Jump to content

FOH


Neil Dongcaster

Recommended Posts

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 like this idea. 

 

The ambiguity created by not having a clear strategy written down is a big problem for me. I'd much prefer to have something to measure the performance of the FOH against and even the club board against. It makes a lot of sense and it still maintains the 'fan owned but not fan run element of the foh. My view of the purpose of having FOH members on the board is to be that fan voice and to be able to articulate the thoughts and feelings of the membership base effectively to the CEO/Chair. So far I'm not confident that is being done well enough. 

 

Admittedly it seems a thankless task, but we need to be constantly looking for ways to improve our governance model. I really hope a few people feel impassioned enough to stand for election so we can see fresher faces and some attempt at improving the system so its more transparent for pledgers. 

 

On some level it feels like its all got a bit too chummy and its led to a lot of complacency - I mean how hard were our reps lobbying to get Levein to ****? Have they ever had cross words with Budge? If you agree with 100% of what someone does all of the time then odds are you're being a sycophant and not providing the necessary critical input needed to hold the CEO/chair to a high standard. 

 

I'm not gunning for either of them, as I've said above, its a thankless task. There is a real need to improve communication and up the level of transparency so its much clearer to fans what they actually do on the board.

 

A lot of my criticisms of the SPFL come down to 2 points, lack of accountability and lack of transparency. I think the same can be applied to the FOH. We need to know more about whats going, what the money is being used for, what the long term plans are. Strategy, vision etc. Fan owned. Great, now what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 225
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • davemclaren

    25

  • David Black

    18

  • Neil Dongcaster

    17

  • iainmac

    14

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

40 minutes ago, oi oi said:

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?

 

That is a good question. It would definitely fit under an ultimate aim of winning more football matches (and trophies). I wouldn't see it going into the level of detail of who supplies the pies or exactly how much a season ticket would cost.

 

I guess the kind of things I think it could cover are things like what is the overall recruitment strategy (example below), how much emphasis are we going to place on youth and potentially some targets which helping judge whether the Academy is producing value for money (without being so prescriptive that it doesn't allow for the natural fluctuations in output), what major infrastructure or other areas of investment do the club plan over period of the strategy (which I'd envisage being something like 4 to 6 years). 

 

To give a bit more detail of the recruitment policy as an example, I think clubs in general are probably guilty of not having a great concept of their approach to recruitment. That isn't to say that every player should fit a mold, but a broad idea of the make-up of your team and any areas you are going to specialise in which might lead to other decisions about your investment in support staff. For example it might be that Hearts policy over the last few years has included targeting players of higher quality but who have had injury problems. This is a high risk, high reward strategy. If that is the strategy, then being transparent about it and getting the supporters to endorse it might lead to fewer concerns with the direction of the club when some of these players fail to recover fully or make a significant issue because members would understand what the club is trying to do. It might also drive investment in sports medicine and rehab. This might just be one aspect of a recruitment strategy and would never preclude other signings, but would guide overall direction. I know some people will disagree with this approach, thinking it over complicates football and we should just go out and spend the budget on the best players available. That is a legitimate view, but not one I share fully as I think it leads to managers taking a scatter gun approach that doesn't make the most of limited budget.

 

I should also say, I think Hearts are in a particularly difficult position. At a club like Hamilton you can say you are going to focus on youth development, with no real expectation you'll do more than avoid relegation. At Celtic or Rangers you can outspend your rivals to pretty much guarantee you win trophies. At Hearts there are high expectations that we do a bit of everything and win the odd trophy on a budget that is a bit bigger than most of our rivals but significantly smaller than the Old Firm. It's not easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.

 

What if Robbie wants to loan a player to, oh I dunno, let's say Hibs, "to give him some game time"?

 

You OK with that? 

 

Do you think the Board would San Toon that? 

 

Actually......... 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

What if Robbie wants to loan a player to, oh I dunno, let's say Hibs, "to give him some game time"?

 

You OK with that? 

 

Do you think the Board would San Toon that? 

 

Actually......... 🤔

 

That should've read 

 

Do you think the Board would sanction that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing will change until Ann Budge is gone, fact. Also, I fear the guys at the top of the FOH are spineless and out of touch of the fan base, like Ann. Big changes needed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of interesting and well thought out posts - very relevant to our immediate future (using the Zlamal loan event as an example of the issues the HMFC board and the FoH board and membership will have to deal with).   Thanks to all the posters for these.

