FOH

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

24 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.

 

who on that list deserved no criticism?

 

you’ll struggle to find a bigger Wallace Mercer fan than me but I can’t say I don’t think he made some mistakes

 

good vastly outweighed the mistakes though and he put his house on the line etc - closest he got to financial backing from the fans was raffling cars etc and his financial xhundred clubs

 

qyeen ann well half the funds were in place for her before she opened her purse - almost a risk-free investment which she hammered out to her further advantage as highlighted by ian Murray

 

thats not to say she hasn’t done a lot of good things - clearly she has 

 

time to go soon hopefully tho 😃

Edited September 14, 2020 by MoncurMacdonaldMercer

[iainmac]

31 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

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!!

 

You should dig it out & resend it! 😁

[Guest ToqueJambo]

16 hours ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

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

 

I don't usually like to engage with anyone who uses the word "regime" when talking about Hearts, but I thought Budge gave Levein too much leeway, Levein lost his management mojo and Stendel was a mostly shite appointment by Budge, if still an understandable one.

Edited September 15, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Coco]

Given that there is a delay to FoH taking on ownership of the club is there a similar delay in the FoH desired plan to make it easier to sell the club by reducing the supermajority vote threshold?

[Leveins Battalion]

8 hours 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 started going in 88 but really can only remember from 92,93.

 

Robinson got everything he deserved,even now i see him at games and he annoys me.

 

Romanov gave me some of the best days of my life watching Hearts,players i would never of seen wearing the maroon strip,it could be argued that he left us in a better position.£30 odd million worth of debt cleared!!That said he drove me nuts aswell.

 

Ann Budge,has turned Hearts into the most successful and well run club in my 30 odd years supporting them,after administration was exactly what we needed and performed beyond expectations....

 

Since then,one disiaster after another.A steady decline that has seen us playing in the 2nd tier in Scottish Football,she has chose to be the leader and as that leader has made woeful choices.The decision to hold onto Craig Levein depsite fans protesting,the 'i'll show them statements during this time',the appointment of Daniel Stendel (whilst he may have been the man for us,having CL,AM,JD hanging around whilst he came in was a disgrace.)Also the amount of time it took to appoint anybody!!!!!

 

I have never felt so detached from my club under Ann Budge,my old man who is 72 and been going since he 5 is the same,my sons are not interested in Hearts just now.She has created the atmosphere at Tynecastle,a damp squid these days (que the Rangers cup game was bouncing gang.)

 

I will not be sad to see the back of her,whilst being grateful to her i am sick of my club being the laughing stock of Scottish Football.

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

3 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

I don't usually like to engage with anyone who uses the word "regime" when talking about Hearts, but I thought Budge gave Levein too much leeway, Levein lost his management mojo and Stendel was a mostly shite appointment by Budge, if still an understandable one.

 

👍

 

no need to reply mate but I’m wondering if your posts at the time reflected these thoughts

 

 

[Herbert.]

1 hour ago, Leveins Battalion said:

 

I started going in 88 but really can only remember from 92,93.

 

Robinson got everything he deserved,even now i see him at games and he annoys me.

 

Romanov gave me some of the best days of my life watching Hearts,players i would never of seen wearing the maroon strip,it could be argued that he left us in a better position.£30 odd million worth of debt cleared!!That said he drove me nuts aswell.

 

Ann Budge,has turned Hearts into the most successful and well run club in my 30 odd years supporting them,after administration was exactly what we needed and performed beyond expectations....

 

Since then,one disiaster after another.A steady decline that has seen us playing in the 2nd tier in Scottish Football,she has chose to be the leader and as that leader has made woeful choices.The decision to hold onto Craig Levein depsite fans protesting,the 'i'll show them statements during this time',the appointment of Daniel Stendel (whilst he may have been the man for us,having CL,AM,JD hanging around whilst he came in was a disgrace.)Also the amount of time it took to appoint anybody!!!!!

