FOH EGM and Vote ( edited )

[Spellczech]

1 hour ago, ToadKiller Dog said:

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

 

Who knows? 75% is still a high %. Means that 3 of every 4 people who are interested enough to vote needs be convinced enough to say yes. The prospect of 9 of every 10 being convinced is so remote that it isn't even worth discussing, as you can be guaranteed that at least 2 of 10 (probably more) will misinterpret the damned question!! Haha  

[Coco]

At this time I think that FoH attention should be on buying the club as quickly as possible.  The reasons they have provided for delay are a joke.

 

Attention should not be on making it easier to sell the club.  I am voting for 90%.

[Coco]

The Foundation of Hearts website states that the ownership of the club will be gained in early/mid 2020.  The members have done their part by providing the cash.  The Board should now be taking on ownership of the club.

 

After the rollercoaster of owners our club has had - how can the FoH Board possibly think that making it easier to sell the club is a way to achieve their vision?  This apparently includes:

 

"To ensure that the future of Heart of Midlothian Football Club remains secure for all time."

 

I hope as many people as possible vote against the FoH Board and vote to retain the 90%.  

[Shanks said no]

Voted 90%, being risk averse on this one.

[davemclaren]

1 hour ago, Coco said:

The Foundation of Hearts website states that the ownership of the club will be gained in early/mid 2020.  The members have done their part by providing the cash.  The Board should now be taking on ownership of the club.

 

After the rollercoaster of owners our club has had - how can the FoH Board possibly think that making it easier to sell the club is a way to achieve their vision?  This apparently includes:

 

"To ensure that the future of Heart of Midlothian Football Club remains secure for all time."

 

I hope as many people as possible vote against the FoH Board and vote to retain the 90%.  

I think you are conflating two separate issues. You are not voting against the FoH board by voting for 90%. 
 

illustrates some of the risks around 90%. 🥴

[Peakybunnet]

On 04/12/2020 at 00:26, stevie1874 said:

75% for me. If a certain Wealthy individual wants to buy 25% then fine by me.👍

I am still undecided. One thought I had was why, apart from one person,would anybody  want to buy 25% of the club. Its a lot of money for next to return and no real power. 

[Coco]

34 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I think you are conflating two separate issues. You are not voting against the FoH board by voting for 90%. 
 

illustrates some of the risks around 90%. 🥴

The FoH Board are prioritising making it easier to sell the club through their EGM resolution.  They should be focused on immediately taking ownership of the club - as the members have paid for - rather than trying to make it easier to dispose of the club.

 

The Board even put out materials which made out a key reason for the change was investment by US sources.  Looks like they are really going well at Hibs and in Dundee.

 

Hopefully there will be enough 90% voters to prevent them getting this through.

Edited December 5, 2020 by Coco

[luckydug]

It's Mrs Budge’s shareholding that bothers me. 

Do FOH have first refusal to buy her shares when she wants out or passes on ? 

Do we have any guarantee that her shares will remain in friendly

hands ? 

It's been pointed out already that at 75% a possible takeover would only need around 40% of FOH shares plus Mrs Budge’s holding to take control of the club. 

Feel free to correct me if my figures are wrong. 

I'm torn I genuinely don't know what to vote. 

[davemclaren]

5 minutes ago, Coco said:

The FoH Board are prioritising making it easier to sell the club through their EGM resolution.  They should be focused on immediately taking ownership of the club - as the members have paid for - rather than trying to make it easier to dispose of the club.

 

Hopefully there will be enough 90% voters to prevent them getting this through.

They were responding to a discussion at the last around governance. That is a good thing imo.
 

This vote has no bearing whatsoever on when the shares are transferred. If I had to guess it would be that the majority of the FoH board would be for the 90% rule so you’re likely voting with them. 

[Coco]

17 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

They were responding to a discussion at the last around governance. That is a good thing imo.
 

This vote has no bearing whatsoever on when the shares are transferred. If I had to guess it would be that the majority of the FoH board would be for the 90% rule so you’re likely voting with them. 

Is it good governance for the FoH Board to prioritise making it easier to dispose of the club than taking ownership of the club (the reason why FoH exists and why so many members have put their money in?

[Footballfirst]

2 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

They were responding to a discussion at the last around governance. That is a good thing imo.
 

This vote has no bearing whatsoever on when the shares are transferred. If I had to guess it would be that the majority of the FoH board would be for the 90% rule so you’re likely voting with them. 

It actually goes back to the last FOH AGM in December 2019.   