 

As regards the process of standing for election to FoH board,  it's not clear to me what attributes a candidate should have in order to satisfy a majority of the members.    A good employment CV ?  A good orator ?  An uber PHM credential ?   A specific skillset (lawyer, accountant, IT,  sports  administration,   etc) ?     Maybe any of them ..... or none of them ?       What kind of person is needed to help run FoH ?   

 

Are the reps to join the HMFC board selected (elected) from the FoH board people ?    Is there now a case for FoH candidates seeking members' approval  to join the HMFC board having to set out their standpoint on things like communication to members, accessibility to members, their role on the HMFC board, their specific opinion on things like performance of the Academy, how the members should judge their performance, etc  ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
1 hour ago, iainmac said:

 

What if Robbie wants to loan a player to, oh I dunno, let's say Hibs, "to give him some game time"?

 

You OK with that? 

 

Do you think the Board would San Toon that? 

 

Actually......... 🤔

 

As Hibs are our rivals I wouldn't expect us to loan a player to them no, or them to us. Has that ever happened? I'm not sure it generally happens between city rivals in any league.

 

If folk are saying St Mirren are our rivals now, then by all means communicate that to the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

As Hibs are our rivals I wouldn't expect us to loan a player to them no, or them to us. Has that ever happened? I'm not sure it generally happens between city rivals in any league.

 

If folk are saying St Mirren are our rivals now, then by all means communicate that to the board.

 

St Mirren are one of the clubs that done us in and have been trolling us for months about it. If the Board don't realise that,  you've just confirmed my suspicions. 

 

I see every club as our rival. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
1 hour ago, iainmac said:

 

St Mirren are one of the clubs that done us in and have been trolling us for months about it. If the Board don't realise that,  you've just confirmed my suspicions. 

 

I see every club as our rival. 

 

Every football fan in the world agrees with you there 😅 Apart from the split scarf EPL plastic fans. So no loans in or out? Not sure how that will help us but ok.

Edited by ToqueJambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly my opinion about the foundation is that it is an incredible institution and the envy of every other club in Scottish football and I include the old firm in that statement.

However the problem that is now arising is that many fans who are contributing through the foh feel that they should have at least a little more influence/say over things like the controversial loan of zlamal this week, I personally feel let down by the club after all their "only hearts" chat and everything that has gone on after our demotion that they would back track the first time they were asked to by one of the very clubs that stood on our neck when we were down.

It's not a good decision imo and i can't believe that some are trying to even justify it.

Hopefully after this something can change and be done in the future about these type of decisions.

I very much doubt it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leveins Battalion
8 hours ago, Famous 1874 said:

Nothing will change until Ann Budge is gone, fact. Also, I fear the guys at the top of the FOH are spineless and out of touch of the fan base, like Ann. Big changes needed. 

 

This has been the opinion of most Hearts supporters on other media outlets for as long as i can remember now.

 

Slowly it is creeping into even the most die hard Budge fans on here,a wake up call is well and truly needed,call it blind faith,loyalty or whatever you find acceptable but this club needs a clean break.

 

I get that the Covid-19 Pandemic was not the 'right time' to hand over the club but that vehicle should be well and truly in motion,her releasing statements stating that she is far from finished only antagonises fans even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was annoyed about the Zlamal loan. Still am a bit in all honesty. Those using it as a reason/excuse to try and get rid of Budge are barking up the wrong tree though. The quiet majority of supporters and FoH members, most of whom are not on Hearts social media platforms or fora, don’t want rid. Even on here it’s probably a majority that want her to stay. It’s a bit of a cringe watching the same folk beating the same drum over multiple new profiles, and still not making any progress. Give it up lads. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Beast Boy said:

I was annoyed about the Zlamal loan. Still am a bit in all honesty. Those using it as a reason/excuse to try and get rid of Budge are barking up the wrong tree though. The quiet majority of supporters and FoH members, most of whom are not on Hearts social media platforms or fora, don’t want rid. Even on here it’s probably a majority that want her to stay. It’s a bit of a cringe watching the same folk beating the same drum over multiple new profiles, and still not making any progress. Give it up lads. :lol:

It represents yet another mistake and misreading by our foolish owner. 
The FOH has received over £10m and this money has not resulted in fan ownership, rather a club in the championship after years of grotesque mismanagement. 
Saturday was fun, with the Hibs fans saying thanks for getting our game going and ensuring us another 3 points... 

