FoH 90% is VERY important

February 6

2 minutes ago, Sooks said:

Looking at how easily the vermin were hoodwinked , that just makes me feel safe . Seriously , if this Foley pish had been presented to FOH , I would not be confident of 25 % of us seeing through it , but I would 10

The Hibs supporters didn't get a vote on it at all. They had no choice.

February 6

8 minutes ago, Jack Torrance said:

Fair enough, but give me the reasons it's better than 90%. What's the benefit that would make me change my mind?

If you voted for it the last time turn I'm not convinced much will change your mind as the arguments were well laid out then.

February 6

Just now, davemclaren said:

The Hibs supporters didn't get a vote on it at all. They had no choice.

I know . We would though , and I am a little concerned at how easily regular football supporters can be strung along . I agree with @Footballfirst when he says we need to tighten up the definition of some of our articles of association , but 90 % must stay imo

February 6

Just now, Sooks said:

I know . We would though , and I am a little concerned at how easily regular football supporters can be strung along . I agree with @Footballfirst when he says we need to tighten up the definition of some of our articles of association , but 90 % must stay imo

It can't be changed without a vote. I think it prevents any change that requires that threshold - regardless of its merits.

February 6

1 minute ago, davemclaren said:

It can't be changed without a vote. I think it prevents any change that requires that threshold - regardless of its merits.

You just have to look at the Hibs forums and social media to see the dangers tbh Dave . Easily more than 75 % thinking this is and was a good deal ………….. If some charlatan came along and tried the same shit with us , I could not see 90 % being taken in by this sort of nonsense . If it wa 75 % I would worry a little

February 6

Just now, Sooks said:

You just have to look at the Hibs forums and social media to see the dangers tbh Dave . Easily more than 75 % thinking this is and was a good deal ………….. If some charlatan came along and tried the same shit with us , I could not see 90 % being taken in by this sort of nonsense . If it wa 75 % I would worry a little

You have little faith. 😄

February 6

2 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

You have little faith. 😄

I have exactly the right amount of faith 😎

February 6

34 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

It can't be changed without a vote. I think it prevents any change that requires that threshold - regardless of its merits.

Yes, it now needs a 90% vote to change the existing 90% threshold on the sale of shares

However, I think it only needs a 75% vote to introduce a new 90% threshold, e.g. to authorise the issue of new shares, or the sale of Tynecastle etc.

February 7

1 hour ago, Sooks said:

You just have to look at the Hibs forums and social media to see the dangers tbh Dave . Easily more than 75 % thinking this is and was a good deal ………….. If some charlatan came along and tried the same shit with us , I could not see 90 % being taken in by this sort of nonsense . If it wa 75 % I would worry a little

I do see what you mean. But your example is for a Vlad/Foley type of thing - and we've been down that road before.

A different example might be if James Anderson or Ann Budge had rich contacts who they believed were benign investors with a more attractive model to benefit Hearts ability to challenge the OF - it just involved purchasing (say) 20% of the club. . So despite it being recommended by our 2 wealthiest directors who had done due diligence on them, it needed FoH approval to sell some shares to these investors. Currently that needs a 90% vote - very unlikely to get it, imo.

The point I'm making is that 90% is high enough to stop a sale to a dodgy proposal, but its also high enough to prevent a sale to a much safer proposal.

Edited February 7 by Lone Striker

February 7

7 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

I do see what you mean. But your example is for a Vlad/Foley type of thing - and we've been down that road before.

A different example might be if James Anderson or Ann Budge had rich contacts who they believed were benign investors with a more attractive model to benefit Hearts ability to challenge the OF - it just involved purchasing (say) 20% of the club. . So despite it being recommended by our 2 wealthiest directors who had done due diligence on them, it needed FoH approval to sell some shares to these investors. Currently that needs a 90% vote - very unlikely to get it, imo.

The point I'm making is that 90% is high enough to stop a sale to a dodgy proposal, but its also high enough to prevent a sale to a much safer proposal.

In a situation like that , I would be relaxed because I know the likes of Gary Cowan would understand and explain such offers to the rest of us

It is scary how easily Hibs fans have been done over here

Edited February 7 by Sooks

February 7

1 hour ago, Sooks said:

In a situation like that , I would be relaxed because I know the likes of Gary Cowan would understand and explain such offers to the rest of us

It is scary how easily Hibs fans have been done over here

Most if not all of the Hibs support have no vote hence no choice but to blindly back this in the hope that it’s a good thing and not just some shady deal that could end in tears. This wouldn’t get remotely near getting past first base even with a 75% vote to pass it.

