How is this Budge’s decision

[kingantti1874]

Given bidco has been paid back and the share transfer is a formality. Can someone explain why this decision sits with Ann Budge?

 

When are the shares formally being handed over

[StevenNaismith]

She runs the club.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

15 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Given bidco has been paid back and the share transfer is a formality. Can someone explain why this decision sits with Ann Budge?

 

When are the shares formally being handed over

A £100,000 question.

 

FoH continue to act ultra vires and pass almost £2m to HMFC rather than complete their objective. I would have no problem with this if the membership had been asked. Instead, all involved were scared of the answer.

[David Black]

Is she acting illegally by letting this drag on. As FF has said, a couple of months after we finalised our part of the contract would be acceptable, around £300000, but we are over £2 million and counting and still not even a date. Step up FOH and do what you are there for, represent your members and insist on getting this done. The last excuse given was pathetic, but it did highlight how desperate AB is to hang on to power. What's the next one, the dog ate the paper work.

[Agentjambo]

9 minutes ago, StevenNaismith said:

She runs the club.

She is part of a board that makes or should be part of decision making process. Whether she listens to the other board members is another thing. 

[Ex member of the SaS]

Not a company solicitor but is there not something where the board are liable if they are not doing their best for the company? What would it take to get a vote of no confidence in this board?

Having said that I am not convinced FoH are the right ones to take the " company " forward. Would they even be good enough to pick board members capable of doing so? This is not a character assassination as I don't know any of the FoH board and I know some are doing it voluntarily. But just by reading on here what people think I am drawn to this conclusion.

[Famous 1874]

Sack the board 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

7 minutes ago, David Black said:

Is she acting illegally by letting this drag on. As FF has said, a couple of months after we finalised our part of the contract would be acceptable, around £300000, but we are over £2 million and counting and still not even a date. Step up FOH and do what you are there for, represent your members and insist on getting this done. The last excuse given was pathetic, but it did highlight how desperate AB is to hang on to power. What's the next one, the dog ate the paper work.

I'm actually wondering under what authority FoH are acting.

 

It is clear (but unsaid) that our contributions are going to the working capital of the club at a time that revenue has been slashed for obvious reasons that could not have been planned for. That is fine BUT, like the stand, FoH should have come to the membership and asked for the deferral of the buyout while this action occurred. They have never done so and I question whether what they are currently doing is legal.

[lost in space]

Having seen FoHs car crash of a statement, could we trust them to make ANY decision?

I doubt they could decide on whether they should have a meeting or not to decide whether they should consider making a decision.

[David Black]

31 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I'm actually wondering under what authority FoH are acting.

 

It is clear (but unsaid) that our contributions are going to the working capital of the club at a time that revenue has been slashed for obvious reasons that could not have been planned for. That is fine BUT, like the stand, FoH should have come to the membership and asked for the deferral of the buyout while this action occurred. They have never done so and I question whether what they are currently doing is legal.

Your right, FOH are elected to be our representatives and convey concerns we have to the club board. They obviously collect the pledges. They are not however when it comes to our money the decision makers. They should contact their members just like they did with the stand money and the more recent 75% or 90% vote. 

[Footballfirst]

This thread prompted me to have yet another look at the Funding agreement between FOH/Bidco/HMFC.

 

I was looking for something about the share transfer date after paying off Bidco for the £2.4m Senior Loan.

 

6. TRANSFER OF SALE SHARES TO THE FOUNDATION
6.1 Subject to the Foundation satisfying all of the conditions set out in clause 6.2 below (or the written waiver of any of the conditions in clause 6.2 below by Bidco) and in consideration of the Foundation paying an amount to Bidco equal to the purchase price which Bidco paid for the Sale Shares (the date upon which such payment is made by the Foundation being the "Transfer Date"), Bidco shall transfer the legal and beneficial interest in the Sale Shares to the Foundation and shall:
6.1.1 deliver to the Foundation the duly executed Stock Transfer Form in favour of the Foundation in respect of the Sale Shares, together with the original share certificates for the Sale Shares (or an indemnity in a form
satisfactory to the Foundation if such share certificates are not available);
6.1.2 deliver to the Foundation a waiver of any applicable pre-emption rights duly signed by the persons entitled to exercise such rights; and 

6.1.3 transfer to the Foundation the Senior Loan and the Senior Security which constitutes the security for the obligations of the Company under the Senior Loan Agreement.