But yeah don’t moan about Budge, it’s fair and decent and we need to be the ones to repairing broken bridges. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

It represents yet another mistake and misreading by our foolish owner. 
The FOH has received over £10m and this money has not resulted in fan ownership, rather a club in the championship after years of grotesque mismanagement. 
Saturday was fun, with the Hibs fans saying thanks for getting our game going and ensuring us another 3 points... 

But yeah don’t moan about Budge, it’s fair and decent and we need to be the ones to repairing broken bridges. 


Who gives a **** what the Hibs fans were saying? If I did have any Hibs mates, I certainly wouldn’t be giving a **** what they had to say about football. :lol:

 

Anyway, it was a managerial decision, not a board decision. I don’t like the decision, but I have a sense of perspective. Thankfully most supporters and FoH contributors will agree. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Beast Boy said:


Who gives a **** what the Hibs fans were saying? If I did have any Hibs mates, I certainly wouldn’t be giving a **** what they had to say about football. :lol:

 

Anyway, it was a managerial decision, not a board decision. I don’t like the decision, but I have a sense of perspective. Thankfully most supporters and FoH contributors will agree. 👍

it does matter what your rival fans say and “giving more ammunition” is just daft. To say it doesn’t is just plain wrong. 
Most supporters will agree it was yet another weak and stupid decision by the football department. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 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.

Very good post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

It represents yet another mistake and misreading by our foolish owner. 
The FOH has received over £10m and this money has not resulted in fan ownership, rather a club in the championship after years of grotesque mismanagement. 
Saturday was fun, with the Hibs fans saying thanks for getting our game going and ensuring us another 3 points... 

But yeah don’t moan about Budge, it’s fair and decent and we need to be the ones to repairing broken bridges. 

It’s not the most relevant point but the game would have gone ahead anyway so, once again, they got that wrong. 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, weehammy said:

IMO the club needs to move as soon as is practicable into a ‘post-Budge’ era. But she shows no sign of realising this. There is no doubt she was the only show in town when we emerged from administration and she has done well to increase turnover and improve infrastructure. She has also presided over unprecedented disaster which has seen us at the bottom of a crap league despite our financial advantages. She should demit her role as chairperson as soon as the share transfer is completed while remaining on the board where her knowledge and experience can be useful. But we need new leadership.
 

You can't have been around in the late 1970s when we were relegated. Beaten by teams like Ayr United and Dumbarton. Perhaps she has presided over a disaster but not an unprecedented one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, iwasthere1954 said:

You can't have been around in the late 1970s when we were relegated. Beaten by teams like Ayr United and Dumbarton. Perhaps she has presided over a disaster but not an unprecedented one.

I was around in the 1070's witnessing these relegations, but the massive difference between then and now is the amount of money invested in this team. I have in fact been around since the late 50's and what has happened this time is the biggest disgrace in this clubs history. It is nothing short of a scandal .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

it does matter what your rival fans say and “giving more ammunition” is just daft. To say it doesn’t is just plain wrong. 
Most supporters will agree it was yet another weak and stupid decision by the football department. 

 

Hibs supporters just make up facts to suit their agendas anyway, so more fool anybody who actually bothers to give a **** what they say about us. Idiots to a man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Black said:

I was around in the 1070's witnessing these relegations, but the massive difference between then and now is the amount of money invested in this team. I have in fact been around since the late 50's and what has happened this time is the biggest disgrace in this clubs history. It is nothing short of a scandal .

Did you witness Battle of Hastings, too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Leveins Battalion said:

 

This has been the opinion of most Hearts supporters on other media outlets for as long as i can remember now.

 

Slowly it is creeping into even the most die hard Budge fans on here,a wake up call is well and truly needed,call it blind faith,loyalty or whatever you find acceptable but this club needs a clean break.

 

I get that the Covid-19 Pandemic was not the 'right time' to hand over the club but that vehicle should be well and truly in motion,her releasing statements stating that she is far from finished only antagonises fans even more.

