FOH Accounts and AGM

[Saint Jambo]

1 hour ago, Lone Striker said:

For example, is there anything "wrong" in directing the HMFC board to set aside 50% of FoH member donations for purpose X   (player purchase fees ?     Academy scouting costs ?)

 

The alternative is just continuing the current "where did our money go"   situation (which I suspect Mrs B is quite happy with unfortunately).

 

While there might not be anything wrong with ring fencing part of the money for specific projects, I believe I'm right in saying that the governance model which has been approved by the membership is explicit that this will not be the case. The club will be entirely free to use the money as it sees fit. (Of course at that point FOH will be 75.1% owners of the club so in effect responsible for all budget decisions within the club.)

[pettigrewsstylist]

9 hours ago, Jambo-Fox said:

I think a lot of Hearts fans think the FOH is like a big supporters club! Emotionally it is but in reality it’s not!

 

♥️The FOH has an AGM members can participate.

♥️The FOH has X2 members on the board of HMFC

♥️HMFC has an AGM

♥️The FOH shows its appreciation of members contributions by giving ‘rewards’ (of no significant value) in recognition 

 

It would be unreasonable (IMO) for HMFC to give benefits to members of an organisation that owns c. 75% of their shares. How would the owners of the remaining c. 25% of shares (in HMFC) feel about that?

 

If you bought shares in Disney would you expect to receive the Disney channel free of charge?

 

Alas I feel some FOH members have an unrealistic expectation of how much they can or will be involved directly with our beloved club HMFC.

 

NB I do think that the primary objective of all members of the FOH was and is simply to see Hearts play, and play at Tynecastle and see them wining games and hopefully trophies ..... that’s all nothing more ...

Good post.

[pettigrewsstylist]

8 hours ago, Lone Striker said:

As a pledger for life who has no interest in plot ceremonies or rewards, my tuppence worth after reading folk's comments above -

 

The entity called FoH has to continue to exist since it is (or will be) named as owner of Bidco's shares. The question then is what else will it's purpose be, other than as a semi-automated   collector and distributor  of our donations.       My guess is  that once FoH becomes the owner of the shares, the number of pledgers is likely to slowly decrease - especially if their communication with members remains as patchy as it is currently.    So I'd hope that FoH  takes on a role of identifying a  named project  or purpose within the club each year  ...... get communicating with all supporters using all club channels to publicise it and set a funding target ...... and actively try to recruit more pledgers to help achieve the target.    Something to energise supporters again by seeing their pledges actually achieve a worthwhile  objective within the club.    

 

For example, is there anything "wrong" in directing the HMFC board to set aside 50% of FoH member donations for purpose X   (player purchase fees ?     Academy scouting costs ?)

 

The alternative is just continuing the current "where did our money go"   situation (which I suspect Mrs B is quite happy with unfortunately).

 

Edit - some research into how the Well Society or the ST Mirren thingy operate in a beneficial way to their clubs might be useful 

Good post. Get the corners filled type project should be 1st up 

[ritchcook]

.

Edited January 23, 2021 by ritchcook

[ritchcook]

8 hours ago, Lone Striker said:

As a pledger for life who has no interest in plot ceremonies or rewards, my tuppence worth after reading folk's comments above -

 

The entity called FoH has to continue to exist since it is (or will be) named as owner of Bidco's shares. The question then is what else will it's purpose be, other than as a semi-automated   collector and distributor  of our donations.       My guess is  that once FoH becomes the owner of the shares, the number of pledgers is likely to slowly decrease - especially if their communication with members remains as patchy as it is currently.    So I'd hope that FoH  takes on a role of identifying a  named project  or purpose within the club each year  ...... get communicating with all supporters using all club channels to publicise it and set a funding target ...... and actively try to recruit more pledgers to help achieve the target.    Something to energise supporters again by seeing their pledges actually achieve a worthwhile  objective within the club.    

 

For example, is there anything "wrong" in directing the HMFC board to set aside 50% of FoH member donations for purpose X   (player purchase fees ?     Academy scouting costs ?)

 

The alternative is just continuing the current "where did our money go"   situation (which I suspect Mrs B is quite happy with unfortunately).

