Jump to content

FOH Accounts and AGM


Footballfirst

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • davemclaren

    23

  • Francis Albert

    19

  • Footballfirst

    13

  • JamTarts98

    5

Footballfirst

On a quick scan of the accounts, they look very much as expected.  The only question I would have would be the Legal and Professional fees of £14,700 (2019: £0) incurred by FOH.

 

 

In terms of the FOH Board, Donald Cumming and Barry McGonagle retire by rotation. Donald is seeking re-election, but Barry is not. Paul Cheshire has been nominated to fill the vacant position on the Board.

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to post
Share on other sites
pettigrewsstylist

FF..im no accountant. Now that BIDCO repaid in full what is happening with the FOH subs money? Presumably some continues as working capital supply?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst
7 minutes ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

FF..im no accountant. Now that BIDCO repaid in full what is happening with the FOH subs money? Presumably some continues as working capital supply?

Everything that is raised continues to be handed over to the club as a donation, with the exception of around 3% retained to cover FOH's own running expenses.  The donation amount is written off as far as the FOH accounts are concerned as they are not in the form of a loan to the club.

 

Non-repayable amounts in relation to subordinated loans treated as a donation       602,500

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have voted (by proxy) in the AGM already. All seems to be well although disappointed to hear that pledges are down to around 7837 from a peak of 8500 ( I realise that amount pledged is up but feel that is mostly due to 'one off donations' and shouldn't be relied upon).

Edited by jambo89
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jambo89 said:

Have voted (by proxy) in the AGM already. All seems to be well although disappointed to hear that pledges are down to around 7837 from a peak of 8500 ( I realise that amount pledged is up but feel that is mostly due to 'one off donations' and shouldn't be relied upon).

I'm sure it will increase again when we get out of the virus and get back to work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst
12 minutes ago, jambo89 said:

Have voted (by proxy) in the AGM already. All seems to be well although disappointed to hear that pledges are down to around 7837 from a peak of 8500 ( I realise that amount pledged is up but feel that is mostly due to 'one off donations' and shouldn't be relied upon).

The 7,873 was average number of pledgers over the year.  The peak 8,500 may have come after year end or close to the year end.

 

I'm sure the number was below 7,500 at one point earlier in the financial year.

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mid Calder Jambo

7873 is still a fantastic number. There are only really 4 clubs in the Premier that have home crowds regularly in excess of that number. A fantastic effort by all concerned who continue to donate regularly or by one off donation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will check out hibs.net for the truth and justice of our accounts and also their expert advice. This should be a must for everyone before making any comment good or in their case bad....😁😁

Link to post
Share on other sites
pettigrewsstylist
42 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Everything that is raised continues to be handed over to the club as a donation, with the exception of around 3% retained to cover FOH's own running expenses.  The donation amount is written off as far as the FOH accounts are concerned as they are not in the form of a loan to the club.

 

Non-repayable amounts in relation to subordinated loans treated as a donation       602,500

Thanks FF 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Disco Dave
56 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

On a quick scan of the accounts, they look very much as expected.  The only question I would have would be the Legal and Professional fees of £14,700 (2019: £0) incurred by FOH.

 

Could this be something to do with completing the deal to transfer the shares etc?  I'm guessing there will have to be some paper work to make sure all is above board etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst
Just now, Disco Dave said:

 

Could this be something to do with completing the deal to transfer the shares etc?  I'm guessing there will have to be some paper work to make sure all is above board etc?

The transfer hasn't happened yet so it would be surprising to have to pay out that much, even if it was being set up in advance. I wouldn't have thought that just making the final installment of the Bidco Loan would have incurred such costs either.

 

Is it possible that FOH has contributed to the Club's legal fees re the demotion?  I know that FOH paid £9,900 a few years ago to cover the club's legal costs when amending the funding agreement for the new stand development.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kingantti1874
57 minutes ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

FF..im no accountant. Now that BIDCO repaid in full what is happening with the FOH subs money? Presumably some continues as working capital supply?


Yes

Link to post
Share on other sites
fraser5670
1 hour ago, micole said:

I will check out hibs.net for the truth and justice of our accounts and also their expert advice. This should be a must for everyone before making any comment good or in their case bad....😁😁

Good man, keep us posted 😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
Independence
2 hours ago, Mid Calder Jambo said:

7873 is still a fantastic number. There are only really 4 clubs in the Premier that have home crowds regularly in excess of that number. A fantastic effort by all concerned who continue to donate regularly or by one off donation.

