FOH EGM and Vote ( edited )

[Elshin]

14 hours ago, ToadKiller Dog said:

Still fully onside with backing 90% without going back over the previous arguments we had on here( it was pretty well debated 

My position hasn't changed and I admit likely won't. 

 

 

 

 

Im with this.

 

If an potential buyer came out and said here is £10m over the next 5 years and i wont put against the club as debt.    1x i would be very wary and want to know the real motive.   2x thats what the fans are doing anyway.

 

90% for me but i think 75% will go through.

 

My worry is fans will jump at the first offer that comes in as the owner sees the fans as a cash cow and the forst thing he does is move the assets into his security against any money puts into the club.   

[davemclaren]

4 minutes ago, Elshin said:

Im with this.

 

If an potential buyer came out and said here is £10m over the next 5 years and i wont put against the club as debt.    1x i would be very wary and want to know the real motive.   2x thats what the fans are doing anyway.

 

90% for me but i think 75% will go through.

 

My worry is fans will jump at the first offer that comes in as the owner sees the fans as a cash cow and the forst thing he does is move the assets into his security against any money puts into the club.   

Any deal would have to involve guaranteed sums much greater than what FoH could raise. Looking around that is very unlikely given recent takeovers of similar sized clubs. 75% is still a high bar to get over. 

[Footballfirst]

2 minutes ago, Elshin said:

Im with this.

 

If an potential buyer came out and said here is £10m over the next 5 years and i wont put against the club as debt.    1x i would be very wary and want to know the real motive.   2x thats what the fans are doing anyway.

 

90% for me but i think 75% will go through.

 

My worry is fans will jump at the first offer that comes in as the owner sees the fans as a cash cow and the forst thing he does is move the assets into his security against any money puts into the club.   

If a buyer came in with an offer of £10m over 5 years I would tell them where to ram it.  I would expect a buyer to have to come up with at least £25m to buy the club, then make an additional legally binding commitment for further funding beyond that.  FOH would then have their share of the £25m to retain, or trickle feed back into the club along with the new owner.

 

Although I'm in the 75% camp, I still want FOH to have the chance of proving themselves as capable "owners" over at least a few years before contemplating ANY sale of shares. 

[moonraker]

Done, pretty easy really, can't understand why Dundee found it so difficult.

[davemclaren]

4 minutes ago, moonraker said:

Done, pretty easy really, can't understand why Dundee found it so difficult.

🤣

[1953]

90% is like the 11/1 vote to change anything in the SPFL which few people like. A simple 51% is not enough so for me 75% seems about right. 

[David McCaig]

I've voted in favour if the 75% proposal.

 

We all agree the voting structure in the SPL is barmy, seems even barmier to replicate it via FoH. 75% is still a very high bar. The statement from Eric Clelland is also far more progressive whereas Alex Mackie's seemed very insular and suggested that the club could only be owned by good Scottish laddies.  If a bid ever did come in, it would be have to be utterly compelling as well as transparent and subject to the highest standards of due diligence.  I wouldn't have voted for a Ron Gordon style owner for example.

[jkbam]

No desire to see our club owned by anyone but the fans, 90% for me.

[o1djambo]

2 minutes ago, jkbam said:

No desire to see our club owned by anyone but the fans, 90% for me.

Same here. When we signed up to repay Mrs Budge that was the agreement of the ninety per cent sell on. The original agreement still stands in my view and I am not comfortable with change. I would want  FOH to own the club and see how we get on for a few years and then assess the need for change. 

[ToadKiller Dog]

2 hours ago, Elshin said:

Im with this.

 

If an potential buyer came out and said here is £10m over the next 5 years and i wont put against the club as debt.    1x i would be very wary and want to know the real motive.   2x thats what the fans are doing anyway.

 

90% for me but i think 75% will go through.

 

My worry is fans will jump at the first offer that comes in as the owner sees the fans as a cash cow and the forst thing he does is move the assets into his security against any money puts into the club.   

