Would you consider private ownership again.........?

[Section Q]

Depending on circumstances, and possible dissatisfaction of the running of the club, would you be in favour of Hearts reverting to private ownership...?

Anyone

[sadj]

Just now, Section Q said:

Depending on circumstances, and possible dissatisfaction of the running of the club, would you be in favour of Hearts reverting to private ownership...?

Anyone

Not averse to it but it would have to come with conditions to ensure we weren't at the mercy of a situation like Vlad or Ron the Con.

[davemclaren]

18 minutes ago, Section Q said:

Depending on circumstances, and possible dissatisfaction of the running of the club, would you be in favour of Hearts reverting to private ownership...?

Anyone

Needs a 90% majority among voting FoH members so very hard to deliver. 

[The Gorgie]

If it was someone unbelievably rich like Man city have, then yes. We wouldn't even make a dent in there money so now worries of going bust again.

[JJ93]

Yes of course - I prefer it.

[Jambo61]

22 minutes ago, Section Q said:

Depending on circumstances, and possible dissatisfaction of the running of the club, would you be in favour of Hearts reverting to private ownership...?

Anyone

It is not an if but a when!

We can't raise sufficient funds without assistance!

Our incomes are fairly finite!

We aren't living within our means, for obvious reasons!

Football inflation will undermine fan ownership. Might be 5 years, might be 10, but it will happen!

[Fort Vallance]

Never say never.

[Cade]

Absolutely not.

It always, always results in an ego trip, a huge disconnect with the fans and utter chaos both on and off the pitch.

 

 

[jambonian]

I've said all along that we do need a rich businessman/consortium to come into Hearts, not to take over completely but to work alongside FoH. A joint venture, 50-50. This would encourage fans to continue with their contributions knowing that FoH and said business person/group are working together for the greater good of HMFC. If it doesn't happen, fans will continue to stop (or at least lower) their contributions which won't be enough long-term to keep the club going to where it needs to be. It could also be easier to attract a businessman/consortium to take on half the club in the knowledge that the club don't want or need to bleed him/them dry with all his/their money. 

[OTT]

1 minute ago, jambonian said:

I've said all along that we do need a rich businessman/consortium to come into Hearts, not to take over completely but to work alongside FoH. A joint venture, 50-50. This would encourage fans to continue with their contributions knowing that FoH and said business person/group are working together for the greater good of HMFC. If it doesn't happen, fans will continue to stop (or at least lower) their contributions which won't be enough long-term to keep the club going to where it needs to be. It could also be easier to attract a businessman/consortium to take on half the club in the knowledge that the club don't want or need to bleed him/them dry with all his/their money. 

 

Something like this would be what I could get behind. Private money backed by the FOH. 

 

I like the idea of a businessman looking to build the club up. To kind of take it to the next level. 

 

The problem is, you don't make money in Scottish football, it would need to essentially be a philanthropic gesture. Or even just to have upfront capital for infrastructure projects (stadium expansion/renovation, training ground, academy investment) and he's paid back over time via the foundation. 

[Pingu]

Not for me. I think fan ownership is something to be incredibly proud of. I'd like us to push forward and make a success of it, with Ann Budge moving on. There will be some missteps along the way, but I think that's OK.

[sandyk]

16 minutes ago, Cade said:

Absolutely not.

It always, always results in an ego trip, a huge disconnect with the fans and utter chaos both on and off the pitch.

 

 

Just like we have now

 

[NANOJAMBO]

56 minutes ago, Section Q said:

Depending on circumstances, and possible dissatisfaction of the running of the club, would you be in favour of Hearts reverting to private ownership...?

Anyone

The club is effectively in private ownership and will be for the foreseeable future.

This "ownership" tag is meaningless as AB continues to demonstrate. 

 

PS Interesting point on one of the many Hearts blogs currently - AB turned down approaches from PMG ( the group who own Nancy and the currently revitalised Barsley). 

[hans]

yes definitley , would be better if 50/50 with foh

[kingantti1874]

Yes. When someone is investing their own money they demand standards. We are like a charity funded  bowling club. 

Edited April 8, 2021 by kingantti1874

[sadj]

35 minutes ago, Cade said:

Absolutely not.

It always, always results in an ego trip, a huge disconnect with the fans and utter chaos both on and off the pitch.

 

 

 

Lol same as now and same as it will be when we are in charge 😜
 

 

44 minutes ago, JJ93 said:

Yes of course - I prefer it.

Why?

[Lone Striker]

6 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

The club is effectively in private ownership and will be for the foreseeable future.

This "ownership" tag is meaningless as AB continues to demonstrate. 

