the governance model will play out, but I do see the "owner owned, not owner run" approach as the biggest threat to the sustainable success of our fan-owned model and it does concern me. Hearts feel like a club out of touch with their supporters and that is pretty surprising given that more than most clubs we are a club that has depended on the financial good will of our supporters over the past decade.

[Neil Dongcaster]

Just now, ToqueJambo said:

 

You just seem o want it to be more representative of you. We are "fan" run. Budge is a fan. The benefactors putting money in are fans. Everyone contributing money through FoH and buying STs is a fan. But we're never going to be "fans" run.

You are putting words into my mouth. I don’t think for one second we will or should be be fan run, are you now clear on that matter? 

 

 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

2 minutes ago, Neil Dongcaster said:

You are putting words into my mouth. I don’t think for one second we will or should be be fan run, are you now clear on that matter? 

 

 

 

I'm not clear what you think FoH should be doing to provide more value for money. They're doing exactly what they were set up to do. In fact they've already done more as the stadium improvements were never part of the original plan.

Edited September 13, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

25 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Is it normal to inform FOH before we loan a player before we do it?

Would think it would be common courtesy to at least inform the board members from FOH which never happened 

[Neil Dongcaster]

3 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

During the FOH governance review I gave the FOH board my views that the governance proposals, with members of FoH having absolutely no influence on the club, was saving up real problems for the future. I think this has begun to show over the past year. I think it will become an even more pronounced issue when we are belatedly majority owned by FoH. The trouble with the model is that while the slogan is "fan owned, not fan run", the reality of the situation is we will be "owner owned, not owner run". This will put us in a unique position in football. Those paying for ownership will understandably question why they are funding others (the non-FOH Board members of the club) to play at being football club owners despite not putting their money in, with no say themselves on the direction of the club.

 

One response to these type of complaints, as on this thread, is to typically say "if you're not happy with the FOH Board, why don't you stand for election". But it is clear that this would be met with hostility by the other FoH members. Standing against an existing FoH board member on a platform of being unhappy with the performance/ direction of the club, would be interpreted as an attack on the core FOH premise of "fan owned, not fan run" as it would suggest you felt that FOH should be influencing the running of the club. It is clear you would be treated as a pariah by the existing FOH Board members, which would mean you had zero influence. It is unsurprising in those circumstances that people are not (currently) choosing to put themselves up for election on that basis. The fact there is no acceptable way to effectively measure the performance of FOH board members means there is no basis for standing against incumbents. No great surprise that people aren't rushing to stand.

 

When we look at where this is heading, I think it will prove to be a significant mistake to allow Budge to give the impression that following transfer of ownership to FOH she is unilaterally making the decision to stay on as Chair and that she alone will decide when she leaves. Budge is popular but not universally so. It would have been far better to wait until the shares were transferred and then announce that FOH had invited Budge to stay on as Chair and she had accepted. More controversially I think it would have been good for this to have followed a vote by the FOH membership. I expect the issue of Budge's undemocratic continued control of the club to be a stick that she, FOH and the club are continually beaten with. I see this as entirely unnecessary as I suspect that if put to a vote of the membership, with the FOH Board's backing, there would be majority support for her continuing in her role.

 

My suggestion for how to deal with the underlying problem of needing to find a balance between "fan owned, not fan run" and the members making every decision was to suggest that the Board should present a strategy for the club to the membership every few years for endorsement. My experience in other membership organisations that take this approach is that by wrapping things up in a comprehensive strategy rather than issue-by-issue, it is normally possible to get overwhelming member endorsement for that strategy. It then becomes much harder for the membership to complain about the direction of the club because they have played a role in endorsing that strategy. Then it is just a case of the Board justifying where it has diverged from the strategy. It also opens the way for existing Board members standing for re-election of the basis of how well that strategy has been implemented and for existing Board members and new candidates to give their views on how they would look to influence the next strategy, with an understanding the strategy is a collective effort so unlike the Barcelona president model the candidate won't be in a position to make promises like "I'll sign player X". This isn't the only solution, but hopefully does demonstrate that I was willing to offer up solutions rather than just make complaints (another common response to criticism of FOH).