I agree i don't think 75% is a massive reach ,trump ,Boris, Brexit ,show the power of populist ideas over sense at times .

The possibile dream of the rich investor has all the populist arguments more so at a time when things are not great on the field .

Then there is not a situation on any level  that I would vote for an investor from a country like UAE as highlighted we might miss out on . 

I also don't see the necessity of the vote at this time .

 

But its here ,so I just want people to think carefully before making the switch. 

Edited December 4, 2020 by ToadKiller Dog

[davemclaren]

1 minute ago, o1djambo said:

Same here. When we signed up to repay Mrs Budge that was the agreement of the ninety per cent sell on. The original agreement still stands in my view and I am not comfortable with change. I would want  FOH to own the club and see how we get on for a few years and then assess the need for change. 

I reckon this will be a one off. To change from a 90% threshold in the future will need a 90% vote. 

[steve123]

Voted 75% let the auction commence.

[davemclaren]

Just now, steve123 said:

Voted 75% let the auction commence.

[steve123]

Just now, davemclaren said:

Only joking lol

[Footballfirst]

14 minutes ago, o1djambo said:

Same here. When we signed up to repay Mrs Budge that was the agreement of the ninety per cent sell on. The original agreement still stands in my view and I am not comfortable with change. I would want  FOH to own the club and see how we get on for a few years and then assess the need for change. 

The 90% was never a part of the repayment agreement. It was first mooted when FOH started to develop their proposed governance model in May 2017, for the post share transfer period.

[luckydug]

15 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

I'd imagine AB and FOH will be like minded with regard to most approaches.

 

It is worth noting that there is no 90% requirement for the sale of Tynecastle (that remains at 75%), although FOH had originally mooted that possibility.

 

Had it gone to 90%, then AB would, in theory, have had the ability to block an FOH intention to move.

Regarding Mrs Budge’s shares. 

There is no guarantee whoever inherits her shares will not sell to the highest bidder. 

Lone strikers scenario could then come into play. 

For this reason I am inclined to vote 90% although I haven't voted yet. 

[o1djambo]

6 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The 90% was never a part of the repayment agreement. It was first mooted when FOH started to develop their proposed governance model in May 2017, for the post share transfer period.

Point taken. I had not realised. Our fans do well no matter what conclusion is reached. 

[JyTees]

I've just skimmed the emails so excuse me if I've missed it. I know it's 75% to pass the motion for. Is that 75% of the membership or 75% of the votes cast? I don't believe for a second we'll reach even 75% of the membership actually take the time to vote so if it's the former, it'll be a complete non starter. The latter, it should pass no problem...hopefully!

[Footballfirst]

5 minutes ago, JyTees said:

I've just skimmed the emails so excuse me if I've missed it. I know it's 75% to pass the motion for. Is that 75% of the membership or 75% of the votes cast? I don't believe for a second we'll reach even 75% of the membership actually take the time to vote so if it's the former, it'll be a complete non starter. The latter, it should pass no problem...hopefully!

As in almost all votes only votes actually cast will be counted.

 

Unlike SPFL written resolutions when an abstention has the effect of a no vote.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Footballfirst

[JyTees]

9 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

As in almost all votes only votes actually cast will be counted.

 

Thanks FF. 👍

[taylor75]

Sell the football team ...foh retain the football ground and rent out to the  new owner of the team..also foh donations help out with the academy costs for new owner of the team .... 

[been here before]

I voted for 90% and its sent me an invoice for £9000.

 

Ive not had an email asking me to confirm or reject.

[Ford Prentice]

Voted against. If we are to give up ownership support should be overwhelming. 90% of votes cast seems reasonable to me. Less chance of getting carried away when presented with a Vlad type figure (for all that he was great fun).

[WDJ87]

Got the email to vote but not the email to tell me what i am voting on. Checked spam and its not there either. This is all above my head tbh. Read some comments on here and totally confused. Someone dumb it down for me please...