 

Edit - some research into how the Well Society or the ST Mirren thingy operate in a beneficial way to their clubs might be useful 

Great post I would buy in.

[davemclaren]

8 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

While there might not be anything wrong with ring fencing part of the money for specific projects, I believe I'm right in saying that the governance model which has been approved by the membership is explicit that this will not be the case. The club will be entirely free to use the money as it sees fit. (Of course at that point FOH will be 75.1% owners of the club so in effect responsible for all budget decisions within the club.)

This was discussed many times on here and at several AGMs during the governance review. I raised it personally at least 3 AGMs but there seemed little enthusiasm amongst the FoH board, or indeed the members present, to include any guidance/constraints within the governance proposals. 

[Neil Dongcaster]

8 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

This was discussed many times on here and at several AGMs during the governance review. I raised it personally at least 3 AGMs but there seemed little enthusiasm amongst the FoH board, or indeed the members present, to include any guidance/constraints within the governance proposals. 

I think for the vast majority of FOH members their pledges have simply been setup and that’s their bit done. They don’t really care about governance until we have a crisis situation. As long as they can tell their mates in the pub they are a pledger that’s all that really matters as long as the club is plodding along. For what’s it worse I don’t see anything wrong with this and this mentality will ensure we have pledgers for years to come.

 

However the mentality I’ve mentioned means leadership is important within FOH to apply pressure to the club board and hold them accountable for decisions made. I don’t actually know what the FOH board do they seem have placid.

 

Just as an addition, I get the impression AB is probably also a benefactor and FOH find it hard to hold her accountable for financial waste when she’s throwing large sums in herself. I could be talking pish here as usual of course.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

12 minutes ago, Neil Dongcaster said:

I think for the vast majority of FOH members their pledges have simply been setup and that’s their bit done. They don’t really care about governance until we have a crisis situation. As long as they can tell their mates in the pub they are a pledger that’s all that really matters as long as the club is plodding along. For what’s it worse I don’t see anything wrong with this and this mentality will ensure we have pledgers for years to come.

 

However the mentality I’ve mentioned means leadership is important within FOH to apply pressure to the club board and hold them accountable for decisions made. I don’t actually know what the FOH board do they seem have placid.

 

Just as an addition, I get the impression AB is probably also a benefactor and FOH find it hard to hold her accountable for financial waste when she’s throwing large sums in herself. I could be talking pish here as usual of course.

I don’t entirely agree with this. To begin with, I think a lot of us set up subs and let them ride without paying much attention because the club was dealing with and recovering from a situation which almost killed us.

 

Seven years on, that’s no longer the scenario. What we’re dealing with now are the effects of chronic and unacceptable mismanagement of the football side of the club and an owner who is largely unaccountable. FOH has the funds to buy Budge out but hasn’t. FOH has reps who will never challenge Budge over anything but will do her bidding with statements about the SPFL and then constantly ask for extra donations, over and above the hundreds of thousands that are already being pledged.

 

Naturally, questions are being asked about how our money is being used, what positive difference it is actually making and whether or not someone other than Budge could make a better go of things (to which the answer is yes).

 

I’m increasing at a loss to understand what FOH is, apart from a never-ending cashline.

[Bad Religion]

13 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

I don’t entirely agree with this. To begin with, I think a lot of us set up subs and let them ride without paying much attention because the club was dealing with and recovering from a situation which almost killed us.

 

Seven years on, that’s no longer the scenario. What we’re dealing with now are the effects of chronic and unacceptable mismanagement of the football side of the club and an owner who is largely unaccountable. FOH has the funds to buy Budge out but hasn’t. FOH has reps who will never challenge Budge over anything but will do her bidding with statements about the SPFL and then constantly ask for extra donations, over and above the hundreds of thousands that are already being pledged.

 

Naturally, questions are being asked about how our money is being used, what positive difference it is actually making and whether or not someone other than Budge could make a better go of things (to which the answer is yes).

 

I’m increasing at a loss to understand what FOH is, apart from a never-ending cashline.

You ok hun? X

[Francis Albert]

11 hours ago, iainmac said:

 

If it's asking you to resubscribe, I think that means that you aren't on the mailing list anymore. If you were subscribed, that form would tell you that you're already on the database & should stop you going any further.