 

I have never felt so detached from my club under Ann Budge,my old man who is 72 and been going since he 5 is the same,my sons are not interested in Hearts just now.She has created the atmosphere at Tynecastle,a damp squid these days (que the Rangers cup game was bouncing gang.)

 

I will not be sad to see the back of her,whilst being grateful to her i am sick of my club being the laughing stock of Scottish Football.

 

When have we been successful, Did I miss a cup win under budge?

[Leveins Battalion]

Just now, Herbert said:

 

When have we been successful, Did I miss a cup win under budge?

Yeah that has come across wrong,I meant success as in a business sense,the new stand and associated incomes from it,in terms of infrastructure. 

 

I am far from pleased with the teams performance.

[Francis Albert]

One of the more tiresome points repeatedly made on the topic is "why don't you stand for election?" There are many reasons why individuals may be unable or unwilling to do so. When posters criticise Johnson or Sturgeon is "why don't you stand for election?" a valid response? There have been some excellent points made on this thread about the  relationship between FoH and the club, FoH's role and FoH's relationship with its members.

 

As I recall we voted to approve the terms of the Bidco/FoH agreement and again on its amendment to permit diversion of funds to the new stand for 2 years. Yet the terms of the agreement are not being applied in relation to the core aim of FoH - ownership iof a controlling majority .There has been no explanation of the delay beyond the vaguest of waffle? Why has there been no indication of when this might happen?. We continue to more than fulfil the terms of our original pledges(and beyond) yet FoH has still not secured a single share in HMFC.

 

£11m and over 7 years on and we won't for some reason pay the £100,000 or so to Ann to complete the share transfer. 

 

[davemclaren]

19 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

One of the more tiresome points repeatedly made on the topic is "why don't you stand for election?" There are many reasons why individuals may be unable or unwilling to do so. When posters criticise Johnson or Sturgeon is "why don't you stand for election?" a valid response? There have been some excellent points made on this thread about the  relationship between FoH and the club, FoH's role and FoH's relationship with its members.

 

As I recall we voted to approve the terms of the Bidco/FoH agreement and again on its amendment to permit diversion of funds to the new stand for 2 years. Yet the terms of the agreement are not being applied in relation to the core aim of FoH - ownership iof a controlling majority .There has been no explanation of the delay beyond the vaguest of waffle? Why has there been no indication of when this might happen?. We continue to more than fulfil the terms of our original pledges(and beyond) yet FoH has still not secured a single share in HMFC.

 

£11m and over 7 years on and we won't for some reason pay the £100,000 or so to Ann to complete the share transfer. 

 

To be fair, there are plenty of candidates available to become MPs and then Prime Minister. I’m not aware of any MP, in recent history, elected unopposed.
 

I think it is a worry that there seems to be much concern in the last year or two over how FoH operates and yet we only get under 100 attending the agm and current board members are returned unopposed. 
 

Bashing the keyboard here, and on other social media, isn’t likely to get the changes that some appear to want. 

[The Treasurer]

11 hours ago, Jambo-Fox said:

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!!

That was my first  "Back of the Stand" demo !!!

[parisjambo]

8 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

One of the more tiresome points repeatedly made on the topic is "why don't you stand for election?" There are many reasons why individuals may be unable or unwilling to do so. When posters criticise Johnson or Sturgeon is "why don't you stand for election?" a valid response? There have been some excellent points made on this thread about the  relationship between FoH and the club, FoH's role and FoH's relationship with its members.

 

 

 

 

I'd also say that there would be more willing to stand as directors if there wasn't such an onerous nomination requirement. Currently you need 25 active members to nominate you. In contrast to stand for parliament you only need 10. I barely know 25 Hearts supporters, far less that number of FOH members.

 

As for the ones we do have. Getting into McCoist territory, who are these people? Yes their names are all the FOH website, but when do we ever hear from them? What input do those who represent us on the main Hearts board have? Unless I'm missing something by not living in Edinburgh any longer, then some feedback would be good. Overall communication with the members is awful. An email every few months is not how you communicate with a membership based organisation, and certainly not one with as passionate a membership as the FOH has. But I see nothing but supine support to the main board. They don't need to disagreeing, but at least showing that they are constructively questioning. Saying that apart from the debacle the football department has been since Robbie left, I generally support Ann Budge and the board, but that doesn't give them a free pass.

