Jump to content

Budge.


The Roller

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, davemclaren said:

She may well have tapped him up long before the event. Her and Stendel didn’t look to have much ‘chemistry’ between them on the tv doc. 

 

Agreed, they were quite clearly uncomfortable together. Budge always seems uncomfortable in front of the camera's, however we can't fault her for that! 

 

If she did tap him up, and it's a big if, was it an acknowledgement from Budge that we were not going to win the legal battle, and that we were resigned to championship football...therefore better get the Red Adair of championship football back?

 

Budge has history here.....2 years ago, after Cathro left we spent weeks looking for a replacement.....Budge comes out with "Silly me!....the answer to our problem is staring me in the face and it's just two doors down"....Levein now head coach.
Recruitment problems compounded when other potential manager candidates  go singing to the press about the unorthodox manner in which Hearts (Budge) conducts business.

Now lets move forward 2-years!

Levein removed from post, but strangely stays about the building....Very strange behaviour from someone who has been effectively sacked!.....Take it that staying around was at the behest of Budge?

New and popular choice manager Stendel looks bemused on TV interview when asked about Levein sticking around....gives a very unconvincing "that's OK" response.  Stendal didn't want or need Levein around the place. He didn't need him to hold his hand to understand Scottish football.....So why was he there?  

 

The bottom line is  - Levein NEVER left, and is probably still lurking around in the background ......testified by the fact that his prodigal son has returned

As I said something stinks down Tynecastle way!


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 886
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • davemclaren

    54

  • Dusk_Till_Dawn

    54

  • Francis Albert

    36

  • NANOJAMBO

    36

9 minutes ago, Coco said:

There is an opportunity to send a message at the Foundation AGM.

 

Donald Cumming has been a FoH representative on the club Board for 5 seasons. He was therefore partly culpable for Levein's disastrous management of the club.  He can be voted off the FoH Board at the AGM (and then would have to leave the Club Board).

 

Would also be good to see the support demand the club be handed over.  And also to vote against the FoH desire to make it easier to sell the club.

 

He's not in any way culpable. He has no say in day to day business (eg key appointments) . The most he/FoH can do as non-exec directors is ask the awkward questions , hold individual directors to account by representing stakeholders (their)  interests. I've said before, I'm not assured they HAVE been doing that but it's clear AB  has been appointing people who she's comfortable with rather than looking further afield for the best candidates. I think the problem is , too many "yes men" at the club and that's not the fault of FoH. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Jambo61 said:

My understanding is Blackburn was a trust and was overturned in court?

 

No matters point I am trying to make is it is very clear FoH is kept as far as very long arms!

What is not clear is if Ann loses control when the shares are transferred? Does she just become a staff member/ honorary figurehead?

At that point the Hearts board assume control, but other than the CEO who is appointed, who is actually in charge of the future of Hearts?

Obviously we all want the best for Hearts, but what happens if it goes wrong? Who has the final say? It is obvious that FoH are not allowed any financial gain, so who does?

 

I think what can't be done is clear, but woolly as hell after that! I don't want to see a rudderless ship!

Fair enough - BRFC is a distraction 👍

 

I totally  agree with the above. It's well past time for FoH to represent their members interests and start asking for clear answers to simple but important questions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MCW1976 said:

 

Where does that leave Hibs? On the moon?

It just feels that the players are often separated from the fans. Also we don't own the training facilities at Riccarton. If you walk around it just feels like being in a University campus. Main problem is the players coming in often haven't been good enough.

Edited by steven_mck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, gowestjambo said:

 

In my opinion it is. The facts speak for themselves also.....

I meant specifically about the CEO ? The bit I highlighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sherbet said:

I've heard before that she is a control freak from a previous employee who decided to leave 

That doesn't surprise me but I was asking about the new CEO specifically. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Budge decided to get Neilson back she knew she was sticking two fingers up to a large section of the support.

 

It was an easy decision for her to make as she doesn't like that section of our support so I'm sure she had a quiet chuckle to herself. This is despite the fact that all our fans have been putting money into the club on an almost consistent basis for years to weather the storms brought upon us by Hearts owners.

 

She would have known that football fans are fickle and as long as Neilson was winning then she would be able to keep the other part of the Hearts support happy. However as suspected Neilson hasn't changed in the slightest and he still has us playing honking football for the majority of games and the support is getting ever more divided.

 

Football club owners generally try and unite the fans behind them and the club so they call all strive to move forward together. Instead Budge believes she's better than us and is happy to upset large swathes of the Hearts support.

