Thinking ahead

[Pasquale for King]

5 minutes ago, Jambo61 said:

But a minority can't do much, can it?

If you read up on the thread and the link I’ve given to another thread the FoH reps have the power to change everything if they wish. 

[Portable Badger]

5 minutes ago, part_time_jambo said:

Now you've just gone too far.

 

1 hour ago, luckydug said:

FOH pledgers should meet every Thursday in the Gorgie Suite and pick the team for the weekend. 

Substitutions could be made at half time by text voting. 

It's only fair😂

You’re missing a trick Dug.   We can turn it into a new revenue stream !!!

 

Run like the Lotto  - we sell cards with all the squad numbers, people select the their 16 numbers and then we can randomly pick numbers from Lancelot when we meet up each week (the independent adjudicators) and the winner (s) get a Season Ticket.

We’d be Billy Quidsin

[part_time_jambo]

1 minute ago, Portable Badger said:

 

You’re missing a trick Dug.   We can turn it into a new revenue stream !!!

 

Run like the Lotto  - we sell cards with all the squad numbers, people select the their 16 numbers and then we can randomly pick numbers from Lancelot when we meet up each week (the independent adjudicators) and the winner (s) get a Season Ticket.

We’d be Billy Quidsin

Isn't that how the starting positions were decided yesterday?

[Pasquale for King]

8 minutes ago, Portable Badger said:

I would hope all of who signed up to FoH was to help the club but the one thing I personally wanted reassurance was that the lunatics would not be running the asylum before I committed my money.

I sort of get some people’s thirst for AB to be removed but I personally don’t want that at all.   Yes she has made mistakes, yes certain could have been better/earlier/quicker but for me, over the piece, she’s done Avery good job. I want her around for the next few years to help bed in J Anderson & the other benefactors, the new CEO, etc ... and then go an enjoy her retirement.  I have been frustrated like others but I don’t “lose my shit” over it.

I didn’t have conditions on it though, I wasn’t worried about who ran it. 
As for lunatics that’s harsh, not sure who’s losing their shit either. 
She’s said recently she wants to get the stand finished, eventually, there was also talk at the AGM about a new training facility too but it’s went quiet on that front. 
As I’ve already said there are ways of doing things to achieve change if a high percentage of the FoH members wish it to happen, which is only right as the owners of the club.  

[Portable Badger]

1 minute ago, part_time_jambo said:

Isn't that how the starting positions were decided yesterday?

You *******!! There was me thinking I’d come up with a unique solution !!

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

36 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

The first post I quoted you on clearly implied that.

Not at all mate as I said earlier u get a bit eager and could do with taking a breath

 

finishing in a European place is rarely if ever a failure for hearts

 

what I implied is that they appear (at times) to be completely oblivious to the context of the rivalry like when neilson described the next (almost meaningless) game after losing the cup replay to hibs as “massive” or budges various cosying up to hibs (which of course in return they shafted her)

 

budge to be fair has more of an excuse than neilson in that regard

 

now you may disagree with my observations/opinions on both but take a minute. -  keeps it on the right track if nothing else

[portobellojambo1]

56 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

You clearly have personal issues, with a deep hatred for someone who saved the club and has kept her word to hand it over to the fans.

 

The rest of your post shows a clear lack of understanding of FOH and how the club is to be run, with a naive understanding of business.  The fans will never control the day to day running of the club.

I have known from the outset that what was being made available to the FoH contributors was effectively the major shareholding in the club, and that the club, the overall business, would continue to be run by the football board, and that will not change. However, I hope you would agree that like any other business, whatever sphere the business is based in, the controlling board will have to give consideration to its major shareholding. I accept that in this case it is a little bit different in as much as if I, for example, was a major shareholding in another business, without it being a controlling share, and I was unhappy with the direction said business was going the option available to me would be to sell my shareholding and reinvest it elsewhere. That, I'd say, is 100% unlikely to ever happen in terms of the majority shareholding in HMFC. Something relatively simple, the football board will set its requirements in terms of those whom are appointed by them to serve on the football board. I, personally, don't think it is wrong for the FoH, on behalf of the majority shareholding, to put together a short statement detailing what the major shareholding expects from those in place on the football board. I don't for one moment think the football board would do anything intentional to damage the business as a whole, but everyone on the football board has to be accountable and in this case that board is effectively accountable to its major shareholder, the FoH. I'd like to think that when action is required the football board will carry it out without the need for EGM's to be getting called every other month. In saying that I'd also like to hope that FOH contributors will accept that such things as a continual change in the football manager/CEO simply isn't going to happen every time someone is upset by a signing or a result on the park, for example.