Agreed mate. I’ve have that opinion for years now. We will not be a force until she goes, an embarrassment on and off the pitch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iwasthere1954 said:

You can't have been around in the late 1970s when we were relegated. Beaten by teams like Ayr United and Dumbarton. Perhaps she has presided over a disaster but not an unprecedented one.

 

1980-81 when Hearts finished 3rd in the 2nd tier.  It was still only 2pts for a win, Hearts finished 1pt behind Killie but won 4 more games than them.  Still managed to get beat by among others; Queen's Park (+draw), East Stirlingshire, Dumbarton (x2 including 2-5 at home).

 

I recall both John and Chris Robertson playing in same game (QOS?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Famous 1874 said:

Agreed mate. I’ve have that opinion for years now. We will not be a force until she goes, an embarrassment on and off the pitch. 

Their has to be a statement soon giving an exact date for the handover and that, in my opinion must be at the latest at one of the AGM's this December. More and more are becoming suspicious as to the motives for this delay. If fan ownership is going to work there has to be more connect between the members and the club. At this moment there is none and that is fuelling this suspicion. It's all when the time is right, when we are in a better place etc. When is the right time? Recently it was mentioned " later this year", well time will tell , but the longer this goes on more and more will get peed off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, David Black said:

Their has to be a statement soon giving an exact date for the handover and that, in my opinion must be at the latest at one of the AGM's this December. More and more are becoming suspicious as to the motives for this delay. If fan ownership is going to work there has to be more connect between the members and the club. At this moment there is none and that is fuelling this suspicion. It's all when the time is right, when we are in a better place etc. When is the right time? Recently it was mentioned " later this year", well time will tell , but the longer this goes on more and more will get peed off.

 

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your comments but how do you reconcile the fact that the most recent monthly total from FOH members is the highest it’s ever been against your views in this post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leveins Battalion
9 minutes ago, JamboGraham said:

 

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your comments but how do you reconcile the fact that the most recent monthly total from FOH members is the highest it’s ever been against your views in this post?

 

The FOH pledges have grown during lockdown due to a feeling of in justice placed upon the club by the Authorities and other clubs.Hearts support is the only constant through everything!

 

Ann Budge came along in 2014 when Heart of Midlothian Football Club needed someone and through Bidco has met her obligations and been paid back.

 

Now is the time to move on,everything comes to an end one day!

 

Disasters have been made by our Board that have ultimately left us (along with the disgrace of a Governing Body) languashing in Scotlands Second tier,unsure if and when we will be able to play Football again!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, JamboGraham said:

 

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your comments but how do you reconcile the fact that the most recent monthly total from FOH members is the highest it’s ever been against your views in this post?

That is because of the circumstances we found ourselves in. I can assure you that I probably know of another 4 members. like myself from day 1, and each one of us is (a) becoming suspicious and (b) as a result becoming more p***** off as time goes by. The divide between club and many fans is not the position we should be in, but it is becoming more of an issue that has to be addressed soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Leveins Battalion said:

 

The FOH pledges have grown during lockdown due to a feeling of in justice placed upon the club by the Authorities and other clubs.Hearts support is the only constant through everything!

 

Ann Budge came along in 2014 when Heart of Midlothian Football Club needed someone and through Bidco has met her obligations and been paid back.

 

Now is the time to move on,everything comes to an end one day!

 

Disasters have been made by our Board that have ultimately left us (along with the disgrace of a Governing Body) languashing in Scotlands Second tier,unsure if and when we will be able to play Football again!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

Have FoH actually told its membership (i.e. us) when exactly the share transfer will take place? You know, the reason why FoH exists in the first place?

 

Thought not. Just keep pledging - everything is fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MoncurMacdonaldMercer
15 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

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

 

in the interests of credibility highlight one post where u have been critical of the current regime or say the thread and i’ll look for it

 

cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some very good posts here and some that we can agree/disagree with dependent on your point of view.I think it is very difficult for the FOH at the moment as meetings can't be called to even get a feel for what is happening.No visits can be made to supporters clubs etc.and it is difficult on a platform as it is too easy to get shouted down.

I personally didn't go to the FOH agm last year and I would be surprised if there were than 50 or 60 who actually bothered.My bugbear was that it was on the same day as the club agm and although I attended that I didn't want to reappear for another meeting 5 or 6 hours later.For most there is only so much of these type of meetings you want to be at.I certainly don't have the time or the inclination to get involved and I much admire those who do want to do it and all free gratis particularly when the brickbats are out.