 

She's got her money back, plus a lot of interest at a high rate. She can go and take Neilson and his management team with him. I don't know who we will get in but there are plenty of managers who could do fantastically well for us and take us forward with the fans united behind the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colonel Kurtz

In The Documentary it was like the opening scene from Macbeth when Budge and her cabal met.

They could arrange a coffee morning in Jenners but when it comes to running a football team they havent got a clue    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

He's not in any way culpable. He has no say in day to day business (eg key appointments) . The most he/FoH can do as non-exec directors is ask the awkward questions , hold individual directors to account by representing stakeholders (their)  interests. I've said before, I'm not assured they HAVE been doing that but it's clear AB  has been appointing people who she's comfortable with rather than looking further afield for the best candidates. I think the problem is , too many "yes men" at the club and that's not the fault of FoH. 

 

You can almost hear the knitting needles clanging,coming from inside tynecastle!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ford donald said:

 

You can almost hear the knitting needles clanging,coming from inside tynecastle!

It's a "crisis" when they run out of tea bags or Jaffa Cakes. 

Christ , we must be the first club in history whose board gets such an easy ride even when the "football" club they are supposed to be running has been going down the shitter for 5 years. 

 

Five fecking years of this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kila said:


Yet you defend the club at all costs. A cheerleader at best, a troll at worst.

 

 

Haven't defended anything. 

 

Stop making stuff up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

He was here last night - unlike you. 

 

I didn't watch the game and don't see the point of embarrassing myself like the rest of you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bull's-eye said:

 

Haven't defended anything. 

 

Stop making stuff up.


You’re more keen to attack posters slating the club under Budge 🤷‍♂️ 
 

That sounds like defending the honour of those ruining this club ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

It's a "crisis" when they run out of tea bags or Jaffa Cakes. 

Christ , we must be the first club in history whose board gets such an easy ride even when the "football" club they are supposed to be running has been going down the shitter for 5 years. 

 

Five fecking years of this. 

With such a loyal support it’s difficult to promote any change at board level. However with FOH surely we should use this vehicle to challenge and even make change. I honestly think when shares are handed over Budge won’t continue. 6 years and no improvement on the pitch she must be having words with herself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lost in space
41 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

He's not in any way culpable. He has no say in day to day business (eg key appointments) . The most he/FoH can do as non-exec directors is ask the awkward questions , hold individual directors to account by representing stakeholders (their)  interests. I've said before, I'm not assured they HAVE been doing that but it's clear AB  has been appointing people who she's comfortable with rather than looking further afield for the best candidates. I think the problem is , too many "yes men" at the club and that's not the fault of FoH. 

The FoH directory have not properly represent us. They should be running polls every, 3 months and questioning directors on polls results. These answers should then be passed back to members who should then get the chance to say if they are satisfied.

If the FoH directors are not happy with response from the board they should very publicly resign - explaining why.

The FoH directors are part of the problem!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kila said:


You’re more keen to attack posters slating the club under Budge 🤷‍♂️ 
 

That sounds like defending the honour of those ruining this club ;)

 


Correct.  There’s about five of them that do the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Clerry Jambo said:

With such a loyal support it’s difficult to promote any change at board level. However with FOH surely we should use this vehicle to challenge and even make change. I honestly think when shares are handed over Budge won’t continue. 6 years and no improvement on the pitch she must be having words with herself

I never thought I'd say this, but I want her gone asap and the board needs looking at (and not in a good way).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Yes, she is friends with his wife or something. 


Shocking if true. We need a ‘web of Budge’ diagram to highlight this sort of shite. She has to go and the FoH should fully close the door on her after the handover is complete. 
 

Football can be a brutal business and Budge should not be immune. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, weehammy said:

The ‘board’ hasn’t been running the club for five years. During that time we’ve had an OWNER able to make decisions without regard to anyone else. She may have solicited opinions from other board members but has been able to ignore any contrary views as she chose.

My understanding is that Donald Cumming has been a FOH rep on the board due to his role as an architect of the BIDCO agreement, not because he’s an expert in player recruitment or team tactics.

The FoH is quite clear about requirements for the role - legal or financial expertise only required. Now the question is , are they therefore restricted (either de facto or in their view) in that they can ONLY intervene in legal/ financial matters ? My point has always been - who on the board is responsible for the "football dept " ? I still believe FoH , as non exec directors , are legally entitled to ask questions of whomever the board member is that is in charge of the "football dept" because that person has been a dismal failure for years, has wasted millions, caused a huge turnover in failed managers etc, etc. 