[Heartsofgold]

Ok.  Here's a question.  Say an offer comes in for the club and a billionaire agrees to pay, say £30 million for the club.  We own 75% of the club so the FoH receives £22.5 million.

 

How is that then divided up between the members, if at all. cos let's fact it there will be no real need for a members organisation in the background if we are sold again.

 

For what it's worth, I NEVER want us to be in the hands of a single owner again.  I don't want my club to be the plaything of a rich tosspot ever again so I'm voting for the 90% threshold.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Heartsofgold

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, WDJ87 said:

Got the email to vote but not the email to tell me what i am voting on. Checked spam and its not there either. This is all above my head tbh. Read some comments on here and totally confused. Someone dumb it down for me please...

Here is the full EGM Notice that gives you all the information required.

 

https://mcusercontent.com/a8b305cd3dab747973b8f0e61/files/cd9edbfe-4433-4ae2-a706-749647470f93/647351756_1.01.pdf

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, Heartsofgold said:

Ok.  Here's a question.  Say an offer comes in for the club and a billionaire agrees to pay, say £30 million for the club.  We own 75% of the club so the FoH receives £22.5 million.

 

How is that then divided up between the members, if at all. cos let's fact it there will be no real need for a members organisation in the background if we are sold again.

 

For what it's worth, I NEVER want us to be in the hands of a single owner again.  I don't want my club to be the plaything of a rich ever again so I'm voting for the 90% threshold.

It's not divided among the members unless the Articles of Association are changed.

 

There are two main possibilities 1) that it would be donated/loaned back to the club or, 2) that the proceeds are distributed to other local organisations that share the same objectives of FOH in the promotion of sport, health and community

[WDJ87]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

It's not divided among the members unless the Articles of Association are changed.

 

There are two main possibilities 1) that it would be donated/loaned back to the club or, 2) that the proceeds are distributed to other local organisations that share the same objectives of FOH in the promotion of sport, health and community

Cannot see how they could possibly divide it amongst us anyway, not everyone pays the same amount. I'd rather never see the club sold imo

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, WDJ87 said:

Cannot see how they could possibly divide it amongst us anyway, not everyone pays the same amount. I'd rather never see the club sold imo

Likewise, but that is dependent on FOH making a success of fan ownership.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Firstly huge thanks to Eric and Alex for taking the time to lay out the case for each option.

 

I'm quite uneasy when I see how the likes of Dave King hijacked what was originally the Rangers First organisation which then became Club 1872 to the point that he's now trying to get them to open their wallets to fill his wallet if you know what I mean. A charismatic and slightly devious character could likely take advantage of an FOH board where he had one or two placemen onside. Dundee's fan ownership disappeared with the first promise of a better tomorrow which to date has shown no sign of showing up. Same with Dunfermline.

 

I've not decided how to vote but I really can't see how I'll be able to support the lower super majority requirement. We've all collectively spent a lot on the club these last 7 years.

 

[David Black]

It's 90% for me. This super majority is for issues like changing the club name, changing our colours, moving from Tynecastle and accepting a bid to buy the or by into the club with a large shareholding. I think I am correct in all that. The first 2 I don't think anyone would vote for, the 3rd. would depend on what size of crowds we were getting and if were projected they could maintained and of course cost. The last is the worry for me. I feel there are far to many who would jump at the chance of promised millions getting pumped into the club and not taking a wider view of what the might entail. Obviously Romanov springs to mind, but there are plenty more both here and abroad. As soon as these guys loose interest, we are again left in the s***. There is also the prime site location scenario as well. We will make mistakes along the way, but nothing like the potential disasters of selling the club to some conman, again. A 90% vote would rule out that happening.

[Heartsofgold]

16 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

It's not divided among the members unless the Articles of Association are changed.

