G10 letter to the Council

[Coco]

We've been in that much debt for ages - even going up to the Prem for a year made no difference! The reason's because we've invested so much in real estate - meaning attendances of 25,000 (good), but being up to our eyeballs in debt and interest payments (bad). When Peter Cullum tried and failed to takeover a few weeks ago, the truth of the matter emerged: Delia's deliberately dug her heels in and, through such a strategy, made it incredibly unlikely that anyone'll buy her out. Because what was the price the club demanded from Cullum? Thanks to the debt, a ludicrous ?56m.

 

As for our plan - it's, um, to 'be smarter' than the competition, apparently. This must explain the decision to give Gary Doherty a new contract - because I'm buggered if I can see the reasons why! Roeder could've kept Hucks on had he so wished, but having spoken to fans of other clubs he's managed (sic), he seems to have a major inferiority complex viz. flair players, so Huckerby was ushered out of the door in a manner that shamed the whole club. The fans weren't even told our final game of last season at Hillsborough was to be his as well: so it became a grand 'Farewell to Dion' day, and poor old Hucks wasn't given the same courtesy. It was appalling.

 

Hmmm stadium development doesn't lead to more cash for players but instead leads to increased debt shocker;)

[Gigolo-Aunt]

We've been in that much debt for ages - even going up to the Prem for a year made no difference! The reason's because we've invested so much in real estate - meaning attendances of 25,000 (good), but being up to our eyeballs in debt and interest payments (bad). When Peter Cullum tried and failed to takeover a few weeks ago, the truth of the matter emerged: Delia's deliberately dug her heels in and, through such a strategy, made it incredibly unlikely that anyone'll buy her out. Because what was the price the club demanded from Cullum? Thanks to the debt, a ludicrous ?56m.

 

As for our plan - it's, um, to 'be smarter' than the competition, apparently. This must explain the decision to give Gary Doherty a new contract - because I'm buggered if I can see the reasons why! Roeder could've kept Hucks on had he so wished, but having spoken to fans of other clubs he's managed (sic), he seems to have a major inferiority complex viz. flair players, so Huckerby was ushered out of the door in a manner that shamed the whole club. The fans weren't even told our final game of last season at Hillsborough was to be his as well: so it became a grand 'Farewell to Dion' day, and poor old Hucks wasn't given the same courtesy. It was appalling.

 

 

 

Cheers, rough times ahead for the cannaries. Never rated Roeder either TBH.

 

Good luck for the new season, think both clubs are going to need it!

[Cade]

Dear Council

 

Pull your finger out yer erse and approve it smartish.

 

HMFC

[shaun.lawson]

Cheers, rough times ahead for the cannaries. Never rated Roeder either TBH.

 

Good luck for the new season, think both clubs are going to need it!

 

I think you'll be better than us, to be honest. I've got us down for an unhappy 16th or so; Wednesday for a surprising 9th. Also have Birmingham, Sheff Utd (sorry!) and QPR going up; and Barnsley, Blackpool and Southampton heading in the opposite direction.

[Therapist]

Am i the only person who isn't that keen on a ?51M new stand?!

 

Don't worry mate. We've got 400,000 fans and 25,000 active members of four supporters groups so we'll fill it easily and make a shed load of money. With that sort of backing, I'm just disappointed we don't be slightly more ambitious and build something the size of the Camp Nou.

[shaun.lawson]

Hmmm stadium development doesn't lead to more cash for players but instead leads to increased debt shocker;)

 

Exactly. Guess why Man City ended up in a position whereby they were desperate for Shinawatra to buy them out? Because they'd securitised the building of Eastlands (done in conjunction with Manchester City Council) against 50 years of ST sales, which had started dropping.

[Coco]

Exactly. Guess why Man City ended up in a position whereby they were desperate for Shinawatra to buy them out? Because they'd securitised the building of Eastlands (done in conjunction with Manchester City Council) against 50 years of ST sales, which had started dropping.

 

Our proposed development at this point is absolutely bonkers.