 

That appears to put the timing directly under the control of FOH. Make the payment and Bidco is obliged to make the transfer.

 

6.3 Bidco shall transfer the Sale Shares free of all Encumbrances (and all other rights exercisable by other parties) and with effect from the Transfer Date, the Foundation shall be entitled to exercise all rights attaching to or accruing to the transferred Shares including, without limitation, the benefit of any dividends, distributions and rights declared paid, created or arising.

 

At the end of the amended agreement there is a summary of the terms from FOH's viewpoint. It mentions that the original long-stop date for the agreement was 9 May 2019, but that it would be extended by the duration of the stand funding phase. That phase was something between 23 or 24 months depending on the specific dates on which the first/last stand contributions were made.  The new longstop date would now be between 9 April 2021 and 9 May 2021.  Should FOH not have made the final payment for the shares, then the long-stop date will automatically be extended by up to six months, "to give the Foundation a final opportunity to raise the amount of any shortfall".

 

If FOH fails to make the final payment then it would have defaulted, and Bidco could retain all monies handed over along with the shares.  That brings me back to another of the provisions of the agreement.

 

20. AUTHORISATION
20.1 The Foundation hereby authorises Bidco in its sole discretion and without obtaining the prior consent of the Foundation to:
20.1.1 exercise or refrain from exercising any or all of the rights, powers, authorities and discretions specifically given to Bidco under or in connection with the Senior Loan Agreement together with any other incidental rights, powers, authorities and discretions; and
20.1.2 agree to any amendment or modification of any terms of the Senior Loan Agreement;
provided that in taking any such action or refraining from doing so Bidco shall have regard to all relevant circumstances, including the commercial interests of the Foundation in their capacity as participants under this agreement.
20.2 Bidco may effect any amendment or waiver permitted by this clause 20.

 

Basically Bidco appears to have the authority under the agreement to do what it likes without FOH's agreement. e.g. it could delay the transfer if it felt that it wasn't in the Foundation interests to take over the club while it was in debt, during a pandemic, or being unable to hold a party.

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said:

Given bidco has been paid back and the share transfer is a formality. Can someone explain why this decision sits with Ann Budge?

 

When are the shares formally being handed over

Don’t think it rests entirely with Budge. FoH directors not keen to take on a club with debt.  That was part of the original agreement though not sure if it’s a desire or if it’s actually in writing. 

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said:

Given bidco has been paid back and the share transfer is a formality. Can someone explain why this decision sits with Ann Budge?

 

When are the shares formally being handed over

Hadn’t read FFs post before my last one. It is in writing it seems. Share transfer won’t happen for a while I suspect. 

[JamboAl]

Sometimes it is better to keep quiet and say nothing.  Be careful what you wish for.

[Footballfirst]

While looking through other old documents I came across the minutes of a Q&A between Stuart Wallace and JKB reps in February 2017. Here are extracts from the minutes about his role.

• Bidco money being repaid is the key event in the near future and making sure the shareholding/ownership transfer happens in the proper manner.
• For FoH he wants to keep a tight focus at board level on what can be delivered and not try to 'boil the ocean'. He would like a 60-day plan, 6-month plan and 6-year plan focused on defined deliverables and clear objectives.
• He feels he can help improve FOH communication activity. He understands that it’s still early days for the organisation, there is much to learn and they need to obtain and act on feedback from supporters.

How are those three points progressing?

 

..... and specifically on communications .......

 

FoH hope to implement a new comms plan very soon. They realise they need to engage more effectively with other supporters groups, expanding the Foundation presence at Fan Days and match days, for example. He also mentioned that they want to be accessible and hope to find ways to promote closer and more regular engagement with supporters. They will also looking to get the general membership more involved in working for FoH. Communication activity and effective dissemination of information is a priority, and there will be improvements.

[franco2209]

7 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

Sometimes it is better to keep quiet and say nothing.  Be careful what you wish for.

Does that retrospectively extend to the removal of Levein, and Neilson? 🤔

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

23 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

This thread prompted me to have yet another look at the Funding agreement between FOH/Bidco/HMFC.