 

The FOH Board agreed to test the membership's desire to change from the intended 90% to the more common 75%. That was done by a vote in February, when 73% of those who voted indicated a preference for the 75% figure.

 

I was surprised that the FOH Board decided to press on with an EGM to present a formal motion to amend the Articles of Association, given that such a vote would need 75% support when the indicative vote hadn't quite reached that number. I expressed that view to Stuart Wallace.

 

The EGM was expected to be held in March or April, but was was obviously affected by the Covid restrictions.  The delay until now still seems unnecessarily long, but I suppose the Board wished to ensure that the mechanics of an unattended EGM and remote vote was legally sound.

 

The further delay in the transfer of the shares is more of a concern to me than the outcome of the 75%/90% vote, as I do not know of any legal or other impediment to it happening, other than an expressed view from Ann Budge that she wishes to delay the transfer for reasons only known to herself.  Previously expressed reasons such as Covid resrictions and a desire to make the event a celebration just don't stand up. IMO the FOH Board should be telling Ann that £100k of the next months pledges will be directed to complete the purchase of her shares.  An immediate transfer would make no difference the status of Ann's loan securities.  

[davemclaren]

2 minutes ago, Coco said:

Is it good governance for the FoH Board to prioritise making it easier to dispose of the club than taking ownership of the club (the reason why FoH exists and why so many members have put their money in?

They haven’t prioritised it. They can do more than one thing at the same time. 

[Coco]

Just now, davemclaren said:

They haven’t prioritised it. They can do more than one thing at the same time. 

So good governance then to delay taking the club on as per the aims and vision of FoH?

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, Coco said:

Is it good governance for the FoH Board to prioritise making it easier to dispose of the club than taking ownership of the club (the reason why FoH exists and why so many members have put their money in?

It is not about making it easier to dispose of the club.  The default position would be 75%, but during the consultation process with the members, a suggestion to incorporate supermajority voting for the sale of shares, in isolation, was incorporated (but not one for the sale of Tynecastle, or a change to the team colours or name!).  It is that decision that is being reviewed by this vote. 

 

Yes a 90% vote would make it more difficult to sell shares, but equally so it makes it easier for a small number of members to potentially block a sale that was in both FOH's and the Club's best interests and had the support of a large majority of FOH members.

[Coco]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

It is not about making it easier to dispose of the club.  The default position would be 75%, but during the consultation process with the members, a suggestion to incorporate supermajority voting for the sale of shares, in isolation, was incorporated (but not one for the sale of Tynecastle, or a change to the team colours or name!).  It is that decision that is being reviewed by this vote. 

 

Yes a 90% vote would make it more difficult to sell shares, but equally so it makes it easier for a small number of members to potentially block a sale that was in both FOH's and the Club's best interests and had the support of a large majority of FOH members.

The upshot is that it makes it easier to sell the shares with a move to a 75% majority.    That is all that is on offer.  A judgement on whether FoH members would make the 'best' decision is a subjective one.  But a move to a 75% majority clearly makes it easier to sell the club.

[Footballfirst]

6 minutes ago, Coco said:

The upshot is that it makes it easier to sell the shares with a move to a 75% majority.    That is all that is on offer.  A judgement on whether FoH members would make the 'best' decision is a subjective one.  But a move to a 75% majority clearly makes it easier to sell the club.

You are entitled to take that view, but I am taking a longer term view that we don't have a crystal ball to see how fan ownership will work out for Hearts. If it doesn't, then I'd prefer not to have the 90% restriction as an impediment to exiting the fan ownership model, should it be deemed in the Club's best interests to do so.

Edited December 5, 2020 by Footballfirst

[davemclaren]

14 minutes ago, Coco said:

So good governance then to delay taking the club on as per the aims and vision of FoH?

I think that’s an issue of good/bad decision making as opposed to good/bad governance. 

[Hashimoto]

90% vote ensures that a hardcore minority has the ability to prevent or at least ham fist potential investment or long term planning.

90% sounds somewhat similar along the lines of the current SPFL 11-1 vote rule.......And we all know what we think about that!

Edited December 5, 2020 by Hashimoto

[Jambo-Fox]

4 hours ago, luckydug said:

It's Mrs Budge’s shareholding that bothers me. 

Do FOH have first refusal to buy her shares when she wants out or passes on ? 

Do we have any guarantee that her shares will remain in friendly

hands ? 

It's been pointed out already that at 75% a possible takeover would only need around 40% of FOH shares plus Mrs Budge’s holding to take control of the club. 

Feel free to correct me if my figures are wrong. 

I'm torn I genuinely don't know what to vote. 