Fantastic number and it is an average. Even more remarkable taking into account how many fans will be impacted, financially, through COVID 19!

Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
3 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

On a quick scan of the accounts, they look very much as expected.  The only question I would have would be the Legal and Professional fees of £14,700 (2019: £0) incurred by FOH.

 

 

In terms of the FOH Board, Donald Cumming and Barry McGonagle retire by rotation. Donald is seeking re-election, but Barry is not. Paul Cheshire has been nominated to fill the vacant position on the Board.

When you say nominated I assume Paul was the only candidate to put themselves forward for the vacant director role?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst
12 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

When you say nominated I assume Paul was the only candidate to put themselves forward for the vacant director role?

Reading the AGM notice that is correct, although the FOH Board must has done some due diligence to confirm that he is "qualified" for the role, and have included a resolution for him to be adopted to the Board, rather than undergo a poll. 

 

I'm unsure what is going on here, as it seems that the FOH Board is seeking a "specialist director" with financial skills to replace Barry.  I doubt if Barry was ever appointed as a specialist, so it shouldn't necessarily be a like for like replacement.  I was under the impression that other than "specialist directors" any member could be nominated to the Board regardless of their background knowledge and experience.

 

Barry and Donald have respectively brought financial and legal expertise to the board, and to maintain these skill-sets in the boardroom, we prescribed appropriate eligibility criteria in the call for candidates. With regard to the place which requires financial expertise, one of our members, Paul Cheshire, has been duly nominated as a candidate and meets the eligibility criteria.

 

Either way I've given up on concerning myself about FOH's governance anymore. That ship has sailed. 

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fort Vallance
4 hours ago, micole said:

I will check out hibs.net for the truth and justice of our accounts and also their expert advice. This should be a must for everyone before making any comment good or in their case bad....😁😁

Do you need a tenner each from us to pass on the info ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Heartsofgold

I’m assuming that the £602k exceptional item was the Foundation paying our legal fees for the challenge last year. 
 

edit. Ok maybe not!!

Edited by Heartsofgold
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Reading the AGM notice that is correct, although the FOH Board must has done some due diligence to confirm that he is "qualified" for the role, and have included a resolution for him to be adopted to the Board, rather than undergo a poll. 

 

I'm unsure what is going on here, as it seems that the FOH Board is seeking a "specialist director" with financial skills to replace Barry.  I doubt if Barry was ever appointed as a specialist, so it shouldn't necessarily be a like for like replacement.  I was under the impression that other than "specialist directors" any member could be nominated to the Board regardless of their background knowledge and experience.

 

Barry and Donald have respectively brought financial and legal expertise to the board, and to maintain these skill-sets in the boardroom, we prescribed appropriate eligibility criteria in the call for candidates. With regard to the place which requires financial expertise, one of our members, Paul Cheshire, has been duly nominated as a candidate and meets the eligibility criteria.

 

Either way I've given up on concerning myself about FOH's governance anymore. That ship has sailed. 

 

I think you're right about Barry FF.

 

My slight concern about the 2 Directors up for rotation being deemed as ”Specialist," and subsequently eligibility criteria being attached on this occasion for potential replacements (Law Degree, Chartered Accountant), is that it severely restricts the potential pool of new blood being interested in joining the FoH Board.

 

IMO, it would be better to leave the "Specialist" Directors in place, expand the Board by 2 and rotate these positions in making them open to thecwider community.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tommy Brown
12 hours ago, micole said:

I will check out hibs.net for the truth and justice of our accounts and also their expert advice. This should be a must for everyone before making any comment good or in their case bad....😁😁

Quite correct.

Even to the untrained eye, the poppy fund money has been blatantly omitted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Reading the AGM notice that is correct, although the FOH Board must has done some due diligence to confirm that he is "qualified" for the role, and have included a resolution for him to be adopted to the Board, rather than undergo a poll. 

 

I'm unsure what is going on here, as it seems that the FOH Board is seeking a "specialist director" with financial skills to replace Barry.  I doubt if Barry was ever appointed as a specialist, so it shouldn't necessarily be a like for like replacement.  I was under the impression that other than "specialist directors" any member could be nominated to the Board regardless of their background knowledge and experience.