 

Whilst I'm still fully supportive FOH's overall aims, I voted against the governance proposals. I'm fed up of the "the fan owned, but not fan run" mantra. I get it would be unworkable to be involved in every minute aspect of the club, but the FOH seems to waived any influence. Although I do like the idea we all get a fax machine so we can advise Robbie on line-ups, substitutions etc. But I think it's untenable in the long-run that as the majority shareholder we don't have more of an influence. Even just the perception that we aren't just seen as a source of cash would be a step.

 

 

[David Black]

33 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

One of the more tiresome points repeatedly made on the topic is "why don't you stand for election?" There are many reasons why individuals may be unable or unwilling to do so. When posters criticise Johnson or Sturgeon is "why don't you stand for election?" a valid response? There have been some excellent points made on this thread about the  relationship between FoH and the club, FoH's role and FoH's relationship with its members.

 

As I recall we voted to approve the terms of the Bidco/FoH agreement and again on its amendment to permit diversion of funds to the new stand for 2 years. Yet the terms of the agreement are not being applied in relation to the core aim of FoH - ownership iof a controlling majority .There has been no explanation of the delay beyond the vaguest of waffle? Why has there been no indication of when this might happen?. We continue to more than fulfil the terms of our original pledges(and beyond) yet FoH has still not secured a single share in HMFC.

 

£11m and over 7 years on and we won't for some reason pay the £100,000 or so to Ann to complete the share transfer. 

 

I raised much of what your are saying yesterday especially the part regarding waffle and the £100000 transfer payment. It is indeed waffle as all that is required is for the relevant parties to do what we are doing and typing on a keyboard to get the paper transaction completed. Being extremely cynical ( which I am) you might suspect that both the club and FOH were going out of their way to p*** of the members so that we all stop pledging. That would result in no need for FOH which in turn means Bidco could no longer transfer the shares to Fanco. That being the case the status quo would remain at the helm of the club. As I say a very cynical view but ........ 

[davemclaren]

Just now, David Black said:

I raised much of what your are saying yesterday especially the part regarding waffle and the £100000 transfer payment. It is indeed waffle as all that is required is for the relevant parties to do what we are doing and typing on a keyboard to get the paper transaction completed. Being extremely cynical ( which I am) you might suspect that both the club and FOH were going out of their way to p*** of the members so that we all stop pledging. That would result in no need for FOH which in turn means Bidco could no longer transfer the shares to Fanco. That being the case the status quo would remain at the helm of the club. As I say a very cynical view but ........ 

The shares have been paid for already. Stopping pledging does not stop the obligation to transfer the shares. I agree that an update on what the current plans around this are is overdue. 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

The lack of communication is a real problem. The only point at which communication has been especially active was when FOH were criticising the SPFL and begging us for more money.

 

They don’t ever want to answer difficult questions.

[Saint Jambo]

7 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

To be fair, there are plenty of candidates available to become MPs and then Prime Minister. I’m not aware of any MP, in recent history, elected unopposed.
 

I think it is a worry that there seems to be much concern in the last year or two over how FoH operates and yet we only get under 100 attending the agm and current board members are returned unopposed. 
 

Bashing the keyboard here, and on other social media, isn’t likely to get the changes that some appear to want. 

 

Standing for election isn't likely to get the changes people want either. The governance model adopted makes it hard to deliver significant change through standing candidates for election. This model isn't unusual for membership organisations. Unsurprisingly those that design the governance system are those in control at the time and they will generally believe they are doing a good job and don't want to see the membership being able to force a significant change in policy on the Board. There are significant governance advantages to electing board members by rotation and having the option to co-opt additional Board members, but it does make change through election hard to achieve and that inevitably puts people off trying to do so.