Thanks. I checked the link you sent me back when I din'd get the EGM email and at that stage I was on the database. It looks like I have since been removed from the database for some reason. 

 

Anyway thanks for being for years the only contact with and best source of info on FoH on here and sorry you are going to be less involved with FoH now.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

16 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

I got a confirmation by email. Pasted below with personal details removed.

 

Subject: Foundation of Hearts AGM Proxy Vote

Thank you for voting. Below is a summary of the voting form you have submitted.
 

---

Name: XXXXXXXXXXXX

Email: XXXXXXXXXXXX

1. Election of Paul Cheshire as a director - FOR

2. Re-election of Donald Cumming as a director - FOR

 

Thanks mate. I will try again later

[Lone Striker]

2 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

I don’t entirely agree with this. To begin with, I think a lot of us set up subs and let them ride without paying much attention because the club was dealing with and recovering from a situation which almost killed us.

 

Seven years on, that’s no longer the scenario. What we’re dealing with now are the effects of chronic and unacceptable mismanagement of the football side of the club and an owner who is largely unaccountable. FOH has the funds to buy Budge out but hasn’t. FOH has reps who will never challenge Budge over anything but will do her bidding with statements about the SPFL and then constantly ask for extra donations, over and above the hundreds of thousands that are already being pledged.

 

Naturally, questions are being asked about how our money is being used, what positive difference it is actually making and whether or not someone other than Budge could make a better go of things (to which the answer is yes).

 

I’m increasing at a loss to understand what FOH is, apart from a never-ending cashline.

👍   Your post touches on what I fear FoH might  become, if the reps continue to take this stand-offish attitude with the members.  There has to be some kind of purpose described to  supporters as to why their continued  financial support is needed (over and above ST's) - that should be the job of the reps on the HMFC board.   The Covid and economic crisis in the country will mean that a  lot of pledgers may have to give up just to keep themselves & family fed with a roof over their heads.  Hopefully Hearts never has another existential crisis, but a communication vacuum threatens to undo the fantastic reputation Hearts fans rightly have for responding in 2014.

 

11 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

While there might not be anything wrong with ring fencing part of the money for specific projects, I believe I'm right in saying that the governance model which has been approved by the membership is explicit that this will not be the case. The club will be entirely free to use the money as it sees fit. (Of course at that point FOH will be 75.1% owners of the club so in effect responsible for all budget decisions within the club.)

..... which is exactly the point.   The FoH reps on the HMFC board will need to act like owners & leaders, instead of the passive style at present.   I guess they can afford to be passive just now since Mrs B is the owner and seems content to continue being the driving force on club decision-making.     We have to hope that Stuart Wallace has been taking notes over the last few years on what is required of a football club board, so that we're not reliant on Mrs B forever more.

 

[Footballfirst]

Anyone got feedback from this morning's AGM?  Were the motions for the election of directors passed with the usual overwhelming majorities?

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Footballfirst

[Jambo-Fox]

Dear Member

Following the Annual General Meeting held today as a closed meeting, we announce that the two resolutions put to shareholders at the meeting were passed by the requisite majorities as ordinary resolutions. A total of 592 members voted on each resolution, and the results of the votes are as follows:
 

	Resolution	Votes For	Votes Against	Votes Withheld
1	Election of Paul Cheshire	562	16	14
2	Re-election of Donald Cumming	578	8	6

 

[Jambo-Fox]

Very low number of votes - poor participation!

[Francis Albert]

So only 1 in 16 members voted. Surely FoH can't be happy about that. 

 

Unless it is only the result that counts.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Francis Albert

[Guest ToqueJambo]

10 minutes ago, weehammy said:

If it ends up that our future contributions become just a general top-op to club funds I’ll be cancelling mine, even though it’s easily affordable. 
I emphasise future as I’m happy to top-up funds this season following our unfair demotion and the onset of the pandemic.

 

 

 

 

Same, after this season and fan ownership is sorted I'd like FoH funds to go to specific things. My top choice would be FoH is a major backer of our youth academy. That's something most fans can get behind and you can really feel like you're contributing to the future rather than just a new addition to the stand. Also think the new stand should be named after the foundation. IT wouldn't have happened without FoH and aside from that the word "Foundation" is kind of appropriate in many ways.