 

Barry and Donald have respectively brought financial and legal expertise to the board, and to maintain these skill-sets in the boardroom, we prescribed appropriate eligibility criteria in the call for candidates. With regard to the place which requires financial expertise, one of our members, Paul Cheshire, has been duly nominated as a candidate and meets the eligibility criteria.

 

Either way I've given up on concerning myself about FOH's governance anymore. That ship has sailed. 

 

I noticed that bit too. I don't recall there ever being an 'eligibility' criteria mentioned before. It shouldn't be down to the board to pick and choose the criteria for qualification either. That irked me slightly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Treasurer
5 hours ago, iainmac said:

 

I think you're right about Barry FF.

 

My slight concern about the 2 Directors up for rotation being deemed as ”Specialist," and subsequently eligibility criteria being attached on this occasion for potential replacements (Law Degree, Chartered Accountant), is that it severely restricts the potential pool of new blood being interested in joining the FoH Board.

 

IMO, it would be better to leave the "Specialist" Directors in place, expand the Board by 2 and rotate these positions in making them open to thecwider community.

Fully agree Iain.

Of course we need some "specialist expertise" on the board but it would be good to have more representation from the general fanbase whose only qualifications are being a pledger and a Hearts supporter

Link to post
Share on other sites
sprinbox98
22 minutes ago, jambo89 said:

 

I noticed that bit too. I don't recall there ever being an 'eligibility' criteria mentioned before. It shouldn't be down to the board to pick and choose the criteria for qualification either. That irked me slightly.


It’s the same as any company appointing a board member - some need to have a specialist skill set (in this case finance) to allow them to fulfil the role to the best of the ability.

 

I wouldn’t fancy appointing Jimmy from down the road to look after the finance of foh, completing various returns and preparing the accounts.

 

To be fair, in order to get on the board you will need to be proposed and backed by a certain number of fellow foh members (somewhere between 25 and 30 I would assume) so anyone applying for these positions should be a reasonable representation of the fan base.

Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
10 minutes ago, sprinbox98 said:


It’s the same as any company appointing a board member - some need to have a specialist skill set (in this case finance) to allow them to fulfil the role to the best of the ability.

 

I wouldn’t fancy appointing Jimmy from down the road to look after the finance of foh, completing various returns and preparing the accounts.

 

To be fair, in order to get on the board you will need to be proposed and backed by a certain number of fellow foh members (somewhere between 25 and 30 I would assume) so anyone applying for these positions should be a reasonable representation of the fan base.

25 iirc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst

The current AoAs at Article 15 sets out the eligibility criteria for potential directors.

 

Article 15.8 allows the Board to seek nominations for a "specialist director", i.e. with specific skills as is being sought here. I didn't retain the FOH notice seeking nominations to confirm that it was indeed a "specialist director" that was being sought.  The AGM notice does not make that clear either.

 

There is nothing untoward in the nomination of Paul, but the FOH Board should have made it clear in the AGM notice (if they haven't previously done so) that Paul is being nominated for a position of "specialist director".  The reason that is important relates to the structure of the Board going forward and limitations on the number of "specialist directors" allowed on the Board.  If Paul is deemed a "specialist director", then I assume that Donald with his  Legal knowledge is another.  How many others are there, e.g. Stuart and Louise with their Tax backgrounds.

 

(a)              at all times, the number of specialist directors holding office must not exceed the number of other directors then in office and (subject thereto) the total number holding office at any time shall not be greater than three.

Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
22 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The current AoAs at Article 15 sets out the eligibility criteria for potential directors.

 

Article 15.8 allows the Board to seek nominations for a "specialist director", i.e. with specific skills as is being sought here. I didn't retain the FOH notice seeking nominations to confirm that it was indeed a "specialist director" that was being sought.  The AGM notice does not make that clear either.

 

There is nothing untoward in the nomination of Paul, but the FOH Board should have made it clear in the AGM notice (if they haven't previously done so) that Paul is being nominated for a position of "specialist director".  The reason that is important relates to the structure of the Board going forward and limitations on the number of "specialist directors" allowed on the Board.  If Paul is deemed a "specialist director", then I assume that Donald with his  Legal knowledge is another.  How many others are there, e.g. Stuart and Louise with their Tax backgrounds.