 

There are two main possibilities 1) that it would be donated/loaned back to the club or, 2) that the proceeds are distributed to other local organisations that share the same objectives of FOH in the promotion of sport, health and community

To me option 1 would not be palatable if there was 1 person controlling the club.  Option 2 more so but I would favour a change in the Articles to be honest.

 

[WDJ87]

26 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Here is the full EGM Notice that gives you all the information required.

 

https://mcusercontent.com/a8b305cd3dab747973b8f0e61/files/cd9edbfe-4433-4ae2-a706-749647470f93/647351756_1.01.pdf

Facepalm

Edited December 4, 2020 by WDJ87
I'm a tit who cannot read properly :)

[Footballfirst]

7 minutes ago, David Black said:

It's 90% for me. This super majority is for issues like changing the club name, changing our colours, moving from Tynecastle and accepting a bid to buy the or by into the club with a large shareholding. I think I am correct in all that. The first 2 I don't think anyone would vote for, the 3rd. would depend on what size of crowds we were getting and if were projected they could maintained and of course cost. The last is the worry for me. I feel there are far to many who would jump at the chance of promised millions getting pumped into the club and not taking a wider view of what the might entail. Obviously Romanov springs to mind, but there are plenty more both here and abroad. As soon as these guys loose interest, we are again left in the s***. There is also the prime site location scenario as well. We will make mistakes along the way, but nothing like the potential disasters of selling the club to some conman, again. A 90% vote would rule out that happening.

The super majority ONLY applies to the sale of FOH shares.  The club could move from Tynecastle, change its colours, or even the team name with a 75% vote.

[David Black]

3 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The super majority ONLY applies to the sale of FOH shares.  The club could move from Tynecastle, change its colours, or even the team name with a 75% vote.

Right, thanks, but my major concern is that of the shares anyway. 

[WDJ87]

Eric's comparison to the SPFL 11-1 vote is scary. Given that we cannot change anything in our game due to this. Although that applies to 12 member clubs who have differing agendas whereas you'd imagine all Hearts fans will have the same agenda, seeing our club prosper. Alex's mention that 750 people could decide the future of our club if turnout was low is equally scary although 900 fans making the decision based on the same turnout is not much better. Really torn here 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

It's not divided among the members unless the Articles of Association are changed.

 

There are two main possibilities 1) that it would be donated/loaned back to the club or, 2) that the proceeds are distributed to other local organisations that share the same objectives of FOH in the promotion of sport, health and community

Could be a nice earner for Hibs if they do a few more charity/community type things?)

[iainmac]

In the absence of any direction from the current FoH Board, here's the thoughts of Brian Cormack, a Founding Director and ex Chairman.

 

 

https://twitter.com/brianrcormack/status/1334906970466381824?s=20

 

 

[Toxteth O'Grady]

22 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

75% is about right. 90% meant a small minority could have blocked steps to save the club in certain circumstances.

Correct - there is a decent chance that 10% wouldn’t understand what was being offered 

[Bret the Hitman Hearts]

Is there a deadline for this?

[Ford Prentice]

15 minutes ago, Toxteth O'Grady said:

Correct - there is a decent chance that 10% wouldn’t understand what was being offered 

 

There is also a decent chance that 75% wouldn't understand what was being offered. Prefer the higher barrier, only an overwhelming vote in favour should allow the club to be taken out of fan ownership.

[davemclaren]

27 minutes ago, iainmac said:

In the absence of any direction from the current FoH Board, here's the thoughts of Brian Cormack, a Founding Director and ex Chairman.

 

 

https://twitter.com/brianrcormack/status/1334906970466381824?s=20

 

 

I’m not sure what difference whether the shares have been passed over or not makes but Brian’s as entitled to his opinion as anyone. 

[Jack Torrance]

22 hours ago, ToadKiller Dog said:

Still fully onside with backing 90% without going back over the previous arguments we had on here( it was pretty well debated 

My position hasn't changed and I admit likely won't. 

