Stewart wallace and FOH representatives

[billybalfour]

Has anybody any updates on when the share handover is happening.I think this is more important than the debates about Robbie on other threads.Until this happens it feels to me that we are in a bit of limbo and accountability is limited.We were told big announcements were coming bur when is it all going to happen.What are these announcements. Is it the shares,new manager, new sponsorship,new signings or what. Disappointingly quiet as far as I am concerned.

[David Black]

24 minutes ago, billybalfour said:

Has anybody any updates on when the share handover is happening.I think this is more important than the debates about Robbie on other threads.Until this happens it feels to me that we are in a bit of limbo and accountability is limited.We were told big announcements were coming bur when is it all going to happen.What are these announcements. Is it the shares,new manager, new sponsorship,new signings or what. Disappointingly quiet as far as I am concerned.

I contacted Stuart Wallace about 3 weeks ago regarding the share transfer. His reply was that both party's were waiting to sign some form which he implied was just a bit of paperwork, nothing major. The handover he thought would still go ahead in June. That's June 2021. Time will tell. 

[jkbam]

 

27 minutes ago, billybalfour said:

Has anybody any updates on when the share handover is happening.I think this is more important than the debates about Robbie on other threads.Until this happens it feels to me that we are in a bit of limbo and accountability is limited.We were told big announcements were coming bur when is it all going to happen.What are these announcements. Is it the shares,new manager, new sponsorship,new signings or what. Disappointingly quiet as far as I am concerned.

I asked FOH about this last month, Stuart replied on 25th April that there would be a statement soon and they were targetting end of May but are waiting sign off on one legal point.

 

Edited May 12, 2021 by jkbam

[billybalfour]

Thanks for the update.I just feel they could be a bit more forthcoming with details of when it is happening.This could also be done by the club itself as it is the most significant change in the club's history.They could have a countdown clock or something similar on the website to keep us all in the loop.It would give us something to look forward to as it doesn't look like there will be managerial changes.

[David Black]

43 minutes ago, billybalfour said:

Thanks for the update.I just feel they could be a bit more forthcoming with details of when it is happening.This could also be done by the club itself as it is the most significant change in the club's history.They could have a countdown clock or something similar on the website to keep us all in the loop.It would give us something to look forward to as it doesn't look like there will be managerial changes.

Are you suggesting that both the club and FoH have communication problems with the supporters?

[billybalfour]

I think there is a bit of a breakdown.I have said before that I think FOH should have one or maybe two paid employees as it is too big to be run solely by volunteers.No excuse really for the lack of information from Hearts.Just seems to be policy at the moment.If you look at a website like PNE's we are put to shame really.I get an update from them every week and i only go to one or two games a year.

[Des Lynam]

Should we do this with one of the hardest championship’s in the world to win? 
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57086460

[davemclaren]

15 minutes ago, Des Lynam said:

Should we do this with one of the hardest championship’s in the world to win? 
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57086460

I think the spfl might want the trophy back. 

[indianajones]

17 minutes ago, Des Lynam said:

Should we do this with one of the hardest championship’s in the world to win? 
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57086460

 

100%. Great idea. 

[Rogue Daddy]

28 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I think the spfl might want the trophy back. 

...they shouldn't have given it to us then! 😜 

 

We should melt it down into small pins and each ST holder gets 50 pins and a dungcaster doll 👍 Job done.

[davemclaren]

12 minutes ago, Rogue Daddy said:

...they shouldn't have given it to us then! 😜 

 

We should melt it down into small pins and each ST holder gets 50 pins and a dungcaster doll 👍 Job done.

Sounds like a plan. Just say we lost the trophy and claim on insurance. 

[Ex member of the SaS]

Would it not be a good idea if FoH made a monthly statement on the official page? Having to reply to enquiries where only the recipient gets an answer is not very oganised. 

[Italian Lambretta]

Has Stewart Wallace came out of hiding yet?

He's not been seen or heard off since the **** hit the fan after the Brora game.

[OTT]

11 minutes ago, Italian Lambretta said:

Has Stewart Wallace came out of hiding yet?

He's not been seen or heard off since the **** hit the fan after the Brora game.

