FOH EGM and Vote ( edited )

[Gorgie Boot boy]

20 minutes ago, Psychedelicropcircle said:

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!  

Who told you to piss off, what was the vote for exactly. ?

[David Black]

Pleased with the result, however do we do things the right way or do we do things the political way. Indy Ref, Brexit, Trump, none have accepted the democratic vote.

Edited December 21, 2020 by David Black

[1971fozzy]

I initially had wanted the 90% but after much thinking actually voted for the 75%.

That was very close, but that’s a bit of a disappointing turn out.  

[davemclaren]

2 minutes ago, David Black said:

Pleased with the result, however do we do things the right way or do we do things the political way. Indy Ref, Brexit, Trump, none have accepted the democratic vote.

We accept it unless there’s a majority to change it. That's how democracy, and company law, works but, in practice, it’s hard to get 90% to agree on anything. 

[David Black]

2 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

We accept it unless there’s a majority to change it. That's how democracy, and company law, works but, in practice, it’s hard to get 90% to agree on anything. 

I was being sarcastic re the politics.

[davemclaren]

9 minutes ago, David Black said:

I was being sarcastic re the politics.

Hard to tell these days. 😄

[Francis Albert]

Voted the other way but I am not sure it makes a huge difference. A vote of over 75% would ultimately  be difficult to resist especially with a strong turn out. But well done on transparecy on the outcome to FOH. Despite its reluctance to .interfere with club affairs FOH would I hope if and when it gains majority ownership ensure we know the numbers voting for and against AGM motions.

Edited December 21, 2020 by Francis Albert

[davemclaren]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

Voted the other way but I am not sure it makes a huge difference. A vote of over 75% would ultimately  be difficult to resist especially with a strong turn out. FOH despite its reluctance to .interfere with club affairs would I hope if and when it gains majority ownership ensure we know the numbers voting for and against AGM motions.

How could the FoH board legally do anything other than resist a vote below 90% on the subject?

[Poseidon]

Excellent news. First FoH vote i think I've been on the 'winning' side of. 

 

[Francis Albert]

1 minute ago, davemclaren said:

How could the FoH board legally do anything other than resist a vote below 90% on the subject?

They could I suppose make a case for rerunning the vote and push for a different result. If a large number of the 75% to 89% felt strongly emough they could put a lot of pressure on in various ways. An FoH ignoring the wishes of over 75% of its membership would be Iin serious trouble.

[jr ewing]

Maybe next year, if you don't succeed try and try again. 

[Jambo-Fox]

I have concerns for the future .... I worry that a tiny minority (10% of a minority [30%] that actually vote) around 300 members could block significant investment in growth for Hearts. 
 

Raising significant funds in the future will be a real challenge. Are there lessons to be learnt from the Portsmouth fans experience, they owned but then sold their club to raise funds for future growth?

[davemclaren]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

They could I suppose make a case for rerunning the vote and push for a different result. If a large number of the 75% to 89% felt strongly emough they could put a lot of pressure on in various ways. An FoH ignoring the wishes of over 75% of its membership would be Iin serious trouble.

I agree with your last point but that’s where this vote leaves us. The FoH board can’t act against a legal vote on a super-majority matter. 

[davemclaren]

4 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

I have concerns for the future .... I worry that a tiny minority (10% of a minority [30%] that actually vote) around 300 members could block significant investment in growth for Hearts. 
 

Raising significant funds in the future will be a real challenge. Are there lessons to be learnt from the Portsmouth fans experience, they owned but then sold their club to raise funds for future growth?

Too late now. 

[Lone Striker]

6 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

They could I suppose make a case for rerunning the vote and push for a different result. If a large number of the 75% to 89% felt strongly emough they could put a lot of pressure on in various ways. An FoH ignoring the wishes of over 75% of its membership would be Iin serious trouble.

Imagine the uproar if politicians went down that road !!        😜 

 

Regardless of whether its 75 or 90, any approach to FoH by wealthy investors would put a huge onus on the FoH  board to  carry out a  substantial investigation into the investors, their proposals and their financial soundness - and publish it to the membership - before holding a vote.    Are any of the board experienced in doing that sort of thing ?   

 

I agree with the posters who have stated that  the 30% turnout for today's result is pretty decent.   👍  

 

 

[Jambo-Fox]

2 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I agree with your last point but that’s where this vote leaves us. The FoH board can’t act against a legal vote on a super-majority matter. 