But surely the Hearts shares owned by the FOH would be voted as a single block (of 75%). And the way these shares would be voted would be determined by a vote of all members of the FOH. The outcome of that vote would need to clear a threshold of either 90% or 75% depending on the outcome of the vote at the upcoming AGM.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

Voted against. Either we want to be fan owned or we don't. Just look at who is investing in clubs our size or smaller? Chancers from the USA or some other country it happens to be trendy to own a football team at the time, Hollywood movie stars, and Walter Mitty characters.

 

What we want is people willing to put money into the club but keep it fan owned. Anyone who wants to control the club will not have the best interests of the club at heart. They'd be doing that to protect their own interests.

Edited December 5, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I agree with Coco that there is no reason why the share transfer cannot occur and this bullshit about needing to be an "occasion" is just that - bullshit.

 

However, I'm happy with the 75% threshold. Being fan owned was always undesirable from my viewpoint but potentially necessary. If we can transfer ownership and sell to someone who has the club's best interests at heart then I'm more than happy to support it.

[o1djambo]

23 hours ago, Hashimoto said:

90% vote ensures that a hardcore minority has the ability to prevent or at least ham fist potential investment or long term planning.

90% sounds somewhat similar along the lines of the current SPFL 11-1 vote rule.......And we all know what we think about that!

Quite happy to be a hardcore minority and do not see it as preventing investment or long term planning. Voted against as I see the 90 per cent being an insurance against rash decisions.

[luckydug]

22 hours ago, Jambo-Fox said:

But surely the Hearts shares owned by the FOH would be voted as a single block (of 75%). And the way these shares would be voted would be determined by a vote of all members of the FOH. The outcome of that vote would need to clear a threshold of either 90% or 75% depending on the outcome of the vote at the upcoming AGM.

I apologise for slavering you are of course correct 👍

[Francis Albert]

75% for me.

 

However I find it a bit galling to be voting about a hypothetical presumably far off event when we were not even consulted on or given any credible explanation of the  delay in a hopefully more imminent transfer of ownership (though we have no firm date for that yet). 

 

(Given FOH's obsession with ceremonies and celebrations perhaps future ownership change should also require a 75% or 90% approval of the timing and form of the handover celebration (or wake for those opposed to it)).

Edited December 6, 2020 by Francis Albert

[EIEIO]

Voted against 75 percent. I believe in fan ownership so anything that makes it harder for a new Mercer, Robinson or Romanov to **** us about is a good thing.

[Saint Jambo]

On 05/12/2020 at 01:28, Spellczech said:

Who knows? 75% is still a high %. Means that 3 of every 4 people who are interested enough to vote needs be convinced enough to say yes. The prospect of 9 of every 10 being convinced is so remote that it isn't even worth discussing, as you can be guaranteed that at least 2 of 10 (probably more) will misinterpret the damned question!! Haha  

 

Over 98% voted in favour of delaying fan ownership to allow funds to be used for the new stand. So 90% is clearly not an unachievable level to reach.

 

On 05/12/2020 at 12:35, Hashimoto said:

90% vote ensures that a hardcore minority has the ability to prevent or at least ham fist potential investment or long term planning.

90% sounds somewhat similar along the lines of the current SPFL 11-1 vote rule.......And we all know what we think about that!

 

It isn't really anything like the SPFL 11-1 rule. That rule was created with a specific two clubs in mind. Two clubs who have different enough interests to the rest of the members for it to be possible to predict that they will regularly find themselves in opposition to the other members. There is no reason to believe that there are 800 FOH members who would predictably take a different position to the other 7,200 members, because they have fundamentally different interests.

[Spellczech]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

75% for me.

 

However I find it a bit galling to be voting about a hypothetical presumably far off event when we were not even consulted on or given any credible explanation of the  delay in a hopefully more imminent transfer of ownership (though we have no firm date for that yet). 

 

(Given FOH's obsession with ceremonies and celebrations perhaps future ownership change should also require a 75% or 90% approval of the timing and form of the handover celebration (or wake for those opposed to it)).

Is that not just because some people seem to want something in return for their donations?

[Francis Albert]

12 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Is that not just because some people seem to want something in return for their donations?

Don't most people people donating to FOH in return just want FoH to own the club? Kind of the point I thought. 

 

I remember in the early stages the premium "reward" in the rewards hierarchy was lunch with Robbie Nielson.  Each to his or her own I suppose.

[Snedescu]

Still feel it is a missed opportunity not to hold the AGM on Zoom and open up access. It gives a chance to see what goes on behind the scenes and shows complete transparency.