February 7

Quick like-for-like summary comparing Hearts to Hibs based on data in the 2023 financial reports (in thousands).

Edited February 7 by Sydney

February 7

13 minutes ago, Sydney said:

Quick like-for-like summary comparing Hearts to Hibs based on data in the 2023 financial reports (in thousands).

And our players are valued more (by transfermarkt)

February 7

15 hours ago, Sooks said:

In a situation like that , I would be relaxed because I know the likes of Gary Cowan would understand and explain such offers to the rest of us

It is scary how easily Hibs fans have been done over here

👍 Giving fans a full explanation of any external investment approach is essential, and with FoH having 2 reps on the club board I'd also be confident that they'd explain the pros and cons to us.

February 7

12 hours ago, Sydney said:

Quick like-for-like summary comparing Hearts to Hibs based on data in the 2023 financial reports (in thousands).

This highlights why living and dying by transfer fees each year in order to get by on low income, is a volatile and precarious sitaution for a club to find itself in.

We're doing the right thing by investing in long-term income streams.

February 7

14 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

👍 Giving fans a full explanation of any external investment approach is essential, and with FoH having 2 reps on the club board I'd also be confident that they'd explain the pros and cons to us.

He can speak for himself , but I would trust him to put the clubs interests first and his legal background gives me added confidence . We need to protect ourselves long term and a strong and potent FOH is a big part of that

February 8

Speaking of lowering thresholds down from 90%...

14.4 If the holders of not less than 80 per cent in nominal value of the Ordinary Shares then in issue (the “Accepting Shareholders”) have indicated in writing that they wish to accept the Qualifying Offer, then the provisions of this Article 14 (Drag Along) shall apply.

14.5 The Accepting Shareholders may give written notice (a “Drag Notice”) to the remaining Shareholders (the “Other Shareholders”) of their wish to accept the Qualifying Offer and each of the Other Shareholders shall thereupon become bound to accept the Qualifying Offer and to transfer the legal and beneficial interest in their Shares to the Offeror (or his nominee) with full title guarantee on the date specified by the Accepting Shareholders (the “Drag Completion Date”) by delivering to the Company on or before the Drag Completion Date:

14.5.1 the relevant share certificate(s) (or a suitable indemnity in lieu thereof) in respect of the Shares held by him;

14.5.2 a duly executed sale agreement or form of acceptance (in a form acceptable to the Accepting Shareholders) pursuant to which the Other Shareholders provide
representations and warranties as to title to and ownership of the Shares held by them; and

14.5.3 a duly executed form of transfer in respect of those Shares in favour of the Offeror (or its nominee),
and, if required by the Board, shall sign, execute and deliver such other documents as may reasonably be required to effect the transfer of any shares, debt instruments or other securities to the Offeror (or its nominee)."

With the footnotes stating:

"AG Note: our logic is to strike the right balance between being close, but not at, the 90% threshold in the Companies Act but with the benefit of a contractual drag mechanism and a slightly lower acceptance threshold than the Companies Act. 75% is too low for BKFE, given it will hold 25%. Burness: on reflection, if we are not going for the 90% threshold then 80% feels right to us so as to ensure we never require more than Bydand and BKFE"

February 8

5 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Speaking of lowering thresholds down from 90%...

14.4 If the holders of not less than 80 per cent in nominal value of the Ordinary Shares then in issue (the “Accepting Shareholders”) have indicated in writing that they wish to accept the Qualifying Offer, then the provisions of this Article 14 (Drag Along) shall apply.

14.5 The Accepting Shareholders may give written notice (a “Drag Notice”) to the remaining Shareholders (the “Other Shareholders”) of their wish to accept the Qualifying Offer and each of the Other Shareholders shall thereupon become bound to accept the Qualifying Offer and to transfer the legal and beneficial interest in their Shares to the Offeror (or his nominee) with full title guarantee on the date specified by the Accepting Shareholders (the “Drag Completion Date”) by delivering to the Company on or before the Drag Completion Date:

14.5.1 the relevant share certificate(s) (or a suitable indemnity in lieu thereof) in respect of the Shares held by him;

14.5.2 a duly executed sale agreement or form of acceptance (in a form acceptable to the Accepting Shareholders) pursuant to which the Other Shareholders provide
representations and warranties as to title to and ownership of the Shares held by them; and

14.5.3 a duly executed form of transfer in respect of those Shares in favour of the Offeror (or its nominee),
and, if required by the Board, shall sign, execute and deliver such other documents as may reasonably be required to effect the transfer of any shares, debt instruments or other securities to the Offeror (or its nominee)."