I would think the FOH Board could (ignore an FOH vote) and also the Hearts Board could ignore the FOH guidance under certain circumstances. This would be an exceptional situation where the directors would be legally obliged to act in best interests of others and failing to do would be a breach of their fiduciary duties.

 

An example of this could be where external investment was required and where failure to get such would result in the club going into administration or

worse liquidation.

 

I’m sure there are ‘legally qualified’ folks on here that can expand further and give informed opinions.

[Gorgie Boot boy]

3 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

I would think the FOH Board could (ignore an FOH vote) and also the Hearts Board could ignore the FOH guidance under certain circumstances. This would be an exceptional situation where the directors would be legally obliged to act in best interests of others and failing to do would be a breach of their fiduciary duties.

 

An example of this could be where external investment was required and where failure to get such would result in the club going into administration or

worse liquidation.

 

I’m sure there are ‘legally qualified’ folks on here that can expand further and give informed opinions.

 What was voted for though ?

[Francis Albert]

40 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I agree with your last point but that’s where this vote leaves us. The FoH board can’t act against a legal vote on a super-majority matter. 

But in the real world if say 85% of FOH members were in favour and a similar percentage of the wider Hearts fan base were prepared to take action (e.g. boycotting ST sales or match tickets) a minority of a few hundred could not possibly hold out.

[davemclaren]

11 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

But in the real world if say 85% of FOH members were in favour and a similar percentage of the wider Hearts fan base were prepared to take action (e.g. boycotting ST sales or match tickets) a minority of a few hundred could not possibly hold out.

It’s an interesting scenario. Will be interesting on jkb if that happens. 

[Jarhead]

Happy with that result. 
Probably only way I would change my mind would be if the membership rules of the SFA changed to prevent “investment “ being transferred to debt on the clubs books. I can’t see that ever happening though. 
 

We just have to live within our means and if others want to rack up debt chasing the dream then that’s their business as history shows that that usually ends badly. 

[JamTarts98]

3 hours ago, davemclaren said:

Too late now. 

The empathy is overwhelming 😂

[JamTarts98]

5 hours ago, luckydug said:

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. 

This was a hugely important vote. Maybe not this year or next but down the line it is. The decision to abstain is everyone's right, just don't moan about it later.

[davemclaren]

6 hours ago, JamTarts98 said:

The empathy is overwhelming 😂

I actually agree with what he says but what’s done is done. 

[baxterd1974]

The vote has spoken but it does make me a bit uncomfortable that such a small number of people can have such a big influence.

 

Based on 8500 members, 30% turnout and only 10% needed to block something, that's 255 people.

 

I appreciate we would likely get a higher turnout for a major decision but it feels like we have put ourselves in the same realms as the SPFL in terms of getting things done.

[Mikey1874]

The mistake - it there was one - was making it 90% in the first place. Though I remember a lot of support for this to protect the stadium etc.

 

The other mistake perhaps is bundling important key measures in a full package. 

 

But it is what it is. It certainly makes fan ownership continuing for a good while a bit more certain. 

[CJGJ]

29 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

The mistake - it there was one - was making it 90% in the first place. Though I remember a lot of support for this to protect the stadium etc.

 

The other mistake perhaps is bundling important key measures in a full package. 

 

But it is what it is. It certainly makes fan ownership continuing for a good while a bit more certain. 

All it would take to change matters is just a bit more time to organise a change in the FOH structure...initially a proposal might get knocked back but in the longer term the pressure would lead to change...in my opinion

 

What it would do is create a huge amount of scrutiny on any proposal being made hopefully ensuring no 'bad ownership' decisions are repeated...that is no bad thing

[campbell]

While I voted for the 75% I respect that out of the people that did vote it was overwhelmingly in favour of sticking with the 90% my only problem is the turnout! I would have expected a minimum turnout % to be hit before the vote is deemed valid, furthermore the low turnout leads me to believe that there is a slight disconnect between pledgers and the FOH/Hearts or the FOH struggled to convey just how important this vote was for the potential future of this club that so many have fought to keep afloat over the last 5 years 

Edited December 22, 2020 by campbell

[Footballfirst]

32 minutes ago, campbell said:

While I voted for the 75% I respect that out of the people that did vote it was overwhelmingly in favour of sticking with the 90% my only problem is the turnout! I would have expected a minimum turnout % to be hit before the vote is deemed valid, furthermore the low turnout leads me to believe that there is a slight disconnect between pledgers and the FOH/Hearts or the FOH struggled to convey just how important this vote was for the potential future of this club that so many have fought to keep afloat over the last 5 years 

I don't understand the bit in your comment that I've highlighted in bold.