[davemclaren]

1 minute ago, Snedescu said:

Still feel it is a missed opportunity not to hold the AGM on Zoom and open up access. It gives a chance to see what goes on behind the scenes and shows complete transparency.

This is an EGM. 

[Snedescu]

13 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

This is an EGM. 

Fair enough - does that mean it cannot be held virtually so fans could view it? 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Snedescu

[davemclaren]

11 minutes ago, Snedescu said:

Fair enough - does that mean it cannot be held virtually so fans could view it? 

They could but I don’t think it’s worth the effort. The AGM may be more interesting. 

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, EIEIO said:

Voted against 75 percent. I believe in fan ownership so anything that makes it harder for a new Mercer, Robinson or Romanov to **** us about is a good thing.

Mercer probably saved us or at least brought us back from the brink.  There was talk of going part time after our third relegation.It would be a pity if a small minority had vetoed him at the time say because he was Thatcherite Tory.

 

[davemclaren]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Mercer probably saved us or at least brought us back from the brink.  There was talk of going part time after our third relegation.It would be a pity if a small minority had vetoed him at the time say because he was Thatcherite Tory.

 

Or because he wasn’t a Hearts supporter. 

[Francis Albert]

2 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Or because he wasn’t a Hearts supporter. 

Indeed.

[OTT]

I went with 75%. IMO it represents a clear supermajority and is high enough above 50% of it to be the expressed will of the members.

 

I think any potential move away from total fan ownership will be met with resistance, I don't however, want a potentially good situation for us to be stopped because 10.01% of people don't believe in it. I think 75% ensures enough legwork on both sides to mean that caution is still favoured but not an impossible obstacle to overcome in major change. 

[JamTarts98]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Mercer probably saved us or at least brought us back from the brink.  There was talk of going part time after our third relegation.It would be a pity if a small minority had vetoed him at the time say because he was Thatcherite Tory.

 

Excellent point. 

[henryheart]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Mercer probably saved us or at least brought us back from the brink.  There was talk of going part time after our third relegation.It would be a pity if a small minority had vetoed him at the time say because he was Thatcherite Tory.

 

 

Very true. Some people seem to have a very selective memory of Wallace Mercer which is very unfortunate. He certainly liked the sound of his own voice, but he stood up for Hearts big time when dealing with the SFA and Scottish League, put the club in a place where it was minutes from being Champions and became UEFA Cup quarter finalists, employed some great people, listened to what his board of directors said and saw the well being of all employees as being of massive importance. Importantly, he saw supporters as customers; it was his job to make us happy and entice us to come to Tynecastle, unlike some other subsequent owners who have, quite frankly, taken us as mugs. He gave many of us the best footballing times of our Hearts supporting life.  

[David Black]

1 hour ago, henryheart said:

 

Very true. Some people seem to have a very selective memory of Wallace Mercer which is very unfortunate. He certainly liked the sound of his own voice, but he stood up for Hearts big time when dealing with the SFA and Scottish League, put the club in a place where it was minutes from being Champions and became UEFA Cup quarter finalists, employed some great people, listened to what his board of directors said and saw the well being of all employees as being of massive importance. Importantly, he saw supporters as customers; it was his job to make us happy and entice us to come to Tynecastle, unlike some other subsequent owners who have, quite frankly, taken us as mugs. He gave many of us the best footballing times of our Hearts supporting life.  

Let's not forget the role Archie Martin played in opening the door for Wallace Mercer. 

[EIEIO]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Mercer probably saved us or at least brought us back from the brink.  There was talk of going part time after our third relegation.It would be a pity if a small minority had vetoed him at the time say because he was Thatcherite Tory.

 

No denying this. However, we were a financial basket case when Mercer, Robinson and Romanov and their substantial egos rode into town. With FoH and impending fan ownership we are in a strong financial position (covid excepted) and unlike beggars we CAN afford to be choosers.

[Jarhead]

Is either Eric or Alex, who made the supporting statements, posting on this thread? 🤔

[Psychedelicropcircle]

Still awaiting my email! 

[henryheart]

34 minutes ago, David Black said:

Let's not forget the role Archie Martin played in opening the door for Wallace Mercer. 

 

Martin certainly opened the door for Mercer insofar as he recognised the need for an injection of funds that he had personally been unable to generate, so the board agreed to a release of shares. 

 

It is my understanding that it was Donald Ford that brought Mercer into the bid, initially to help out the supporters consortium that couldn't match the Kenny Waugh bid. When it eventually boiled down to Mercer v Waugh, Mercer won the Board's vote and Martin had voted for Waugh. Happy to be corrected if my memory has failed me.