[shaun.lawson]

Our proposed development at this point is absolutely bonkers.

 

I concur. One Kickbacker, who'd previously been right on the happy train, and believed Vlad was getting it tight from everyone just because he was ruthless and doing things differently, did a complete about-turn the moment our plans were publicised. Because they are bonkers - and scary too.

[Pants Shaton]

If the plans are bonkers they won't get funded.

 

If they are realistic they will.

[Therapist]

Can we get back to my original question?

 

Is anyone going to stick their head above the parapet and defend these numbers?

[shaun.lawson]

If the plans are bonkers they won't get funded.

 

If they are realistic they will.

 

From my point of view, ?51m debt on top of our already substantial debt is terrifying; I'm less than persuaded of the ability of the proposed hotel to do that well in the prevailing financial climate, and in the part of Edinburgh it'll be located in; and I found Pedro Lopez' arguments regarding us being able to pay the debt off over 20 years or so to be deeply unconvincing. Though I, of course, am no expert on this.

[Pants Shaton]

Can we get back to my original question?

 

Is anyone going to stick their head above the parapet and defend these numbers?

 

How many of Edinburgh's 448,624 residents do you think are Hearts sympathisers. That is, would welcome a prospering HMFC?

[shaun.lawson]

How many of Edinburgh's 448,624 residents do you think are Hearts sympathisers. That is, would welcome a prospering HMFC?

 

How many of those are rugby fans, and how many football fans? Or is that old chestnut about Edinburgh being a rugby city just a stereotype?

[scott herbertson]

Can we get back to my original question?

 

Is anyone going to stick their head above the parapet and defend these numbers?

 

I don't see the problem with the supporters organisations using these figures - after all, the club does

 

http://www.heartsfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/AdvertisingDetail/0,,10289,00.html

 

Personally, I wouldn't have put it in the letter (and left that bit out of my suggested paraphrasing for individual letters) , because the important figures for planning applications are those who live nearby, will be affected by environmental/ transport issues or may gain employment as a result of the scheme. The figure used comes from an independent survey but is of support across the whole of Britain (and was conducted IIRC dutring the mass euphoria and Britainwide media coverage of the Romanov/Burley era) and has little relevance to the planning application.

 

As I have suggested above it is more important that Hearts fans who live in the Gorgie area write in as individuals in support of the scheme. Those who live locally and who are willing to write their opinions of the economic, cultural and social benefits to the Gorgie area would be particularly beneficial.

[Therapist]

How many of those are rugby fans, and how many football fans? Or is that old chestnut about Edinburgh being a rugby city just a stereotype?

 

Can't believe I'm saying this, but spot on Shaun.

 

Further, and as GMan knows, we're not talking about sympathisers, we're talking about fans. People who would spend money on the club.

[chester copperpot]

Can't believe I'm saying this, but spot on Shaun.

 

Further, and as GMan knows, we're not talking about sympathisers, we're talking about fans. People who would spend money on the club.

 

 

 

If thats the case T, we're looking at 11K tops, plus some of the hangers on'ers.

[Therapist]

I don't see the problem with the supporters organisations using these figures - after all, the club does

 

Even in the Burley euphoria era, the 400,000 is quite plainly ridiculous. The survey was based on just 5310 respondents covering the whole of Britain.

 

But let's put that to one side. Although it's stupid at least it came from an independent source.

 

How did the signatories arrive at the 25,000 figure?

[magicTs]

How many of those are rugby fans, and how many football fans? Or is that old chestnut about Edinburgh being a rugby city just a stereotype?

 

I wouldn't say it is a rugby city by any means. You only need to look at the crappy crowds that Edinburgh get nevermind the one man and his dog at the club matches. However I would say Edinburgh, especially for a capital city is a god awful city for sport in general.

 

The two football clubs are constantly in turmoil, Meadowbank and The Commonwealth Pool are way past their best, the ice hockey team went by the way side as did the basketball team and we lost the greyhound track and furthermore the speedway.

 

Pathetic state of affairs when you think about it.