Edited September 19, 2021 by portobellojambo1

[Wee Mikey]

42 minutes ago, part_time_jambo said:

Now you've just gone too far.

On the other hand, it would make a soooperb 'Reality TV Show'. Better than any of the (alleged) 'Real Housewives'! 😉

[Bazzas right boot]

2 hours ago, stevie1874 said:

Does 3rd place get a guaranteed group place in any of the European peasant cups? 

 

I believe last qualifier for Europa leagues stages and if we don't win that the team gets into the conference cup league stages.

 

Could be a game changer.

 

[stevie1874]

1 minute ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

I believe last qualifier for Europa leagues stages and if we don't win that the team gets into the conference cup league stages.

 

Could be a game changer.

 

It certainly could. Be interesting come January window if ourselves, Hibs & Aberdeen still vying for third position. Could see Aberdeen throwing a bit of money about if that’s the case. Would be massive for any club outside the old firm. 

[Restonbabe]

3 hours ago, Beni said:

 

Being at or near the top of the league in September means diddly squat. 3 seasons ago we were top well into November and finished 6th.

 

After years of pushing the boat out, it nearly sank in 2013 with all hands on deck.

The speculate to accumulate model has had its day in Scottish football.

 

 

 

Someone needs to tell this version of rangers. They're in the hole by 50 million. 23million in secured loans 

[db211833]

9 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

I believe last qualifier for Europa leagues stages and if we don't win that the team gets into the conference cup league stages.

 

Could be a game changer.

 

3rd is conference,  Scottish cup is Europa League. But one of the uglies is likely to win the Scottish 

[frankblack]

51 minutes ago, portobellojambo1 said:

I have known from the outset that what was being made available to the FoH contributors was effectively the major shareholding in the club, and that the club, the overall business, would continue to be run by the football board, and that will not change. However, I hope you would agree that like any other business, whatever sphere the business is based in, the controlling board will have to give consideration to its major shareholding. I accept that in this case it is a little bit different in as much as if I, for example, was a major shareholding in another business, without it being a controlling share, and I was unhappy with the direction said business was going the option available to me would be to sell my shareholding and reinvest it elsewhere. That, I'd say, is 100% unlikely to ever happen in terms of the majority shareholding in HMFC. Something relatively simple, the football board will set its requirements in terms of those whom are appointed by them to serve on the football board. I, personally, don't think it is wrong for the FoH, on behalf of the majority shareholding, to put together a short statement detailing what the major shareholding expects from those in place on the football board. I don't for one moment think the football board would do anything intentional to damage the business as a whole, but everyone on the football board has to be accountable and in this case that board is effectively accountable to its major shareholder, the FoH. I'd like to think that when action is required the football board will carry it out without the need for EGM's to be getting called every other month. In saying that I'd also like to hope that FOH contributors will accept that such things as a continual change in the football manager/CEO simply isn't going to happen every time someone is upset by a signing or a result on the park, for example.

 

That seems fairly sensible.

 

I do think the fans do need to get their say and vote on major business decisions (stadium upgrades, etc) but do need to be detached from the football side.

 

Over to FOH to update the fans....

[Bazzas right boot]

12 hours ago, Wee Mikey said:

1st sentence, agreed.

2nd sentence, I'm not so sure about that (January window notwithstanding).

1st sentence, agreed, although I've got a funny feeling that (given the quality already brought in) that Savage and the other people seeking talent will pull a rabbit out of the hat. Might be a free, or a loan, or an amazing whelmtastic coup at a cost.