 

I know this might not be want folk want to hear, but I do have a lot of sympathy with Stuart, no doubt most of his time is filled up by his actual job (that pays!) and by and large this will be the same across the FOH. I don't doubt for a moment that Stuart, Garry etc. are all Hearts fans that deeply care about the club, however,  I would really like to see some steps made to bring in people who do genuinely have the time to commit to the foundation. For example recent retirees looking to keep themselves busy or wealthy individuals who don't need to work anymore. The problem seems to be that no one puts themselves forward, and when you have that situation, its difficult to criticise those that have. Its really a thankless task. 

 

I think when you have a membership of circa 8000, you need to be more engaged with the fans and that isn't currently happening. 

 

I've said this a few times and I'll keep saying it until he rules it out, but I'd love to get Leslie Deans involved. He knows the pressures of ownership and the expectations of supporters. He'd be perfect as the FOH chair to hold the club accountable to the foundation. I certainly don't think for a minute he'd have been as passive as the current foundation incumbents in the failings of the club in recent years.

 

The alternative is to redirect a decent chunk of money into appointing a CEO for the Foundation. I.e a paid role to help manage the foundation and provide greater accountability. 

 

I think the current model lacks accountability and is unsustainable. Little effort is made to meaningfully engage with fans and even when the mood swings so aggressively as it did following the Brora result there is still not any meaningful level of accountability shown. I think either earlier in this thread or in a previous thread related to this @Footballfirst brought up some excellent points around the commitment but not execution of a board member tasked with fan engagement. I'm not sure the exact title. Anyway, it seemed a really good idea and its disappointing that it still hasn't been implemented. Perhaps at the next FOH meeting this issue could be raised. 

[The Treasurer]

11 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

I know this might not be want folk want to hear, but I do have a lot of sympathy with Stuart, no doubt most of his time is filled up by his actual job (that pays!) and by and large this will be the same across the FOH. I don't doubt for a moment that Stuart, Garry etc. are all Hearts fans that deeply care about the club, however,  I would really like to see some steps made to bring in people who do genuinely have the time to commit to the foundation. For example recent retirees looking to keep themselves busy or wealthy individuals who don't need to work anymore. The problem seems to be that no one puts themselves forward, and when you have that situation, its difficult to criticise those that have. Its really a thankless task. 

 

I think when you have a membership of circa 8000, you need to be more engaged with the fans and that isn't currently happening. 

 

I've said this a few times and I'll keep saying it until he rules it out, but I'd love to get Leslie Deans involved. He knows the pressures of ownership and the expectations of supporters. He'd be perfect as the FOH chair to hold the club accountable to the foundation. I certainly don't think for a minute he'd have been as passive as the current foundation incumbents in the failings of the club in recent years.

 

The alternative is to redirect a decent chunk of money into appointing a CEO for the Foundation. I.e a paid role to help manage the foundation and provide greater accountability. 

 

I think the current model lacks accountability and is unsustainable. Little effort is made to meaningfully engage with fans and even when the mood swings so aggressively as it did following the Brora result there is still not any meaningful level of accountability shown. I think either earlier in this thread or in a previous thread related to this @Footballfirst brought up some excellent points around the commitment but not execution of a board member tasked with fan engagement. I'm not sure the exact title. Anyway, it seemed a really good idea and its disappointing that it still hasn't been implemented. Perhaps at the next FOH meeting this issue could be raised. 

Agree with this. 

I don't doubt for a minute the commitment of the FoH board but I think it's now becoming too big to be run solely by volunteers, no matter how hard working they are 

[eyesandears]

6 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

Agree with this. 

I don't doubt for a minute the commitment of the FoH board but I think it's now becoming too big to be run solely by volunteers, no matter how hard working they are 

Totally agree. We cannot have a £1.2m to £1.5m turnover business run by volunteers. It needs to be run professionally by a senior executive / CEO type of person with an admin person to manage communication etc with members and a small number of non-execs. This is serious stuff and we must not run it like a bowling club committee.

[davemclaren]

42 minutes ago, eyesandears said:

Totally agree. We cannot have a £1.2m to £1.5m turnover business run by volunteers. It needs to be run professionally by a senior executive / CEO type of person with an admin person to manage communication etc with members and a small number of non-execs. This is serious stuff and we must not run it like a bowling club committee.

