Our FoH donations

[Section Q]

14 hours ago, jr ewing said:

Reps should be able to ask all members queries no matter how mundane that they may appear to anyone else. 

This in spades..........Should be an open book policy......!

[Jambo61]

14 hours ago, RobNox said:

 

Most of the money since then has gone towards finishing paying off the Bidco loan, it's only in the last 6 months or so since we paid off the loan that FOH funds have become available as working capital, and given the Covid-19 scenario, it's no doubt helped us that we have those extra funds during a difficult period.

 

What happens in the longer term is my main concern.  AB may have requested full flexibility in how the money is spent, but FOH is the controlling shareholder, so surely we determine how the money is spent.  If Ann isn't happy, FOH can vote her off the Board, along with any other Board member that we're not happy with.  We might start with 2 FOH reps on the Board, but we can change that if we feel the need to do so.

In short, no we can't. FoH has a minority presence on the Hearts board, intentionally.

FoH is kept at arms length from the daily running decisions such as manager/ CEO etc!

[Lone Striker]

13 hours ago, RobNox said:

 

I'll start again, a bit of a cock up on my previous response, which I can't seem to be able to edit.

 

Playing staff and other staff costs are treated a revenue costs, along with any other costs that relate to the ongoing running of a business.  Infrastructure spend would be regarded as investment spend, over and above the day to day running costs, sometimes discretionary spend (e.g. we didn't necessarily have to build a new main stand to stay in business, but we saw some financial benefit in making the investment) sometimes essential spend (e.g. we had to invest in new stands 25+ years ago because regulations said we had to have an all seated stadium, regardless of whether we made any financial benefit from building the new stands.  If we didn't build them, we'd suffer a huge financial dis-benefit from having vastly fewer numbers of fans at games).

 

I was always of the view that once the Bidco loan was repaid, FOH funds should be directed to investment spend, rather than being treated as extra revenue.  

I agree with you there Rob.   It should never be included in the club's  bread & butter  budget and planned spend - however it still begs the question about how the directors use it.  "Investment" can cover many things -

   tangible assets like the stand, floodlights, pitch, medical equipment etc

   improvements to operating procedures like safety/security/ticketing technology, academy link-ups like Balerno High etc

   staff training (non-football/fitness training) to achieve regulatory compliance and new skills  

  

Then there is the concept of investment in our academy - coaching & recruitment of young players.       As several folk have alluded to, there seems to be something flawed in what our academy is doing. ....   do we just keep hoping that the current (or next ) manager gets it sorted ?   If he doesn't, then the high turnover of  average/poor signings each window will probably continue .... effectively funded by us unless the  club can tell us  what our money has enabled them to purchase or deliver.        

 

Or... we just keeping donating and hoping that somebody somewhere  changes things  for the better.

[Jambo61]

1 hour ago, otterjohn said:

Great post upgotheheads. im 64 and started going to Tynecastle from the ripe old age of 4. Ive watched some great players but also watched the likes of Frank Liddel,Ray Dunlop and Hans Eskillson to name a few.The  difference is the players I mentioned were hopeless but didnt lack effort, where as now we have guys who can play but for some reason just cant be bothered to .We have to find out why.

Something similar, 1967 and used to disappointment but always effort and sometimes flare!

The problem now is game wide and not just this country. I was taught pass and move, give options, put a ball into space, beat a man and more options become available etc. Today players are auto-safety 1st, pass back is the 1st thought and a corner or free kick might come along for a chance!

We have a fairly static defensive minded midfield, have done for years. We have such a lightweight attack it is frightening, they have no confidence and little guile. Our 'wingers' would be better waitresses! All of that puts pressure on the defenders not to concede.

I welcomed Stendel as a breath of fresh air, some attacking intent. I'm sure over time he would have seriously reshaped that squad, he had to play the hand dealt. His big 2 mistakes were obviously goalie and being too open at the back for the players he had. But then again, surely a defensive midfielder must be aware that if the centre half goes on a Hen Broon run the midfielder needs to drop back and cover, that's only common sense!

We are stuck with Robbie ( not my choice) who will always play defensively with probably 1 up front. We are stuck with players who hide aside an opposition player to 'pretend' they are marking while mostly offering nothing creatively.

I am now of an age where I can sit comfortably at home and think why the feck should I bother, and believe me for years now I have fought with myself over renewing the season. I've never believed we had any right to win anything, but I hoped we would. The least I expect is an effort to entertain and a 'style of play' I can appreciate. The more not losing or winning 1-0 and boring me to death goes on the nearer I am to giving up. Budge doesn't seem to get that and the rose tinted arses will always be rose tinted arses!