 

I was looking for something about the share transfer date after paying off Bidco for the £2.4m Senior Loan.

 

6. TRANSFER OF SALE SHARES TO THE FOUNDATION
6.1 Subject to the Foundation satisfying all of the conditions set out in clause 6.2 below (or the written waiver of any of the conditions in clause 6.2 below by Bidco) and in consideration of the Foundation paying an amount to Bidco equal to the purchase price which Bidco paid for the Sale Shares (the date upon which such payment is made by the Foundation being the "Transfer Date"), Bidco shall transfer the legal and beneficial interest in the Sale Shares to the Foundation and shall:
6.1.1 deliver to the Foundation the duly executed Stock Transfer Form in favour of the Foundation in respect of the Sale Shares, together with the original share certificates for the Sale Shares (or an indemnity in a form
satisfactory to the Foundation if such share certificates are not available);
6.1.2 deliver to the Foundation a waiver of any applicable pre-emption rights duly signed by the persons entitled to exercise such rights; and 

6.1.3 transfer to the Foundation the Senior Loan and the Senior Security which constitutes the security for the obligations of the Company under the Senior Loan Agreement.

 

That appears to put the timing directly under the control of FOH. Make the payment and Bidco is obliged to make the transfer.

 

6.3 Bidco shall transfer the Sale Shares free of all Encumbrances (and all other rights exercisable by other parties) and with effect from the Transfer Date, the Foundation shall be entitled to exercise all rights attaching to or accruing to the transferred Shares including, without limitation, the benefit of any dividends, distributions and rights declared paid, created or arising.

 

At the end of the amended agreement there is a summary of the terms from FOH's viewpoint. It mentions that the original long-stop date for the agreement was 9 May 2019, but that it would be extended by the duration of the stand funding phase. That phase was something between 23 or 24 months depending on the specific dates on which the first/last stand contributions were made.  The new longstop date would now be between 9 April 2021 and 9 May 2021.  Should FOH not have made the final payment for the shares, then the long-stop date will automatically be extended by up to six months, "to give the Foundation a final opportunity to raise the amount of any shortfall".

 

If FOH fails to make the final payment then it would have defaulted, and Bidco could retain all monies handed over along with the shares.  That brings me back to another of the provisions of the agreement.

 

20. AUTHORISATION
20.1 The Foundation hereby authorises Bidco in its sole discretion and without obtaining the prior consent of the Foundation to:
20.1.1 exercise or refrain from exercising any or all of the rights, powers, authorities and discretions specifically given to Bidco under or in connection with the Senior Loan Agreement together with any other incidental rights, powers, authorities and discretions; and
20.1.2 agree to any amendment or modification of any terms of the Senior Loan Agreement;
provided that in taking any such action or refraining from doing so Bidco shall have regard to all relevant circumstances, including the commercial interests of the Foundation in their capacity as participants under this agreement.
20.2 Bidco may effect any amendment or waiver permitted by this clause 20.

 

Basically Bidco appears to have the authority under the agreement to do what it likes without FOH's agreement. e.g. it could delay the transfer if it felt that it wasn't in the Foconsentundation interests to take over the club while it was in debt, during a pandemic, or being unable to hold a party.

Thanks FF. By that logic, it should be within our rights as members to ask FoH to suspend donations to the club until the share transfer occurs if Budge has discretion over the transfer. Again, I'm not saying that should happen. Rather, FoH should consult with the membership and explain the thought process and obtain consent. A "party" is meaningless bollocks.

[JamboAl]

11 minutes ago, franco2209 said:

Does that retrospectively extend to the removal of Levein, and Neilson? 🤔

You should judge each case on its merits.  That usually has a cost attached to it and sometimes one can't afford to do what they'd like to do, even if they think it's right.

Edited April 4, 2021 by JamboAl

[This is My Story Podcast]

The club will be handed over in the summer. The thing I think we should be paying attention to the now is the fact that the FoH, I believe, have asked Ann to remain on the board? I may have that wrong but am sure that’s what I read. Should we be focusing our attention on asking the FoH to rethink that position? 