 

In short, FoH legally represent their stakeholders interests and that should go beyond signing off meeting minutes & balance sheets. Long past time they spoke out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

He's not in any way culpable. He has no say in day to day business (eg key appointments) . The most he/FoH can do as non-exec directors is ask the awkward questions , hold individual directors to account by representing stakeholders (their)  interests. I've said before, I'm not assured they HAVE been doing that but it's clear AB  has been appointing people who she's comfortable with rather than looking further afield for the best candidates. I think the problem is , too many "yes men" at the club and that's not the fault of FoH. 

Both Wallace and Cumming are culpable for the Levein disaster.  Unfortunately it is another 2 years before Wallace can be voted out but it would be good to see Cumming go next month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Coco said:

Both Wallace and Cumming are culpable for the Levein disaster.  Unfortunately it is another 2 years before Wallace can be voted out but it would be good to see Cumming go next month.

How ?

Did they recruit him?

Did they/ do they have any say in "the football dept" ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, lost in space said:

The FoH directory have not properly represent us. They should be running polls every, 3 months and questioning directors on polls results. These answers should then be passed back to members who should then get the chance to say if they are satisfied.

If the FoH directors are not happy with response from the board they should very publicly resign - explaining why.

The FoH directors are part of the problem!

I agree . My view is they have not been good enough at holding directors to account. 

I'm not sure I agree about the rest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, kila said:


You’re more keen to attack posters slating the club under Budge 🤷‍♂️ 
 

That sounds like defending the honour of those ruining this club ;)

 

 

Attack ???

 

I've already stated I find it hilarious and decent entertainment, better than the Football. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kila said:


Shocking if true. We need a ‘web of Budge’ diagram to highlight this sort of shite. She has to go and the FoH should fully close the door on her after the handover is complete. 
 

Football can be a brutal business and Budge should not be immune. 

Well I thought Andrew McKinlay was brought in to oversee all the football stuff and Ann would be merely Chairing board meetings and that was about it. It just seems that all that she's done is to bring in another stooge that she can control and she's still very much running the show. 

 

The entire board needed to go in the summer. Every one of them. A thanks for your efforts but we needed a completely fresh approach. It was their failure and I think it was a bit of a silver lining for them that the SPFL became the bad guys during our demotion and it has allowed them to be let off the hook a bit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, weehammy said:

The ‘board’ hasn’t been running the club for five years. During that time we’ve had an OWNER able to make decisions without regard to anyone else. She may have solicited opinions from other board members but has been able to ignore any contrary views as she chose.

My understanding is that Donald Cumming has been a FOH rep on the board due to his role as an architect of the BIDCO agreement, not because he’s an expert in player recruitment or team tactics.

 Very few boards have experts in player recruitment or team tactics on them as far as I can see. Mainly lawyers, business people and accountants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
1 minute ago, Cruyff said:

Well I thought Andrew McKinlay was brought in to oversee all the football stuff and Ann would be merely Chairing board meetings and that was about it. It just seems that all that she's done is to bring in another stooge that she can control and she's still very much running the show. 

 

The entire board needed to go in the summer. Every one of them. A thanks for your efforts but we needed a completely fresh approach. It was their failure and I think it was a bit of a silver lining for them that the SPFL became the bad guys during our demotion and it has allowed them to be let off the hook a bit. 


A joke that she had anything to do with the recruitment of a CEO but yet again, not a peep from FOH. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Jamboskickback had any spine then the heads of this would get something going to force Budge and the rest of the board out of the club. This fan forum 100% has some sort of influence. Majority of people on here clearly want Budge to go and that is undeniable so why don’t we actually start to put pressure on her for once. She has ****ed us constantly over the last few years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

The FoH is quite clear about requirements for the role - legal or financial expertise only required. Now the question is , are they therefore restricted (either de facto or in their view) in that they can ONLY intervene in legal/ financial matters ? My point has always been - who on the board is responsible for the "football dept " ? I still believe FoH , as non exec directors , are legally entitled to ask questions of whomever the board member is that is in charge of the "football dept" because that person has been a dismal failure for years, has wasted millions, caused a huge turnover in failed managers etc, etc. 

 

In short, FoH legally represent their stakeholders interests and that should go beyond signing off meeting minutes & balance sheets. Long past time they spoke out. 

I assume you are talking about the FoH board (  where the upcoming elections are for directors for those roles ) rather than the club board?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talkin' Tynie Podcast

Ann Budge couldn't arrange a piss-up in a brewery.