What would a full time CEO spend their time doing? A part time admin assistant might be justified to sort out admin issues.

[Rocky jamboa]

1 hour ago, OTT said:

Footballfirst brought up some excellent points around the commitment but not execution of a board member tasked with fan engagement. I'm not sure the exact title.

I wonder if @Footballfirst would be keen to get involved as seems really knowledgeable on the subject???

 

I agree it should be a paid position. I'm surprised it's not already to be honest so fair play to Stuart Wallace doing it voluntarily. Once the buy out happens, surely the FOH rep will have more involvement at the club so a paid position (or two) would make sense. c£100k out of £1.8m or so is loose change and may actually generate more donations if folk feel they're getting more from FOH.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

2 minutes ago, Paulp74 said:

I wonder if @Footballfirst would be keen to get involved as seems really knowledgeable on the subject???

 

I agree it should be a paid position. I'm surprised it's not already to be honest so fair play to Stuart Wallace doing it voluntarily. Once the buy out happens, surely the FOH rep will have more involvement at the club so a paid position (or two) would make sense. c£100k out of £1.8m or so is loose change and may actually generate more donations if folk feel they're getting more from FOH.

I’ll deal with you arseholes for 100k 👍😂

[OTT]

20 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

What would a full time CEO spend their time doing? A part time admin assistant might be justified to sort out admin issues.

 

I suppose its not so much the tasks involved as the experience we'd be paying for. Someone who is experienced in building and growing revenues (i.e pledges or even generating non-pledge related income streams?) but also someone who can hold the club to account better and also be accountable to the pledgers. 

 

The last thing we want is for the FOH to become bloated by admin costs via employing people for the sake of it, but I don't really know how effective the current model is. Budge seems quite unchecked by the FOH directors. It sounds like they have raised concerns but have been batted away by Budge. I understand that Budge retains a majority shareholding currently so its possible the current situation is a bit different now than it will be this time next year, but nonetheless it does pose questions on if a FOH board can act as a pressuring influence to push the fan perspective effectively at board level.

 

Perhaps it doesn't need to be as much as £100k if the role hasn't got enough to it to be full time? Perfectly possible we could get a retired CEO for £50k who's bored and looking for someone to do?

 

I think its a discussion worth having, even if the answer isn't to employ someone. There will be plenty of Jambos in their 60s who have retired looking for something to fill their time. Perhaps something could be done to encourage them to come forward and lend their experience and time?

[Pasquale for King]

5 hours ago, OTT said:

 

I know this might not be want folk want to hear, but I do have a lot of sympathy with Stuart, no doubt most of his time is filled up by his actual job (that pays!) and by and large this will be the same across the FOH. I don't doubt for a moment that Stuart, Garry etc. are all Hearts fans that deeply care about the club, however,  I would really like to see some steps made to bring in people who do genuinely have the time to commit to the foundation. For example recent retirees looking to keep themselves busy or wealthy individuals who don't need to work anymore. The problem seems to be that no one puts themselves forward, and when you have that situation, its difficult to criticise those that have. Its really a thankless task. 

 

I think when you have a membership of circa 8000, you need to be more engaged with the fans and that isn't currently happening. 

 

I've said this a few times and I'll keep saying it until he rules it out, but I'd love to get Leslie Deans involved. He knows the pressures of ownership and the expectations of supporters. He'd be perfect as the FOH chair to hold the club accountable to the foundation. I certainly don't think for a minute he'd have been as passive as the current foundation incumbents in the failings of the club in recent years.

 

The alternative is to redirect a decent chunk of money into appointing a CEO for the Foundation. I.e a paid role to help manage the foundation and provide greater accountability. 

 

I think the current model lacks accountability and is unsustainable. Little effort is made to meaningfully engage with fans and even when the mood swings so aggressively as it did following the Brora result there is still not any meaningful level of accountability shown. I think either earlier in this thread or in a previous thread related to this @Footballfirst brought up some excellent points around the commitment but not execution of a board member tasked with fan engagement. I'm not sure the exact title. Anyway, it seemed a really good idea and its disappointing that it still hasn't been implemented. Perhaps at the next FOH meeting this issue could be raised. 