 

There, now I can have a nap!

[cheetah]

5 hours ago, The Treasurer said:

As has been pointed out, there is an AGM coming up.

Anyone who feels that FoH is not doing enough to influence club policy can put themselves up for election.

 

 

 

Well not everyone, you have to have a financial or legal background, which will rule out quite a lot.

[davemclaren]

1 minute ago, cheetah said:

 

 

Well not everyone, you have to have a financial or legal background, which will rule out quite a lot.

I think that’s only for the current two vacancies, which are for specific roles. 

[The Treasurer]

6 minutes ago, cheetah said:

 

 

Well not everyone, you have to have a financial or legal background, which will rule out quite a lot.

I thought this place was full of experts on all subjects 😁

[cheetah]

4 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I think that’s only for the current two vacancies, which are for specific roles. 

 Ah ok, then it's time to get my application form filled in, hope they need someone to take the bins out.

[cheetah]

Just now, The Treasurer said:

I thought this place was full of experts on all subjects 😁

Well that is certainly true so there should be some amount of applications handed in :lol:  

[Lone Striker]

18 minutes ago, Jambo61 said:

Something similar, 1967 and used to disappointment but always effort and sometimes flare!

The problem now is game wide and not just this country. I was taught pass and move, give options, put a ball into space, beat a man and more options become available etc. Today players are auto-safety 1st, pass back is the 1st thought and a corner or free kick might come along for a chance!

We have a fairly static defensive minded midfield, have done for years. We have such a lightweight attack it is frightening, they have no confidence and little guile. Our 'wingers' would be better waitresses! All of that puts pressure on the defenders not to concede.

I welcomed Stendel as a breath of fresh air, some attacking intent. I'm sure over time he would have seriously reshaped that squad, he had to play the hand dealt. His big 2 mistakes were obviously goalie and being too open at the back for the players he had. But then again, surely a defensive midfielder must be aware that if the centre half goes on a Hen Broon run the midfielder needs to drop back and cover, that's only common sense!

We are stuck with Robbie ( not my choice) who will always play defensively with probably 1 up front. We are stuck with players who hide aside an opposition player to 'pretend' they are marking while mostly offering nothing creatively.

I am now of an age where I can sit comfortably at home and think why the feck should I bother, and believe me for years now I have fought with myself over renewing the season. I've never believed we had any right to win anything, but I hoped we would. The least I expect is an effort to entertain and a 'style of play' I can appreciate. The more not losing or winning 1-0 and boring me to death goes on the nearer I am to giving up. Budge doesn't seem to get that and the rose tinted arses will always be rose tinted arses!

 

There, now I can have a nap!

Pretty sure a lot of older fans on here can relate to those sentiments, J61.  👍  Players have never had it so good as today's ones - lighter ball, manicured pitches, big squads, high salaries & win bonuses, state of the art training facilities, medical stats & attention, nutrition advice, software analysis of performance stats, etc.   

 

  

[davemclaren]

17 minutes ago, cheetah said:

 Ah ok, then it's time to get my application form filled in, hope they need someone to take the bins out.

🤣🤣

[davemclaren]

9 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Pretty sure a lot of older fans on here can relate to those sentiments, J61.  👍  Players have never had it so good as today's ones - lighter ball, manicured pitches, big squads, high salaries & win bonuses, state of the art training facilities, medical stats & attention, nutrition advice, software analysis of performance stats, etc.   

 

  

...and not one Ford Cortina between them. 

[Lone Striker]

10 minutes ago, weehammy said:

This is where I am. Although it’s easily affordable I would have stopped my FOH contribution post-share transfer if it wasn’t going towards specific ‘projects’ rather than into a pot that included paying player wages and transfer fees. I believe the latter should be financed on a self-sufficient basis by a financially successful club.

In the absence of any specific projects, however, I have continued and raised my contribution to general expenditure due to the (hopefully short term) challenges of demotion and the pandemic. I suspect quite a few of us have done the same.

Echo that.  Existential threat to the club .... and all that.    If what @Footballfirst and @davemclaren have mentioned above about the very limited FOH rep involvement in board decisions is true, then fans anger over future downturns in the club's standing may well be pointless.

[Ford Prentice]

As the majority share owner doesn't FoH determine who is elected to the board at the club AGM? Genuine question, I'm not clued up on this at all.