 

 

 

 

Same here. 90% for me. I just don't get why we would make it easier to consider selling the club given all we've been through. I just don't get it.

[Footballfirst]

1 hour ago, iainmac said:

In the absence of any direction from the current FoH Board, here's the thoughts of Brian Cormack, a Founding Director and ex Chairman.

 

https://twitter.com/brianrcormack/status/1334906970466381824?s=20

 

Brian seeks to use an example if 20% of members actually vote then 1200 out of 8000 members could trigger a sale of the shares should the threshold be 75%.

 

The counter argument to that, using Brian's example of a 20% vote with a 90% threshold, is that as few as 160 members could block a sale. 

Edited December 4, 2020 by Footballfirst

[Marvin]

I'm in the 75% camp. I used to think 90% but now believe 75% is about right.

[Spellczech]

5 hours ago, David Black said:

It's 90% for me. This super majority is for issues like changing the club name, changing our colours, moving from Tynecastle and accepting a bid to buy the or by into the club with a large shareholding. I think I am correct in all that. The first 2 I don't think anyone would vote for, the 3rd. would depend on what size of crowds we were getting and if were projected they could maintained and of course cost. The last is the worry for me. I feel there are far to many who would jump at the chance of promised millions getting pumped into the club and not taking a wider view of what the might entail. Obviously Romanov springs to mind, but there are plenty more both here and abroad. As soon as these guys loose interest, we are again left in the s***. There is also the prime site location scenario as well. We will make mistakes along the way, but nothing like the potential disasters of selling the club to some conman, again. A 90% vote would rule out that happening.

Changing the threshold to 75% doesn't actually make it any more likely to happen. All it does is makes it worth discussing if the opportunity ever were to arise. There is no chance that any of us would vote to sell out to someone dodgy.

[Sid]

Lot of people quick on the buzzer.  It’s a real difficult one. 
Higher threshold, might struggle to get anything done. Lower threshold, may get things done not necessarily for the right reason. 
The % is of votes cast. They say of 8000 eligible voters, an actual vote might be as low as 1000 (think it will be higher for important votes. Also, the shares retained by Ms Budge could end up in the hands of a less sympathetic/interested party/parties (especially with the personal abuse she has had). If you have it at the lower level, it risks a buy-off of a relatively small group to win a vote. 
For example, if SheikYabeauty wanted a play thing for his son and heir, he could offer £1k for a vote in his favour (pass vote over by proxy). He would need a lot less votes to get to the number he needs to win the vote. For a lot, £1k may be an amount they feel they can’t turn down (even tho they don’t necessarily agree with the vote). If the vote was 90% you would need a greater number but you would also be moving into the ones where they can’t be bought out so easily. 
The flip side is 90% is quite a high threshold to get anything done. There are always people disgruntled for whatever reason who will just vote against the majority. There may be an offer which we feel has enough comfort in guarantees which is needed to save us or move us to the next level and the opportunity is lost due to a relatively few disgruntles. 
Not sure which is higher risk.

 

On balance, I think 90% for me but it’s a close call.  If it’s that good a call, we should be able to convince 90% of voters. 

[David Black]

1 hour ago, Spellczech said:

Changing the threshold to 75% doesn't actually make it any more likely to happen. All it does is makes it worth discussing if the opportunity ever were to arise. There is no chance that any of us would vote to sell out to someone dodgy.

Your more confident than I am. 

[Spellczech]

1 minute ago, David Black said:

Your more confident than I am. 

Perhaps - but there are a good number of people on here who are excellent researchers...

[ToadKiller Dog]

3 hours ago, Spellczech said:

Changing the threshold to 75% doesn't actually make it any more likely to happen. All it does is makes it worth discussing if the opportunity ever were to arise. There is no chance that any of us would vote to sell out to someone dodgy.

Would a wealthy Arab Royal  as proposed as possibility we might miss out on , in the for argument, as a good investor or dodgy ?