Good post 👍🏽

[Pasquale for King]

2 hours ago, OTT said:

 

I suppose its not so much the tasks involved as the experience we'd be paying for. Someone who is experienced in building and growing revenues (i.e pledges or even generating non-pledge related income streams?) but also someone who can hold the club to account better and also be accountable to the pledgers. 

 

The last thing we want is for the FOH to become bloated by admin costs via employing people for the sake of it, but I don't really know how effective the current model is. Budge seems quite unchecked by the FOH directors. It sounds like they have raised concerns but have been batted away by Budge. I understand that Budge retains a majority shareholding currently so its possible the current situation is a bit different now than it will be this time next year, but nonetheless it does pose questions on if a FOH board can act as a pressuring influence to push the fan perspective effectively at board level.

 

Perhaps it doesn't need to be as much as £100k if the role hasn't got enough to it to be full time? Perfectly possible we could get a retired CEO for £50k who's bored and looking for someone to do?

 

I think its a discussion worth having, even if the answer isn't to employ someone. There will be plenty of Jambos in their 60s who have retired looking for something to fill their time. Perhaps something could be done to encourage them to come forward and lend their experience and time?

I think it will need to happen because when the hand over occurs the two FoH reps will be expected to take a more hands on approach, mo matter how unlikely that is to happen. 
If they struggled with the abuse they received last month the future might well be much worse. 

[eyesandears]

12 hours ago, davemclaren said:

What would a full time CEO spend their time doing? A part time admin assistant might be justified to sort out admin issues.

Ensure proper financial management of the £1m+ coming in from fans, promote FoH to capture as many non contributing Hearts fans as possible, implement professional communication with all members and target members, be the owners' (us) voice in the Boardroom at Hearts, create further innovative ways to bring income into FoH which can be channeled in to the club, provide a public focal point and lead FoH from the front.

I see the person being first and foremost a good business person with an understanding of football as a business as well as a game and, if possible but not essential, a positive connection or bond with the club. If we don't have strong FoH leadership I do think it's much more likely to suffer reductions in income over the years.

[Rogue Daddy]

11 hours ago, OTT said:

 

 

Perhaps it doesn't need to be as much as £100k if the role hasn't got enough to it to be full time? Perfectly possible we could get a retired CEO for £50k who's bored and looking for someone to do?

 

I think its a discussion worth having, even if the answer isn't to employ someone. There will be plenty of Jambos in their 60s who have retired looking for something to fill their time. Perhaps something could be done to encourage them to come forward and lend their experience and time?

 

Is that a perk of the job? 🤣🤣🤣

 

Agree with all of your points - and LD would be perfect for the role👍

[Rogue Daddy]

8 hours ago, Pasquale for King said:

I think it will need to happen because when the hand over occurs the two FoH reps will be expected to take a more hands on approach, mo matter how unlikely that is to happen. 
If they struggled with the abuse they received last month the future might well be much worse. 

Absolutely. The abuse is exacerbated when it falls on deaf ears.... If fans feel they're being ignored it just makes things worse and cranks the abuse up 10 fold.

[Hashimoto]

1 minute ago, Rogue Daddy said:

Absolutely. The abuse is exacerbated when it falls on deaf ears.... If fans feel they're being ignored it just makes things worse and cranks the abuse up 10 fold.

It certainly does......and not every potential abuser is you're reasonable, articulate type!
Tynecastle is not going to be a place where you will want to take your kids, grandkids when that happens!

[Rogue Daddy]

22 minutes ago, Hashimoto said:

It certainly does......and not every potential abuser is you're reasonable, articulate type!
Tynecastle is not going to be a place where you will want to take your kids, grandkids when that happens!

...like us lot on here 😃

 

I hope the club can produce some 'rabbit-out-the-hat' prior to the start of next season... as I fear the support of the team (from some sections) could be very toxic when the season kicks off. I hope I'm wrong, but I worry that from the first back-pass, the crowd start getting on the backs of the team... which won't end well for us.

 

The FoH and the club have to start communicating, because you're right, Tynie could turn into a place not to take your kids/grandkids.

[eck1874]

19 hours ago, Des Lynam said:

Should we do this with one of the hardest championship’s in the world to win? 
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57086460

Would our stars not be made out of tin with our trophy. 