With the footnotes stating:

"AG Note: our logic is to strike the right balance between being close, but not at, the 90% threshold in the Companies Act but with the benefit of a contractual drag mechanism and a slightly lower acceptance threshold than the Companies Act. 75% is too low for BKFE, given it will hold 25%. Burness: on reflection, if we are not going for the 90% threshold then 80% feels right to us so as to ensure we never require more than Bydand and BKFE"

I read this as well . I am actually really surprised those comments at the end from the management were included in the public document . Surely any sensible Hibs supp………… actually , never mind

February 8

https://clip.cafe/lock-stock-two-smoking-barrels-1998/charles-get-the-rifle-out/

February 8

16 minutes ago, Sooks said:

I read this as well . I am actually really surprised those comments at the end from the management were included in the public document . Surely any sensible Hibs supp………… actually , never mind

Couple of them suggesting that it was left in by accident. Hibs 🤣

February 8

54 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Couple of them suggesting that it was left in by accident. Hibs 🤣

Honestly think the levels of obtuse and churlish mental gymnastics to justify this is incredible :lol:

They are literally using terms that they used to slag us for like “ owe it to ourselves “ and the like without a hint of irony :lol:

February 8

1 minute ago, Sooks said:

Honestly think the levels of obtuse and churlish mental gymnastics to justify this is incredible

They are literally using terms that they used to slag us for like “ owe it to ourselves “ and the like without a hint of irony

They wanted to make Debt for Equity swaps illegal year ago.

February 8

2 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

They wanted to make Debt for Equity swaps illegal year ago.

That too . It is like bizarro world in the DC comics :rofl:

February 8

2 hours ago, hughesie27 said:

Speaking of lowering thresholds down from 90%...

14.4 If the holders of not less than 80 per cent in nominal value of the Ordinary Shares then in issue (the “Accepting Shareholders”) have indicated in writing that they wish to accept the Qualifying Offer, then the provisions of this Article 14 (Drag Along) shall apply.

14.5 The Accepting Shareholders may give written notice (a “Drag Notice”) to the remaining Shareholders (the “Other Shareholders”) of their wish to accept the Qualifying Offer and each of the Other Shareholders shall thereupon become bound to accept the Qualifying Offer and to transfer the legal and beneficial interest in their Shares to the Offeror (or his nominee) with full title guarantee on the date specified by the Accepting Shareholders (the “Drag Completion Date”) by delivering to the Company on or before the Drag Completion Date:

14.5.1 the relevant share certificate(s) (or a suitable indemnity in lieu thereof) in respect of the Shares held by him;

14.5.2 a duly executed sale agreement or form of acceptance (in a form acceptable to the Accepting Shareholders) pursuant to which the Other Shareholders provide
representations and warranties as to title to and ownership of the Shares held by them; and

14.5.3 a duly executed form of transfer in respect of those Shares in favour of the Offeror (or its nominee),
and, if required by the Board, shall sign, execute and deliver such other documents as may reasonably be required to effect the transfer of any shares, debt instruments or other securities to the Offeror (or its nominee)."

With the footnotes stating:

"AG Note: our logic is to strike the right balance between being close, but not at, the 90% threshold in the Companies Act but with the benefit of a contractual drag mechanism and a slightly lower acceptance threshold than the Companies Act. 75% is too low for BKFE, given it will hold 25%. Burness: on reflection, if we are not going for the 90% threshold then 80% feels right to us so as to ensure we never require more than Bydand and BKFE"

Do you have a link to the share proposal?

February 8

17 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Do you have a link to the share proposal?

I dont as I got it from .net but apparently available on the hibs website. Somewhere.

February 8

1 minute ago, hughesie27 said:

I dont as I got it from .net but apparently available on the hibs website. Somewhere.

OK ta. I'll have a look.

February 8

20 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Do you have a link to the share proposal?

Too big a file to send on here . I have tried

February 8

16 minutes ago, Sooks said:

Too big a file to send on here . I have tried

Got it thanks. Looks like it was from their proposed Articles of Association - Private Equity/Venture Capital.

https://d3tepru76oevpi.cloudfront.net/production/Articles-of-Association.pdf

I'll have a read and try and understand the changes that they are proposing re thresholds.