[jr ewing]

I have no financial or legal background  so seems a bit restrictive to me. Would have thought someone a bit more mainstream would relate to the average fan. 

[Jambo61]

12 minutes ago, Ford Prentice said:

As the majority share owner doesn't FoH determine who is elected to the board at the club AGM? Genuine question, I'm not clued up on this at all.

No. We get our 2 nominated reps out of 5 (I think), a minority in any case. FoH is arms length from controlling the football club.

They, rightly, didn't want the fans going off on one when things happened and put a board in place to run the club. We agreed to that. It is all in the paperwork (previously) on the FoH website. I have read it once, dry as week old dug turds.

I have never understood, other than the CEO runs the club/ board, who is overall in charge (of him), just know it is not FoH. This is not knew and just runs unanswered for ever it seems? I think, may be wrong, the other 25% shareholders have some sort of preference shares i.e. in charge?

 

https://www.foundationofhearts.org/admin/     FoH articles of association/ governance links.

I can't find the link to our papers re the Hearts Board, can't remember what it was called in the proposals but not obvious on the FoH website if there at all now? Nor obviously on Hearts website?

 

It seems far from transparent which I don't like!

 

[davemclaren]

1 minute ago, jr ewing said:

I have no financial or legal background  so seems a bit restrictive to me. Would have thought someone a bit more mainstream would relate to the average fan. 

These two roles are specialist financial and legal ones. Other FoH directors are not. 

[davemclaren]

1 minute ago, Jambo61 said:

No. We get our 2 nominated reps out of 5 (I think), a minority in any case. FoH is arms length from controlling the football club.

They, rightly, didn't want the fans going off on one when things happened and put a board in place to run the club. We agreed to that. It is all in the paperwork (previously) on the FoH website. I have read it once, dry as week old dug turds.

I have never understood, other than the CEO runs the club/ board, who is overall in charge (of him), just know it is not FoH. This is not knew and just runs unanswered for ever it seems? I think, may be wrong, the other 25% shareholders have some sort of preference shares i.e. in charge?

 

https://www.foundationofhearts.org/admin/     FoH articles of association/ governance links.

I can't find the link to our papers re the Hearts Board, can't remember what it was called in the proposals but not obvious on the FoH website if there at all now? Nor obviously on Hearts website?

 

It seems far from transparent which I don't like!

 

There are no preference shares in Hearts. The shareholders own the club, appoint the club board and the board appoint the chair. 
 

Ann is currently the majority shareholder but that will be FoH  in the near future. 

[been here before]

1 hour ago, The Treasurer said:

I thought this place was full of experts on all subjects 😁

 

And several who are Experts on Everything. For example one of them knows everything from glazing to designing, constructing and fitting out of new stands to the installation, care and maintenence of hybrid spirts pitches. 

 

He even knows more about these things than the architects, builders and hybrid pitch installers responsible for doing the work.

 

Its very, very impressive stuff.

Edited November 30, 2020 by been here before

[Jambo61]

Just now, davemclaren said:

There are no preference shares in Hearts. The shareholders own the club, appoint the club board and the board appoint the chair. 
 

Ann is currently the majority shareholder but that will be FoH  in the near future. 

Yep on paper............but who controls/ appoints the CEO, it is not the FoH?

Can you remember the name of the proposal paper that stipulates keeping the FoH at arms length, that clarifies the Hearts boards / sub-committees responsibilities. I did read it years ago but can't find it, not that I thought it clarified that well!

e.g. It has been made clear that FoH cannot profit from (worst case scenario) a sale to a private owner, but it is very muddy if the other 25% can? No one expects to ever receive any proceeds obviously but the way I read it had a significant gap in clarity of interests conflicting with FoH. 

[jr ewing]

10 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

These two roles are specialist financial and legal ones. Other FoH directors are not. 

I would imagine we employ legal and financial advice?

[132goals1958]

14 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

These two roles are specialist financial and legal ones. Other FoH directors are not. 

 

I take it the preponderance of barrack street lawyers and bean counters on here need not apply🤨 

[Jambo61]

8 minutes ago, Jambo61 said:

Yep on paper............but who controls/ appoints the CEO, it is not the FoH?