Edited January 28, 2021 by ToqueJambo

[Guest ToqueJambo]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Very low number of votes - poor participation!

 

Not surprising. The communication is poor. No reminders or encouragement to vote or engage with FoH. At a time when lots of people are stuck at home they could have done more to engage members.

[davemclaren]

10 minutes ago, weehammy said:

If it ends up that our future contributions become just a general top-op to club funds I’ll be cancelling mine, even though it’s easily affordable. 
I emphasise future as I’m happy to top-up funds this season following our unfair demotion and the onset of the pandemic.

 

 

No alternative at the moment tbh. 

[Francis Albert]

1 minute ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Not surprising. The communication is poor. No reminders or encouragement to vote or engage with FoH. At a time when lots of people are stuck at home they could have done more to engage members.

I did not receive the email notifying the AGM and got no response when I emailed FOH to tell them so. I didn't get the EGM notice in December either but at least got a reply when I told them so. 

Communication is worse than poor.

[Francis Albert]

2 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

No alternative at the moment tbh. 

Even without any FoH funding we are better off than any club in our division. I think funding our attempt to get back in the top flight is fair enough for now but it simply isn't the case that "there is no alternative".

[Guest ToqueJambo]

4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I did not receive the email notifying the AGM and got no response when I emailed FOH to tell them so. I didn't get the EGM notice in December either but at least got a reply when I told them so. 

Communication is worse than poor.

 

Yeah they seem to have no interest in engaging with members, not even a basic thanks for getting in touch.

[Jambo-Fox]

7 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Not surprising. The communication is poor. No reminders or encouragement to vote or engage with FoH. At a time when lots of people are stuck at home they could have done more to engage members.

I know what you mean but I found it the quickest and easiest vote I’ve ever been allowed to do on anything.

 

Received e mail notification, clicked on link, ticked boxes to vote done ✅ 

 

Assuming the e mail was received then there was not really any excuse not to vote apart from, a deliberate abstention, or apathy / lack of interest!

[Saint Jambo]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Very low number of votes - poor participation!

 

While FOH comms could be a lot better, To be fair it's a pretty hard sell to get people to participate in a vote where there are two vacancies and two candidates. I've been involved in a variety of membership organisations in a professional and personal capacity and turnout is generally low for elections of Directors even when there is competition. If there had been a vote on whether we were happy to delay transfer of ownership that would have given us a far better sense of whether engagement with FoH governance had dropped significantly.

[Francis Albert]

2 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Yeah they seem to have no interest in engaging with members, not even a basic thanks for getting in touch.

There has been exactly one news item on the FoH website in the last 6 months. 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

On 22/01/2021 at 14:45, Jambo-Fox said:

I think a lot of Hearts fans think the FOH is like a big supporters club! Emotionally it is but in reality it’s not!

 

 

This is an interesting point. There is nothing stopping it acting like one in terms of engaging with people. It has the details of 8000 motivated Hearts fans it can communicate to, whether that's encouraging them to recruit new members, asking for feedback, or even just creating good content around Hearts for them.

 

I can't speak for anyone else but I've never felt part of something. I've just been pleased to see Hearts still alive and the stand built and on the way to fan ownership as a result of FoH. I get it costs money to do the above things although I do think they'd also be able to recruit volunteers from the memberships, but sometimes you do have to spend money to make money and I can't see FoH contributions continuing or it being easy to attract new younger members without some sort of pivot to being more of a membership type thing or something, or at least just beefing up their communications to raise the profile of FoH and make it more than just a middle man for us to pass money to the club.

[Jambo-Fox]

21 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

This is an interesting point. There is nothing stopping it acting like one in terms of engaging with people. It has the details of 8000 motivated Hearts fans it can communicate to, whether that's encouraging them to recruit new members, asking for feedback, or even just creating good content around Hearts for them.

 

I can't speak for anyone else but I've never felt part of something. I've just been pleased to see Hearts still alive and the stand built and on the way to fan ownership as a result of FoH. I get it costs money to do the above things although I do think they'd also be able to recruit volunteers from the memberships, but sometimes you do have to spend money to make money and I can't see FoH contributions continuing or it being easy to attract new younger members without some sort of pivot to being more of a membership type thing or something, or at least just beefing up their communications to raise the profile of FoH and make it more than just a middle man for us to pass money to the club.