Edited February 8 by Footballfirst

February 8

3 hours ago, hughesie27 said:

Speaking of lowering thresholds down from 90%...

14.4 If the holders of not less than 80 per cent in nominal value of the Ordinary Shares then in issue (the “Accepting Shareholders”) have indicated in writing that they wish to accept the Qualifying Offer, then the provisions of this Article 14 (Drag Along) shall apply.

14.5 The Accepting Shareholders may give written notice (a “Drag Notice”) to the remaining Shareholders (the “Other Shareholders”) of their wish to accept the Qualifying Offer and each of the Other Shareholders shall thereupon become bound to accept the Qualifying Offer and to transfer the legal and beneficial interest in their Shares to the Offeror (or his nominee) with full title guarantee on the date specified by the Accepting Shareholders (the “Drag Completion Date”) by delivering to the Company on or before the Drag Completion Date:

14.5.1 the relevant share certificate(s) (or a suitable indemnity in lieu thereof) in respect of the Shares held by him;

14.5.2 a duly executed sale agreement or form of acceptance (in a form acceptable to the Accepting Shareholders) pursuant to which the Other Shareholders provide
representations and warranties as to title to and ownership of the Shares held by them; and

14.5.3 a duly executed form of transfer in respect of those Shares in favour of the Offeror (or its nominee),
and, if required by the Board, shall sign, execute and deliver such other documents as may reasonably be required to effect the transfer of any shares, debt instruments or other securities to the Offeror (or its nominee)."

With the footnotes stating:

"AG Note: our logic is to strike the right balance between being close, but not at, the 90% threshold in the Companies Act but with the benefit of a contractual drag mechanism and a slightly lower acceptance threshold than the Companies Act. 75% is too low for BKFE, given it will hold 25%. Burness: on reflection, if we are not going for the 90% threshold then 80% feels right to us so as to ensure we never require more than Bydand and BKFE"

Now I've had a quick skim over the proposed changes, it looks dodgy as hell. It seeks to marginalise the small shareholders as well as the two more significant holdings of Leslie Robb (10%) and HSL (15.4%), should a new buyer or entity come along seeking total ownership.

Assuming the share issue goes ahead, Robb will be diluted to 4.45% and HSL to 6.85%.

Bydand will hold 60.4%, and the Black Knights 25%.

If someone wishes to takeover a company, an offer has to be made to all shareholders. Accourding to the Companies Act, should the buyer get acceptances from 90% of the shareholders, then the remaining shareholders can be forced to sell their shares to the buyer. Ann Budge had the opportunity to do just that to Hearts shareholders when she controlled over 92% of the club, but chose not to.

The proposed changes to the Hibs AoA seeks to reduce that threshold to 80%, which means that if Bydand and the Black Knights jointly agree to sell their shares to a 3rd party, that would give the buyer 85.4% and the right to force all other shareholders to sell up. If the 90% threshold remained then a combination of Robb and HSL, or one of them in combination with smaller shareholders could block the forced sale of their shares, although not the takeover itself.

Robb and HSL together have the ability to stop this in its tracks, if they want to, as they still control 25.4% of the current shares issued, so can vote down the resolution at the forthcoming AGM.

The Companies Act thresholds do make sense.

February 8

6 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Now I've had a quick skim over the proposed changes, it looks dodgy as hell. It seeks to marginalise the small shareholders as well as the two more significant holdings of Leslie Robb (10%) and HSL (15.4%), should a new buyer or entity come along seeking total ownership.

Assuming the share issue goes ahead, Robb will be diluted to 4.45% and HSL to 6.85%.

Bydand will hold 60.4%, and the Black Knights 25%.

If someone wishes to takeover a company, an offer has to be made to all shareholders. Accourding to the Companies Act, should the buyer get acceptances from 90% of the shareholders, then the remaining shareholders can be forced to sell their shares to the buyer. Ann Budge had the opportunity to do just that to Hearts shareholders when she controlled over 92% of the club, but chose not to.

The proposed changes to the Hibs AoA seeks to reduce that threshold to 80%, which means that if Bydand and the Black Knights jointly agree to sell their shares to a 3rd party, that would give the buyer 85.4% and the right to force all other shareholders to sell up. If the 90% threshold remained then a combination of Robb and HSL, or one of them in combination with smaller shareholders could block the forced sale of their shares, although not the takeover itself.