 

It isn't really surprising that people don't attend the AGM or stand for election more generally given the stated aim of FOH now is to collect money, hand it over to Hearts for whatever purpose the club sees fit, and exert no influence on the club (owner owned, not owner run). Why bother? I am a governance nerd, took an active part in the governance review, and attended previous AGMs. I didn't prioritise it last year because I couldn't really see the point of attending the AGM of what is effectively a shell company.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

What’s interesting about this as well is that a little like Budge, concerns about FOH’s attitude were first raised a long time ago. People who criticised them were shouted down but it does feels as if more and more folk are starting to ask pointed questions. It’s arrogance on FOH’s part to think they can carry on being so aloof

[Francis Albert]

6 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

To be fair, there are plenty of candidates available to become MPs and then Prime Minister. I’m not aware of any MP, in recent history, elected unopposed.
 

I think it is a worry that there seems to be much concern in the last year or two over how FoH operates and yet we only get under 100 attending the agm and current board members are returned unopposed. 
 

Bashing the keyboard here, and on other social media, isn’t likely to get the changes that some appear to want. 

I agree up to a point. But to be fair FoH does not go out of its way to attract candidates. I have suggested in the past that FOH 

 

- gives an indication of the time involved and at what times/days

- publishes board minutes ( commercially and other sensitive material redacted) - even the agenda would be a start

- provide a brief CV of existing Board members on the website (we may do this now but it took some time and effort even to get this)

- gives an indication of areas of expertise where the Board thinks it is weak or could usefully be strengthened.

- maybe reduce the number of secondees required for a nomination or allow in addition some other criteria that would eliminate time wasters 

- get out as board members used to in the early days to meetings with members and drum up interest in participating 

 

"Banging the keyboard on here" (is that your view as a JKB supremo of all that we do ... probably fair) of course in itself won't change things but I would hope one at least of the board would read what is said on this thread for example and relay any points they consider significant to other board members.

[Hashimoto]

5 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

I don't usually like to engage with anyone who uses the word "regime" when talking about Hearts, but I thought Budge gave Levein too much leeway, Levein lost his management mojo and Stendel was a mostly shite appointment by Budge, if still an understandable one.

Sorry, disagree with your comments regarding the Stendel appointment. IMO it was a brave, forward thinking appointment. The problem was that Stendel was left to work with Levein's duds and that was quite clearly obviously a hopeless cause. We can only guess if it would have been a success or a disaster. But one thing is certain...he would have chased out the deadwood, irrespective of which league we were in.

Budge going back for "safe pair of hands" Robbie.....I'll reserve judgement on that particular appointment.  
 

[davemclaren]

7 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Standing for election isn't likely to get the changes people want either. The governance model adopted makes it hard to deliver significant change through standing candidates for election. This model isn't unusual for membership organisations. Unsurprisingly those that design the governance system are those in control at the time and they will generally believe they are doing a good job and don't want to see the membership being able to force a significant change in policy on the Board. There are significant governance advantages to electing board members by rotation and having the option to co-opt additional Board members, but it does make change through election hard to achieve and that inevitably puts people off trying to do so.

 

It isn't really surprising that people don't attend the AGM or stand for election more generally given the stated aim of FOH now is to collect money, hand it over to Hearts for whatever purpose the club sees fit, and exert no influence on the club (owner owned, not owner run). Why bother? I am a governance nerd, took an active part in the governance review, and attended previous AGMs. I didn't prioritise it last year because I couldn't really see the point of attending the AGM of what is effectively a shell company.

So how would you set it up and how can you effect that change without doing as I suggest? The only other way, I think, would be to seek an EGM. I can’t recall what the membership numbers required for that are. 

[David Black]

14 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

The shares have been paid for already. Stopping pledging does not stop the obligation to transfer the shares. I agree that an update on what the current plans around this are is overdue. 

Do you mean the £100000 has been paid for the shares transfer as that is not what was implied yesterday ?

[davemclaren]

Just now, David Black said:

Do you mean the £100000 has been paid for the shares transfer as that is not what was implied yesterday ?

No, the actual shares have been paid for. My understanding from the comment yesterday is that the £100k is there but not yet transferred. I imagine that happens when transfer is carried out. 