[portobellojambo1]

When I read a few of the most recent posts above the wording does cause me confusion, and it is something that has appeared on a few other threads about the same subject. The wording I keep seeing is "when FOH are runnnig the club" and the case is that FOH will not run the club, it will become the owners of the major shareholding, replacing Bidco in that position, but FOH will not run the club, it will be run by a football board, put in place. I genuinely don't think there is any need to appoint paid employees to operate on behalf of the FOH, to be accountable for continuing FOH contributions.

 

However, I do believe the starting point has to be reset, in as much as FOH should be able to determine the best manner in which the business operates going forward, not just on behalf of the continuing FOH contributors, but on behalf of all potential investors in the club and the non FOH contributors within the HMFC support. Starting expectations should be set, for the future of the club, a CEO appointed to oversee how the club is run, who will then in turn determine the best people to hold other positions on that football board. As for our contributions, these should be going to the club, to then be used in the best means possible for the benefit of the club. That, in itself, doesn't mean all money donated by FOH should be directed towards only player salaries, player recruitment, it should be used in whatever way is deemed most beneficial to the club.

 

I'd like to hope going forward that the vast majority of all income generated by the club can and will be used to benefit the most important aspect of the club, the football playing side, but that it is why the starting position should be a board of professional people running the club, for the benefit of its shareholders, the major shareholder being the contributors of FOH.

 

With relevant people being appointed to the football board I don't see the need for professionals to be appointed to the FOH board as well. If I'm brutally honest I actually think that if the set up of the club board is correct then the involvement of the FOH board should become less and less, rather than need professional, paid people in place.

Edited May 13, 2021 by portobellojambo1

[Des Lynam]

1 minute ago, portobellojambo1 said:

When I read a few of the most recent posts above the wording does cause me confusion, and it is something that has appeared on a few other threads about the same subject. The wording I keep seeing is "when FOH are runnnig the club" and the case is that FOH will not run the club, it will become the owners of the major shareholding, replacing Bidco in that position, but FOH will not run the club, it will be run by a football board, put in place. I genuinelt don't think there is any need to appoint paid employees to operate on behalf of the FOH, to be accountable for continuing FOH contributions.

 

However, I do believe the starting point has to be reset, in as much as FOH should be able to determine the best manner in which the business operates going forward, not just on behalf of the continuing FOH contributors, but on behalf of all potential investors in the club and the non FOH contributors within the HMFC support. Starting expectations should be set, for the future of the club, a CEO appointed to oversee how the club is run, who will then in turn determine the best people to hold other positions on that football board. As for our contributions, these should be going to the club, to then be used in the best means possible for the benefit of the club. That, in itself, doesn't mean all money donated by FOH should be directed towards only player salaries, player recruitment, it should be used in whatever way is deemed most beneficial to the club.

 

I'd like to hope going forward that the vast majority of all income generated by the club can and will be used to benefit the most important aspect of the club, the football playing side, but that it is why the starting position should be a board of professional people running the club, for the benefit of its shareholders, the major shareholder being the contributors of FOH.

 

With relevant people being appointed to the football board I don't see the need for professionals to be appointed to the FOH board as well. If I'm brutally honest I actually think that if the set up of the club board is correct then the involvement of the FOH board should become less and less, rather than need professional, paid people in place.

I agree. 

[jr ewing]

Openness and honesty would be a good start. Communication is the best lesson that could be taken from the last few months. 

[Pasquale for King]

1 hour ago, Rogue Daddy said:

Absolutely. The abuse is exacerbated when it falls on deaf ears.... If fans feel they're being ignored it just makes things worse and cranks the abuse up 10 fold.

I think it will definitely need to evolve into being something they are paid for. 

[Hearts1975]

24 minutes ago, portobellojambo1 said:

When I read a few of the most recent posts above the wording does cause me confusion, and it is something that has appeared on a few other threads about the same subject. The wording I keep seeing is "when FOH are runnnig the club" and the case is that FOH will not run the club, it will become the owners of the major shareholding, replacing Bidco in that position, but FOH will not run the club, it will be run by a football board, put in place. I genuinely don't think there is any need to appoint paid employees to operate on behalf of the FOH, to be accountable for continuing FOH contributions.