Can you remember the name of the proposal paper that stipulates keeping the FoH at arms length, that clarifies the Hearts boards / sub-committees responsibilities. I did read it years ago but can't find it, not that I thought it clarified that well!

e.g. It has been made clear that FoH cannot profit from (worst case scenario) a sale to a private owner, but it is very muddy if the other 25% can? No one expects to ever receive any proceeds obviously but the way I read it had a significant gap in clarity of interests conflicting with FoH. 

https://www.foundationofhearts.org/foh-launches-consultation-on-future-governance-arrangements/

 

Found this but it leads nowhere when you hit the link to the proposal paper. I would have thought it should be available in either/ both FoH and HMFC sites?

[baxterd1974]

17 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Not since the £3m towards the stand redevelopment was handed over. All funds since then have just gone into working capital for the club to use it as it chooses. That will continue post transfer, as AB has requested full flexibility on how it is spent.

Surely the majority went to buying the majority shareholding, not running the club.  The final installment of that was well after the 3 mill towards the stand was it not?

[davemclaren]

12 minutes ago, jr ewing said:

I would imagine we employ legal and financial advice?

I don’t think FoH employ anyone. 

[davemclaren]

7 minutes ago, 132goals1958 said:

 

I take it the preponderance of barrack street lawyers and bean counters on here need not apply🤨 

Depends on their internet qualifications. 

[davemclaren]

16 minutes ago, Jambo61 said:

Yep on paper............but who controls/ appoints the CEO, it is not the FoH?

Can you remember the name of the proposal paper that stipulates keeping the FoH at arms length, that clarifies the Hearts boards / sub-committees responsibilities. I did read it years ago but can't find it, not that I thought it clarified that well!

e.g. It has been made clear that FoH cannot profit from (worst case scenario) a sale to a private owner, but it is very muddy if the other 25% can? No one expects to ever receive any proceeds obviously but the way I read it had a significant gap in clarity of interests conflicting with FoH. 

The Hearts board appoints the CEO. 
 

On the club being sold FoH members won’t receive anything from any sale price.  Other individual shareholders, like me, might. 

[Footballfirst]

7 minutes ago, baxterd1974 said:

Surely the majority went to buying the majority shareholding, not running the club.  The final installment of that was well after the 3 mill towards the stand was it not?

The actual share purchase is £100k (the same as AB paid UBIG/Ukio).

£3.8m went in working capital

£2.4m repaid the Bidco loan that took us out of administration

[jr ewing]

7 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I don’t think FoH employ anyone. 

No but the club do.

[Francis Albert]

18 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

The two FOH reps on the club board are simply nodding dogs to agree what AB proposes. She has her own in built majority of her own appointments on the Board in any event.

 

AB runs the club and will continue to do so as long as she has a stake in it, which she will retain following the transfer of the majority shareholding, when/if that ever takes place.

I am not sure FoH and its members are in quite such a hopeless position even with the current governance arrangements which like you I was part of a tiny minority in opposing.

 

Once FoH becomes majority owner (as it should now have been for about 6 months) it can at an AGM or EGM nominate and elect club board members rather than just renominate the current board members (as Ann with her 90% of the shares) is about to do in a few weeks time at the club AGM. 

 

 

[davemclaren]

Just now, jr ewing said:

No but the club do.

It’s not club directors that were being discussed, at least not by me. 

[davemclaren]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I am not sure FoH and its members are in quite such a hopeless position even with the current governance arrangements which like you I was part of a tiny minority in opposing.

 

Once FoH becomes majority owner (as it should now have been for about 6 months) it can at an AGM or EGM nominate and elect club board members rather than just renominate the current board members (as Ann with her 90% of the shares) is about to do in a few weeks time at the club AGM. 

 

 

I agree. It’s not quick but it can be done. 

[Jambo61]

25 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

The Hearts board appoints the CEO. 
 

On the club being sold FoH members won’t receive anything from any sale price.  Other individual shareholders, like me, might. 

We go round in circles, which is my point there should be absolute clarity, who appoints the Hearts board if not the FoH, and from memory it is not FoH?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Isn’t it the case that the model we all accepted is in need of review, owing to the poor management of the club and FOH’s complete lack of influence?

 

When we gave Ann this level of control, we were making assumptions about her competence - and, I think, reasonable assumptions that FOH reps would not just keep quiet if difficult questions needed to be asked. The goal posts have moved drastically. Budge’s control needs to be challenged.

 

Put simply, it turns out that the original agreement was not fit for purpose. And none of us have been asked if we accept the current scenario whereby the handover should have taken place but hasn’t.