[iainmac]

3 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

No, the actual shares have been paid for. My understanding from the comment yesterday is that the £100k is there but not yet transferred. I imagine that happens when transfer is carried out. 

 

Correct.

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

No, the actual shares have been paid for. My understanding from the comment yesterday is that the £100k is there but not yet transferred. I imagine that happens when transfer is carried out. 

The £100,000 has been transferred/paid to Bidco? Why would FoH transfer the money before the transfer of the shares?

[David Black]

1 minute ago, davemclaren said:

No, the actual shares have been paid for. My understanding from the comment yesterday is that the £100k is there but not yet transferred. I imagine that happens when transfer is carried out. 

What this highlights along with many of the other comments , is that this is the time when a joint statement from both AB and FOH explaining exactly what the current situation is and give an exact date for the handover from Bidco to Fanco. Failure to do so will only encourage more misinformed opinions and comments, which in turn is doing no one any good and is just driving a bigger wedge between both parties. There is no reason whatsoever that the final handover cannot be done at this years club agm. 

[iainmac]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

The £100,000 has been transferred/paid to Bidco? Why would FoH transfer the money before the transfer of the shares?

 

The answer is actually right above what you typed.

[iainmac]

Just now, David Black said:

What this highlights along with many of the other comments , is that this is the time when a joint statement from both AB and FOH explaining exactly what the current situation is and give an exact date for the handover from Bidco to Fanco. Failure to do so will only encourage more misinformed opinions and comments, which in turn is doing no one any good and is just driving a bigger wedge between both parties. There is no reason whatsoever that the final handover cannot be done at this years club agm. 

 

the original plan was to hand over the shares and have an event on the plaza to mark the occasion.

 

COVID took care of that, hence the delay. there may need to be a more pragmatic solution rather than waiting for this pandemic to blow over. Just my opinion.

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

The answer is actually right above what you typed.

Sorry but I was seeking clarification. Who has the £100,000 been paid to? Where is the "there" where the £100,000 is now residing?

Edited September 15, 2020 by Francis Albert

[iainmac]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

Sorry but I was seeking clarification. Who has the £100,000 been paid to? Where is "there" where the £100,000 is now residing?

 

It's not been paid to anyone. Dave typed "Not yet transferred" then you asked who it  had been transferred to.

 

It's been set aside for this very purpose but won't be paid to BIDCO until the shares are actually transferred.

[Ribble]

The issue here is two fold, we have a lot of fans (not all) that lack an understanding of the type of information you are entitled to as a 1/9000+ shareholder and we also have a FOH board that are operating as they would with any other board which isn't sufficient due to the emotional attachment of their 9000+ shareholders.

 

There is a solution somewhere in the middle but there will still be people that want more information or communication than they will ever get.

[Francis Albert]

2 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

the original plan was to hand over the shares and have an event on the plaza to mark the occasion.

 

COVID took care of that, hence the delay. there may need to be a more pragmatic solution rather than waiting for this pandemic to blow over. Just my opinion.

Ah. The FOH obsession with ceremonies? 

[Neil Dongcaster]

Covid isn’t going anyway anytime soon. Many experts are predicting a second wave and further lock downs. If the plan is to wait until the pandemic is over in order to complete the transfer then it could be many months away.

 

This uncertainty will continue to build until FOH provide a clear indication of their proposed route forward.

[iainmac]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

Ah. The FOH obsession with ceremonies? 

 

Aye, you're right.

 

It's an everyday occurrence that 8000+ fans rescue their club from Administration and then become the majority shareholder.

 

You don't have to go (if it ever happens) - it won't be compulsory. 😁

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

It's not been paid to anyone. Dave typed "Not yet transferred" then you asked who it  had been transferred to.

 

It's been set aside for this very purpose but won't be paid to BIDCO until the shares are actually transferred.

Ok. Got you. Dave said the actual shares have been paid for. The cash has been raised and set aside but not yet paid to anyone.