[Riccarton3]

Just transparency needed. I'm sure everyone can agree on that. The party scenario for instance is clearly hokum.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

5 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Thanks FF. By that logic, it should be within our rights as members to ask FoH to suspend donations to the club until the share transfer occurs if Budge has discretion over the transfer. Again, I'm not saying that should happen. Rather, FoH should consult with the membership and explain the thought process and obtain consent. A "party" is meaningless bollocks.

The party excuse is being shown up for what it is. They’ll regret saying that because when they delay for longer, they’ll need to come up with a completely different excuse.

 

I’m not sure how anyone can have any confidence in FOH. They don’t have the shoes for this and bottom line is that the transfer will take place if and when Budge decides to proceed, not when FOH decide.

 

One way or another this will end in tears. Which is a shame because the basic concept of FOH was a good one. What we’re discovering with hindsight is that the agreement and the people involved are hopeless.

[Armageddon]

This thread shows folk do not understand the difference between a fan owned and fan run club.  For £5 p/m folk are wanting to phone up Robbie and sack him.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

2 minutes ago, Armageddon said:

This thread shows folk do not understand the difference between a fan owned and fan run club.  For £5 p/m folk are wanting to phone up Robbie and sack him.

This is a simplistic view. People are rightly asking - what, given the millions of pounds we’ve donated, does FOH ever do to represent us? What pressure do they ever put on the club with regards to performance and competence of management? Because very few of us believe they do anything other than take their free tickets and hide.

 

I don’t expect to phone up Neilson and sack him. But equally, I won’t be told to suck it up and carry on paying £50 a month as Budge makes yet another **** up for which she isn’t accountable (again).

 

If FOH had any “true character”, they’d understand this. Unfortunately, they are lap dogs who’d prefer to be left in peace to enjoy their red wine and steak while contributing nothing.

 

The true character comment should be the end of Wallace and Cummings. ****ing idiots

[Footballfirst]

3 minutes ago, Armageddon said:

This thread shows folk do not understand the difference between a fan owned and fan run club.  For £5 p/m folk are wanting to phone up Robbie and sack him.

The club isn't "fan owned" at the moment.

 

Q.  How do you think that FOH members should convey their views to the FOH Board about the delay to the transfer of majority control.

 

A. Endlessly wait for it to happen? Wait for an FOH statement on the subject? Contact the "Director of Members' Affairs"?  Email to the generic address? Stop pledges?

 

Q. How do you suggest that fans protest about how the team is playing?

 

A. Sing, "Neilson out" or "Sack the Board" from the terraces?    Oh wait!

 

 

[Niemi’s gloves]

27 minutes ago, This is My Story Podcast said:

The club will be handed over in the summer. The thing I think we should be paying attention to the now is the fact that the FoH, I believe, have asked Ann to remain on the board? I may have that wrong but am sure that’s what I read. Should we be focusing our attention on asking the FoH to rethink that position? 

Issues that need to be clarified include how much short term debt is owed to Ann; is that debt in principle repayable on demand; is Ann’s attitude to that debt affected by whether she remains as chief executive and/or as a board member; and what plans if any are there to finance the repayment of the debt if it is necessary.

 

I suspect the answers may go a long way to indicate why “getting rid of Budge” isn’t an easy option.

[Beni]

1 hour ago, JamboAl said:

Sometimes it is better to keep quiet and say nothing.  Be careful what you wish for.

 

If after 7 years and millions of pounds of fans' money the club is still dependent on the generosity of Budge, she's maybe not the top class business brain that her dwindling number of fans would have you believe.

 

 

[soonbe110]

4 minutes ago, fancy a brew said:

 

If after 7 years and millions of pounds of fans' money the club is still dependent on the generosity of Budge, she's maybe not the top class business brain that her dwindling number of fans would have you believe.

 

 

Yep, it’s not as if there’s been a worldwide pandemic and the club has had virtually no income for the last 9 months and at the moment no idea when it will start generating income again. Do you think the club runs on fresh air? 

[Pasquale for King]

51 minutes ago, Armageddon said:

This thread shows folk do not understand the difference between a fan owned and fan run club.  For £5 p/m folk are wanting to phone up Robbie and sack him.

Says someone who doesn’t know the minimum is £10?