 

2nd sentence, nah; methinks we've got enough midfield talent right now. A striker equivalent to Beni's quality (i.e. a proper talent not getting game time in a league stuffed fu' o' talent) plus the same for a RWB and we're sorted.

Totally true.

 

Not just to weaken us, though; weaken any other team. Not to mention then either keeping said players warming the bench or loaning them out so as to have potential challengers taking points off each other.

 

I'm hoping that the days of the OF simply hoovering up players from whatever team is doing well (and simultaneously moaning about a lack of competition) is over (they decimated Dun U not so long ago as but one example). Doubt it though ... you're likely correct. Mind you, Celtic, in particular, have had that 'bicuit tin mentality' recently hence missing out on some solid players whilst shelling out literally MILLIONS on dross - oh, and somehow not valuing Craig Gordon to our glee and advantage. Just take a look at their 'keepers recently. Must've cost them multiple x our entire squad!

 

Hope you're right, but I'd be suprised if any club was within 15 points of the OF come the end of the season. 

 

 

Yip, wouldn't say no to another striker either! 

 

 

[jambocub]

9 hours ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

I believe last qualifier for Europa leagues stages and if we don't win that the team gets into the conference cup league stages.

 

Could be a game changer.

 

Is this dependant on who wins the Scottish cup?

[Bazzas right boot]

6 minutes ago, jambocub said:

Is this dependant on who wins the Scottish cup?

 

Yeah in The way the places will fall. 

Also assuming we aren't overtaken in terms of coefficient as well I believe. 

 

European football still the carrot tho. 

 

 

[JimmyCant]

One or both of the OF will go on a double figures un beaten run and will pull away to fight it out.

 

I do see a chance for 3rd emerging here, but the draws need to become wins for the most part.

[Jambo61]

12 hours ago, Pasquale for King said:

If you read up on the thread and the link I’ve given to another thread the FoH reps have the power to change everything if they wish. 

Don't buy it, everything I have read has FoH intentionally in a minority on any board. I fully agree that the fans can't run the club, therein lies madness. But, and it is an ever growing but, what happens when FoH cannot keep up with football inflation? What happens when external investment is a necessity? That is what did for Blackburn Rovers and Jack Walkers legacy in very quick time, 8 years. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/jun/25/premierleague.blackburn1

The existing FoH arrangements can indeed be changed with a huge majority, a majority that has been built in to actually have little chance of ever being agreed until it is likely too late!

I fear we are built to stagnate, which in reality, will be better than a lot of Scottish clubs, but is not a plan for growth/ development/ League or European success!

My other concern is why do the rest of the non-FoH shares seem to have a 'protected status' when at the time of the rescue they were entirely worthless? Should they not have had equal status linked to FoH shares i.e. on paper alone?

[frankblack]

19 minutes ago, Jambo61 said:

Don't buy it, everything I have read has FoH intentionally in a minority on any board. I fully agree that the fans can't run the club, therein lies madness. But, and it is an ever growing but, what happens when FoH cannot keep up with football inflation? What happens when external investment is a necessity? That is what did for Blackburn Rovers and Jack Walkers legacy in very quick time, 8 years. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/jun/25/premierleague.blackburn1

The existing FoH arrangements can indeed be changed with a huge majority, a majority that has been built in to actually have little chance of ever being agreed until it is likely too late!

I fear we are built to stagnate, which in reality, will be better than a lot of Scottish clubs, but is not a plan for growth/ development/ League or European success!

My other concern is why do the rest of the non-FoH shares seem to have a 'protected status' when at the time of the rescue they were entirely worthless? Should they not have had equal status linked to FoH shares i.e. on paper alone?

 

So, the solution is to bring in another Romanov, spend well beyond the club's means chasing two clubs that have a far bigger income, and be in administration within 10 years?

 

The whole point of FOH is to safeguard the future of the club for future generations, and challenge while living within our means.

[Jambo61]

32 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

So, the solution is to bring in another Romanov, spend well beyond the club's means chasing two clubs that have a far bigger income, and be in administration within 10 years?