 

(a)              at all times, the number of specialist directors holding office must not exceed the number of other directors then in office and (subject thereto) the total number holding office at any time shall not be greater than three.

The two retiring directors this year were both defined in the agm notice papers as specialist directors, one legal and one financial. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The specialist criteria from the AoA doesn't specify what it is (at least it isn't spelled out in black and white from what I can see). So it seems like if someone from a marketing, computing or other business type background put themselves forward those from an accounting/legal background wouldn't be any more or less entitled. I.e it seems a provision to try and stop anyone who isn't qualified and can't display some degree of big picture thinking from holding the position. Which is sensible.

 

Personal view is that I'd like to see someone with a more creative background take a role in the FOH.  I think we'd benefit hugely from having a more diverse board than just lawyers and accountants.  I'm generalising but I would assume one of the goals of the FOH is to maximise pledger uptake from the support. Perhaps a more creative thinker to offer up solutions to this. 

 

(I'm not saying I don't want lawyers and finance people on the board, of course they are hugely important to the maintenance of what we have and forward planning, I'd just like to also see someone who has a track record in bringing new and innovative ideas to the table to try and grow the foundation).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst
2 hours ago, davemclaren said:

The two retiring directors this year were both defined in the agm notice papers as specialist directors, one legal and one financial. 

The AGM notice does not actually define them as "Specialist Directors", although it recognises the expertise of the retiring directors and that the Board prescribed eligibility criteria.  My understanding of the AoA is that those criteria can only be applied under Article 15.8 for "specialist directors", which is fine, but the articles also limit the number of "specialist directors" that can be recruited.  The Board should clarify who are "specialist directors" and those who are not to ensure that the specialists are not in a majority.  Non specialists only need to be a member for at least six months and have the written support of 25 other members of similar standing. 

 

Barry and Donald have respectively brought financial and legal expertise to the board, and to maintain these skill-sets in the boardroom, we prescribed appropriate eligibility criteria in the call for candidates. With regard to the place which requires financial expertise, one of our members, Paul Cheshire, has been duly nominated as a candidate and meets the eligibility criteria.

 

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
6 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The AGM notice does not actually define them as "Specialist Directors", although it recognises the expertise of the retiring directors and that the Board prescribed eligibility criteria.  My understanding of the AoA is that those criteria can only be applied under Article 15.8 for "specialist directors", which is fine, but the articles also limit the number of "specialist directors" that can be recruited.  The Board should clarify who are "specialist directors" and those who are not to ensure that the specialists are not in a majority.  Non specialists only need to be a member for at least six months and have the written support of 25 other members of similar standing. 

 

Barry and Donald have respectively brought financial and legal expertise to the board, and to maintain these skill-sets in the boardroom, we prescribed appropriate eligibility criteria in the call for candidates. With regard to the place which requires financial expertise, one of our members, Paul Cheshire, has been duly nominated as a candidate and meets the eligibility criteria.

 

Thanks for the clarification. Good question for the agm 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick

Got to hand it to Alex Mackie. His vision of getting Hearts fans to pony up money with another group of Hearts fans managjng it seems to have come true. Another appointment with no accountability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Saint Jambo

 

From email titled Annual General Meeting sent by FOH on 25 November.

Quote

Election of directors
The election of directors this year will involve two places on the board, as two of our directors retire by rotation. Please find here a nomination form and an explanatory memorandum on the election process. In relation to both of this year’s vacancies, specialist expertise and experience is required – in one case in legal matters and in the other case in financial matters. The eligibility criteria have been adjusted to reflect this, and full details are given in the documentation.

 

The nomination form is available at https://www.foundationofhearts.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/647001501_1-1.pdf

Quote

(b) the specialist director (Legal) must have a law degree (LLB) and the expertise and experience to
          (i) advise on and manage the legal matters of the Foundation,

          (ii) ensure legal compliance, and
          (iii) counsel the board on governance and constitutional matters; and
(c) the specialist director (Financial) must be a qualified CA (or equivalent), and have the expertise and experience to manage the financial operations of the Foundation and handle all accounting activities.

 

Fairly clear and detailed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be voting against Donald Cumming's re-election.