 

PS. For what it's worth the 400k figure is a complete farce. I know for a FACT I was on the list at least 4 times so I'd imagine many more people have been 'duplicated' !!

[Therapist]

If thats the case T, we're looking at 11K tops, plus some of the hangers on'ers.

 

Exactly.

[chester copperpot]

Exactly.

 

 

 

So best we dont build it, however I think Mr Romanov's got bigger plans for us. Think this may be shelved until the economy comes out the crunch though.

[loveofthegame]

From my point of view, ?51m debt on top of our already substantial debt is terrifying; I'm less than persuaded of the ability of the proposed hotel to do that well in the prevailing financial climate, and in the part of Edinburgh it'll be located in; and I found Pedro Lopez' arguments regarding us being able to pay the debt off over 20 years or so to be deeply unconvincing. Though I, of course, am no expert on this.

 

My thoughts exactly.

[Therapist]

So best we dont build it, however I think Mr Romanov's got bigger plans for us. Think this may be shelved until the economy comes out the crunch though.

 

If you build it they* will come.

 

 

 

 

 

* The 400,000

[Pants Shaton]

If thats the case T, we're looking at 11K tops, plus some of the hangers on'ers.

 

But that's conditional isn't it?

 

2004/2005 - less than 10,000 ST (8000/9000 ?)

 

2005/2006 - 13,500 ST + 6,000 waiting list

 

2006/2007 - 13,500 ST

 

2007/2008 - 11,000 ST

 

If the success of 05/06 had been maintained (or just not quite so spectacularly collapsed), we could have had average crowds in excess of 20,000 (if we had a stadium to accommodate that number).

 

Relatively modest success and our ST sales increased 50%.

 

The corollary is the collapse in support of both Rangers and Celtic during their lean years (by only their standards). Celtic averaging 18,000 in the early 1990s and Rangers, even less, in the early 1980s.

 

The club are to been applauded in their attempts to indoctrinate kids at an early age through their magnificent 7s campaign. What has worked for organised religion in keeping their numbers up may yet work for HMFC. Although in the case of religion they also have the threat of eternal suffering for those who don't follow them - with Hearts it's the opposite.

[scott herbertson]

Even in the Burley euphoria era, the 400,000 is quite plainly ridiculous. The survey was based on just 5310 respondents covering the whole of Britain.

 

But let's put that to one side. Although it's stupid at least it came from an independent source.

 

How did the signatories arrive at the 25,000 figure?

 

 

I've no idea. I only know that the 400,000 figure is handy for the club to use, when it wants to promote the idea of expansion of the stadium and it does use it. So 'rubbishing' it seems a counter-productive thing for Hearts fans to do?

 

 

If I had to hazard a guess, the 25,000 might be the number of Hearts fans registered on the club web site, but you'd have to ask one of the G10 organisations to explain it.

[shaun.lawson]

I wouldn't say it is a rugby city by any means. You only need to look at the crappy crowds that Edinburgh get nevermind the one man and his dog at the club matches. However I would say Edinburgh, especially for a capital city is a god awful city for sport in general.

 

The two football clubs are constantly in turmoil, Meadowbank and The Commonwealth Pool are way past their best, the ice hockey team went by the way side as did the basketball team and we lost the greyhound track and furthermore the speedway.

 

Pathetic state of affairs when you think about it.

 

PS. For what it's worth the 400k figure is a complete farce. I know for a FACT I was on the list at least 4 times so I'd imagine many more people have been 'duplicated' !!

 

Interesting, thanks for that. On Edinburgh's dire sporting record: how much would you say that's down to it being a city geared towards tourism and based on history, rather than, say, either a market town or industrial-based city?

[shaun.lawson]

But that's conditional isn't it?

 

2004/2005 - less than 10,000 ST (8000/9000 ?)

 

2005/2006 - 13,500 ST + 6,000 waiting list

 

2006/2007 - 13,500 ST

 

2007/2008 - 11,000 ST

 

If the success of 05/06 had been maintained (or just not quite so spectacularly collapsed), we could have had average crowds in excess of 20,000 (if we had a stadium to accommodate that number).