 

PS Interesting point on one of the many Hearts blogs currently - AB turned down approaches from PMG ( the group who own Nancy and the currently revitalised Barsley). 

Correct.   AB is an example of private ownership (75%), and taking a full-time  hands-on role  running the club.  She's also managed to find a funding source (the benefactors) who seem to be throwing no-strings-attached money into the club - something which many rich owners don't do.       Yet... here we are 😲

[NANOJAMBO]

5 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Correct.   AB is an example of private ownership (75%), and taking a full-time  hands-on role  running the club.  She's also managed to find a funding source (the benefactors) who seem to be throwing no-strings-attached money into the club - something which many rich owners don't do.       Yet... here we are 😲

Aye, she's got her "cake & eat it" football club. Paid for by the fans, bailed out by her buddy. All at zero cost to her. 

[BigStein]

Depends who it is of course, wouldn't want someone like Hibs Ron at the helm or some of the two bit blokes kicking about at other clubs. If Mr Anderson was interested however...

[After The Watershed]

No. The most I'd conceed is us adopting the 50+1 rule German football has. Commercial investors can own up to 49% max. 

 

We have to live within our means. It doesn't mean we can't grow the financial side of the club or even get on field success. We can't go back to spending what we don't have.

 

 

[Mysterion]

Would take a situation where FoH own the land - I think Chelsea have a similar arrangement. 

Would also want the club's trademarks to be retained and an arrangement to allow the club to be sustained in the event the investor wants to leave without leaving debt - can a business be loaned to an investor to operate?

 

Something where the club survives if there's an issue is essential. 

 

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, Section Q said:

Depending on circumstances, and possible dissatisfaction of the running of the club, would you be in favour of Hearts reverting to private ownership...?

Anyone

Absolutely.  The only way we will get real ownership buy-in and a clear sense of direction that fans can get behind. 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

Pro's and cons I suppose. Got to say I'm unimpressed with those who have withdrawn their payments, it does really weaken your own position, not strengthen it. If that became a big thing, better to be in private ownership if the toys are coming out of the pram.

 

Controversial, I know, but those payments are our bedrock

[Hashimoto]

Yes, football clubs need money to progress...Fan ownership will keep the lights on, and nothing much more.

Ideal situation for me would be a rich individual owner. However, Tynecastle can never be used as security against any future debts.  

[NANOJAMBO]

1 minute ago, Sir Gio said:

Pro's and cons I suppose. Got to say I'm unimpressed with those who have withdrawn their payments, it does really weaken your own position, not strengthen it. If that became a big thing, better to be in private ownership if the toys are coming out of the pram.

 

Controversial, I know, but those payments are our bedrock

It doesn't weaken anything. FOH was set up to buy the club , not run it.

Just throw your currrent FOH "donations" in a charity bucket or set up a DD to HMFC  : it makes no difference in the scheme of things. 

[David Black]

Without doubt ,yes. It's not the fans owning the club that is the problem, it is at this moment in time, those running the club and our FoH reps, who do just the opposite of what they are elected to do, represent us and stand up for us. The model is fine its the directors that are not.

[David Black]

6 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

Pro's and cons I suppose. Got to say I'm unimpressed with those who have withdrawn their payments, it does really weaken your own position, not strengthen it. If that became a big thing, better to be in private ownership if the toys are coming out of the pram.

 

Controversial, I know, but those payments are our bedrock

Well the payments shouldn't be our bedrock, they should have been used to put us on a different level to the rest , bar the OF, instead the club have wasted it. Every other club has survived without an addition £1.5 million, what does that say. Every single business / organisation always reacts when income is reduced and that will be even greater if the majority make a stand, show some backbone and withhold buying ST's. When that happens watch how the club react.

[CloustonHMFC]

I think it would entirely depend on the situation and who was looking to take over. Each time it comes up, and it will come up, should be looked and judged on their own merits. I would prefer 50/50 ownership with FoH but I wouldn't be completely against majority ownership of the circumstances were correct.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

7 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

It doesn't weaken anything. FOH was set up to buy the club , not run it.

Just throw your currrent FOH "donations" in a charity bucket or set up a DD to HMFC  : it makes no difference in the scheme of things. 

 

Just now, David Black said:

Well the payments shouldn't be our bedrock, they should have been used to put us on a different level to the rest , bar the OF, instead the club have wasted it. Every other club has survived without an addition £1.5 million, what does that say. Every single business / organisation always reacts when income is reduced and that will be even greater if the majority make a stand, show some backbone and withhold buying ST's. When that happens watch how the club react.

