FOH EGM and Vote ( edited )

[davemclaren]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

But we know FOH did not try very hard.

They did what was necessary.
 

Communicated proposals to all members, held meetings ( poorly attended ) to discuss, took on board some changes and held a vote where a huge majority of members voting approved the proposals. 

[davemclaren]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

I don't know how Samuelson communicated with Wimbledon fans but I suspect on such evidence I have it was far better than FOH's communication with us. 

No idea but it is a smaller club with less challenges and, I imagine, less expectations. I see he has now retired. We should invite him back. 

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

They did what was necessary.
 

Communicated proposals to all members, held meetings ( poorly attended ) to discuss, took on board some changes and held a vote where a huge majority of members voting approved the proposals. 

What percentage of members voted to.produce those huge majorities?

[davemclaren]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

What percentage of members voted to.produce those huge majorities?

I can’t remember to be honest. 

[Francis Albert]

4 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

No idea but it is a smaller club with less challenges and, I imagine, less expectations. I see he has now retired. We should invite him back. 

I am not sure Wimbledon are currently competing in a much lower level than we are.

[Francis Albert]

6 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I can’t remember to be honest. 

Tiny is the answer.

 

And their challenges were greater than ours.

Edited December 14, 2020 by Francis Albert

[davemclaren]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Tiny is the answer.

That is as subjective as huge. 😄

[davemclaren]

6 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I am not sure Wimbledon are currently competing in a much lower level than we are.

They play in the third tier and their turnover in 2019 was a third of ours. 

[Francis Albert]

1 minute ago, davemclaren said:

They play in the third tier and their turnover in 2019 was a third of ours. 

But playing at a level  not much different from the level we are playing in. And against a few clubs that dwarf our opponents.

 

[Francis Albert]

Anyway Dave. Call it a draw?

[davemclaren]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Anyway Dave. Call it a draw?

We can. 🤣

[Psychedelicropcircle]

12 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

FOH communicate 1) when they want more money and 2) on issue that don’t upset Budge or touch on the running of the club.

 

Beyond that, forget it.

This! The cup final donation sales pitch came from here, the membership does more that the management. 
 

they’d soon find their voice if the coppers stopped flowing in!

 

Their slogan of fan owed not fan ran means them getting replaced in my mind! 

[TynieJT]

What was the result of the resent FOH vote, what percentage of the members voted and what was the split?

[TurboT]

32 minutes ago, TynieJT said:

What was the result of the resent FOH vote, what percentage of the members voted and what was the split?

Your post reminded me to Vote

 

i just voted and got a message to say they’ll announce the results at the general meeting on 21st Dec

[Footballfirst]

This meeting was scheduled for 1pm earlier today, at which the result was due to be declared, to be followed by advice to members soon thereafter.

 

Anyone in the know?

[davemclaren]

2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

This meeting was scheduled for 1pm earlier today, at which the result was due to be declared, to be followed by advice to members soon thereafter.

 

Anyone in the know?

Still waiting on Dundee’s vote, allegedly. 😊

[Footballfirst]

2 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Still waiting on Dundee’s vote, allegedly. 😊

[Gorgie Boot boy]

5 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I  had fried spam this morning.

Self punished.

[Famous 1874]

90% remains.... fs 

72.2% voted for change 

27.8% voted to remain 

Only 30% of members voted. Disappointing result, 90% is miles too high. 

[JyTees]

1 minute ago, Famous 1874 said:

90% remains.... fs 

72.2% voted for change 

27.8% voted to remain 

Only 30% of members voted. Disappointing result, 90% is miles too high. 

 

How does that work if nearly 3 quarters voted for change? 

[CJGJ]

90% is too high but only relevant if any kind of proposal was put to FOH

 

At that point a new vote would almost certainly take place not only to amend the % but also to vote on a yes/no

 

Pity we could not get to 50% of the members voting but many just don't take a real interest in the rules/regulations until it impacts

[Jack Torrance]

You need 75% of the vote to change anything. I for one am delighted the 90% remains.

Edited December 21, 2020 by Jack Torrance

[Famous 1874]

5 minutes ago, JyTees said:

 

How does that work if nearly 3 quarters voted for change? 

Need 75% to pass the amendment. So a couple of % short unfortunately 

[JyTees]

2 minutes ago, Jack Torrance said:

You need 75% of the vote to change anything. I for one am delighted the 90% remains.

 

Didn't realise it was 75% required. 30% is a poor turnout.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

6 minutes ago, JyTees said:

 

How does that work if nearly 3 quarters voted for change? 

You need 75% to approve this kind of change.

[Footballfirst]

5 minutes ago, Famous 1874 said:

90% remains.... fs 

72.2% voted for change 

27.8% voted to remain 

Only 30% of members voted. Disappointing result, 90% is miles too high. 