 

Relatively modest success and our ST sales increased 50%.

 

The corollary is the collapse in support of both Rangers and Celtic during their lean years (by only their standards). Celtic averaging 18,000 in the early 1990s and Rangers, even less, in the early 1980s.

 

The club are to been applauded in their attempts to indoctrinate kids at an early age through their magnificent 7s campaign. What has worked for organised religion in keeping their numbers up may yet work for HMFC. Although in the case of religion they also have the threat of eternal suffering for those who don't follow them - with Hearts it's the opposite.

 

Agree about the Magnificent Seven scheme. To my mind though, if you ask me how many genuine fans Hearts have, I'd answer about 15,000. I believe this could ultimately be pushed up to 20 or possibly 25,000 in the next couple of generations, but that's it - and anything more is pie in a very risky sky.

[mickmaroon]

Although in the case of religion they also have the threat of eternal suffering for those who don't follow them - with Hearts it's the opposite.

 

 

Quote of the day GMAN!

[chester copperpot]

But that's conditional isn't it?

 

2004/2005 - less than 10,000 ST (8000/9000 ?)

 

2005/2006 - 13,500 ST + 6,000 waiting list

 

2006/2007 - 13,500 ST

 

2007/2008 - 11,000 ST

 

If the success of 05/06 had been maintained (or just not quite so spectacularly collapsed), we could have had average crowds in excess of 20,000 (if we had a stadium to accommodate that number).

 

Relatively modest success and our ST sales increased 50%.

 

The corollary is the collapse in support of both Rangers and Celtic during their lean years (by only their standards). Celtic averaging 18,000 in the early 1990s and Rangers, even less, in the early 1980s.

 

The club are to been applauded in their attempts to indoctrinate kids at an early age through their magnificent 7s campaign. What has worked for organised religion in keeping their numbers up may yet work for HMFC. Although in the case of religion they also have the threat of eternal suffering for those who don't follow them - with Hearts it's the opposite.

 

 

 

G I was being a smart arse mate, without much success as usual.

[Carl Spackler]

The G10's endorsement of the project is interesting because it puts on record that the bodies representing Hearts fans would like it to happen and that they support Romanov's plans.

 

The proposal is therefore a proposal by Hearts full stop and not Romanov on his own.

 

The decision on whether Hearts would be willing to contribute to the trams or any other upgrading to roads or public transport etc need not hold up approving the application. The application could be approved subject to these "contributions" being agreed. Of course these things will probably be being negotiated just now.

[Charlie-Brown]

I know probably about twice as many 'lapsed' Hearts supporters as those I know who currently attend - these were people who went week in week out or at least to most home matches regularly in years gone by - some of these people have younger family who are now Hearts minded but are not regulars in most cases - a decent percentage of these people could be attracted back in a bigger stadium, better facilities, better team, easier to get tickets etc.

[magicTs]

I know probably about twice as many 'lapsed' Hearts supporters as those I know who currently attend - these were people who went week in week out or at least to most home matches regularly in years gone by - some of these people have younger family who are now Hearts minded but are not regulars in most cases - a decent percentage of these people could be attracted back in a bigger stadium, better facilities, better team, easier to get tickets etc.

 

I agree with that with the one in maroon being the most important.

[Therapist]

the 400,000 figure is handy for the club to use when it wants to promote the idea of expansion of the stadium and it does use it. So 'rubbishing' it seems a counter-productive thing for Hearts fans to do?

 

I'm not sure they have used it as justification to expand the stadium. As for me "rubbishing" claims, there's no point in writing a letter if it's laughable. Before I put my name to it, I'd be asking two things....

 

1. Does including numbers in the letter add anything to the argument?

 

2. Can the numbers be justified?

 

You hit the nail on the head when you said the focus should have been on the regeneration of Gorgie/Dalry, amenity value etc, even for non-Hearts supporters. The inclusion of spurious numbers will just make the council think they've got a letter from a bunch of rabid dimwits, and it therefore has no value.