For the record I was very disappointed regarding the loaning of Zlamal and judging by the way he performed they might have been as well putting the 40 year old coach in goal.Hopefully Robbie is paying attention and doesn't make the same sort of decision again without having a serious think about how the fans will perceive it.He has enough enemies within the support without giving more ammo. to some

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
18 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.


Really good post.

 

Fan owned can never be fan run. What I mean by that is that while you can have Hearts fans on the board etc, no successful football club will ever be managed by a cast of thousands on the outside. Never going to happen, never going to work. I accept that.

 

There are two problems at the moment. The first is that Budge is basically untouchable. She’s not accountable to anyone and nobody in a position of authority even tries to hold her to account. That creates the negative cycle of her making error after error, us putting in pound after pound and no-one inside the club batting an eyelid. The irony is that we’ve paid £10m (so far) in return for no voice or influence whatsoever.

 

Which brings us onto problem two. FOH are shirking their responsibilities. I don’t expect them to wage war over every little quibble on JKB but they don’t challenge the club over anything, or not publicly anyway. They’re either scared stiff of Budge or they don’t care. Probably the former. Even they must be able to see that constant silence is unacceptable when we’re all investing to such an extent.

 

All in all, it’s no wonder we’re so stagnant. Hearts tolerate low standards, FOH give the impression they don’t mind either and on we go. We will never be a force while it’s like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Have FoH actually told its membership (i.e. us) when exactly the share transfer will take place? You know, the reason why FoH exists in the first place?

 

Thought not. Just keep pledging - everything is fine.

My point exactly. I think it has maybe mentioned that the transfer would take place later this year, but for some strange reason no actual date was given. Why? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, David Black said:

My point exactly. I think it has maybe mentioned that the transfer would take place later this year, but for some strange reason no actual date was given. Why? 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11790/11963967/hearts-delay-transfer-of-ann-budges-shares-to-foundation-of-hearts-amid-coronavirus-disruption

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, David Black said:

My point exactly. I think it has maybe mentioned that the transfer would take place later this year, but for some strange reason no actual date was given. Why? 

See previous post but i don’t think a date was given. There is a cost to complete the transfer as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

See previous post but i don’t think a date was given. There is a cost to complete the transfer as well. 

I think the cost has been mentioned at around £100000 , so that amount was accrued months ago. What I find amazing is that both club and FOH have set themselves up for this level of criticism. The comments from FOH which you highlight are frankly just waffle. All this need a better time, why? Delays due to Covid. The transfer is done electronically so where do they get the delay from.I presume everyone else joined FOH ( myself from day 1 ) for 2 reasons, to help save and stabilise the club and to be owned by the supporters. We have achieved the first but the second just seems to be getting put back time and again. I think this is going to come to a head before the year is out and failure to deliver may well see many stopping their payments. We have paid in well over £10 million and for what, back to square one and no nearer ownership. It's just not good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

See previous post but i don’t think a date was given. There is a cost to complete the transfer as well. 

 

The money is there for that purpose so, not an issue. More to do with timing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, David Black said:

I think the cost has been mentioned at around £100000 , so that amount was accrued months ago. What I find amazing is that both club and FOH have set themselves up for this level of criticism. The comments from FOH which you highlight are frankly just waffle. All this need a better time, why? Delays due to Covid. The transfer is done electronically so where do they get the delay from.I presume everyone else joined FOH ( myself from day 1 ) for 2 reasons, to help save and stabilise the club and to be owned by the supporters. We have achieved the first but the second just seems to be getting put back time and again. I think this is going to come to a head before the year is out and failure to deliver may well see many stopping their payments. We have paid in well over £10 million and for what, back to square one and no nearer ownership. It's just not good enough.

I think the delay due to Covid is more financial related in that we may need to get into more debt to survive. The provider of most, if not all, of that money is likely to be Ann and maybe she would rather keep her Majority shareholding and first charge on the stadium if that is the case. 
 

pure speculation from me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, oi oi said:

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.

It seems I know even less than these guys

 

https://ptfc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.14-FINAL-Joint-Opinion-PTFC.pdf

 

who, despite their years of legal experience, also thought there was a case to be won. If only the club had listened to you instead of them, and the trained Solicitor Gerry Britton, and Lord Clarke who seemed very interested in our case. 