 

Another potential (partial) solution would be to radically improve communication and transparency. Unfortunately I don't see this happening. When I contacted FoH during the summer to raise my unhappiness with the actions being taken by the club (chairing the reconstruction commission) and the lack of communication of why they were taking these actions, the response I received from the Chair was basically, there is no chance that they were going to be transparent, member views were irrelevant, my communication (a few paragraphs long) was too detailed to respond to properly, and they don't really care if members' unhappiness means they stop donating. That response neither convinced me that contacting them in future was a more effective approach than sounding off on JKB. It was also a pretty staggering response from a membership organisation.

 

I don't know how this current tension in the governance model will play out, but I do see the "owner owned, not owner run" approach as the biggest threat to the sustainable success of our fan-owned model and it does concern me. Hearts feel like a club out of touch with their supporters and that is pretty surprising given that more than most clubs we are a club that has depended on the financial good will of our supporters over the past decade.

Thank you for this post. It’s sums up my thoughts far more articulately than my neanderthal brain ever could.  

[Guest ToqueJambo]

2 minutes ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

Would think it would be common courtesy to at least inform the board members from FOH which never happened 

 

Seriously? So every single football-related decision needs to go through FoH? Of course that's not going to happen. We'd never be able to attract another decent manager again.

 

Whose job would it be to send that email and respond to the responses?

 

Edited September 13, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Guest ToqueJambo]

8 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

During the FOH governance review I gave the FOH board my views that the governance proposals, with members of FoH having absolutely no influence on the club, was saving up real problems for the future. I think this has begun to show over the past year. I think it will become an even more pronounced issue when we are belatedly majority owned by FoH. The trouble with the model is that while the slogan is "fan owned, not fan run", the reality of the situation is we will be "owner owned, not owner run". This will put us in a unique position in football. Those paying for ownership will understandably question why they are funding others (the non-FOH Board members of the club) to play at being football club owners despite not putting their money in, with no say themselves on the direction of the club.

 

One response to these type of complaints, as on this thread, is to typically say "if you're not happy with the FOH Board, why don't you stand for election". But it is clear that this would be met with hostility by the other FoH members. Standing against an existing FoH board member on a platform of being unhappy with the performance/ direction of the club, would be interpreted as an attack on the core FOH premise of "fan owned, not fan run" as it would suggest you felt that FOH should be influencing the running of the club. It is clear you would be treated as a pariah by the existing FOH Board members, which would mean you had zero influence. It is unsurprising in those circumstances that people are not (currently) choosing to put themselves up for election on that basis. The fact there is no acceptable way to effectively measure the performance of FOH board members means there is no basis for standing against incumbents. No great surprise that people aren't rushing to stand.

 

When we look at where this is heading, I think it will prove to be a significant mistake to allow Budge to give the impression that following transfer of ownership to FOH she is unilaterally making the decision to stay on as Chair and that she alone will decide when she leaves. Budge is popular but not universally so. It would have been far better to wait until the shares were transferred and then announce that FOH had invited Budge to stay on as Chair and she had accepted. More controversially I think it would have been good for this to have followed a vote by the FOH membership. I expect the issue of Budge's undemocratic continued control of the club to be a stick that she, FOH and the club are continually beaten with. I see this as entirely unnecessary as I suspect that if put to a vote of the membership, with the FOH Board's backing, there would be majority support for her continuing in her role.

 

My suggestion for how to deal with the underlying problem of needing to find a balance between "fan owned, not fan run" and the members making every decision was to suggest that the Board should present a strategy for the club to the membership every few years for endorsement. My experience in other membership organisations that take this approach is that by wrapping things up in a comprehensive strategy rather than issue-by-issue, it is normally possible to get overwhelming member endorsement for that strategy. It then becomes much harder for the membership to complain about the direction of the club because they have played a role in endorsing that strategy. Then it is just a case of the Board justifying where it has diverged from the strategy. It also opens the way for existing Board members standing for re-election of the basis of how well that strategy has been implemented and for existing Board members and new candidates to give their views on how they would look to influence the next strategy, with an understanding the strategy is a collective effort so unlike the Barcelona president model the candidate won't be in a position to make promises like "I'll sign player X". This isn't the only solution, but hopefully does demonstrate that I was willing to offer up solutions rather than just make complaints (another common response to criticism of FOH).