 

However, I do believe the starting point has to be reset, in as much as FOH should be able to determine the best manner in which the business operates going forward, not just on behalf of the continuing FOH contributors, but on behalf of all potential investors in the club and the non FOH contributors within the HMFC support. Starting expectations should be set, for the future of the club, a CEO appointed to oversee how the club is run, who will then in turn determine the best people to hold other positions on that football board. As for our contributions, these should be going to the club, to then be used in the best means possible for the benefit of the club. That, in itself, doesn't mean all money donated by FOH should be directed towards only player salaries, player recruitment, it should be used in whatever way is deemed most beneficial to the club.

 

I'd like to hope going forward that the vast majority of all income generated by the club can and will be used to benefit the most important aspect of the club, the football playing side, but that it is why the starting position should be a board of professional people running the club, for the benefit of its shareholders, the major shareholder being the contributors of FOH.

 

With relevant people being appointed to the football board I don't see the need for professionals to be appointed to the FOH board as well. If I'm brutally honest I actually think that if the set up of the club board is correct then the involvement of the FOH board should become less and less, rather than need professional, paid people in place.

Last paragraph is bang on the money imo 

[Pasquale for King]

25 minutes ago, portobellojambo1 said:

When I read a few of the most recent posts above the wording does cause me confusion, and it is something that has appeared on a few other threads about the same subject. The wording I keep seeing is "when FOH are runnnig the club" and the case is that FOH will not run the club, it will become the owners of the major shareholding, replacing Bidco in that position, but FOH will not run the club, it will be run by a football board, put in place. I genuinely don't think there is any need to appoint paid employees to operate on behalf of the FOH, to be accountable for continuing FOH contributions.

 

However, I do believe the starting point has to be reset, in as much as FOH should be able to determine the best manner in which the business operates going forward, not just on behalf of the continuing FOH contributors, but on behalf of all potential investors in the club and the non FOH contributors within the HMFC support. Starting expectations should be set, for the future of the club, a CEO appointed to oversee how the club is run, who will then in turn determine the best people to hold other positions on that football board. As for our contributions, these should be going to the club, to then be used in the best means possible for the benefit of the club. That, in itself, doesn't mean all money donated by FOH should be directed towards only player salaries, player recruitment, it should be used in whatever way is deemed most beneficial to the club.

 

I'd like to hope going forward that the vast majority of all income generated by the club can and will be used to benefit the most important aspect of the club, the football playing side, but that it is why the starting position should be a board of professional people running the club, for the benefit of its shareholders, the major shareholder being the contributors of FOH.

 

With relevant people being appointed to the football board I don't see the need for professionals to be appointed to the FOH board as well. If I'm brutally honest I actually think that if the set up of the club board is correct then the involvement of the FOH board should become less and less, rather than need professional, paid people in place.

You’ve kind of contradicted yourself there. 
If the FoH is just the owner and not running the club then it can’t put in place the changes you’ve advocated. 
Unless there is changes in the governance model we won’t be able to choose a CEO or a board.
Budge will remain and her hand picked acolytes will do her bidding without ever questioning her, and the malaise at the club will continue as no consequences for failure exist. 

[Lfhearts]

21 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

You’ve kind of contradicted yourself there. 
If the FoH is just the owner and not running the club then it can’t put in place the changes you’ve advocated. 
Unless there is changes in the governance model we won’t be able to choose a CEO or a board.
Budge will remain and her hand picked acolytes will do her bidding without ever questioning her, and the malaise at the club will continue as no consequences for failure exist. 

Sure has but am not surprised.

[portobellojambo1]

33 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

You’ve kind of contradicted yourself there. 
If the FoH is just the owner and not running the club then it can’t put in place the changes you’ve advocated. 
Unless there is changes in the governance model we won’t be able to choose a CEO or a board.
Budge will remain and her hand picked acolytes will do her bidding without ever questioning her, and the malaise at the club will continue as no consequences for failure exist. 