 

72.2% voted in favour of 75% and 27.8% in favour of 90%. However it needed a 75% vote to revert to the 75% threshold, so the motion failed.

[Gorgie Boot boy]

14 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I don't understand the bit in your comment that I've highlighted in bold.

 

72.2% voted in favour of 75% and 27.8% in favour of 90%. However it needed a 75% vote to revert to the 75% threshold, so the motion failed.

Only 30 % were chosen to vote.

No idea what the vote was for though

[David Black]

7 minutes ago, Gorgie Boot boy said:

Only 30 % were chosen to vote.

No idea what the vote was for though

Only 30% chose to vote, that is completely different to what you are saying. 70% didn't bother. 

 

 

[Gorgie Boot boy]

1 minute ago, David Black said:

Only 30% chose to vote, that is completely different to what you are saying. 70% didn't bother. 

 

 

Really.

My mistake.

[campbell]

28 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I don't understand the bit in your comment that I've highlighted in bold.

 

72.2% voted in favour of 75% and 27.8% in favour of 90%. However it needed a 75% vote to revert to the 75% threshold, so the motion failed.

I completely misread the email this morning pre coffee! I am now even more disappointed that it only failed to pass by 3% I feel the 75% is the correct way to go. 

[Jamhammer]

I voted 75 but fair enough. Poor turnout considering the vote was a piece of piss

[Gorgie Boot boy]

My Mother says we voted 75%

[Dunks]

For those suggesting asking the question again next year - as I understand it, any future vote would now require the 90% threshold to be met in order to change to 75%. With 72% voting in favour this time, that would need quite a swing to have any chance of succeeding. 

[jambopilms]

90% is daft. 

Scottish football as a whole has struggled to do anything due to the 10-2 vote rules.

A small minority of fools could stop anything good from happening.

[ToadKiller Dog]

I'm happy that its staying at 90% at this point when it comes to ownership ,this should have been looked at 3 or 5 years down the road .

The FOH now has space to breathe without the vultures circling above .

 

 

[HoGwash]

I don't believe the SPFL voting structure is in any way comparable to a FoH vote. We will all have Hearts as our priority in any vote even if we may disagree the best way to take the club forward. 

[Mikey1874]

1 hour ago, jambopilms said:

90% is daft. 

Scottish football as a whole has struggled to do anything due to the 10-2 vote rules.

A small minority of fools could stop anything good from happening.

 

'Good' things like moving from Tynecastle to an out of town stadium.

 

Or giving up fan ownership selling out to a foreign owner who has property businesses. 

 

Or allowing Celtic to make the club a feeder club. 

[Mikey1874]

It should have been 75% but that's not the fault of the fans who voted.

 

It's the fault of those who developed the governance document who should have known better especially as the 75% is standard and obvious. 

 

Fans being a bit cautious especially as the 90% was widely supported when it came out, isn't surprising. 

[Footballfirst]

The sale of Tynecastle is not covered by the super majority vote, so 75% would be sufficient to facilitate a sale. It was a candidate for super majority voting in the original proposals, but was dropped following the consultation period, although it remains a reserved matter that would require a vote by the FOH membership to confirm or block.

 

I suspect that Ann Budge may have exerted some influence in the decision to leave a sale/move from Tynecastle at 75%, i.e. don't make it extremely difficult for the Club Board to progress such a move if it is in the Club's best interests

[Gorgie Boot boy]

4 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The sale of Tynecastle is not covered by the super majority vote, so 75% would be sufficient to facilitate a sale. It was a candidate for super majority voting in the original proposals, but was dropped following the consultation period, although it remains a reserved matter that would require a vote by the FOH membership to confirm or block.

 

I suspect that Ann Budge may have exerted some influence in the decision to leave a sale/move from Tynecastle at 75%, i.e. don't make it extremely difficult for the Club Board to progress such a move if it is in the Club's best interests

Selling Tynecastle will get a 90 % vote against.