 

Another potential (partial) solution would be to radically improve communication and transparency. Unfortunately I don't see this happening. When I contacted FoH during the summer to raise my unhappiness with the actions being taken by the club (chairing the reconstruction commission) and the lack of communication of why they were taking these actions, the response I received from the Chair was basically, there is no chance that they were going to be transparent, member views were irrelevant, my communication (a few paragraphs long) was too detailed to respond to properly, and they don't really care if members' unhappiness means they stop donating. That response neither convinced me that contacting them in future was a more effective approach than sounding off on JKB. It was also a pretty staggering response from a membership organisation.

 

I don't know how this current tension in the governance model will play out, but I do see the "owner owned, not owner run" approach as the biggest threat to the sustainable success of our fan-owned model and it does concern me. Hearts feel like a club out of touch with their supporters and that is pretty surprising given that more than most clubs we are a club that has depended on the financial good will of our supporters over the past decade.

 

 

Your ideas can still happen. The fact is though it can't happen yet as the transfer over to fan ownership hasn't happened.

 

As for Budge, she's already stepped back from the day to day and most people think she may leave the board. Rightly she sees herself as in the best position to steer us through this crisis and I tend to agree. She's already secured additional funding from her friends.

Edited September 13, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[graygo]

3 minutes ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

Would think it would be common courtesy to at least inform the board members from FOH which never happened 

 

Doubt it tbh, maybe update them at the next board meeting.

[Neil Dongcaster]

3 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

 

Your ideas can still happen. The fact is though it can't happen yet as the transfer over to fan ownership hasn't happened.

Looking at the language used by AB when we appointed AM it seems although she already thinks she’s staying.

 

Of course I could be reading to much into what she said. Although I do think FOH should communicate their plans and a vote be held.

Edited September 13, 2020 by Neil Dongcaster

[chrisyboy7]

I think yiur correct to share your feelings. However. The club needs to make money and to hand St mirren as pish goalkeeper is fine by me. He can sign for them permanently fir all I care. 

 

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

7 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Seriously? So every single football-related decision needs to go through FoH? Of course that's not going to happen. We'd never be able to attract another decent manager again.

 

Whose job would it be to send that email and respond to the responses?

 

Look a think the whole thing is unacceptable and a respect fact you've got different opinion to me 

[Saint Jambo]

7 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

 

Your ideas can still happen. The fact is though it can't happen yet as the transfer over to fan ownership hasn't happened.

 

Could do, but they weren't built in to the governance proposals that came out of the governance review I contributed these views to. There was at least agreement that we shouldn't wait until after the transfer of ownership to agree how FOH would function once it was majority owner of the club.

 

The communication I had with an FOH board member at the time and the document they produced following submissions from members to the review suggested that they didn't see any of the risks I saw about the risk to FOH of member/ supported disengagement and unhappiness, and were extremely resistant to any idea that might give the members any say over the direction of the club (other than a few reserved issues such as colour of strip). My email exchange with the Chair during the summer and the lack of regular communication or transparency from the FOH Board doesn't suggest there has been a change of thinking from them since the review. The governance model adopted (I recognise with overwhelming endorsement of the members who voted) will make it extremely hard to implement these kind of ideas unless they are driven by the FOH Board.

[Pasquale for King]

3 hours ago, BarneyBattles said:

Contributed since day 1 as well and I’m close to cancelling. I actually did last night off the back of the zlamal loan but reinstated it. 
 

The club’s finger is so far off the pulse of the support it’s quite frightening. 
 

This is the time they need us most, great ST sales and record FOH subscriptions and they appear to have no understanding of what the support thinks at all and quite simply take us for granted. 
 

I’ve been watching hearts since I was a kid in the 70s but right now I’m not missing it one bit. 

Spot on. 

[Pasquale for King]

29 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

During the FOH governance review I gave the FOH board my views that the governance proposals, with members of FoH having absolutely no influence on the club, was saving up real problems for the future. I think this has begun to show over the past year. I think it will become an even more pronounced issue when we are belatedly majority owned by FoH. The trouble with the model is that while the slogan is "fan owned, not fan run", the reality of the situation is we will be "owner owned, not owner run". This will put us in a unique position in football. Those paying for ownership will understandably question why they are funding others (the non-FOH Board members of the club) to play at being football club owners despite not putting their money in, with no say themselves on the direction of the club.