[Francis Albert]

2 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

Aye, you're right.

 

It's an everyday occurrence that 8000+ fans rescue their club from Administration and then become the majority shareholder.

 

You don't have to go (if it ever happens) - it won't be compulsory. 😁

It just seems an odd reason to delay by months, possibly many months, the fulfilment of over 7 years work.

 

We could have a ceremony of passing the Keys to the Castle any time in the future when Covid permits.

[iainmac]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

It just seems an odd reason to delay by months, possibly many months, the fulfilment of over 7 years work.

 

We could have a ceremony of passing the Keys to the Castle any time in the future when Covid permits.

 

It was a perfectly valid reason at the time but, I agree, a change of thinking is now required.

[Saint Jambo]

33 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

So how would you set it up and how can you effect that change without doing as I suggest? The only other way, I think, would be to seek an EGM. I can’t recall what the membership numbers required for that are. 

 

I've outlined some of that above. I wouldn't necessarily change the governance arrangements around electing and co-opting board members significantly. I don't think being able to radically overhaul the Board via election would be healthy as it could easily lead to something closer to my understanding of the Spanish model where candidates promise the world with details football proposals. But then I think you have to find ways for members to feel engaged that aren't reliant on on saying "well why don't you stand for election then". If that is the only way of a 9,000 member organisation engaging with its members then it is getting things wrong in my opinion given that clearly only a tiny number of members could ever make use of. It is a lazy defence, rather that an effective approach. Improved communication and transparency, and my proposal about involving members in the agreement of a medium term strategy would be changes I've suggested.

 

Options for effecting change are limited. That doesn't make standing for election suddenly a good option. As I said, I'll engage with the FOH Board when they provide opportunities to do so, I might occasionally write to the Board providing my opinions, and I'll engage in the public discourse on the topic probably primarily through JKB. Are any of those likely to be particularly effective? Given the position of the Board at present, I doubt it, but then I also doubt the effectiveness of standing for election or trying to call an EGM (I think it is set at 5% of members which is the standard in company law, but I might be wrong). It can be difficult to influence an organisation even a members organisation that doesn't want to listen or change.

 

15 minutes ago, Ribble said:

The issue here is two fold, we have a lot of fans (not all) that lack an understanding of the type of information you are entitled to as a 1/9000+ shareholder and we also have a FOH board that are operating as they would with any other board which isn't sufficient due to the emotional attachment of their 9000+ shareholders.

 

There is a solution somewhere in the middle but there will still be people that want more information or communication than they will ever get.

 

I agree with this. It is a challenge to find the middle ground but I do think there are options there. The biggest issue at the moment is that those running the organisation don't think they have a problem.

[Des Lynam]

1 hour ago, parisjambo said:

Although I do like the idea we all get a fax machine so we can advise Robbie on line-ups, substitutions etc. 

 

 

This. 

[davemclaren]

49 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Ok. Got you. Dave said the actual shares have been paid for. The cash has been raised and set aside but not yet paid to anyone.

I believe Ann has the funds that redeem her original loan ( effectively the purchase price of the shares ) but FoH still has the £100k to be paid to effect the actual share transfer. 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

1 hour ago, Ribble said:

The issue here is two fold, we have a lot of fans (not all) that lack an understanding of the type of information you are entitled to as a 1/9000+ shareholder and we also have a FOH board that are operating as they would with any other board which isn't sufficient due to the emotional attachment of their 9000+ shareholders.

 

There is a solution somewhere in the middle but there will still be people that want more information or communication than they will ever get.

FOH clearly don’t want to act as a pressure group. I can understand that and there’s a balance to be found. But it’s not credible to constantly ignore what’s going on around you, simply because addressing issues might upset the club.

 

For example, the club we’re buying is a Championship club. What financial hit is Budge taking as a result of the fact that we’re down at this level? Should there be some compensation for the fact that a load of the money we’ve put in has been pissed up the wall, with this the end result?

 

I’m not sure that when FOH completes the buy out, the club will look or act any different to how it is now. I don’t see Budge’s power diminishing or FOH even wanting her power to diminish. More and more, I’m struggling to see the point.