All good and interesting points!

 

A key question is, where do you get the ‘biggest bang for your buck’? Ie do you spend money marketing the FOH or marketing Hearts?

 

If you believe the former then short term donations passed to Hearts are reduced and are spent to market the FOH to increase membership and donations, and with the latter all donations continue to be passed on and Hearts use these to market Hearts and increase turnover.

 

I don’t know the answer but I suspect Hearts are more marketable and might generate the biggest return on marketing investments 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Jambo-Fox

[davemclaren]

30 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Even without any FoH funding we are better off than any club in our division. I think funding our attempt to get back in the top flight is fair enough for now but it simply isn't the case that "there is no alternative".

The alternative at the moment is not funding it so, for me, there is no alternative.   

[Guest ToqueJambo]

24 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

All good and interesting points!

 

A key question is, where do you get the ‘biggest bang for your buck’? Ie do you spend money marketing the FOH or marketing Hearts?

 

If you believe the former then short term donations passed to Hearts are reduced and are spent to market the FOH to increase membership and donations, and with the latter all donations continue to be passed on and Hearts use these to market Hearts and increase turnover.

 

I don’t know the answer but I suspect Hearts are more marketable and might generate the biggest return on marketing investments 

 

I think FoH and Hearts should work much closer together, kind of like AberDNA, but I'm not up on how things work in terms of governance and all that.

 

I think if I'm looking at putting extra money hearts way after fan ownership is achieved, unless FoH is repositioned a bit, I'd be more likely to buy some merchandise each year. I can't really justify just giving additional money to etc the club to do whatever they want with it. I am inclined to do that with Budge in charge but may not with a different person in charge (if we got a major investor/ part owner who wanted to implement his own ideas for example). I certainly wouldn't have done that under Mercer, Robinson and Romanov. And every signing like Damour makes me less likely to continue unless I can be reassured where FoH money is going.

 

I mean I also want my local coffee shop to survive and do well but I don't just give them money, I buy coffee from them and they reward me with a free coffee every 10 or so with their coffee card. For it to succeed long term beyond the current pledgers, many of whom have probably taken a pledge it and forget it approach in terms of the money leaving their account each month, I think they'll need to put the money towards projects fans want to back, and provide updates etc, and/or provide membership benefits of some sort.

Edited January 28, 2021 by ToqueJambo

[Toxteth O'Grady]

43 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

There has been exactly one news item on the FoH website in the last 6 months. 

Their communications are piss poor. I’ll give it to the end of the season and if they haven’t bought Budges shares by then I’m out. 

[billybalfour]

Even after the vote there are very few on here contributing to the thread.That could be apathy or it could be that most folk are still happy to contribute to keep the club in a better place than it would be.

There is nothing to stop anybody putting their name up and canvassing for votes . By the look of it you could win an election if you had a popular agenda whether you were a ''qualified person'' or not.

I think the fact they are all doing it unpaid isn't helpful if you are trying to generate interest.Most of them have full time jobs and can't be expected to spend all their time canvassing for support ,running a website etc.

I certainly wouldn't do it and obviously at least 99% pf the contributors don't want to do it either.

It may well be that after the shares change hands a full time employee or two could be employed as 8000 members is a lot of people to attend to if you are also trying to encourage new members.

You will never keep everybody happy but if you have a grievance or enquiry it would surely helpon both counts.

I have only had to contact them myself once and was dealt with pretty efficiently.It was regarding getting my awards and I got a genuinely helpful response.i amn't interested in the plot ceremonies but was invited to one which I declined.

Hopefully we all keep contributing as extra revenue going in will help the club in the short and long run.

 

[jambo-in-furness]

 

 

As soon as I see someone threaten that they are going to stop contributing to FOH my first thought is. “ Does this person really donate?”   Now I am not decrying anyone,  I’m just airing my thoughts.

 

 No offence intended to any genuine FOH donators.

 

[Jambo-Fox]

5 minutes ago, jambo-in-furness said:

 

 

As soon as I see someone threaten that they are going to stop contributing to FOH my first thought is. “ Does this person really donate?”   Now I am not decrying anyone,  I’m just airing my thoughts.