 

One response to these type of complaints, as on this thread, is to typically say "if you're not happy with the FOH Board, why don't you stand for election". But it is clear that this would be met with hostility by the other FoH members. Standing against an existing FoH board member on a platform of being unhappy with the performance/ direction of the club, would be interpreted as an attack on the core FOH premise of "fan owned, not fan run" as it would suggest you felt that FOH should be influencing the running of the club. It is clear you would be treated as a pariah by the existing FOH Board members, which would mean you had zero influence. It is unsurprising in those circumstances that people are not (currently) choosing to put themselves up for election on that basis. The fact there is no acceptable way to effectively measure the performance of FOH board members means there is no basis for standing against incumbents. No great surprise that people aren't rushing to stand.

 

When we look at where this is heading, I think it will prove to be a significant mistake to allow Budge to give the impression that following transfer of ownership to FOH she is unilaterally making the decision to stay on as Chair and that she alone will decide when she leaves. Budge is popular but not universally so. It would have been far better to wait until the shares were transferred and then announce that FOH had invited Budge to stay on as Chair and she had accepted. More controversially I think it would have been good for this to have followed a vote by the FOH membership. I expect the issue of Budge's undemocratic continued control of the club to be a stick that she, FOH and the club are continually beaten with. I see this as entirely unnecessary as I suspect that if put to a vote of the membership, with the FOH Board's backing, there would be majority support for her continuing in her role.

 

My suggestion for how to deal with the underlying problem of needing to find a balance between "fan owned, not fan run" and the members making every decision was to suggest that the Board should present a strategy for the club to the membership every few years for endorsement. My experience in other membership organisations that take this approach is that by wrapping things up in a comprehensive strategy rather than issue-by-issue, it is normally possible to get overwhelming member endorsement for that strategy. It then becomes much harder for the membership to complain about the direction of the club because they have played a role in endorsing that strategy. Then it is just a case of the Board justifying where it has diverged from the strategy. It also opens the way for existing Board members standing for re-election of the basis of how well that strategy has been implemented and for existing Board members and new candidates to give their views on how they would look to influence the next strategy, with an understanding the strategy is a collective effort so unlike the Barcelona president model the candidate won't be in a position to make promises like "I'll sign player X". This isn't the only solution, but hopefully does demonstrate that I was willing to offer up solutions rather than just make complaints (another common response to criticism of FOH).

 

Another potential (partial) solution would be to radically improve communication and transparency. Unfortunately I don't see this happening. When I contacted FoH during the summer to raise my unhappiness with the actions being taken by the club (chairing the reconstruction commission) and the lack of communication of why they were taking these actions, the response I received from the Chair was basically, there is no chance that they were going to be transparent, member views were irrelevant, my communication (a few paragraphs long) was too detailed to respond to properly, and they don't really care if members' unhappiness means they stop donating. That response neither convinced me that contacting them in future was a more effective approach than sounding off on JKB. It was also a pretty staggering response from a membership organisation.

 

I don't know how this current tension in the governance model will play out, but I do see the "owner owned, not owner run" approach as the biggest threat to the sustainable success of our fan-owned model and it does concern me. Hearts feel like a club out of touch with their supporters and that is pretty surprising given that more than most clubs we are a club that has depended on the financial good will of our supporters over the past decade.

Brilliant post, thanks for detailing it for us. 

[Saint Jambo]

17 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Seriously? So every single football-related decision needs to go through FoH? Of course that's not going to happen. We'd never be able to attract another decent manager again.

 

 

There is a difference between a decision 'going through' a Board and the Board being informed of a decision, which is what is being suggested by the posters above. Certainly in my organisation it is standard practice to inform the Board of decisions that are particularly sensitive or where we believe they might lead to negative public or media reaction. This includes decisions which on the face of them are run of the mill decisions, but where in our assessment as staff members additional context means that they will prove controversial. None of this means that we are seeking the Board's permission where these decisions are clearly covered by delegation of responsibility policies.

 

It doesn't seem to me controversial to suggest that in the current environment that senior management should have made clear to the football management that the feelings of the club's primary customers (the fans) mean that dealings with other Scottish clubs are more sensitive than normal and as a result for the time being more decisions will need escalated than would normally be the case.