I may be wrong here, but the existing board was chosen by Bidco, as the major shareholders in the business. And Bidco is effectively Ann Budge, and she is also the CEO of the football board. Once that shareholding moves to FOH, Ann Budge will then become the major shareholder outwith the then FOH shareholding. It would be correct to say that she could then be offered a place on the new football board, but not necessarily the position of CEO. It would then be up to her to decide if she wanted to remain on the board. If she chooses not to take up a position on the board she would still be due money from the club, not sure of the exact figure but I beleive it is around £3 million, plus interest on around 1/3rd of that amount. The new board could decide, based on money available, to pay her that amount over an agreed period. I've not looked at the governance model in any detail, but I can't imagine that following Bidco moving the shareholding to FOH that FOH wouldn't then be in a position to determine the future working model for the club but would have to stick to what Bidco had effectively put in place.

[Francis Albert]

56 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

You’ve kind of contradicted yourself there. 
If the FoH is just the owner and not running the club then it can’t put in place the changes you’ve advocated. 
Unless there is changes in the governance model we won’t be able to choose a CEO or a board.
Budge will remain and her hand picked acolytes will do her bidding without ever questioning her, and the malaise at the club will continue as no consequences for failure exist. 

When it eventually takes its 75.1% ownership FOH will have the power to remove all or part of the club board and appoint a board which could choose a CEO to take the club forward in the direction FOH and its members wish.

The governance arrangements rightly don't provide for FOH day to day control of the club but FOH will have the power if it chooses to excercise it to set the strategic direction and priorities of the club. 

However FOH has seemed reluctant to even take the step of getting hold of the shares and many seem to see the point of FoH is to prevent takeover by another Vlad or CPR but do nothing about the risk of prolonged mid-table mediocrity.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Francis Albert

[EIEIO]

16 hours ago, davemclaren said:

What would a full time CEO spend their time doing? A part time admin assistant might be justified to sort out admin issues.

I'm with you @davemclarenan admin is needed a couple of days a week to answer queries and sort out pledging / banking issues. If the FoH committee members cannot devote enough time to the task they should resign. A paid CEO at anything more than the minimum wage would seem way over the top.

[Pasquale for King]

38 minutes ago, portobellojambo1 said:

I may be wrong here, but the existing board was chosen by Bidco, as the major shareholders in the business. And Bidco is effectively Ann Budge, and she is also the CEO of the football board. Once that shareholding moves to FOH, Ann Budge will then become the major shareholder outwith the then FOH shareholding. It would be correct to say that she could then be offered a place on the new football board, but not necessarily the position of CEO. It would then be up to her to decide if she wanted to remain on the board. If she chooses not to take up a position on the board she would still be due money from the club, not sure of the exact figure but I beleive it is around £3 million, plus interest on around 1/3rd of that amount. The new board could decide, based on money available, to pay her that amount over an agreed period. I've not looked at the governance model in any detail, but I can't imagine that following Bidco moving the shareholding to FOH that FOH wouldn't then be in a position to determine the future working model for the club but would have to stick to what Bidco had effectively put in place.

She’s the chairman, she’s staying as the chairman, there is no new board just the same folk she chose who won’t challenge her. She would need to be voted out as chairman in an EGM called by the FoH if I remember correctly what FF and others have said. She’s said herself she’s going nowhere, RNs contract to be with us for 3 years and the benefactors having agreed to back the club for 5 years if she stays and mooted building our own training facility. Far too many folk don’t actually pay attention to what she’s said about the clubs future and her part, not many of us knew she had loaned the club £3.1m to cover her own failings for instance. 

Why shouldn’t the new owners put their own model in for how the club is run moving forward? Especially when the current system isn’t exactly a roaring success. 
 

 

[Pasquale for King]

39 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

When it eventually takes its 75.1% ownership FOH will have the power to remove all or part of the club board and appoint a board which could choose a CEO to take the club forward in the direction FOH and its members wish.

The governance arrangements rightly don't provide for FOH day to day control of the club but FOH will have the power if it chooses to excercise it to set the strategic direction and priorities of the club. 

However FOH has seemed reluctant to even take the step of getting hold of the shares and many seem to see the point of FoH is to prevent takeover by another Vlad or CPR but do nothing about the risk of prolonged mid-table mediocrity.

I was going by what others said about the governance needing to change to allow us to take control. 
The FoH members will need to put pressure on the FoH board to get the two reps to act on our wishes if that’s what the majority want, I’m not sure how that happens though and I think that’s where the governance was questioned. 
If it chooses yo do so is obviously the main point, as the FoH representatives were hand picked by Budge none of us should hold our breath. 
I think that’s why we need to pay someone even on PT basis to be more hands on. 