Robb and HSL together have the ability to stop this in its tracks, if they want to, as they still control 25.4% of the current shares issued, so can vote down the resolution at the forthcoming AGM.

The Companies Act thresholds do make sense.

Chance that Foley is planning on taking full control (via a 3rd party) in the near future?

February 8

12 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Chance that Foley is planning on taking full control (via a 3rd party) in the near future?

When it was first leaked that this was happening it was generally understood to be leading to a full takeover . That little detail has just dropped off the reporting and comments completely now

February 8

12 minutes ago, Sooks said:

When it was first leaked that this was happening it was generally understood to be leading to a full takeover . That little detail has just dropped off the reporting and comments completely now

I concur.

February 8

21 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Chance that Foley is planning on taking full control (via a 3rd party) in the near future?

29 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Now I've had a quick skim over the proposed changes, it looks dodgy as hell. It seeks to marginalise the small shareholders as well as the two more significant holdings of Leslie Robb (10%) and HSL (15.4%), should a new buyer or entity come along seeking total ownership.

Assuming the share issue goes ahead, Robb will be diluted to 4.45% and HSL to 6.85%.

Bydand will hold 60.4%, and the Black Knights 25%.

If someone wishes to takeover a company, an offer has to be made to all shareholders. Accourding to the Companies Act, should the buyer get acceptances from 90% of the shareholders, then the remaining shareholders can be forced to sell their shares to the buyer. Ann Budge had the opportunity to do just that to Hearts shareholders when she controlled over 92% of the club, but chose not to.

The proposed changes to the Hibs AoA seeks to reduce that threshold to 80%, which means that if Bydand and the Black Knights jointly agree to sell their shares to a 3rd party, that would give the buyer 85.4% and the right to force all other shareholders to sell up. If the 90% threshold remained then a combination of Robb and HSL, or one of them in combination with smaller shareholders could block the forced sale of their shares, although not the takeover itself.

Robb and HSL together have the ability to stop this in its tracks, if they want to, as they still control 25.4% of the current shares issued, so can vote down the resolution at the forthcoming AGM.

The Companies Act thresholds do make sense.

Wheest man, you are highlighting, I am presuming you aren't worried, issues that mean nothing. Cropleyisgod and other luminaries on .net are already confident their club is £11.5m better off and that they will be holding a warchest of millions in the summer.

The dilution of their own supporters holdings doesn't worry them, not the possibility that they are at the behest of owners who have no support history of that club because they are borrowing from themselves (mm, that sounds faintly familiar).

If anything goes wrong, then they only have to look in a mirror to see those responsible.

February 8

1 minute ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Wheest man, you are highlighting, I am presuming you aren't worried, issues that mean nothing. Cropleyisgod and other luminaries on .net are already confident their club is £11.5m better off and that they will be holding a warchest of millions in the summer.

The dilution of their own supporters holdings doesn't worry them, not the possibility that they are at the behest of owners who have no support history of that club because they are borrowing from themselves (mm, that sounds faintly familiar).

If anything goes wrong, then they only have to look in a mirror to see those responsible.

TBF they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Vote for the resolution and they at least get a sniff of new investment, before the whole shebang is sold off with an uncertain future.

Vote against the resolution, no investment, continuing losses, £5.75m debts called in, Bydand sells up or goes down the admin route to call in their securities (Easter Road and East Mains).

February 8

11 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

TBF they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Vote for the resolution and they at least get a sniff of new investment, before the whole shebang is sold off with an uncertain future.

Vote against the resolution, no investment, continuing losses, £5.75m debts called in, Bydand sells up or goes down the admin route to call in their securities (Easter Road and East Mains).

The £5.75 million is the figure that the Gordons originally said they would be putting in to the club . It has mostly been spent on infrastructure . Black Knights are now putting six million in and they say this is going to infrastructure ............. Is it not the case that perhaps the six million from Foley is going to the Gordons and to cover the loans that they used to improve infrastructure ? It is always this same six million figure getting bandied about

February 8

9 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

TBF they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Vote for the resolution and they at least get a sniff of new investment, before the whole shebang is sold off with an uncertain future.

Vote against the resolution, no investment, continuing losses, £5.75m debts called in, Bydand sells up or goes down the admin route to call in their securities (Easter Road and East Mains).

They could live within their means whilst contributing to a vibrant and successful Hibs share movement whereby they donate monthly together and buy a majority holding of shares. I mean, they keep stating they're a huge club so they must have massive amount of supporters they can tso into. You'd have to be really pessimistic to think a support who boast of The Proclaimers, Fish, Paul Kane, Dougray Scott and Irving Welsh would be able to muster up a scheme they could all get behind.