 

I'm not going to get into another debate with you about the right or wrong of the Zlamal loan as it is clear we disagree on that. But for the purposes of this thread, I think it wrong to suggest that a club can't operate with a management structure that can ensure the football management can get on with the majority of decisions, while understanding where wider management input will be required.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

5 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

There is a difference between a decision 'going through' a Board and the Board being informed of a decision, which is what is being suggested by the posters above. Certainly in my organisation it is standard practice to inform the Board of decisions that are particularly sensitive or where we believe they might lead to negative public or media reaction. This includes decisions which on the face of them are run of the mill decisions, but where in our assessment as staff members additional context means that they will prove controversial. None of this means that we are seeking the Board's permission where these decisions are clearly covered by delegation of responsibility policies.

 

It doesn't seem to me controversial to suggest that in the current environment that senior management should have made clear to the football management that the feelings of the club's primary customers (the fans) mean that dealings with other Scottish clubs are more sensitive than normal and as a result for the time being more decisions will need escalated than would normally be the case.

 

I'm not going to get into another debate with you about the right or wrong of the Zlamal loan as it is clear we disagree on that. But for the purposes of this thread, I think it wrong to suggest that a club can't operate with a management structure that can ensure the football management can get on with the majority of decisions, while understanding where wider management input will be required.

 

Every hour we spend on petty stuff like this is an hour that could be better spent on more serious things.

[Saint Jambo]

9 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Every hour we spend on petty stuff like this is an hour that could be better spent on more serious things.

 

Fair (although I think my earlier post on the FOH model falls in to the category of serious things). Maybe I'll go and post on a more serious topic like who I want to see relegated when we get promoted, although that may still be petty. 

[davemclaren]

34 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Could do, but they weren't built in to the governance proposals that came out of the governance review I contributed these views to. There was at least agreement that we shouldn't wait until after the transfer of ownership to agree how FOH would function once it was majority owner of the club.

 

The communication I had with an FOH board member at the time and the document they produced following submissions from members to the review suggested that they didn't see any of the risks I saw about the risk to FOH of member/ supported disengagement and unhappiness, and were extremely resistant to any idea that might give the members any say over the direction of the club (other than a few reserved issues such as colour of strip). My email exchange with the Chair during the summer and the lack of regular communication or transparency from the FOH Board doesn't suggest there has been a change of thinking from them since the review. The governance model adopted (I recognise with overwhelming endorsement of the members who voted) will make it extremely hard to implement these kind of ideas unless they are driven by the FOH Board.

If we accept what you are saying, and I think you have some decent ideas, then surely the most effective way to effect some of it is to Propose and elect some FoH board members that support them. However, you seem to think that route is futile. 

[Neil Dongcaster]

If Saint stood I’d vote for him.

 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

14 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Fair (although I think my earlier post on the FOH model falls in to the category of serious things). Maybe I'll go and post on a more serious topic like who I want to see relegated when we get promoted, although that may still be petty. 

 

I wasn't meaning our time. I'd say the board have more important things to do and would rather they didn't get involved in every little thing.

Edited September 13, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Saint Jambo]

18 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

I wasn't meaning our time. I'd say the board have more important things to do and would rather they didn't get involved in every little thing.

 

Oh I see. In that case I point you back to the point that the suggestion was the FOH Board should have been informed of this loan deal given it was clearly going to prove controversial, not that they should have got involved with making the decision. In my organisation this would have involved an email from management letting them know the decision was coming, explaining the rationale for the decision, outlining why it was likely to attract negative attention and how that negative reaction would be managed.

 

What they or at least their representatives on the club Board should have been involved in before now was a discussion of how the club would handle to balance between the need to have dealings with other clubs in Scottish football and the need to keep the club's supporters/ customers on side who are clearly going to find some dealings with other clubs extremely unpalatable given the actions of those clubs over the summer which were extremely detrimental to the club. Keeping supporters/ customers happy definitely isn't a petty issue for a football club and is something the Board should absolutely spend time considering.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

8 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Oh I see. In that case I point you back to the point that the suggestion was the FOH Board should have been informed of this loan deal given it was clearly going to prove controversial, not that they should have got involved with making the decision. In my organisation this would have involved an email from management letting them know the decision was coming, explaining the rationale for the decision, outlining why it was likely to attract negative attention and how that negative reaction would be managed.

