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

[davemclaren]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Paying back with interest? A bit like with Ann? Not to the mention the rest of the £12m the fans have paid without getting what they "invested" in.

 

They won’t get it?

[shaun.lawson]

The answer is it depends on the buyer. 

[spacerjoe]

13 hours ago, David Black said:

stand

 

[Finlay James]

No, fan ownership is the way forward for us

[johnking123]

Still more of a fan the 50+1 ownership  Germany has. 

[ƒιѕнρℓαρѕ]

5 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Paying back with interest? A bit like with Ann? Not to the mention the rest of the £12m the fans have paid without getting what they "invested" in.

 

What are you on about now? Ann saved the club and needed paid back, while we've been contributing without expecting a penny back.

None of this is external investment creating debt to take us to some wonderful next level

[ƒιѕнρℓαρѕ]

7 hours ago, jbee647 said:

If results are poor and they see the club’s results and league standings deteriorate long term you might find it surprising how quickly you can convince 90%

 

You're more likely to be surprised by how difficult it is to get to 90%.

 

7 hours ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Can’t disagree with any points you make. Any investment must be long term.

 

Queens Park are interesting, perpetual amateurs, playing at low levels, never expected to progress higher. All associated with QP happy with their high standards and integrity. Well respected club by all in football. 
 

Them shock, they turn professional, something that was a surprise for most football folk.

 

Are those associated with QP happy about such a huge change?

 

Never say never ....

 

♥️♥️♥️♥️

 

Yes they went through large change, no I don't know how those associated feel, but I know that I won't be voting for private ownership for Hearts and I'd put solid money that there's more than 10% that feel that way.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Conflicted over this. A good private owner would be fine by me, especially since FOH have shown themselves to be a bunch of incompetent, spineless arse lickers.

 

The trouble is, private owners can be like Budge thinks football clubs are like the WI.

[stevie1874]

Their was someone who first came up with the idea of FOH can’t remember his name but listened to him on the radio promoting it and was very impressed at the time. For whatever reason after it all went through he disappeared. Of all the comments about the FOH reps got me thinking about how passionately he spoke and why he stepped down. 

[Nobreath]

No, I'll be one of those stubborn 10 percenters.  ✋🤨

[OTT]

3 hours ago, johnking123 said:

Still more of a fan the 50+1 ownership  Germany has. 

 

Yeah, this would be my preference. I'd love someone pretty wealthy to get behind us and sponsor stadium name/kits etc. in exchange for some decent investment. Happy to forgo a chunk of the club to them and for the FOH to adopt a passive role whilst retaining a majority.  (or alternatively them taking a passive role in the running of the club like JA). 

[Francis Albert]

7 hours ago, davemclaren said:

They won’t get it?

7 years and £12m and they haven't got it yet and still don't know when they will.

Edited April 9, 2021 by Francis Albert

[David Black]

3 hours ago, johnking123 said:

Still more of a fan the 50+1 ownership  Germany has. 

It wasn't my preferred choice to begin with, but agree now that that would be the best format.

[Penrices left boot]

Only if it was a rich Hearts fan. 

 

No to Easter European financial backers and dodgy American del boys. 

Depends on the buyer. 

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Smith's right boot

[EIEIO]

Private ownership has not served us well where it matters most ,on the pitch, for the past 5 seasons.

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

You're more likely to be surprised by how difficult it is to get to 90%.

 

 

Yes they went through large change, no I don't know how those associated feel, but I know that I won't be voting for private ownership for Hearts and I'd put solid money that there's more than 10% that feel that way.

It is true we are now in a position where 10% of a minority of Hearts fans can frustrate any change in Hearts ownership. 

Whether over time that will be better for Hearts than the 130 years or so of private ownership, time will tell.

[Rocky jamboa]

1 hour ago, stevie1874 said:

Their was someone who first came up with the idea of FOH can’t remember his name but listened to him on the radio promoting it and was very impressed at the time. For whatever reason after it all went through he disappeared. Of all the comments about the FOH reps got me thinking about how passionately he spoke and why he stepped down. 

Was it Ian Murray? He was quite involved with FOH at the outset but presume due to his political career, he had to take a back seat.

[EIEIO]

Just now, Paulp74 said:

Was it Ian Murray? He was quite involved with FOH at the outset but presume due to his political career, he had to take a back seat.

No it was a guy called Mackie who set up FoH.

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, Smithee said:

What are you on about now? Ann saved the club and needed paid back, while we've been contributing without expecting a penny back.