 

Without wanting to flog a dead horse I’d be interested to hear exactly where in the Articles you think it suggested we had no chance. The articles ultimately tied us to Arbitration. Given the confidentiality of that process we don’t know how the decision was reached. You seem to know how by simply reading the articles of association so go on, enlighten us.

 

And, to correct you, throughout the litigation process I provided evidence of what I believed could be challenged, in an attempt to piece evidence together to make a case. I passed little comment during the arbitration process as no-one knew what was being presented, not that it mattered as you knew all along we had “next to no chance”. If only the club had listened to you.

Edited by Ethan Hunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gorgie Boot boy

The situation has changed due to the Covid 19 out break etc, i would imagine the FOH would of found it difficult to operate during the peak moments and maybe do still.  The bad luck the club has faced up to head on may well be a blessing in disguise in opening up the eyes of many who have put their saving  house money etc into the FOH fund account. It is and will reveal a lot of magical mystery moments. I see it this way. We the fans pay in money putting the clubs accounts on a high level for the size of the club the support etc, we are in fact the life and soul of the club. It seems that the Hearts Board are high and mighty in their minds and see the FOH  money as a guarantee and take it for granted hense appearing to be taking us for mugs, i use the word appearing not as fact but as it looks or feels. The point is easy to prove us being turfed out for being crap and now due to play in the lower league. Thankfuly the FOH monies can only be signed off on by FOH and not Hearts fC or it would off been chewed up and spat out with in 15 month. I am in it for the love affair for only Hearts. Who runs the show is irrelevant to me if they are any good. If they are not then they should stop sniffing the cash and just get it ate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

It seems I know even less than these guys

 

https://ptfc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.14-FINAL-Joint-Opinion-PTFC.pdf

 

who, despite their years of legal experience, also thought there was a case to be won. If only the club had listened to you instead of them, and the trained Solicitor Gerry Britton, and Lord Clarke who seemed very interested in our case. 

 

Without wanting to flog a dead horse I’d be interested to hear exactly where in the Articles you think it suggested we had no chance. The articles ultimately tied us to Arbitration. Given the confidentiality of that process we don’t know how the decision was reached. You seem to know how by simply reading the articles of association so go on, enlighten us.

 

And, to correct you, throughout the litigation process I provided evidence of what I believed could be challenged, in an attempt to piece evidence together to make a case. I passed little comment during the arbitration process as no-one knew what was being presented, not that it mattered as you knew all along we had “next to no chance”. If only the club had listened to you.

I pointed it all out at the time and have no desire to revisit the articles. Maybe you should have read them but hey ho, you know best in your pursuit of perfection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

That is a good question. It would definitely fit under an ultimate aim of winning more football matches (and trophies). I wouldn't see it going into the level of detail of who supplies the pies or exactly how much a season ticket would cost.

 

I guess the kind of things I think it could cover are things like what is the overall recruitment strategy (example below), how much emphasis are we going to place on youth and potentially some targets which helping judge whether the Academy is producing value for money (without being so prescriptive that it doesn't allow for the natural fluctuations in output), what major infrastructure or other areas of investment do the club plan over period of the strategy (which I'd envisage being something like 4 to 6 years). 

 

To give a bit more detail of the recruitment policy as an example, I think clubs in general are probably guilty of not having a great concept of their approach to recruitment. That isn't to say that every player should fit a mold, but a broad idea of the make-up of your team and any areas you are going to specialise in which might lead to other decisions about your investment in support staff. For example it might be that Hearts policy over the last few years has included targeting players of higher quality but who have had injury problems. This is a high risk, high reward strategy. If that is the strategy, then being transparent about it and getting the supporters to endorse it might lead to fewer concerns with the direction of the club when some of these players fail to recover fully or make a significant issue because members would understand what the club is trying to do. It might also drive investment in sports medicine and rehab. This might just be one aspect of a recruitment strategy and would never preclude other signings, but would guide overall direction. I know some people will disagree with this approach, thinking it over complicates football and we should just go out and spend the budget on the best players available. That is a legitimate view, but not one I share fully as I think it leads to managers taking a scatter gun approach that doesn't make the most of limited budget.