[David Black]

50 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

When it eventually takes its 75.1% ownership FOH will have the power to remove all or part of the club board and appoint a board which could choose a CEO to take the club forward in the direction FOH and its members wish.

The governance arrangements rightly don't provide for FOH day to day control of the club but FOH will have the power if it chooses to excercise it to set the strategic direction and priorities of the club. 

However FOH has seemed reluctant to even take the step of getting hold of the shares and many seem to see the point of FoH is to prevent takeover by another Vlad or CPR but do nothing about the risk of prolonged mid-table mediocrity.

You have summed up exactly what I have been banging on about for months. In any business the major share holders vote on the direction they want the business to take, the appointed CEO, Andrew McGillvary in our case, then carries out his remit. We will be no different to any other business and I don't understand how so many seem to see issues that do not exist. I have an account with the Nationwide and every year I get the opportunity to vote on or off those board members who are standing for re-election, to pass the accounts etc. We will be no different. 

[davemclaren]

41 minutes ago, David Black said:

You have summed up exactly what I have been banging on about for months. In any business the major share holders vote on the direction they want the business to take, the appointed CEO, Andrew McGillvary in our case, then carries out his remit. We will be no different to any other business and I don't understand how so many seem to see issues that do not exist. I have an account with the Nationwide and every year I get the opportunity to vote on or off those board members who are standing for re-election, to pass the accounts etc. We will be no different. 

You’ll get a vote on FoH issues and FoH board elections every year at the FoH agm but not at the Hearts AGM, unless you own shares. 

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, Pasquale for King said:

I was going by what others said about the governance needing to change to allow us to take control. 
The FoH members will need to put pressure on the FoH board to get the two reps to act on our wishes if that’s what the majority want, I’m not sure how that happens though and I think that’s where the governance was questioned. 
If it chooses yo do so is obviously the main point, as the FoH representatives were hand picked by Budge none of us should hold our breath. 
I think that’s why we need to pay someone even on PT basis to be more hands on. 

The minority of two FoH representatives on the club board have no real power. They can always be outvoted. My point is that with a controlling interest FOH will have the power( if it chooses to exercise it) to ensure that all the club board members (and certainly a majority of them) represent FOH's views on the strategic direction and priorities of the club.

 

 

[David Black]

1 hour ago, davemclaren said:

You’ll get a vote on FoH issues and FoH board elections every year at the FoH agm but not at the Hearts AGM, unless you own shares. 

I have attended all FoH AGM's  and all Hearts AGM's as I own shares.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, davemclaren said:

You’ll get a vote on FoH issues and FoH board elections every year at the FoH agm but not at the Hearts AGM, unless you own shares. 

Correct. FoH members do not have any direct power in relation to the club board. The can only act at arms length and the FOH governance arrangements (3 year rotation of directors and specialist director posts make it difficult and time consuming to achieve control of the FOH board.

 

This is not I think an accident of design.

[Francis Albert]

Just now, David Black said:

I have attended all FoH AGM's  and all Hearts AGM's as I own shares.

But if FOH have a controlling interest your vote doesn't count for anything against FoH's 75.1% and Ann's 17.4%.

[David Black]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

But if FOH have a controlling interest your vote doesn't count for anything against FoH's 75.1% and Ann's 17.4%.

That's true, but FoH would have to put any motion to the floor/members who would in turn vote and my individual vote would be counted in that. 

[davemclaren]

9 minutes ago, David Black said:

I have attended all FoH AGM's  and all Hearts AGM's as I own shares.

👍

[davemclaren]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Correct. FoH members do not have any direct power in relation to the club board. The can only act at arms length and the FOH governance arrangements (3 year rotation of directors and specialist director posts make it difficult and time consuming to achieve control of the FOH board.

 

This is not I think an accident of design.

It’s an accident of intention, I agree.  

[davemclaren]

6 minutes ago, David Black said:

That's true, but FoH would have to put any motion to the floor/members who would in turn vote and my individual vote would be counted in that. 

It would indeed but it would be a token gesture as FoH have a majority of the shares.