 

 No offence intended to any genuine FOH donators.

 

On this thread it felt like dozens would vote against the re-elections and there were only 8 against one!

 

So much talk without action!

 

Hopefully those ‘raging’ on JKB on whatever subject get therapeutic benefits!

 

♥️♥️♥️

[jambo-in-furness]

1 minute ago, Jambo-Fox said:

On this thread it felt like dozens would vote against the re-elections and there were only 8 against one!

 

So much talk without action!

 

Hopefully those ‘raging’ on JKB on whatever subject get therapeutic benefits!

 

♥️♥️♥️

 

 

were those doing the talking vote entitled?

 

backs my “first thoughts”

[o1djambo]

On 23/01/2021 at 08:12, ritchcook said:

Great post I would buy in.

I raised this specific issue put very well on your post at last years AGM and was told by Mrs B that she did not want the Foh monies ring fenced. This of course was pre covid. 

[Disco Dave]

I dont see why the club couldn’t be transparent about where the money goes but......

 

Its all smoke and mirrors because at the end of the day, lets hypothetically say it costs £1.5m to run the training ground and academy each year and members wanted all funds directed to that.... then it just frees up the money elsewhere in the budget to spunk on the likes of Damour.
 

So unless you ring fence FOH income for very specific exceptional projects, it will just be part of the budget for day to day spending as the club sees fit.

[Saint Jambo]

37 minutes ago, billybalfour said:

 

There is nothing to stop anybody putting their name up and canvassing for votes . By the look of it you could win an election if you had a popular agenda whether you were a ''qualified person'' or not.

 

 

There was something stopping people putting their name forward. You had to be able to meet the criteria for the specialist director roles which were defined as having legal and financial qualifications and experience.

 

22 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

On this thread it felt like dozens would vote against the re-elections and there were only 8 against one!

 

So much talk without action!

 

Hopefully those ‘raging’ on JKB on whatever subject get therapeutic benefits!

 

♥️♥️♥️

 

Had a quick scan through the thread. I counted 4 posters who said they would vote against the Board. Posters raising fairly mildly expressed issues about FOH seem to be often met by these kind of responses complaining that they are 'raging' or all talk, no action. Not sure what people expect on a discussion board. Confusingly it doesn't seem to be a discussion that involves different views.

[Lone Striker]

2 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

 

Same, after this season and fan ownership is sorted I'd like FoH funds to go to specific things. My top choice would be FoH is a major backer of our youth academy. That's something most fans can get behind and you can really feel like you're contributing to the future rather than just a new addition to the stand. Also think the new stand should be named after the foundation. IT wouldn't have happened without FoH and aside from that the word "Foundation" is kind of appropriate in many ways.

Good post.   Funding the academy (or at least a significant aspect of it) would be my choice too.   As you say, it is and we are indeed the "foundation" of Hearts. 👍

[Dennis Reynolds]

2 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

I think FoH and Hearts should work much closer together, kind of like AberDNA, but I'm not up on how things work in terms of governance and all that.

 

I think if I'm looking at putting extra money hearts way after fan ownership is achieved, unless FoH is repositioned a bit, I'd be more likely to buy some merchandise each year. I can't really justify just giving additional money to etc the club to do whatever they want with it. I am inclined to do that with Budge in charge but may not with a different person in charge (if we got a major investor/ part owner who wanted to implement his own ideas for example). I certainly wouldn't have done that under Mercer, Robinson and Romanov. And every signing like Damour makes me less likely to continue unless I can be reassured where FoH money is going.

 

I mean I also want my local coffee shop to survive and do well but I don't just give them money, I buy coffee from them and they reward me with a free coffee every 10 or so with their coffee card. For it to succeed long term beyond the current pledgers, many of whom have probably taken a pledge it and forget it approach in terms of the money leaving their account each month, I think they'll need to put the money towards projects fans want to back, and provide updates etc, and/or provide membership benefits of some sort.

 

Great post. Pretty much exactly where I am with it.

 

Feel very, meh about it all at the moment.

[Saint Jambo]

If I was an FOH Director I wouldn't have spent my time trying to persuade members to vote in this election or worry overly about the low turnout  I'd be far more worried about the fact that so many members seem unaware that the membership collectively voted for a model of pledges going into the clubs unrestricted funds once ownership has been transferred. This feels like storing problems up for the future and is something I'd put effort into communicating.