 

I should also say, I think Hearts are in a particularly difficult position. At a club like Hamilton you can say you are going to focus on youth development, with no real expectation you'll do more than avoid relegation. At Celtic or Rangers you can outspend your rivals to pretty much guarantee you win trophies. At Hearts there are high expectations that we do a bit of everything and win the odd trophy on a budget that is a bit bigger than most of our rivals but significantly smaller than the Old Firm. It's not easy.

Without wanting to introduce division into FOH it would be good to be presented with different strategies for the members to vote upon to move forward, such as those you suggest. Combining them with milestones and targets would give an element of measurability as well.

 

The strategies needn't be diametrically opposed or have massive differences but it would serve as some kind of engagement with the fans being involved with decision making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got to agree with the OP that I'm a bit disillusioned with the FOH and it's not what I expected it to be. 

 

Although "fan owned not fan ran" has always be the strap line, I would have expected the fans views to be taken on board more. For instance, with levein. I dont know anyone who wanted him to stay beyond the cup final. That includes guys who were initially happy for him to get more time. 

 

It's almost no difference to having a Wallace Mercer or romanov in charge but we give them almost £2m a year to do as they wish with it. 

 

Its maybe something the club and FOH need to look at and what can they do to make the fans feel more engaged. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toxteth O'Grady
4 hours ago, iainmac said:

 

The money is there for that purpose so, not an issue. More to do with timing. 

Whatever the hold up is I think delaying the  takeover is only risking the current regime making even more of a mess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oi oi said:

I pointed it all out at the time and have no desire to revisit the articles. Maybe you should have read them but hey ho, you know best in your pursuit of perfection.

Oh I read the articles, several times, and strangely enough I must have missed the articles that related to Company Law (mainly because they were none) which was the legislation we petitioned to the court. The articles stated we had to go to arbitration. As a result of the confidentiality of that process neither you, me, or the man on the moon know what evidence was presented, but I’d wager some of the evidence presented was the same as some documented on here.

 

We’ll just agree to disagree though eh. You were obviously happy to take it up the erse whilst I was at least prepared to spend some time looking for a fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Oh I read the articles, several times, and strangely enough I must have missed the articles that related to Company Law (mainly because they were none) which was the legislation we petitioned to the court. The articles stated we had to go to arbitration. As a result of the confidentiality of that process neither you, me, or the man on the moon know what evidence was presented, but I’d wager some of the evidence presented was the same as some documented on here.

 

We’ll just agree to disagree though eh. You were obviously happy to take it up the erse whilst I was at least prepared to spend some time looking for a fight.

Dry yer eyes. Scottish fitba is bound by the articles of association. Bitter pill to swallow but thems the rules we signed up to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Leveins Battalion said:

 

This has been the opinion of most Hearts supporters on other media outlets for as long as i can remember now.

 

Slowly it is creeping into even the most die hard Budge fans on here,a wake up call is well and truly needed,call it blind faith,loyalty or whatever you find acceptable but this club needs a clean break.

 

I get that the Covid-19 Pandemic was not the 'right time' to hand over the club but that vehicle should be well and truly in motion,her releasing statements stating that she is far from finished only antagonises fans even more.

Not a dig at you personally - but blaming the chairman/person is not a new game.    In fact it's happened to every chairman at some stage ever since I started supporting Hearts.     Sometimes due to poor team performances, sometimes due to daft decisions, sometimes due to financial peril of the club.

  

Bill Lindsay

Bobby Parker

Archie Martin

Wallace Mercer 

Chris Robinson 

Romanov

... and now Budge

 

Whoever takes over from Budge (eventually) will need a thick skin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Not a dig at you personally - but blaming the chairman/person is not a new game.    In fact it's happened to every chairman at some stage ever since I started supporting Hearts.     Sometimes due to poor team performances, sometimes due to daft decisions, sometimes due to financial peril of the club.

  

Bill Lindsay

Bobby Parker

Archie Martin

Wallace Mercer 

Chris Robinson 

Romanov

... and now Budge

 

Whoever takes over from Budge (eventually) will need a thick skin.

I wrote a letter to Bill Lindsay! I highlighted how Hearts could make huge improvements on supporter engagement!
 

But I never got a reply ......

 

I was really upset!


Made me shout, “Lindsay OUT” - loudly!!

Edited by Jambo-Fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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




×
×
  • Create New...