 

The whole point of FOH is to safeguard the future of the club for future generations, and challenge while living within our means.

As usual the response has no relevance to the statement!

'future generations' could just as easily be watching Hearts in a juniors league living within their means going by your comments, will you still be happy?

Address the example of Blackburn intent v reality! That should keep you quiet for a few decades!

[frankblack]

4 minutes ago, Jambo61 said:

As usual the response has no relevance to the statement!

'future generations' could just as easily be watching Hearts in a juniors league living within their means going by your comments, will you still be happy?

Address the example of Blackburn intent v reality! That should keep you quiet for a few decades!

 

I don't see the comparison with Blackburn.  They won the league with a benefactor who bought the title, but the reality was they didn't have the support or income to sustain it when the money dried up.

[Jambo61]

10 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

I don't see the comparison with Blackburn.  They won the league with a benefactor who bought the title, but the reality was they didn't have the support or income to sustain it when the money dried up.

So you didn't read the 'Trust' part putting money into the club (over and above incomes) for 8 years after his death then realising it was not enough for a fast changing business world?

[Boris]

2 minutes ago, Jambo61 said:

So you didn't read the 'Trust' part putting money into the club (over and above incomes) for 8 years after his death then realising it was not enough for a fast changing business world?

 

TBF, comparing the exponential growth of the English Premier League to ours isn't really treating like with like.

 

Our position in Scottish football is not the same as Blackburn's in English terms, but I can see your point re future investment to the club, however that may well happen with FoH acceptance (maybe like the german 50+1 model?)

[frankblack]

8 minutes ago, Jambo61 said:

So you didn't read the 'Trust' part putting money into the club (over and above incomes) for 8 years after his death then realising it was not enough for a fast changing business world?

 

Nope - still don't see the comparison.

 

You are talking about a club that realistically isn't big enough for what they want to achieve.

 

If you were to compare and say that you wanted Hearts to challenge for the league then you would need one hell of a trust to make up the income shortfall compared to Celtic or Rangers.

[Jambo61]

13 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

TBF, comparing the exponential growth of the English Premier League to ours isn't really treating like with like.

 

Our position in Scottish football is not the same as Blackburn's in English terms, but I can see your point re future investment to the club, however that may well happen with FoH acceptance (maybe like the german 50+1 model?)

Economics lesson 1) Inflation this year likely 4% by end year, around 3.5% end Sep for Government pension purposes (always lower than actual RPI inflation)!

That means to keep spending levels at the same as year start you need to grow income (inc FoH donations) by 3.5 to 4% (minimum) to stand still.

FoH donations will prove finite i.e. peak at some point, possibly reached already?

Borrowing arrangements are similarly finite based on the business model, we don't want debts!

Real life inflation is higher, football inflation is higher still, dragged along on the coattails of e.g. the EPL etc!

All I am saying is that even with the best intentions options are severely limited and potentially stifled by the Bidco agreement/ regulations etc! At some point the fans owned model will likely fail if progress as a club/ business is your 'achievement marker'? Some seem to think a drift to a lower league status would be accepted as the club would still exist long term!

[Jambo61]

23 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Nope - still don't see the comparison.

 

You are talking about a club that realistically isn't big enough for what they want to achieve.

 

If you were to compare and say that you wanted Hearts to challenge for the league then you would need one hell of a trust to make up the income shortfall compared to Celtic or Rangers.

Aye right.........minutes rather than decades, should have known!

[Boris]

3 minutes ago, Jambo61 said:

Economics lesson 1) Inflation this year likely 4% by end year, around 3.5% end Sep for Government pension purposes (always lower than actual RPI inflation)!

That means to keep spending levels at the same as year start you need to grow income (inc FoH donations) by 3.5 to 4% (minimum) to stand still.

FoH donations will prove finite i.e. peak at some point, possibly reached already?

Borrowing arrangements are similarly finite based on the business model, we don't want debts!

Real life inflation is higher, football inflation is higher still, dragged along on the coattails of e.g. the EPL etc!