February 8

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

Now I've had a quick skim over the proposed changes, it looks dodgy as hell. It seeks to marginalise the small shareholders as well as the two more significant holdings of Leslie Robb (10%) and HSL (15.4%), should a new buyer or entity come along seeking total ownership.

Assuming the share issue goes ahead, Robb will be diluted to 4.45% and HSL to 6.85%.

Bydand will hold 60.4%, and the Black Knights 25%.

If someone wishes to takeover a company, an offer has to be made to all shareholders. Accourding to the Companies Act, should the buyer get acceptances from 90% of the shareholders, then the remaining shareholders can be forced to sell their shares to the buyer. Ann Budge had the opportunity to do just that to Hearts shareholders when she controlled over 92% of the club, but chose not to.

The proposed changes to the Hibs AoA seeks to reduce that threshold to 80%, which means that if Bydand and the Black Knights jointly agree to sell their shares to a 3rd party, that would give the buyer 85.4% and the right to force all other shareholders to sell up. If the 90% threshold remained then a combination of Robb and HSL, or one of them in combination with smaller shareholders could block the forced sale of their shares, although not the takeover itself.

Robb and HSL together have the ability to stop this in its tracks, if they want to, as they still control 25.4% of the current shares issued, so can vote down the resolution at the forthcoming AGM.

The Companies Act thresholds do make sense.

Yes, I mentioned this earlier that this will take Bydand and BK to over 80% and as Robb seems to be close to Bydand https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SO307675/officers then the possibility of a third party buying all three shareholdings to get over 90% seems quite possible. That would scare me a lot and when Romanov went along similar lines we know where that left us....

Edited February 8 by scott herbertson

February 8

4 minutes ago, Sooks said:

The £5.75 million is the figure that the Gordons originally said they would be putting in to the club . It has mostly been spent on infrastructure . Black Knights are now putting six million in and they say this is going to infrastructure ............. Is it not the case that perhaps the six million from Foley is going to the Gordons and to cover the loans that they used to improve infrastructure ? It is always this same six million figure getting bandied about

I doubt that would be the case. They wouldn't need to do the debt for equity swap for that.

February 8

1 minute ago, scott herbertson said:

Yes, I mentioned this earlier that this will take Bydand and BK to over 80% and as Robb seems to be close to Bydand https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SO307675/officers then the possibility of a third pary buying all three shareholdings to get over 90% seems quite possible. That would scare me a lot and when Romanov went along similar lines we know where that left us....

The cautious dissenting voices are but a whisper and the majority of them are applauding the republic becoming an empire

February 8

1 minute ago, hughesie27 said:

I doubt that would be the case. They wouldn't need to do the debt for equity swap for that.

I am not buying it . If something looks like a coincidence then most of the time it is is not

February 8

On 06/02/2024 at 22:40, Sooks said:

You just have to look at the Hibs forums and social media to see the dangers tbh Dave . Easily more than 75 % thinking this is and was a good deal ………….. If some charlatan came along and tried the same shit with us , I could not see 90 % being taken in by this sort of nonsense . If it wa 75 % I would worry a little

Which is why the majority, after considering this, took that option. The correct one, then and currently, IMO.

February 8

1 minute ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

Which is why the majority, after considering this, took that option. The correct one, then and currently, IMO.

Not a majority - a big enough minority (which included me)

February 8

9 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

Not a majority - a big enough minority (which included me)

Yes, fair point. I do wish turnout had been higher also.

Edited February 8 by pettigrewsstylist

February 8

10 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

Not a majority - a big enough minority (which included me)

9 minutes ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

Yes, fair point.

And I

FoH 90% is VERY important

Recommended Posts

davemclaren

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

davemclaren

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sooks

Link to comment

Share on other sites

davemclaren

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sooks

Link to comment

Share on other sites

davemclaren

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sooks

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Footballfirst

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Lone Striker

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sooks

Link to comment

Share on other sites

stevie1874

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sydney

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sydney

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Lone Striker

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Shooter McGavin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sooks

Link to comment

Share on other sites

hughesie27

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sooks

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sooks

Link to comment

Share on other sites

hughesie27

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sooks

Link to comment

Share on other sites

hughesie27

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sooks

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Footballfirst

Link to comment

Share on other sites

hughesie27