[Armageddon]

4 hours ago, weehammy said:

If it ends up that our future contributions become just a general top-op to club funds I’ll be cancelling mine, even though it’s easily affordable. 
I emphasise future as I’m happy to top-up funds this season following our unfair demotion and the onset of the pandemic.

 

 

Thanks for confirming it’s easily affordable 🤣 I suppose typing that is cheaper than a £9.99 penis enlarger.

 

I really don’t understand “fans” who knock out wee threats to cancel DD’s for feck all when they want us to think they’re ‘loaded’ 🤪

[Spellczech]

9 hours ago, Armageddon said:

Thanks for confirming it’s easily affordable 🤣 I suppose typing that is cheaper than a £9.99 penis enlarger.

 

I really don’t understand “fans” who knock out wee threats to cancel DD’s for feck all when they want us to think they’re ‘loaded’ 🤪

Haha Indeed. Also amazing how many people want stuff in return for their donations... It is like the concept of donating is alien

Edited January 29, 2021 by Spellczech

[hmfc_steve]

15 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I did not receive the email notifying the AGM and got no response when I emailed FOH to tell them so. I didn't get the EGM notice in December either but at least got a reply when I told them so. 

Communication is worse than poor.

I never got notification either 

[Mikey1874]

12 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

If I was an FOH Director I wouldn't have spent my time trying to persuade members to vote in this election or worry overly about the low turnout  I'd be far more worried about the fact that so many members seem unaware that the membership collectively voted for a model of pledges going into the clubs unrestricted funds once ownership has been transferred. This feels like storing problems up for the future and is something I'd put effort into communicating.

 

Clear and widely discussed in the various governance debates. 

[Saint Jambo]

22 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Clear and widely discussed in the various governance debates. 

 

Yes. And yet in each one of those threads you will find a group of posters saying that they hope or expect funding will be ring-fenced, apparently entirely unaware of the framework that has been approved. That suggests to me that there are likely to be a significant number of members that still don't understand this and might be unhappy when they find out. Better to try and get people to understand it now rather than wait until questions are asked once FOH has taken ownership, especially as questions are most likely to be asked of how FOH is running things when things aren't going well on the pitch. I'm not sure that hoping other members will enlighten members one-by-one on a message board constitutes a comms strategy.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Clear and widely discussed in the various governance debates. 

Governance debates such as they were involving a handful of FoH members. The main debating forum being a JKB thread to which of course FoHdirectors did not contribute. If there were differing views among the Directors we did not hear them. 

I suspect FoH got the outcome its Directors and perhaps more importantly Ann wanted. Part of a pattern of centralising power and decision making. Remember HYDC with their regular cheques proudly presented on the pitch at half time?  

[mitch41]

On 23/01/2021 at 01:46, Saint Jambo said:

 

While there might not be anything wrong with ring fencing part of the money for specific projects, I believe I'm right in saying that the governance model which has been approved by the membership is explicit that this will not be the case. The club will be entirely free to use the money as it sees fit. (Of course at that point FOH will be 75.1% owners of the club so in effect responsible for all budget decisions within the club.)

All good points and I agree that communication between the board and FOH members and fans will be crucial to the success of fan ownership. Ring fencing monies could restrict and hamper the club if certain opportunities arose as well as unforeseen emergencies. I’m sure that as long as decisions are communicated to FOH members and our support all will be dandy, and remember the directors of FOH will get plenty of feedback from the FOH membership.

[mitch41]

19 hours ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Very low number of votes - poor participation!

It could be in FOH we trust. 

[davemclaren]

I’m assuming that the submitted questions and answers will be published in the next few days. 

[JamTarts98]

15 hours ago, Lone Striker said:

Good post.   Funding the academy (or at least a significant aspect of it) would be my choice too.   As you say, it is and we are indeed the "foundation" of Hearts. 👍

Agree with this. I'd be happy with it ring fenced for academy or ground improvements too (fix the pitch, paint pylons, replace faded/broken seats, fill in the cor....). At the moment it has been decided it'll all be in one pot, which is necessary right now certainly but I'm not sure about future years.