 

We really need change at the top of the club, and not just Budge, the whole board - get a fresh start and actually prioritise winning games again. The documentary only showed small segments but anybody could see how useless the team are working at the club, there was so many evident areas of unprofessionalism on show.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


A joke that she had anything to do with the recruitment of a CEO but yet again, not a peep from FOH. 

As she said in that documentary, "Hearts fans just want a club to support" - no standards, no expectations, as long as we exist, that's all that matters. The FOH folk seem to be cut from the same cloth. 

We really need folk that actually have ambition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, davemclaren said:

I assume you are talking about the FoH board (  where the upcoming elections are for directors for those roles ) rather than the club board?

Does it matter - that's the level of expertise required and presumably that's the level of influence they have on the main board.  Is my point.  FoH has reps on the board ? What is the scope of their powers - only legal & finance ? 

I don't mean to sound confrontational. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


A joke that she had anything to do with the recruitment of a CEO but yet again, not a peep from FOH. 

What can FoH do regards the club appointing a CEO?

 

Genuine question. Is their silence then agreeing with the appointment?

 

Perhaps clarification of what FoH role is regards the club is needed? I know they have two board members, but what influence they have I know not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talkin' Tynie Podcast
Just now, Cruyff said:

As she said in that documentary, "Hearts fans just want a club to support" - no standards, no expectations, as long as we exist, that's all that matters. The FOH folk seem to be cut from the same cloth. 

We really need folk that actually have ambition. 

That's the way I see it also. A bunch of yes men (or women) in suits who don't have a clue or any ambition. Things are only going to get ugly I feel. The relationship between the bulk (non-happy clapping) of the fans and the club is really knackered. People have had enough, and rightly so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Does it matter - that's the level of expertise required and presumably that's the level of influence they have on the main board.  Is my point.  FoH has reps on the board ? What is the scope of their powers - only legal & finance ? 

I don't mean to sound confrontational. 

Board directors have scope to discuss and vote on anything the board discusses. They are not restricted to any ‘specislism’. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Boris said:

What can FoH do regards the club appointing a CEO?

 

Genuine question. Is their silence then agreeing with the appointment?

 

Perhaps clarification of what FoH role is regards the club is needed? I know they have two board members, but what influence they have I know not.

Exactly. It's all very weird. And weird that no clarification statement has ever been issued. Maybe FA can tell us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Boris said:

What can FoH do regards the club appointing a CEO?

 

Genuine question. Is their silence then agreeing with the appointment?

 

Perhaps clarification of what FoH role is regards the club is needed? I know they have two board members, but what influence they have I know not.

I assume his appointment was ratified by the board so a majority of directors likely approved it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, davemclaren said:

Board directors have scope to discuss and vote on anything the board discusses. They are not restricted to any ‘specislism’. 

It should go further -

A non-executive director typically does not engage in the day-to-day management of the organization but is involved in policymaking and planning exercises. A non-executive director's responsibilities include the monitoring of the executive directors and acting in the interest of the company stakeholders

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cruyff said:

As she said in that documentary, "Hearts fans just want a club to support" - no standards, no expectations, as long as we exist, that's all that matters. The FOH folk seem to be cut from the same cloth. 

We really need folk that actually have ambition. 

 

As was evident throughout the whole SPFL/Legal farce.

Conciliatory tone adopted throughout the whole sorry affair. The only real tangible anger coming from the support, and some other fair minded clubs. What angered me and many others was it was so obvious that they were running rings around her, and we were powerless to helping her see the way.

I know it's controversial, but how I long for a wee touch of the Romanov years. Bampot that he was, he knew how to fight dirty. 

 

Budge has been paid (with interest)......time to enjoy retirement now, and and take Robbie with you as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NANOJAMBO said:

It should go further -

A non-executive director typically does not engage in the day-to-day management of the organization but is involved in policymaking and planning exercises. A non-executive director's responsibilities include the monitoring of the executive directors and acting in the interest of the company stakeholders

They have statutory obligations under the companies act. I expect them to be fully involved in the club board.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, davemclaren said:

They have statutory obligations under the companies act. I expect them to be fully involved in the club board.  

Yeah, we're agreed on that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
7 minutes ago, Boris said:

What can FoH do regards the club appointing a CEO?

 

Genuine question. Is their silence then agreeing with the appointment?

 

Perhaps clarification of what FoH role is regards the club is needed? I know they have two board members, but what influence they have I know not.


This has needed clarified for a long time. They seem to have no influence and quite honestly, that’s completely unacceptable given the amount of supporters cash involved.

 

As an example, contrast the number of statements FOH issued about the SPFL compared to the number they have every released about the running of the club. They’re too worried about their meal ticket to represent us

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...