All I am saying is that even with the best intentions options are severely limited and potentially stifled by the Bidco agreement/ regulations etc! At some point the fans owned model will likely fail if progress as a club/ business is your 'achievement marker'? Some seem to think a drift to a lower league status would be accepted as the club would still exist long term!

 

So all of the above will affect every other team?

 

Given our FoH investment, that still puts us ahead of the competitors, OF aside.  Also OF aside, clubs up here are perhaps looking at a more sustainable future i.e. spending within their means.

 

Again this leaves us ahead of the pack.

 

What is imperative is milking the European cash cow as an alternative revenue stream, sooner rather than later.

 

I do get your concerns and do not dismiss them, but at this point in time it's not an over-riding concern.  One day it may be, but until that day...

[frankblack]

6 minutes ago, Jambo61 said:

Aye right.........minutes rather than decades, should have known!

 

What point exactly are you trying to make?

[Jambo61]

Just now, frankblack said:

 

What point exactly are you trying to make?

L o n g  t e r m (m a y b e  a s  l i t t l e  a s 8 y e a r s)  t h e  m o d e l  s t o p s  w o r k i n g !

 

Is that said slow enough for you?

[frankblack]

Just now, Boris said:

 

So all of the above will affect every other team?

 

Given our FoH investment, that still puts us ahead of the competitors, OF aside.  Also OF aside, clubs up here are perhaps looking at a more sustainable future i.e. spending within their means.

 

Again this leaves us ahead of the pack.

 

What is imperative is milking the European cash cow as an alternative revenue stream, sooner rather than later.

 

I do get your concerns and do not dismiss them, but at this point in time it's not an over-riding concern.  One day it may be, but until that day...

 

There are also plans to raise additional revenue through other means, such as the new stand for catering and events.

 

Not everything needs to depend on increasing FOH subscriptions, such as the things you mention plus increased season ticket sales.

[frankblack]

Just now, Jambo61 said:

L o n g  t e r m (m a y b e  a s  l i t t l e  a s 8 y e a r s)  t h e  m o d e l  s t o p s  w o r k i n g !

 

Is that said slow enough for you?

 

Nope because you have invalidated your argument by only focusing on FOH subscriptions.

[Pasquale for King]

2 hours ago, Jambo61 said:

Don't buy it, everything I have read has FoH intentionally in a minority on any board. I fully agree that the fans can't run the club, therein lies madness. But, and it is an ever growing but, what happens when FoH cannot keep up with football inflation? What happens when external investment is a necessity? That is what did for Blackburn Rovers and Jack Walkers legacy in very quick time, 8 years. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/jun/25/premierleague.blackburn1

The existing FoH arrangements can indeed be changed with a huge majority, a majority that has been built in to actually have little chance of ever being agreed until it is likely too late!

I fear we are built to stagnate, which in reality, will be better than a lot of Scottish clubs, but is not a plan for growth/ development/ League or European success!

My other concern is why do the rest of the non-FoH shares seem to have a 'protected status' when at the time of the rescue they were entirely worthless? Should they not have had equal status linked to FoH shares i.e. on paper alone?

All fair points, the FoH can affect change but as you say it’s set up to make it really difficult. The folk that Budge hand picked set it up that way, including the protected status part.  
 

[Hearts1975]

No to the OP’s point. Been down that train before. 
It’s about building - quality signings and only if they can IMPROVE on what we have already 

 

That’s the key and in the past we have just been giving long term deals out to players that haven’t improved the squad and/or haven’t had the right type of motivation to be here.
 

This clearly isn’t the case now and we just need to keep building and improving piece by piece, rather than go on a spending spree over one window. Not what I would like to see anyway. 

 

 

[frankblack]

4 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

All fair points, the FoH can affect change but as you say it’s set up to make it really difficult. The folk that Budge hand picked set it up that way, including the protected status part.  
 

 

 

You mean the guys like James Anderson and other experienced business people?  Can't think why we would want anyone like that running the club.