None of this is external investment creating debt to take us to some wonderful next level

Ann "needed" paying back? 

And although we didn't expect a penny back, a competently run football club would be nice to have. 

 

[Rocky jamboa]

42 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Yeah, this would be my preference. I'd love someone pretty wealthy to get behind us and sponsor stadium name/kits etc. in exchange for some decent investment. Happy to forgo a chunk of the club to them and for the FOH to adopt a passive role whilst retaining a majority.  (or alternatively them taking a passive role in the running of the club like JA). 

Why could someone not do that without having ownership? A James Anderson character could sponsor the stadium and be involved behind the scenes, without owning the club. But we as fans/FOH would still have some control over it and would only be looking out for what'sbest for the club. So if he tried to push things too far and move us to murrayfield for instance, we could block it.

 

You only want to be an owner if you want to have more control over the running of the club, or you have some other ulterior motive, such as getting your hands on the stadium or making a fast buck. (Or you are mega wealthy like the man c owner and want to play championship manager for real!)

Edited April 9, 2021 by Paulp74

[Pans Jambo]

19 hours 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.

 

 

This.

[Pans Jambo]

Mike Ashley is a Billionaire...Who would want someone like that?

 

Just saying.

[Francis Albert]

34 minutes ago, EIEIO said:

No it was a guy called Mackie who set up FoH.

Ian Murray's book about FOH suggests Mackie was a somewhat disruptive and even negative influence in the later development of FOH.

 

The idea that fan ownership won't involve egos and rivalries getting in the way is a bit naive. 

[Francis Albert]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

Ian Murray's book about FOH suggests Mackie was a somewhat disruptive and even negative influence in the later development of FOH.

 

The idea that fan ownership won't involve egos and rivalries getting in the way is a bit naive.  

 

[FTH]

3 hours ago, Smithee said:

What are you on about now? Ann saved the club and needed paid back, while we've been contributing without expecting a penny back.

None of this is external investment creating debt to take us to some wonderful next level

 

Without the substantial external investment that's taken us to the wonderful next level of the 1st division we'd be doing so with something ridiculous like £15mill debt. It's not like we're this fantastically run club Ann Budge makes out we are. We only break even when the begging bowl gets passed round at Ann's billionaire dinner party.

[NANOJAMBO]

1 minute ago, FTH said:

 

Without the substantial external investment that's taken us to the wonderful next level of the 1st division we'd be doing so with something ridiculous like £15mill debt. It's not like we're this fantastically run club Ann Budge makes out we are. We only break even when the begging bowl gets passed round at Ann's billionaire dinner party.

For some weird reason , there are still people out there who refuse to recognise this. 

The club's been living beyond its means for years. 

[ƒιѕнρℓαρѕ]

1 hour ago, FTH said:

 

Without the substantial external investment that's taken us to the wonderful next level of the 1st division we'd be doing so with something ridiculous like £15mill debt. It's not like we're this fantastically run club Ann Budge makes out we are. We only break even when the begging bowl gets passed round at Ann's billionaire dinner party.

 

Cool, I still haven't seen anything that convinces me we need to get into debt 

[EIEIO]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Ian Murray's book about FOH suggests Mackie was a somewhat disruptive and even negative influence in the later development of FOH.

 

The idea that fan ownership won't involve egos and rivalries getting in the way is a bit naive. 

Ian Murray's book did indeed imply that , talking of egos , however without Mackie there is no FoH.

For all his alleged faults we could do with someone like Mackie at the top of the FoH today rather than the yes men and women currently sitting with their feet under that table.

[redjambo]

22 hours ago, kingantti1874 said:

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

 

Barcelona might disagree with that opinion.

[Jambos1983]

Absolutely for the right owner otherwise we'll always have a ceiling on what's achievable 

[Nobreath]

 

11 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Barcelona might disagree with that opinion.

 

[brux]

On 08/04/2021 at 14:45, JJ93 said:

Yes of course - I prefer it.

This

[Hashimoto]

10 hours ago, johnking123 said:

Still more of a fan the 50+1 ownership  Germany has. 

Interesting that the German fan model keeps cropping up. Lets not forget that the biggest majority of Bundesliga clubs have major sponsorship...Bayer, VW, Red Bull, Telekom...etc. These major investors pour cash into the clubs. Most of these sponsors also have a significant presence in the cities where their teams play.