Who decides how it’s run? Us. We should be looking at governance if required to make the whole board or at the very least the Chair person to be chosen by us. Something like the Barca model where 90k members elect someone. Not just let the ex owner run the club in the awful manner she has so far. 

[Pasquale for King]

8 minutes ago, fancy a brew said:

 

If after 7 years and millions of pounds of fans' money the club is still dependent on the generosity of Budge, she's maybe not the top class business brain that her dwindling number of fans would have you believe.

 

 

It’s nearly £12m and her generosity would be required if she hadn’t wasted millions of our money. 

[Beni]

1 minute ago, soonbe110 said:

Yep, it’s not as if there’s been a worldwide pandemic and the club has had virtually no income for the last 9 months and at the moment no idea when it will start generating income again. Do you think the club runs on fresh air? 

 

You'd have a valid point if Budge wasn't lending millions to the club before anyone had heard of the pandemic.

But she was.

Every other club has managed to navigate the pandemic thus far, but somehow Hearts are unique and couldn't do it without Budge.

The handover is now more than a year overdue, so she shouldn't even be owner at this point.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

12 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Yep, it’s not as if there’s been a worldwide pandemic and the club has had virtually no income for the last 9 months and at the moment no idea when it will start generating income again. Do you think the club runs on fresh air? 

Very true.

 

Do you not think it would have been a courtesy to at least be asked that our funds be redirected as working capital?

[Bull's-eye]

Pandemic.

No income.

No future income.

Don't know what league we'll be in. 

A very uncertain season to come for just about everybody.. 

 

 

Yes, great stuff JKB.

[Gmcjambo]

49 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The club isn't "fan owned" at the moment.

 

Q.  How do you think that FOH members should convey their views to the FOH Board about the delay to the transfer of majority control.

 

A. Endlessly wait for it to happen? Wait for an FOH statement on the subject? Contact the "Director of Members' Affairs"?  Email to the generic address? Stop pledges?

 

Q. How do you suggest that fans protest about how the team is playing?

 

A. Sing, "Neilson out" or "Sack the Board" from the terraces?    Oh wait!

 

 

Even when it is fan owned though that means the FOH has influence (albeit strong influence as owners) but not ultimate decision making.    I think they will still have 2 board positions when fan owned?.....might be wrong though.    The Board are still responsible for recruitment, governance and any decisions around sacking CEO/Chair/SD/Coach etc.      It will be interesting to see if anything changes re the structure or governance when FOH does own the club, or one AB goes.  The challenge now seems to be valid though - when such a majority of FOH members want change,  the Board should not be standing the way but recognising the need to be facilitating the change/wishes of the owners - this is not a minority 'kicking off' about a blip in performance as we know.    The FOH board members need to be of the right calibre as they are their to represent the members and they need to be getting our wishes with absolute clarity and strength - although if there is a disconnect in future between FOH board members and the other board members I've no idea what the mechanism is for resolving it?

 

 

[Spellczech]

FOH would have more confidence to act if they had built up a warchest rather than help bail out the new stand fiasco

Edited April 4, 2021 by Spellczech

[iainmac]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

While looking through other old documents I came across the minutes of a Q&A between Stuart Wallace and JKB reps in February 2017. Here are extracts from the minutes about his role.

• Bidco money being repaid is the key event in the near future and making sure the shareholding/ownership transfer happens in the proper manner.
• For FoH he wants to keep a tight focus at board level on what can be delivered and not try to 'boil the ocean'. He would like a 60-day plan, 6-month plan and 6-year plan focused on defined deliverables and clear objectives.
• He feels he can help improve FOH communication activity. He understands that it’s still early days for the organisation, there is much to learn and they need to obtain and act on feedback from supporters.

How are those three points progressing?

 

..... and specifically on communications .......

 

FoH hope to implement a new comms plan very soon. They realise they need to engage more effectively with other supporters groups, expanding the Foundation presence at Fan Days and match days, for example. He also mentioned that they want to be accessible and hope to find ways to promote closer and more regular engagement with supporters. They will also looking to get the general membership more involved in working for FoH. Communication activity and effective dissemination of information is a priority, and there will be improvements.

 

Ahhhhh, I've been retired for a few years now but I certainly don't hanker for the days of corporate buzzwords.