[Jambo61]

17 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Nope because you have invalidated your argument by only focusing on FOH subscriptions.

Hahahahahahaha etc!

[frankblack]

2 minutes ago, Jambo61 said:

Hahahahahahaha etc!

 

 

 

[Boris]

25 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

All fair points, the FoH can affect change but as you say it’s set up to make it really difficult. The folk that Budge hand picked set it up that way, including the protected status part.  
 

 

As agreed by the FoH membership, surely?

[Gordon Ramsay]

Think Rangers will win it sadly but there is no reason why we can't put up a decent fight. 

 

We need to be more ruthless with our chances though. 

[XB52]

4 hours ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

Yeah in The way the places will fall. 

Also assuming we aren't overtaken in terms of coefficient as well I believe. 

 

European football still the carrot tho. 

 

 

Coefficient is set in stone for next season qualifications. Standings at the end of the season 20/21 decide qualifying places for season 22/23

[Pasquale for King]

41 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

As agreed by the FoH membership, surely?

Indeed it was, did you look into it at the time? I didn’t. Not sure what the percentage was of members who voted but I reckon it would be low. 

[Pasquale for King]

59 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

 

You mean the guys like James Anderson and other experienced business people?  Can't think why we would want anyone like that running the club.

You’re really struggling to understand posts aren’t you? 
Im talking about the FoH, nothing to do with James Anderson or any of the other nodding dugs on the club board. 
Who I don’t want running the club is Budge, which she will do until she decides to stop. 

[Pasquale for King]

1 hour ago, Jambo61 said:

L o n g  t e r m (m a y b e  a s  l i t t l e  a s 8 y e a r s)  t h e  m o d e l  s t o p s  w o r k i n g !

 

Is that said slow enough for you?

Nope 😆

[Boris]

12 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Indeed it was, did you look into it at the time? I didn’t. Not sure what the percentage was of members who voted but I reckon it would be low. 

 

I certainly read the proposal etc and then voted accordingly.

 

If folk don't vote, for whatever reason, then that's tough titty.  Sort of like James Sanderson's maxim of not criticising if you didn't go to the game.

[frankblack]

13 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

You’re really struggling to understand posts aren’t you? 
Im talking about the FoH, nothing to do with James Anderson or any of the other nodding dugs on the club board. 
Who I don’t want running the club is Budge, which she will do until she decides to stop. 

 

You could vote Budge out if you gathered enough support.  However we both know you wouldn't get it.

[Pasquale for King]

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

 

You could vote Budge out if you gathered enough support.  However we both know you wouldn't get it.

Did I say I would? 

[Pasquale for King]

2 hours ago, Boris said:

 

I certainly read the proposal etc and then voted accordingly.

 

If folk don't vote, for whatever reason, then that's tough titty.  Sort of like James Sanderson's maxim of not criticising if you didn't go to the game.

They were still sending emails to my old address so I didn’t get the chance, not that it would’ve made much difference. 
Who knows if folk knew what they do now what would’ve happened with the governance model. 

[Boris]

1 minute ago, Pasquale for King said:

They were still sending emails to my old address so I didn’t get the chance, not that it would’ve made much difference. 
Who knows if folk knew what they do now what would’ve happened with the governance model. 

 

You must forgive my ignorance, but what has dramatically changed between now and then?

[Lone Striker]

6 hours ago, Jambo61 said:

Don't buy it, everything I have read has FoH intentionally in a minority on any board. I fully agree that the fans can't run the club, therein lies madness. But, and it is an ever growing but, what happens when FoH cannot keep up with football inflation? What happens when external investment is a necessity? That is what did for Blackburn Rovers and Jack Walkers legacy in very quick time, 8 years. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/jun/25/premierleague.blackburn1

The existing FoH arrangements can indeed be changed with a huge majority, a majority that has been built in to actually have little chance of ever being agreed until it is likely too late!

I fear we are built to stagnate, which in reality, will be better than a lot of Scottish clubs, but is not a plan for growth/ development/ League or European success!