 

What they or at least their representatives on the club Board should have been involved in before now was a discussion of how the club would handle to balance between the need to have dealings with other clubs in Scottish football and the need to keep the club's supporters/ customers on side who are clearly going to find some dealings with other clubs extremely unpalatable given the actions of those clubs over the summer which were extremely detrimental to the club. Keeping supporters/ customers happy definitely isn't a petty issue for a football club and is something the Board should absolutely spend time considering.

 

 

Where does that approach end? Fans are always complaining about something. You can be sure if the board blocked the loan then bragged about it some Hearts fans would have found that petty and unprofessional.

 

Unless fan opinion is reflected in ticket sales, attendances, etc, clubs will make decisions from their better informed position. They won't trawl social media to try to gauge what some fans might think in advance of making decisions. If they did Neilson, would have binned Craig Wighton for example. He is in a position to better judge Wighton than fans are though so he made an informed decision himself.

 

In major decisions, like whether or not to go to court or stay at Tynecastle or whatever, of course they'd try to gauge fan opinion and I'm sure they did and saw they were backed. With on the spot day to day football things like this loan, I doubt they would and that's a good thing. The CEO has already said we need to play the game while remaining angry about what has happened. That message will have been filtered down to other staff.

 

Edited September 13, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Saint Jambo]

33 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

If we accept what you are saying, and I think you have some decent ideas, then surely the most effective way to effect some of it is to Propose and elect some FoH board members that support them. However, you seem to think that route is futile. 

 

I think the governance arrangements with some Board members elected by rotation along with the other Board members being co-opted, in conjunction with the entrenched views of the existing Board members mean changing the Boards approach to this issue through getting people elected onto the Board would prove extremely challenging. However, I'd absolutely vote for anyone that stood on a similar platform and would encourage anyone to stand who shared my views if I thought they could get elected.

 

Based on previous elections to the FOH Board I've concluded that it is unlikely that I would be successful if I stood for election, so I won't be standing. So I've looked for other ways to influence FoH, including the governance review and writing to them. If FoH develop other mechanisms for taking on non-Board views in the future I'll probably contribute that way too. At the moment the most effective mechanism open to me to share my views seems to be to post on JKB.

[Saint Jambo]

5 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

 

Where does that approach end? Fans are always complaining about something. You can be sure if the board blocked the loan then bragged about it some Hearts fans would have found that petty and unprofessional.

 

Unless fan opinion is reflected in ticket sales, attendances, etc, clubs will make decisions from their better informed position. They won't trawl social media to try to gauge what some fans might think in advance of making decisions. If they did Neilson, would have binned Craig Wighton for example. He is in a position to better judge Wighton than fans are though so he made an informed decision himself.

 

In major decisions, like whether or not to go to court or stay at Tynecastle or whatever, of course they'd try to gauge fan opinion and I'm sure they did and saw they were backed. With on the spot day to day football things like this loan, I doubt they would and that's a good thing. The CEO has already said we need to play the game while remaining angry about what has happened. That message will have been filtered down to other staff.

 

 

You are pretty good at inventing strawman arguments. No one said anything about the Board blocking the loan and bragging about it. All the club needed to do was quietly turn down the request.

 

All the rest is addressed above in how a club should have a strategy in place for making decisions, which includes anticipating the reaction of your customers. As I said before, I'm not going to get drawn back in to debating the rights or wrongs of the Zlamal loan with you. It is clear that you have dug in your views on that issue so much that you will refuse to acknowledge the club did anything wrong at all.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

1 minute ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

You are pretty good at inventing strawman arguments. No one said anything about the Board blocking the loan and bragging about it. All the club needed to do was quietly turn down the request.

 

All the rest is addressed above in how a club should have a strategy in place for making decisions, which includes anticipating the reaction of your customers. As I said before, I'm not going to get drawn back in to debating the rights or wrongs of the Zlamal loan with you. It is clear that you have dug in your views on that issue so much that you will refuse to acknowledge the club did anything wrong at all.