 

That result is almost identical to the indicative poll that was carried out in February. When I spoke to Stuart Wallace about that vote, I suggested that he didn't have a mandate to progress with the EGM, as it didn't meet the threshold that would be required to get an EGM vote through. Stuart disagreed and pressed on anyway as he had more than 50% seeking a vote on the subject.

 

I'm disappointed by the outcome, but not surprised.  I suppose the vote is a demonstration of how difficult it could be going forward to get certain decisions approved if their is a measure of disagreement among the membership.

[JyTees]

3 minutes ago, Famous 1874 said:

Need 75% to pass the amendment. So a couple of % short unfortunately 

 

2 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

You need 75% to approve this kind of change.

 

Cheers. Disappointing.

[davemclaren]

9 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

90% is too high but only relevant if any kind of proposal was put to FOH

 

At that point a new vote would almost certainly take place not only to amend the % but also to vote on a yes/no

 

Pity we could not get to 50% of the members voting but many just don't take a real interest in the rules/regulations until it impacts

What would be the point of amending to 75% then as if you had 90% in support of that the same percent would likely support the share transfer?

 

I agree the number voting is disappointing. 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

That’s a poor turn out and disappointing numbers 

[soonbe110]

2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

That result is almost identical to the indicative poll that was carried out in February. When I spoke to Stuart Wallace about that vote, I suggested that he didn't have a mandate to progress with the EGM, as it didn't meet the threshold that would be required to get an EGM vote through. Stuart disagreed and pressed on anyway as he had more than 50% seeking a vote on the subject.

 

I'm disappointed by the outcome, but not surprised.  I suppose the vote is a demonstration of how difficult it could be going forward to get certain decisions approved if their is a measure of disagreement among the membership.

Yep, potentially first of many such  incidents

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I actually think it is a great turnout given the number of people who expressed any kind of opinion on the governance framework.

[CJGJ]

3 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

What would be the point of amending to 75% then as if you had 90% in support of that the same percent would likely support the share transfer?

 

I agree the number voting is disappointing. 

If the vote was say 80% then under the rules it would fail unless the rules were amended to 75% and then it would pass

 

 

[EIEIO]

Pleased  with that result at least.

[davemclaren]

2 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

If the vote was say 80% then under the rules it would fail unless the rules were amended to 75% and then it would pass

 

 

That’s true but if people don’t want it to pass they are not going to vote to change the threshold to 75% so it effectively has a 90% threshold anyway. 

[Footballfirst]

2 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

If the vote was say 80% then under the rules it would fail unless the rules were amended to 75% and then it would pass

 

 

It would need a 90% vote to change it to 75%. That being the case, such a vote wouldn't be required as you would already have the 90% you needed to pass the resolution for any sale of shares.

[Footballfirst]

8 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I actually think it is a great turnout given the number of people who expressed any kind of opinion on the governance framework.

I agree. I'm quite surprised that so many took the trouble to vote.

 

I would be surprised if any of the AGM resolutions in January reaches such a figure.

[Saint Jambo]

14 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

90% is too high but only relevant if any kind of proposal was put to FOH

 

At that point a new vote would almost certainly take place not only to amend the % but also to vote on a yes/no

 

Pity we could not get to 50% of the members voting but many just don't take a real interest in the rules/regulations until it impacts

 

As I understand things, one reason for holding this vote now is that while at this stage it only requires a 75% vote to change the threshold, once the Articles come into force (on transfer of the shares) it will then require a 90% vote to change that particular element of the Articles.

 

While I was initially surprised, on reflection I think going ahead with the vote was the right thing to do. The initial vote was always indicative. The result of that vote was close enough to be worth putting to a full vote in my opinion.

 

I don't think this indicates that other issues will necessarily be hard to get through. Votes such as diverting funding to the stand were passed with huge majorities. I think the adoption of the governance proposals and draft articles also passed with relative ease. If almost every vote that was put forward failed, that might be a fair conclusion, but that simply isn't the case.

[CJGJ]

Just now, Footballfirst said:

It would need a 90% vote to change it to 75%. That being the case, such a vote wouldn't be required as you would already have the 90% you needed to pass the resolution for any sale of shares.

If you did not treat them as 2 sep items...no presumption on my part

 

At the time of the 'vote' you could find some happy to change to 75% but not happy with the proposal so do not vote yes as part of the 75% then required

[Saint Jambo]

11 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I actually think it is a great turnout given the number of people who expressed any kind of opinion on the governance framework.

 

I agree with this. From the not for profit, membership organisations I've worked with a 30% turnout on governance issues is healthy.