My other concern is why do the rest of the non-FoH shares seem to have a 'protected status' when at the time of the rescue they were entirely worthless? Should they not have had equal status linked to FoH shares i.e. on paper alone?

Sorry, can you explain these 3 of your statements -

 

1) "FoH are intentionally in a minority on any board"

2) "FoH cannot keep up with football inflation" 

3) "Why did non-FoH shares have a protected status when they were worthless ?"

 

1) Aren't you confusing the number of seats on the board with the concept of "minority" ?   The 2 FoH members of the Hearts board represent the majority shareholding.  Even if we had 6 on the board, they'd still represent the same shareholding

2) By football inflation, do you mean unplanned expenditure due to things like stadium legislation and Covid  ? Or are you talking about transfer fees and player wages ?  In the case of the latter, Hearts (and all clubs) can choose to stick within budget and limit the inflation you're talking about  ... or can choose to join in the silly season and throw more fuel on the inflation fire - and put the club at risk of administration again.

3) What does it matter ?   I've got a few thousand pre-FoH shares.   Worth next to nothing currently.... and probably forever. Don't care.

 

Thanks.... genuinely trying to understand your points. 👍

 

  

[Jambo61]

1 hour ago, Lone Striker said:

Sorry, can you explain these 3 of your statements -

 

1) "FoH are intentionally in a minority on any board"

2) "FoH cannot keep up with football inflation" 

3) "Why did non-FoH shares have a protected status when they were worthless ?"

 

1) Aren't you confusing the number of seats on the board with the concept of "minority" ?   The 2 FoH members of the Hearts board represent the majority shareholding.  Even if we had 6 on the board, they'd still represent the same shareholding

2) By football inflation, do you mean unplanned expenditure due to things like stadium legislation and Covid  ? Or are you talking about transfer fees and player wages ?  In the case of the latter, Hearts (and all clubs) can choose to stick within budget and limit the inflation you're talking about  ... or can choose to join in the silly season and throw more fuel on the inflation fire - and put the club at risk of administration again.

3) What does it matter ?   I've got a few thousand pre-FoH shares.   Worth next to nothing currently.... and probably forever. Don't care.

 

Thanks.... genuinely trying to understand your points. 👍

 

  

Dear oh dear:

 

1) 2 votes v 4 on a loaded board format, can't remember if it is 6, I know it is a minority including any sub-committees!

2) Football inflation includes every expenditure but particularly transfer fees/ agents fees/ wages/ signing on fees/ add-ons e.g. cheap mortgages to assist players relocating etc etc etc. If you are attempting to remain competitive you can only remain 'within budget' for a certain period, then fall away as competitors take the risk you can't!

3) Budgie seems to regard 'ordinary' shares above FoH!

 

Read it in conjunction with the Blackburn Rovers scenario in another post! Failed within 8 years of Jack Walkers post death Trust! Good intentions can have negative impact!

 

The FoH model is designed for mediocrity/ stagnation/ limits growth options etc!!!!!!

Ordinary inflation alone will undermine the values of donations over time unless growth in numbers/ values......which is fair to assume is limited!

[frankblack]

4 minutes ago, Jambo61 said:

Dear oh dear:

 

1) 2 votes v 4 on a loaded board format, can't remember if it is 6, I know it is a minority including any sub-committees!

2) Football inflation includes every expenditure but particularly transfer fees/ agents fees/ wages/ signing on fees/ add-ons e.g. cheap mortgages to assist players relocating etc etc etc. If you are attempting to remain competitive you can only remain 'within budget' for a certain period, then fall away as competitors take the risk you can't!

3) Budgie seems to regard 'ordinary' shares above FoH!

 

Read it in conjunction with the Blackburn Rovers scenario in another post! Failed within 8 years of Jack Walkers post death Trust! Good intentions can have negative impact!

 

The FoH model is designed for mediocrity/ stagnation/ limits growth options etc!!!!!!

Ordinary inflation alone will undermine the values of donations over time unless growth in numbers/ values......which is fair to assume is limited!

 

Oh dear

 

Completely ignoring all the points made against your argument and now recycling it.

 

Terrible post.