 

Unless I'm debating with the wrong person, I thought we were talking about this loan decision going through the board. My point is where does that approach end? I'd rather they were thinking about more important things and leave things like this to the football team as the people with the knowledge to make the decision.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

4 hours ago, BarneyBattles said:

Contributed since day 1 as well and I’m close to cancelling. I actually did last night off the back of the zlamal loan but reinstated it. 
 

The club’s finger is so far off the pulse of the support it’s quite frightening. 
 

This is the time they need us most, great ST sales and record FOH subscriptions and they appear to have no understanding of what the support thinks at all and quite simply take us for granted. 
 

I’ve been watching hearts since I was a kid in the 70s but right now I’m not missing it one bit. 

 

If you read the various debates online, including in threads on decent Hearts-related social media accounts (Scarves Around the Funnel for example) opinion seems pretty split on this. Some see it as a very big deal, others not. Some initially reacted with horror - I did - and now on reflection have decided it's not much to seethe about.

 

Fill yer boots

 

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Saint Jambo]

14 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Unless I'm debating with the wrong person, I thought we were talking about this loan decision going through the board. My point is where does that approach end? I'd rather they were thinking about more important things and leave things like this to the football team as the people with the knowledge to make the decision.

 

Again, no one other than you (and someone else supporting your position) has suggested this decision should have "gone though the board". The point being made earlier in the thread that you responded to and misrepresented was that it is surprising the Board weren't informed of the decision.

Edited September 13, 2020 by Saint Jambo

[Guest ToqueJambo]

7 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Again, no one other than you (and someone else supporting your position) has suggested this decision should have "gone though the board". The point being made earlier in the thread that you responded to and misrepresented was that it is surprising the Board weren't informed of the decision.

 

Some said it should have been run through the board. What's the point of that if their views on it aren't going to be taken into account? Which takes time. So, where does that end - who decides what goes through the board and what doesn't on a day to day basis. How much time does that process take. That's all. What if the board is split about the loan. Do they have to convene a meeting. Does Neilson have to present his rationale to the board? Where does it end?

 

I'm agreeing with you on FoH. I've emailed them too a couple of times with no reply at all. That's also why I post my views about them on here. I think that's why I started posting on JKB, in case someone was looking in.

 

Their communication isn't good IMO. They have a massive customer base with email addresses, etc. One boring blog post update every now and then doesn't cut it for me if they want to create excitement and engagement around Hearts and FoH. There must be no end of creativity and ideas within our fan base they could tap to come up with a better comms plan and keep in touch with pledgers more often - create a community basically. They could then run surveys - reliable ones - that gives fans a feeling they have a voice. They could for example ask, should we have loaned Bobby to St Mirren? They can feed those back to the club, who can choose to do what they want with them. That would be valuable IMO, and better than just logging on to social media to see what trolls are up to. The make-up of the board is too heavy on tax/finance and law specialists for me.

Edited September 13, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[luckydug]

The reaction to the decision to send a player on loan to St Mirren has got me thinking about the wisdom of fan ownership. 

No matter who is running the club there will always be discontented fans. 

However when it gets to the point that a manager is expected to do business based on long held grudges fans may have with clubs its potentialy damaging. 

Fan Ownership in my opinion is at the mercy of people threatening to withdraw funds everytime they disagree with a decision. 

This business with St Mirren has opened my eyes about fan ownership and I now feel we should encourage outside investment and rely less on fans donations. 

 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

2 minutes ago, BarneyBattles said:

 

A simple ‘**** right off’ would have appeased me too😃

 

 

That would have been very enjoyable. Thinking about it not sure it would have benefited us in the long term.

[oi oi]

2 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

During the FOH governance review I gave the FOH board my views that the governance proposals, with members of FoH having absolutely no influence on the club, was saving up real problems for the future. I think this has begun to show over the past year. I think it will become an even more pronounced issue when we are belatedly majority owned by FoH. The trouble with the model is that while the slogan is "fan owned, not fan run", the reality of the situation is we will be "owner owned, not owner run". This will put us in a unique position in football. Those paying for ownership will understandably question why they are funding others (the non-FOH Board members of the club) to play at being football club owners despite not putting their money in, with no say themselves on the direction of the club.