[David Black]

2 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

FOH clearly don’t want to act as a pressure group. I can understand that and there’s a balance to be found. But it’s not credible to constantly ignore what’s going on around you, simply because addressing issues might upset the club.

 

For example, the club we’re buying is a Championship club. What financial hit is Budge taking as a result of the fact that we’re down at this level? Should there be some compensation for the fact that a load of the money we’ve put in has been pissed up the wall, with this the end result?

 

I’m not sure that when FOH completes the buy out, the club will look or act any different to how it is now. I don’t see Budge’s power diminishing or FOH even wanting her power to diminish. More and more, I’m struggling to see the point.

When the transfer of shares finally takes place and we are then a fan owned club, we as the owners of that company will decide who we want to represent us at board level, and that includes AB. She will no longer have the power to say she wants to remain as chairperson or whatever other role. We the owners of the company will decide that. If she still had majority shares she could but she won't have that majority.

[iainmac]

2 minutes ago, David Black said:

When the transfer of shares finally takes place and we are then a fan owned club, we as the owners of that company will decide who we want to represent us at board level, and that includes AB. She will no longer have the power to say she wants to remain as chairperson or whatever other role. We the owners of the company will decide that. If she still had majority shares she could but she won't have that majority.

 

Actually, the club Board will decide who the Chair & CEO will be going forward. 

[davemclaren]

1 minute ago, David Black said:

When the transfer of shares finally takes place and we are then a fan owned club, we as the owners of that company will decide who we want to represent us at board level, and that includes AB. She will no longer have the power to say she wants to remain as chairperson or whatever other role. We the owners of the company will decide that. If she still had majority shares she could but she won't have that majority.

We will via our elected representatives on the FoH board. There will be no mass vote of FoH members to appoint Club board directors. 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

4 minutes ago, David Black said:

When the transfer of shares finally takes place and we are then a fan owned club, we as the owners of that company will decide who we want to represent us at board level, and that includes AB. She will no longer have the power to say she wants to remain as chairperson or whatever other role. We the owners of the company will decide that. If she still had majority shares she could but she won't have that majority.

No, the club’s board will. And they never say boo to a goose

[Jim Panzee]

14 hours 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.

good post. basically whoever is it at the helm will get criticism regardless of what they do. Romanov's era saw us bring in some phenomenal players....but all on the never never - 'anyone' can do that. 

 

Budge will leave a legacy of off the field income which will continue to roll in years after she and whatever strong of managers come next. 

[David Black]

13 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

Actually, the club Board will decide who the Chair & CEO will be going forward. 

Fair enough but we will be able to elect the club board when they stand for election/re-election. They would be best advised to vote in accordance with the majority view. If that is not the case then the members are going to feel even further alienated than they are now. We would be the only company in the UK whereby the owners have no say as to who represents them. 

[iainmac]

Just now, David Black said:

Fair enough but we will be able to elect the club board when they stand for election/re-election. They would be best advised to vote in accordance with the majority view. If that is not the case then the members are going to feel even further alienated than they are now. We would be the only company in the UK whereby the owners have no say as to who represents them. 

 

No, we won't. 

 

We'll be able to elect the FoH Board, 2 of which will sit on the club Board. Exactly the same as now. 

[davemclaren]

12 minutes ago, David Black said:

Fair enough but we will be able to elect the club board when they stand for election/re-election. They would be best advised to vote in accordance with the majority view. If that is not the case then the members are going to feel even further alienated than they are now. We would be the only company in the UK whereby the owners have no say as to who represents them. 

We are not individually the owners of Hearts shares. We are members of an organisation that owns the shares collectively. 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, davemclaren said:

I believe Ann has the funds that redeem her original loan ( effectively the purchase price of the shares ) but FoH still has the £100k to be paid to effect the actual share transfer. 

Yes loan repaid with interest but acquisition of shares not yet done.

[Bull's-eye]

It's turned into a regurgitating drivel thread.

 

Shocked.