[Francis Albert]

8 minutes ago, Jambo61 said:

We go round in circles, which is my point there should be absolute clarity, who appoints the Hearts board if not the FoH, and from memory it is not FoH?

The 75.1% owner won't get a penny from any sale of the club? Small shareholders like you and me might? How does that work?

[davemclaren]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

The 75.1% owner won't get a penny from any sale of the club? Small shareholders like you and me might? How does that work?

The 75.1% owner will but won’t be passing it on to the members. 

[Francis Albert]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

The 75.1% owner won't get a penny from any sale of the club? Small shareholders like you and me might? How does that work?

Sorry quoted the wrong post but the question stands.

 

And if and when FOH exercises the right to do what we all pledged for them to do FOH will have the power to appoint the club board if it chooses to or decideds it needs to.

[baxterd1974]

40 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The actual share purchase is £100k (the same as AB paid UBIG/Ukio).

£3.8m went in working capital

£2.4m repaid the Bidco loan that took us out of administration

👍

[Francis Albert]

2 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

The 75.1% owner will but won’t be passing it on to the members. 

So who does the money go to exactly?

[davemclaren]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

So who does the money go to exactly?

It’s all in section 5 of the articles of association. 
 

https://www.foundationofhearts.org/admin/

[Footballfirst]

13 minutes ago, Jambo61 said:

We go round in circles, which is my point there should be absolute clarity, who appoints the Hearts board if not the FoH, and from memory it is not FoH?

There is absolute clarity.  The HMFC Board has a sub group in the form of a nominations committee, which will make a recommendation for approval by the main board.  I believe both the FOH reps are on the nominations committee though. 

[Footballfirst]

4 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

It’s all in section 5 of the articles of association. 
 

https://www.foundationofhearts.org/admin/

With the proviso that the members (75%) can vote to change the articles if they saw fit to do so, although it will be 90% to sell the shares in the first place.

Edited November 30, 2020 by Footballfirst

[davemclaren]

2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

With the proviso that the members (75%) can vote to change the articles if they saw fit to do so.

Not 90%? 😄

[Jambo61]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

The 75.1% owner won't get a penny from any sale of the club? Small shareholders like you and me might? How does that work?

FoH is a not for profit organisation!

[Jambo61]

5 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

There is absolute clarity.  The HMFC Board has a sub group in the form of a nominations committee, which will make a recommendation for approval by the main board.  I believe both the FOH reps are on the nominations committee though. 

No danger, half the folk on here think the FoH calls the shots for starters!

FoH is a minority on the Hearts board..........can that be changed, if so HOW!

[Footballfirst]

Just now, davemclaren said:

Not 90%? 😄

I was too late to amend my last post to add the 90% reference for the sale of shares in isolation.

 

However, the 90% doesn't come into force until FOH acquires the majority shareholding.  There is a possibility that the 90% could revert back to 75% if the planned vote ever takes place, before the transfer, e.g. at the FOH AGM.

 

 

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, Jambo61 said:

No danger, half the folk on here think the FoH calls the shots for starters!

FoH is a minority on the Hearts board..........can that be changed, if so HOW!

It can be changed if FOH wants to make it happen.  Just get enough signatories to a raise motion mandating the FOH Board to act as you wish, then win that vote when it takes place.

 

Good luck with that. 

[SMJ_1874]

1 hour ago, been here before said:

 

And several who are Experts on Everything. For example one of them knows everything from glazing to designing, constructing and fitting out of new stands to the installation, care and maintenence of hybrid spirts pitches. 

 

He even knows more about these things than the architects, builders and hybrid pitch installers responsible for doing the work.

 

Its very, very impressive stuff.

We wants names BHB and not these clandestine cryptic clues you’re alluding to. Jkb loves a good pot stir 😉

[davemclaren]

3 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I was too late to amend my last post to add the 90% reference for the sale of shares in isolation.

 

However, the 90% doesn't come into force until FOH acquires the majority shareholding.  There is a possibility that the 90% could revert back to 75% if the planned vote ever takes place, before the transfer, e.g. at the FOH AGM.

 

 

🤣🤣👍

[David Black]

5 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

There is absolute clarity.  The HMFC Board has a sub group in the form of a nominations committee, which will make a recommendation for approval by the main board.  I believe both the FOH reps are on the nominations committee though. 

I have been through this before with yourself and Dave Mac and accept you both have far greater knowledge in this matter than I or many others, but with sub groups, FOH board and Club board, in your opinion do you not think the whole process could be more streamlined.