Reality is, when Budge pushes off and the FOH owns, this is our investment. No one else to be held accountable, the money generated would be all we have, additional to our other incomes of course. Worries me quite a lot actually. Budge over, but what if Anderson follows her out and there is no investment? In the understandable rage over performance, a lot of which I agree and some I don't we will always need the help of investors to be really competitive

[Restonbabe]

Yes 49-51% the board having an overwhelming majority. 

[jambonian]

50 minutes ago, Pingu said:

Not for me. I think fan ownership is something to be incredibly proud of. I'd like us to push forward and make a success of it, with Ann Budge moving on. There will be some missteps along the way, but I think that's OK.

 

Problem with that is you are relying on contributions forever more and if things aren't going well on the pitch then contributions will slowly but surely decrease as the years/decades go on. And you will never encourage new contributors if all's not well. Why would they want to bother? We should never have to rely on just FoH contributions, it could be a disaster long-term. Don't get me wrong, it's been a fantastic achievement and yes, something we should be rightly proud of, however, peoples' (contributors) lives change. There are many reasons why contributions could decrease, it's life. Death, unemployment, moving away, marriage, starting a family, affordability to pay mortgage/rent, retirement and many other reasons. That's why i would go down the route of a 50-50 split ownership with some money-men and FoH contributors. If money is invested in quality players, people will be interested in watching HMFC, new fans for the future etc. New season ticket holders and FoH contributors. If we struggle on like we have, interest will wain, fans won't want to go and watch HMFC and low season ticket sales will decrease player budget and we'll be stuck signing no-hopers, has-beens and never-will-be's for years to come. That won't get us into Europe or challenging at the top. That's why we need external funds to help FoH run the club in the proper manner. For me, that's the way to go to a successful Hearts.

[oi oi]

Who ponies up the cash to pay off the next dud manager?

[LarrysRightFoot]

Is Mr Anderson arranging for one of his billionaire pals to buy us? 🤔 

[taylor75]

54 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Yes. When someone is investing their own money they demand standards. We are like a charity funded  bowling club. 

As long as they matched what the foh where puting into hearts or more ....and the foh owned the stadium...

[NANOJAMBO]

6 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

 

Reality is, when Budge pushes off and the FOH owns, this is our investment. No one else to be held accountable, the money generated would be all we have, additional to our other incomes of course. Worries me quite a lot actually. Budge over, but what if Anderson follows her out and there is no investment? In the understandable rage over performance, a lot of which I agree and some I don't we will always need the help of investors to be really competitive

My point is, the current FOH donations are being spent however the current regime wishes because they are not prevented from doing so as FOH cannot as I understand put conditions on it.  FOH need to grow going forward , no doubt about it, but currently it makes zero difference until they sort out what they're giving the cash for.  I totally agree re Anderson : we have been sleep walking into a disaster here. If the club is to thrive it will need more FOH donors stumping up a lot more cash than they do now (post Budge/Anderson). 

[NANOJAMBO]

7 minutes ago, oi oi said:

Who ponies up the cash to pay off the next dud manager?

FOH cash.

[Bill Sikes]

We need someone as a figurehead for the nuggets to take their abuse out on, absolutely no doubt about that.

 

When the Foundation take over I fear for any manager and all the players as there will be nobody else to grizzle about.

 

No manager will be afforded any time to make a mark and that will mean we're scraping the bottom of the bargain bucket for a long time.

 

Can only see more pain and misery going forward.

[Dagger Is Back]

33 minutes ago, After The Watershed said:

No. The most I'd conceed is us adopting the 50+1 rule German football has. Commercial investors can own up to 49% max. 

 

We have to live within our means. It doesn't mean we can't grow the financial side of the club or even get on field success. We can't go back to spending what we don't have.

 

 

 

This is where I'm at. I still reckon that we're in this mess because we've had people writing blank cheques coupled with an unbelievably care free attitude to signings and their remuneration. We should IMO, only be spending proper football income on wages. FOH and additional funds should be used for capital projects

[pennyjambo22]

1 hour ago, JJ93 said:

Yes of course - I prefer it.

That is where I’m at.

[SomethingAboutObua]

Something like 50+1 or 49% and if a private owner sells their shares they have to return 10% of their shares to the fans to resell or something. 

 

Tbh I'd be more in favour of private ownership at this stage

 

 

[Jambo61]

1 hour ago, OTT said:

 

Something like this would be what I could get behind. Private money backed by the FOH. 

 

I like the idea of a businessman looking to build the club up. To kind of take it to the next level. 

 

The problem is, you don't make money in Scottish football, it would need to essentially be a philanthropic gesture. Or even just to have upfront capital for infrastructure projects (stadium expansion/renovation, training ground, academy investment) and he's paid back over time via the foundation. 