[davemclaren]

8 minutes ago, henryheart said:

 

Martin certainly opened the door for Mercer insofar as he recognised the need for an injection of funds that he had personally been unable to generate, so the board agreed to a release of shares. 

 

It is my understanding that it was Donald Ford that brought Mercer into the bid, initially to help out the supporters consortium that couldn't match the Kenny Waugh bid. When it eventually boiled down to Mercer v Waugh, Mercer won the Board's vote and Martin had voted for Waugh. Happy to be corrected if my memory has failed me.

Similar to my recollection. 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, David Black said:

Let's not forget the role Archie Martin played in opening the door for Wallace Mercer. 

I believe Donald Ford also played a part in persuading Mercer to invest in Hearts. And in supporting FOH he scored a bit of a double in helping to save HMFC.

 

PS henryheart and Dave Mclaren got there first.

Edited December 6, 2020 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, EIEIO said:

No denying this. However, we were a financial basket case when Mercer, Robinson and Romanov and their substantial egos rode into town. With FoH and impending fan ownership we are in a strong financial position (covid excepted) and unlike beggars we CAN afford to be choosers.

Fan ownership does not guarantee financial stability or safety. 

Which is basically what the 90% vs 75% debate is about.

[Saint Jambo]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Fan ownership does not guarantee financial stability or safety. 

Which is basically what the 90% vs 75% debate is about.

 

I disagree. In the event of financial instability that threatens the future of the club, I'd expect it to be pretty easy to get 90% of members to back selling the club to any realistic offer. After all the whole reason people donate to FOH was to ensure the club survived. If fan ownership left us a financial basket case or on the verge of going part-time in the Championship, do you really think there would be 10% of members who would put being fan owned ahead of bringing in a new owner with the cash required to help the club? Less than 2% of members were so committed to fan ownership they were willing to vote against delaying by several years so investment could be shifted to building the new stand.

 

I think where the 75% vs 90% would be much more likely to be an issue is where the club was stable under fan ownership and FOH was approached by someone promising to invest significant money into the club to try and achieve more. At that point, depending on the individual involved and the guarantees on offer, I think there could be more than 10% but less than 25% of members who don't want to take the risk. Given that some version of the current vision to "to ensure that the future of Heart of Midlothian Football Club remains secure for all time" then I don't think it actually all that unreasonable to require an overwhelming majority to agree to a fundamental change in what we have put their money into to date.

[Francis Albert]

6 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

I disagree. In the event of financial instability that threatens the future of the club, I'd expect it to be pretty easy to get 90% of members to back selling the club to any realistic offer. After all the whole reason people donate to FOH was to ensure the club survived. If fan ownership left us a financial basket case or on the verge of going part-time in the Championship, do you really think there would be 10% of members who would put being fan owned ahead of bringing in a new owner with the cash required to help the club? Less than 2% of members were so committed to fan ownership they were willing to vote against delaying by several years so investment could be shifted to building the new stand.

 

I think where the 75% vs 90% would be much more likely to be an issue is where the club was stable under fan ownership and FOH was approached by someone promising to invest significant money into the club to try and achieve more. At that point, depending on the individual involved and the guarantees on offer, I think there could be more than 10% but less than 25% of members who don't want to take the risk. Given that some version of the current vision to "to ensure that the future of Heart of Midlothian Football Club remains secure for all time" then I don't think it actually all that unreasonable to require an overwhelming majority to agree to a fundamental change in what we have put their money into to date.

Fair comments but whatever we agree there is no guarantee that the future of HMFC will remain secure for all time.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

On 05/12/2020 at 00:51, The Frenchman Returns said:

Voted 90%, being risk averse on this one.

 

Same. Any sensible investor knows the Scottish game is rigged in favour of the OF and it will take sustained, massive investment over a number of years to stop that. I don't want an investor who doesn't know or acknowledge this.

 

There is no way we can be turned into an Athletic Madrid or a Spurs or Leicester or an RB Leipzig or whoever and challenge the top 2 or 3 teams over a sustained period. To do that would take an initial investment of tens of millions and then further investment of tens of millions EVERY season.

 

We have already seen in our (fairly recent) history that we can challenge without that kind of investment on the odd occasion, and our am should now be to do that while staying sustainable. Our focus should be on wooing these benefactors and getting them on board long term IMO.

 

[Psychedelicropcircle]

If before a penny had been collected they had said before we take ownership we’d like to discuss terms to sell the club on there would simply be no FOH.