[glynnlondon]

2 hours ago, lost in space said:

Having seen FoHs car crash of a statement, could we trust them to make ANY decision?

I doubt they could decide on whether they should have a meeting or not to decide whether they should consider making a decision.

They'd ask permission from AB first I'd imagine and go with her answer as per

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

2 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

FOH would have more confidence to act if they had built up a warchest rather than help bail out the new stand fiasco

But they just do everything Ann asks so they are never going to do that. Hence why they’re not fit for purpose.

[Riccarton3]

18 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

FOH would have more confidence to act if they had built up a warchest rather than help bail out the new stand fiasco

Maybe time to start one?

[VargasDa]

1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

This is a simplistic view. People are rightly asking - what, given the millions of pounds we’ve donated, does FOH ever do to represent us? What pressure do they ever put on the club with regards to performance and competence of management? Because very few of us believe they do anything other than take their free tickets and hide.

 

I don’t expect to phone up Neilson and sack him. But equally, I won’t be told to suck it up and carry on paying £50 a month as Budge makes yet another **** up for which she isn’t accountable (again).

 

If FOH had any “true character”, they’d understand this. Unfortunately, they are lap dogs who’d prefer to be left in peace to enjoy their red wine and steak while contributing nothing.

 

The true character comment should be the end of Wallace and Cummings. ****ing idiots

Why the personal insults? I get the frustration but don't see the need for insulting volunteers. Maybe put you name forward next time, I will vote for you!! 

[portobellojambo1]

1 hour ago, This is My Story Podcast said:

The club will be handed over in the summer. The thing I think we should be paying attention to the now is the fact that the FoH, I believe, have asked Ann to remain on the board? I may have that wrong but am sure that’s what I read. Should we be focusing our attention on asking the FoH to rethink that position? 

 

I was discussing this with FF on another thread. Outwith the shares moving to FOH Ann Budge then remains the single largest individual shareholder, I think the figure is around 17%. My understanding is that is the shareholding a Scandinavian group had bought, and Ann purchased from them. A shareholding which Romanov had placed with a holding company somewhere in Europe, think maybe Switzerland, outwith Ukio Bankas. Based on that shareholding she would be offered a position on the new board, but doesn't have to accept it. It would be more likely, IMO, she wouldn't accept if it wasn't for the fact there are still further outstanding loans to be repaid, loans made by Bidco to the HMFC board, and she may be intent on staying in position until that money has been repaid, as she effectively holds security over HMFC's assets.

[luckydug]

3 hours ago, David Black said:

Is she acting illegally by letting this drag on. As FF has said, a couple of months after we finalised our part of the contract would be acceptable, around £300000, but we are over £2 million and counting and still not even a date. Step up FOH and do what you are there for, represent your members and insist on getting this done. The last excuse given was pathetic, but it did highlight how desperate AB is to hang on to power. What's the next one, the dog ate the paper work.

Perhaps we are due her money ? 

Perhaps our benefactors would walk away if Mrs Budge is forced out ? 

Perhaps FOH is scared of the responsibility ? 

Be careful for what you wish for imo. 

[Footballfirst]

The club is very much back in the same position as it was shortly after AB took over.

 

2014 - £3m+ debt, Relegated to the Championship, a main stand that needed substantial work, turnover suppressed, although with a squad that was young energetic and showing promise

 

2021 - £3m+ debt, playing in the Championship, a new main stand that needs further work to complete, turnover suppressed, a squad that needs refreshed with youth, energy and promise.

 

I remember those giddy days in 2014/15 when there were smiles on fans faces after watching a game, hopes for the future, sell out crowds, the club was even making a profit.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

7 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Perhaps we are due her money ? 

Perhaps our benefactors would walk away if Mrs Budge is forced out ? 

Perhaps FOH is scared of the responsibility ? 

Be careful for what you wish for imo. 

I feel as if we’ve now got a choice between a joke of a chairwoman and a joke of a fans group.

 

In short, we are in trouble.

[glynnlondon]

The days of having thread after thread about the boardroom were supposed to be firmly behind us yet here we are.

Scared about losing an owner and her backers because of £££ while we piss said £££ up the wall year upon year due to rank incompetence.