 

One response to these type of complaints, as on this thread, is to typically say "if you're not happy with the FOH Board, why don't you stand for election". But it is clear that this would be met with hostility by the other FoH members. Standing against an existing FoH board member on a platform of being unhappy with the performance/ direction of the club, would be interpreted as an attack on the core FOH premise of "fan owned, not fan run" as it would suggest you felt that FOH should be influencing the running of the club. It is clear you would be treated as a pariah by the existing FOH Board members, which would mean you had zero influence. It is unsurprising in those circumstances that people are not (currently) choosing to put themselves up for election on that basis. The fact there is no acceptable way to effectively measure the performance of FOH board members means there is no basis for standing against incumbents. No great surprise that people aren't rushing to stand.

 

When we look at where this is heading, I think it will prove to be a significant mistake to allow Budge to give the impression that following transfer of ownership to FOH she is unilaterally making the decision to stay on as Chair and that she alone will decide when she leaves. Budge is popular but not universally so. It would have been far better to wait until the shares were transferred and then announce that FOH had invited Budge to stay on as Chair and she had accepted. More controversially I think it would have been good for this to have followed a vote by the FOH membership. I expect the issue of Budge's undemocratic continued control of the club to be a stick that she, FOH and the club are continually beaten with. I see this as entirely unnecessary as I suspect that if put to a vote of the membership, with the FOH Board's backing, there would be majority support for her continuing in her role.

 

My suggestion for how to deal with the underlying problem of needing to find a balance between "fan owned, not fan run" and the members making every decision was to suggest that the Board should present a strategy for the club to the membership every few years for endorsement. My experience in other membership organisations that take this approach is that by wrapping things up in a comprehensive strategy rather than issue-by-issue, it is normally possible to get overwhelming member endorsement for that strategy. It then becomes much harder for the membership to complain about the direction of the club because they have played a role in endorsing that strategy. Then it is just a case of the Board justifying where it has diverged from the strategy. It also opens the way for existing Board members standing for re-election of the basis of how well that strategy has been implemented and for existing Board members and new candidates to give their views on how they would look to influence the next strategy, with an understanding the strategy is a collective effort so unlike the Barcelona president model the candidate won't be in a position to make promises like "I'll sign player X". This isn't the only solution, but hopefully does demonstrate that I was willing to offer up solutions rather than just make complaints (another common response to criticism of FOH).

 

Another potential (partial) solution would be to radically improve communication and transparency. Unfortunately I don't see this happening. When I contacted FoH during the summer to raise my unhappiness with the actions being taken by the club (chairing the reconstruction commission) and the lack of communication of why they were taking these actions, the response I received from the Chair was basically, there is no chance that they were going to be transparent, member views were irrelevant, my communication (a few paragraphs long) was too detailed to respond to properly, and they don't really care if members' unhappiness means they stop donating. That response neither convinced me that contacting them in future was a more effective approach than sounding off on JKB. It was also a pretty staggering response from a membership organisation.

 

I don't know how this current tension in the governance model will play out, but I do see the "owner owned, not owner run" approach as the biggest threat to the sustainable success of our fan-owned model and it does concern me. Hearts feel like a club out of touch with their supporters and that is pretty surprising given that more than most clubs we are a club that has depended on the financial good will of our supporters over the past decade.

I really enjoyed reading your post. It clearly articulates many of the challenges that FOH will face going forward. The input into strategy makes perfect sense but most fans will be in agreement that what we want is fair prices, winning matches, players coming through the academy, decent signings, cup wins, Euro qualification etc etc.

 

Incidentals like who supplies the pies, which beers are on tap are largely irrelevant. What type of strategies would you foresee that would differ from the ultimate shared aims of winning football matches?

 

I'm not trying to catch you out just looking for what different strategies could be presented for FOH members to consider and vote upon?

[oi oi]

4 hours ago, Neil Dongcaster said:

Ethan if you posted that today was Sunday I’d check my calendar.
 

You are without a doubt one of the biggest narcissists to grace this forum. You love to play the gallery and insinuate you are an authority on subjects and anybody with a differing opinion is either stupid, hibs or a troll.  
 

It’s incredible you continue to get away with it time and time again as I don’t think you’ve been right once in your puff.
 

 

 

He's best ignored. Knows very little. Throughout litigation and arbitration he kept saying how we would win. I kept referring to SPFL articles of association which suggested we had next to no chance.