[Footballfirst]

FOUNDATION OF HEARTS

Dear Member

GENERAL MEETING OF THE FOUNDATION

Following the General Meeting held today as a closed meeting, we announce that the special resolution to amend our articles of association, which was put to members, was not passed by the requisite majority, and consequently the 90% majority required under our governance structure to approve a disposal of the Foundation’s shares in the Club is retained.

A total of 2,565 members voted on the resolution, representing just over 30% of our total eligible voters.  The result of the vote was:

72.2% voted in favour of the resolution (a vote in favour of changing the majority threshold in the Articles to 75%)
27.8% voted against the resolution (a vote for retaining the 90% majority threshold in the Articles)

As a special resolution, the resolution required the approval of three-quarters of the votes cast at the meeting.

I’d like to express the gratitude of the Foundation of Hearts board to all who voted on the resolution.We believed it was right and proper that our membership was consulted again on this important issue. We are a democratic membership organisation and welcome the level of engagement we had on this matter.
 
I wish all of you a safe and Merry Christmas. Hopefully, our next Hampden trip will be alongside many thousands of fellow Hearts supporters who can enjoy the occasion with the team. Here’s to many more opportunities like yesterday with the fine margins playing in our favour next time.
 
Very best wishes

Stuart Wallace
Chairman
Foundation of Hearts

[davemclaren]

21 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

If you did not treat them as 2 sep items...no presumption on my part

 

At the time of the 'vote' you could find some happy to change to 75% but not happy with the proposal so do not vote yes as part of the 75% then required

Why would anyone that didn't want the second vote to be yes vote yes in the first one thus increasing the likelihood of a yes vote in the second? That would be odd behaviour I think. 

[Mikey1874]

40 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

That result is almost identical to the indicative poll that was carried out in February. When I spoke to Stuart Wallace about that vote, I suggested that he didn't have a mandate to progress with the EGM, as it didn't meet the threshold that would be required to get an EGM vote through. Stuart disagreed and pressed on anyway as he had more than 50% seeking a vote on the subject.

 

I'm disappointed by the outcome, but not surprised.  I suppose the vote is a demonstration of how difficult it could be going forward to get certain decisions approved if their is a measure of disagreement among the membership.

 

This vote is about potential events. Some caution perhaps has maintained the status quo. 

 

If there is an actual proposal that needs 90% it could be different. If it is a very very good proposal. 

 

It we were talking about it I would say more but I'll stay positive in writing here. 

[Famous 1874]

46 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

That result is almost identical to the indicative poll that was carried out in February. When I spoke to Stuart Wallace about that vote, I suggested that he didn't have a mandate to progress with the EGM, as it didn't meet the threshold that would be required to get an EGM vote through. Stuart disagreed and pressed on anyway as he had more than 50% seeking a vote on the subject.

 

I'm disappointed by the outcome, but not surprised.  I suppose the vote is a demonstration of how difficult it could be going forward to get certain decisions approved if their is a measure of disagreement among the membership.

Interesting. I agree with your reasoning. 
 

Do you think Stuart Wallace is up to it? Looked like another yes man during the Levein / Budge debacle. 

[Footballfirst]

6 minutes ago, Famous 1874 said:

Interesting. I agree with your reasoning. 
 

Do you think Stuart Wallace is up to it? Looked like another yes man during the Levein / Budge debacle. 

I think Stuart is a very good communicator (to listen to) and very passionate about the club. However I do believe that he has allowed FOH to become subservient to the club, when there was an opportunity to question the Club Board, or to set it's own goals and values for the Club going forward.  However that is largely down to the way that the FOH governance has been developed. I strongly suspect that Ann Budge has exerted a fair bit of influence on that direction.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Obviously I’m pleased with the result given I was one of those that voted to keep it at 90%. A pretty good turnout which I think is to a large extent reflective of how important the issue of fan ownership is and also the excellent pieces for and against written by Alex Mackie and Eric Clelland.

[pettigrewsstylist]

1 hour ago, Jack Torrance said:

You need 75% of the vote to change anything. I for one am delighted the 90% remains.

Likewise. Safeguards are as relevant today as they ever were.

[Big Slim Stylee]

2 hours ago, Famous 1874 said:

90% remains.... fs 

72.2% voted for change 

27.8% voted to remain 

Only 30% of members voted. Disappointing result, 90% is miles too high. 

Utter madness🙁

[luckydug]

Maybe some people couldn't make up their minds so decided to abstain. 

I feel pretty sure if it was an important vote on something decisive the vast majority would vote. If it was something really positive for the club 90% would still pass. 

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

Pleased with this outcome

[Psychedelicropcircle]

Delighted with this outcome even after being told to piss off   . Apparently they will create a affiliate membership for folks like me who contributed until the share money was in place after the handover!