Catch 22 best to cross our fingers and believe they'll get it right this time around eh

[Footballfirst]

26 minutes ago, portobellojambo1 said:

 

I was discussing this with FF on another thread. Outwith the shares moving to FOH Ann Budge then remains the single largest individual shareholder, I think the figure is around 17%. My understanding is that is the shareholding a Scandinavian group had bought, and Ann purchased from them. A shareholding which Romanov had placed with a holding company somewhere in Europe, think maybe Switzerland, outwith Ukio Bankas. Based on that shareholding she would be offered a position on the new board, but doesn't have to accept it. It would be more likely, IMO, she wouldn't accept if it wasn't for the fact there are still further outstanding loans to be repaid, loans made by Bidco to the HMFC board, and she may be intent on staying in position until that money has been repaid, as she effectively holds security over HMFC's assets.

Yep.  The Scandinavians had negotiated a deal with Quantum Holdings to acquire the 15% of the clubs shares that Romanov had put there (with his niece a director).  However they agreed to stand aside and allow AB/FOH to acquire the shares as part of the Bidco takeover.   

 

Bidco was required to make an offer, under the takeover code, for all the shares she didn't own following the transfer of the UBIG/Ukio shares (79%). AB paid £19,000 for those additional shares, including the Quantum 15%.  After a number of adjustments in the share numbers from the takeover share offer, new shares finally being issued in respect of the 2012 share issue, the acquisition of the previously UBIG owned shares in HOM 2005, AB was left in control of approx 92.5% of the Club's shares.

 

The difference between the 92.5% and the 75.1% to be handed over to FOH, leaves her with a legacy holding of approx 17.4%.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Footballfirst

[luckydug]

2 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

I feel as if we’ve now got a choice between a joke of a chairwoman and a joke of a fans group.

 

In short, we are in trouble.

Well the only way to sort out the fans group is to call an EGM to demand changes. I'm not sure how to go about that though🤔

Mrs Budge is the largest single shareholder so unless she decides either to sell or gift her shares she is entitled to be on the board. 

 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

6 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Well the only way to sort out the fans group is to call an EGM to demand changes. I'm not sure how to go about that though🤔

Mrs Budge is the largest single shareholder so unless she decides either to sell or gift her shares she is entitled to be on the board. 

 

The confusion about when and how FOH intend to takeover and what the board will look like if they ever do is a damning indictment of FOH’s communications.

 

 

[David Black]

34 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Perhaps we are due her money ? 

Perhaps our benefactors would walk away if Mrs Budge is forced out ? 

Perhaps FOH is scared of the responsibility ? 

Be careful for what you wish for imo. 

We are due her money which I'm sure she knows she will get paid.

The benefactor issue was raised at the 2019 AGM and the reply from Ann was that if it were stopped we would have to "cut our cloth accordingly". Since the James Anderson said last summer he would back us for the next 5 years.

If our FOH reps are scared then it is time for them to stand down. 

 

[Jambo61]

2 hours ago, Niemi’s gloves said:

Issues that need to be clarified include how much short term debt is owed to Ann; is that debt in principle repayable on demand; is Ann’s attitude to that debt affected by whether she remains as chief executive and/or as a board member; and what plans if any are there to finance the repayment of the debt if it is necessary.

 

I suspect the answers may go a long way to indicate why “getting rid of Budge” isn’t an easy option.

Who is going to finance the repayment of any debts when Hearts as a company have a poor credit rating, during a pandemic, limited/ reduced incomes and no clear defined leader/ owner/ structure post Budge (even if that remained Budge)! There is no single 'responsible adult'!

[Hashimoto]

2 hours ago, JamboAl said:

You should judge each case on its merits.  That usually has a cost attached to it and sometimes one can't afford to do what they'd like to do, even if they think it's right.

OK..."Can't afford to do what they'd like to do!"
So where did the money come from to compensate Dundee Utd?....Look's like someone decided there was enough in the pot to bring Budge's love child back.
I'm also assuming that there was a healthy wedge paid out to Stendel and his coaching team. Again, unnecessary expenditure IMO.
She makes the mistakes...the fans foot the bills....She's no daft our Ann! 
The fans better have deep pockets if we have to have a fresh rebuild every season.
Or, just pay to get a proper coach / manager in.
No more Levein clones and lapdogs

Neilson Out