 

Partly as an opportunity to protest against the FoH Board's unnecessary delay in taking ownership of the club.

 

And partly to remove him from the HMFC Board as FoH representative.  He has been on the Board during a disastrous period of performance and governance.  He has been party to the disastrous performance by the executive management (mostly Levein) which led to demotion.  He has failed to constrain the overspending on capital projects by the Executives.  And he was the legal expert on the Board while the club lost its way in every legal avenue last year.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst
21 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

From email titled Annual General Meeting sent by FOH on 25 November.

 

The nomination form is available at https://www.foundationofhearts.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/647001501_1-1.pdf

 

Fairly clear and detailed.

Thanks for that. That is the information I didn't have.  It is clear that both Donald and Paul will be "specialist directors" under the terms of the AoA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Got to hand it to Alex Mackie. His vision of getting Hearts fans to pony up money with another group of Hearts fans managjng it seems to have come true. Another appointment with no accountability.

The appointment requires a vote. Is that not accountable? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Paul Cheshire write anything detailing why he should be elected? I'm just wondering as I'd be keen to know who is wanting to join the foundations board, why and what they hope to achieve. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Neil Dongcaster
1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

Thanks for that. That is the information I didn't have.  It is clear that both Donald and Paul will be "specialist directors" under the terms of the AoA.


Have you thought of standing for election?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

From email titled Annual General Meeting sent by FOH on 25 November.

 

The nomination form is available at https://www.foundationofhearts.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/647001501_1-1.pdf

 

Fairly clear and detailed.

 

Were they originally appointed as 'specialist directors' or has the eligibility criteria been added for this upcoming election?

 

 As I mentioned before, I thought the process / chance to stand was open to all, and it was down to us, the members to decide if they fit the criteria. 

 

Does anyone know if / when Stuart Wallace is up for re-election. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any recent updates on HSL?  Does Ronnie pocket the proceeds?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Famous 1874
3 hours ago, Coco said:

I will be voting against Donald Cumming's re-election.

 

Partly as an opportunity to protest against the FoH Board's unnecessary delay in taking ownership of the club.

 

And partly to remove him from the HMFC Board as FoH representative.  He has been on the Board during a disastrous period of performance and governance.  He has been party to the disastrous performance by the executive management (mostly Levein) which led to demotion.  He has failed to constrain the overspending on capital projects by the Executives.  And he was the legal expert on the Board while the club lost its way in every legal avenue last year.

 

Agree 100% and will be doing the same. A fresh FOH board is needed instead of the yes men currently on it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sprinbox98 said:


It’s the same as any company appointing a board member - some need to have a specialist skill set (in this case finance) to allow them to fulfil the role to the best of the ability.

 

I wouldn’t fancy appointing Jimmy from down the road to look after the finance of foh, completing various returns and preparing the accounts.

 

To be fair, in order to get on the board you will need to be proposed and backed by a certain number of fellow foh members (somewhere between 25 and 30 I would assume) so anyone applying for these positions should be a reasonable representation of the fan base.

 

Jimmy from down the road is bound to have other skills. Maybe looking after the accounts is not for him, hence why there are Specialist Directors. 

 

It's a volunteer organisation so we should encourage people to stand for the FoH Board - out of circa 8K pledgers, there will be some in that number that may enhance the attributes of the organisation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22games nro
3 hours ago, Kiwidoug said:

Any recent updates on HSL?  Does Ronnie pocket the proceeds?

Aye , their  initiative To raise £100k in January has been updated today..........

 


 

 

 

£10,272 !!!

image.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren
1 hour ago, iainmac said:

 

Jimmy from down the road is bound to have other skills. Maybe looking after the accounts is not for him, hence why there are Specialist Directors. 

 

It's a volunteer organisation so we should encourage people to stand for the FoH Board - out of circa 8K pledgers, there will be some in that number that may enhance the attributes of the organisation. 

I agree. Unless they increase the number of directors there can only be two ‘specialist’ director positions on the FoH Board, going by the rules as I understand them. 
 

The big challenge for any volunteer organisation is in getting enough people interested in putting themselves forward for election to the board. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Famous 1874 said:

Agree 100% and will be doing the same. A fresh FOH board is needed instead of the yes men currently on it. 