Fan ownership would stand a chance if some of the major companies located or headquartered, say for example in Edinburgh showed a bit more interest, or at least reinvested in their local communities. 
 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Hashimoto

[Section Q]

9 hours ago, Smithee said:

What are you on about now? Ann saved the club and needed paid back, while we've been contributing without expecting a penny back.

None of this is external investment creating debt to take us to some wonderful next level

Didnt she get interest plus kept nearly 20% holding in the club (is my understanding). Not to mention what her brother's building company managed to get through his family connections.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

3 hours ago, EIEIO said:

Ian Murray's book did indeed imply that , talking of egos , however without Mackie there is no FoH.

For all his alleged faults we could do with someone like Mackie at the top of the FoH today rather than the yes men and women currently sitting with their feet under that table.

 

Pretty sure it was Alex Mackie who wrote the spiel for the FOH EGM last year arguing against changing the supermajority for sale from 90% to 75%. He knows how to construct a written argument.

[cb1874]

So along comes Sheik al bottomless pockets who wants to buy us, or let’s say someone came along from Baillie Gifford...but we’ve still got fans who would turn him away, and think we’d be better off being fan owned(not run) with SPFL scraps and some FOH subs. Give me strength!! 
 

[Section Q]

If the club was private owned with no debt or caveat allowed on the club I'd consider it. 

[hughesie27]

13 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

The answer is it depends on the buyer. 

So the answer is "Yes" then.

[Rocky jamboa]

5 minutes ago, cb1874 said:

So along comes Sheik al bottomless pockets who wants to buy us, or let’s say someone came along from Baillie Gifford...but we’ve still got fans who would turn him away, and think we’d be better off being fan owned(not run) with SPFL scraps and some FOH subs. Give me strength!! 
 

We generate £14m turnover a year so it's hardly scraps. Far more than livi, st j and Motherwell, who have fared far better than us over the past 5 years. 

 

Would you want some apparently rich sheik coming along, strip the club of all its assets, sell tynecastle and move us out to the middle of nowhere? Or, more likely, a Ron the con that the hobos have?? Fan ownership is a more attractive and safer option to me. And we're putting £2m a year in and not looking for anything back, other than our club being run properly, which it currently isn't. I can't see any other rich owner doing that. 

[moonraker]

As much chance of getting an arsehole as there is of getting someone with our interests at heart. Vlad,Pieman The Oystons,The guy that ran Darlington into the ground.

[Mid Calder Jambo]

Yes, absolutely for me.

[cb1874]

2 hours ago, Paulp74 said:

We generate £14m turnover a year so it's hardly scraps. Far more than livi, st j and Motherwell, who have fared far better than us over the past 5 years. 

 

Would you want some apparently rich sheik coming along, strip the club of all its assets, sell tynecastle and move us out to the middle of nowhere? Or, more likely, a Ron the con that the hobos have?? Fan ownership is a more attractive and safer option to me. And we're putting £2m a year in and not looking for anything back, other than our club being run properly, which it currently isn't. I can't see any other rich owner doing that. 

It may be safer, yes...but more attractive? Not for me.

Who said every private owner/investor has to be an asset stripper or next Ron the Con? 
BTW, in modern football terms...14m IS scraps. Is earning more than Livi or Motherwell the limit of your ambition? 

Edited April 9, 2021 by cb1874

[ƒιѕнρℓαρѕ]

6 minutes ago, cb1874 said:

It may be safer, yes...but more attractive? Not for me.

Who said every private owner/investor has to be an asset stripper or next Ron the Con? 
BTW, in modern football terms...14m IS scraps. Is earning more than Livi or Motherwell the limit of your ambition? 

They don't need to be an arsehole, they could be a well meaning fool.

 

But anyway, there's no real conversation to have until there's an offer, but it would have to be an utterly spectacular offer to convince me.

 

 

 

[Rocky jamboa]

1 hour ago, cb1874 said:

It may be safer, yes...but more attractive? Not for me.

Who said every private owner/investor has to be an asset stripper or next Ron the Con? 
BTW, in modern football terms...14m IS scraps. Is earning more than Livi or Motherwell the limit of your ambition? 

By the same token, who says every private owner is a rich sheikh?? I would say there are more dodgy Ron the con type owners then roman abramovich's! 

 

£14m is loads by Scottish football standards and means challenging for 3rd every season, with regular cup semis and finals should be a given. And who knows, managed properly, some European runs and giving the OF a run for their money.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

11 hours ago, EIEIO said:

Private ownership has not served us well where it matters most ,on the pitch, for the past 5 seasons.

Nor have we been anything other than private ownership so could the op remove “again”