You need a company with vision to become involved..........Rolex Hearts of Midlothian for example!

Free advertising, name the stands or something, compete in Europe and challenge the new firm.......we would be a cheaper option than any English club and if competing with the manky mob great value investment! Dream on!

[ƒιѕнρℓαρѕ]

21 minutes ago, jambonian said:

 

Problem with that is you are relying on contributions forever more and if things aren't going well on the pitch then contributions will slowly but surely decrease as the years/decades go on. And you will never encourage new contributors if all's not well. Why would they want to bother? We should never have to rely on just FoH contributions, it could be a disaster long-term. Don't get me wrong, it's been a fantastic achievement and yes, something we should be rightly proud of, however, peoples' (contributors) lives change. There are many reasons why contributions could decrease, it's life. Death, unemployment, moving away, marriage, starting a family, affordability to pay mortgage/rent, retirement and many other reasons. That's why i would go down the route of a 50-50 split ownership with some money-men and FoH contributors. If money is invested in quality players, people will be interested in watching HMFC, new fans for the future etc. New season ticket holders and FoH contributors. If we struggle on like we have, interest will wain, fans won't want to go and watch HMFC and low season ticket sales will decrease player budget and we'll be stuck signing no-hopers, has-beens and never-will-be's for years to come. That won't get us into Europe or challenging at the top. That's why we need external funds to help FoH run the club in the proper manner. For me, that's the way to go to a successful Hearts.

Well don't rely on FoH contributions, it's a relatively small percentage of our turnover.

 

As a club we don't need external funds getting us into debt all over again which we then waste millions servicing, we need to spend less than we bring in.

[Ex member of the SaS]

Fan ownership will work only if they recruit a board that knows what they are doing. Get the right people in and the club will run itself. This would be similar to a public company being run as a private corporation. All the benefits of both systems.

[Hashimoto]

1 minute ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

Fan ownership will work only if they recruit a board that knows what they are doing. Get the right people in and the club will run itself. This would be similar to a public company being run as a private corporation. All the benefits of both systems.

All fair points......But how does the club fund itself and remain competitive?

There would soon be plenty of noise if by living within our means meant that we were missing out on transfer targets and our opponents were snaffling them up!

Neilson Out 

[Cruyff]

Yes. 

[jambonian]

7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Well don't rely on FoH contributions, it's a relatively small percentage of our turnover.

 

As a club we don't need external funds getting us into debt all over again which we then waste millions servicing, we need to spend less than we bring in.

Which is why we need that extra. To buy better players, to compete, to encourage more fans, sponsorship, tv money and any other income we can, possibly a Euro run etc. I'm not saying go out and spend, spend, spend. That really would be foolish, however, one or two good quality signings a season with potential to sell on for big money later on will give any potential investor the encouragement to put money into the club. Let's say we look to sign a player from another club for around....i don't know, throw any figure out there... £400k for example. Potential sell-on in the future could bring the club a £2/3 million (at least) transfer then the investor/s get their money back in spades. Sign the best quality youngsters (as well as producing one or two of our own) and sell for profit. We won't spend that sort of cash as things stand at the moment, we're too busy wasting any cash on Kastaneers and Frears. Even bringing in a freebie like Jimmy Dunne for example could potentially get the club a few million quid back in future. We'd still be shelling out less than we could make back. It can be done without having to get into uncontrollable debt with the right investor/s in place. And we might even make a pot of money in Europe, a pipe-dream as the club is as it stands right now.

[gregzy2k7]

Nah i want foh to always have the majority % of the club owned, however i wouldnt be adverse to james anderson owning say between 25/30%.

He is clearly a good benevelant business guy.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Having fought so hard and spent so much on becoming a fan owned club my answer to the OP's question is a resounding Nope.

[Gambo]

3 hours ago, Section Q said:

Depending on circumstances, and possible dissatisfaction of the running of the club, would you be in favour of Hearts reverting to private ownership...?

Anyone

We have that just now do we not?

[JJ93]

2 hours ago, sadj said:

 

 

Why?

Because, as far as I am aware, we won't have significant money if we are fan owned and so it is designating us to more mediocrity and 3rd place at best.

 

If I am wrong in this please tell me. I've not given much thought to it but if we are fan owned - in the majority sense at least - that means there is no significant cash coming into the club.

 

If we are ambitious, we will sell a majority stake to a very wealthy individual with terms in our Articles of Association which require FoH approval for certain measures. This is the simple way around it.

 

We should be looking to sell a majority stake to such a person with certain conditions as mentioned. We get the best of both worlds then.

 

I want us to win things and to win things we need money.