Put your name forward

Link to post
Share on other sites
1971fozzy
3 hours ago, 22games nro said:

Aye , their  initiative To raise £100k in January has been updated today..........

 


 

 

 

£10,272 !!!

image.gif


Includes their regular DDs as well I believe.  not bad for them to be honest 🤣🤣🤣

Edited by 1971fozzy
Link to post
Share on other sites
JamTarts98
15 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

Put your name forward

Maybe they have. They also have a right to vote and make comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Saint Jambo
13 hours ago, OTT said:

The specialist criteria from the AoA doesn't specify what it is (at least it isn't spelled out in black and white from what I can see). So it seems like if someone from a marketing, computing or other business type background put themselves forward those from an accounting/legal background wouldn't be any more or less entitled. I.e it seems a provision to try and stop anyone who isn't qualified and can't display some degree of big picture thinking from holding the position. Which is sensible.

 

Personal view is that I'd like to see someone with a more creative background take a role in the FOH.  I think we'd benefit hugely from having a more diverse board than just lawyers and accountants.  I'm generalising but I would assume one of the goals of the FOH is to maximise pledger uptake from the support. Perhaps a more creative thinker to offer up solutions to this. 

On the first point, as has been sort of covered so you may already have picked up, under the current Articles the Board have to "set out clearly" on the nomination forms the specialist expertise they are looking for. It is then for the existing Board to reject a candidate if in their "reasonable opinion" they candidate doesn't have the specialist expertise required. It is about ensuring that the Board has specific skills rather than a general bar to entry.

 

On your second point about a creative background, I think it is worth noting that Alistair Bruce is a managing director of a marketing and design company, so the Board does have someone from that sort of background.

 

7 hours ago, jambo89 said:

 

Were they originally appointed as 'specialist directors' or has the eligibility criteria been added for this upcoming election?

 

 As I mentioned before, I thought the process / chance to stand was open to all, and it was down to us, the members to decide if they fit the criteria. 

 

Does anyone know if / when Stuart Wallace is up for re-election. 

As far as I can tell the 'specialist director' provision has existed in the Articles since they were adopted in 2014. It certainly pre-dates the governance review proposals in 2017. My memory is that Barry was elected unopposed when he first stood, but that there was no eligibility criteria (i.e. he wasn't initially a 'specialist director'). However, he has been re-elected once since then so it may well be that he was re-elected as a specialist director. That would make sense as he is a chartered accountant, worked in a financial role, and as I understand it did lead on lots of the financial stuff for FOH, including providing the financial report to the AGM.

 

In the review of governance, the FOH Board initially proposed being able to appoint specialist directors without an election/ vote of any sort. I believe they dropped this proposal following the responses they received during the consultation. (I have their response to the consultation that indicates they were dropping that proposal. I don't actually have a copy of the approved new Articles which are due to come into effect on transfer of shares.)

 

3 hours ago, davemclaren said:

I agree. Unless they increase the number of directors there can only be two ‘specialist’ director positions on the FoH Board, going by the rules as I understand them. 
 

The big challenge for any volunteer organisation is in getting enough people interested in putting themselves forward for election to the board. 

 

My reading of the current Articles is there can be up to 3 specialist directors. The limit given is 3 and no more than half the Board. Given there are currently 6 Board members that would mean they could have 3 specialist directors. Whether they do or whether it is only Donald and Barry/Paul, I don't know.

 

One point of potential confusion and (presumably unintended) consequence of not having completed the share transfer is that FOH is still working to the 2014 Articles and not the Articles approved in December 2019. Irritatingly I don't have a copy of the 'new' Articles (if anyone can supply me a copy or a link to a copy that would be much appreciated). The governance review consultation response document noted that the Board "see the need for specialist directors diminishing in the medium to long term" and they were therefore going to adopt a proposal that the Board should be limited to less than half the Board, rather than to half the Board. There would also be a new rule that a specialist director can't be chair. They also noted at that stage that they would increase the maximum size of the Board to 7. As I say, I don't know how that was reflected in the new Articles that will come into force when the shares are transferred.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
On 11/01/2021 at 17:38, micole said:

I will check out hibs.net for the truth and justice of our accounts and also their expert advice. This should be a must for everyone before making any comment good or in their case bad....😁😁

FF would be an infinitely better bet than .net. But each to their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...