 

the 25,000 might be the number of Hearts fans registered on the club web site

 

It's not that and you know it. The claim in the letter was quite clear. The four organisations quoted say they have 25,000 active members. This is yet more nonsense that undermines the argument and embarrasses all Hearts supporters.

[Le Chat]

Interesting, thanks for that. On Edinburgh's dire sporting record: how much would you say that's down to it being a city geared towards tourism and based on history, rather than, say, either a market town or industrial-based city?

 

Edinburgh is a financial & touristy city rather than an industrial city.

 

By far the biggest employers in Edinburgh are the likes of the Civil Service, Standard Life, HBoS and RBS.

 

Too many arty-farty types in Edinburgh that think football is a game for the 'working class' and therefore beneath them I'm afraid.

 

Cities like Glasgow or Liverpool etc will always support their football teams in greater numbers just because of the type of folk who work in heavy industry.

[shaun.lawson]

Edinburgh is a financial & touristy city rather than an industrial city.

 

By far the biggest employers in Edinburgh are the likes of the Civil Service, Standard Life, HBoS and RBS.

 

Too many arty-farty types in Edinburgh that think football is a game for the 'working class' and therefore beneath them I'm afraid.

 

Cities like Glasgow or Liverpool etc will always support their football teams in greater numbers just because of the type of folk who work in heavy industry.

 

That's what I thought. It's a shame, but it's the way it is, and also why the quality of life in much of Edinburgh is so good compared to places dependent or formerly dependent on heavy industry I guess.

[Pants Shaton]

Edinburgh is a financial & touristy city rather than an industrial city.

 

By far the biggest employers in Edinburgh are the likes of the Civil Service, Standard Life, HBoS and RBS.

 

Too many arty-farty types in Edinburgh that think football is a game for the 'working class' and therefore beneath them I'm afraid.

 

Cities like Glasgow or Liverpool etc will always support their football teams in greater numbers just because of the type of folk who work in heavy industry.

 

The football supporter demographic is changing. The working class is disappearing and being replaced by an extended lower middle class and an underclass (******, neds, hobos). Football is an expensive hobby these days. Affluent Edinburgh may be its new heartland. What what.

[scott herbertson]

I'm not sure they have used it as justification to expand the stadium. As for me "rubbishing" claims, there's no point in writing a letter if it's laughable. Before I put my name to it, I'd be asking two things....

 

1. Does including numbers in the letter add anything to the argument?

 

2. Can the numbers be justified?

 

You hit the nail on the head when you said the focus should have been on the regeneration of Gorgie/Dalry, amenity value etc, even for non-Hearts supporters. The inclusion of spurious numbers will just make the council think they've got a letter from a bunch of rabid dimwits, and it therefore has no value.

 

 

 

It's not that and you know it. The claim in the letter was quite clear. The four organisations quoted say they have 25,000 active members. This is yet more nonsense that undermines the argument and embarrasses all Hearts supporters.

 

 

Actually I didn't know it. I was rushing around multitasking (gardening, making spag bol for the kids, playing chess and reading this) and didn't bother to check back. My mistake and so my guess wasn't right - you'll have to ask them.

 

Re the first point I don't think the letter is 'laughable' - the 400,000 has been used by the club (and if my memory is right it was used in the supporting statements for the expansion) Our own siuporters laughing at it isn't oing to help Hearts in their case , even if it is a dubious statistic.

 

You're not bieng asked to put your name to it, and nor am I. If you check the suggested abridgement i made above, if I lived in the immediate vicinity of the club I would be writing something along these lines and tyou will notice it contains no numbers.

[PTBCAL]

Why would Lopez deliberately hold up the process for planning permission PTBAL ?

Infact I think he is quite right to take his time ,looking into any sneaky back handedness from Edinburgh Council in trying to get HMFC to pay for a tram stop which would be there anyway !

Infact how far will the tram stop actually be from Tynecastle it must be at least a quarter of a mile walk from the stadium .

I WILL WAIT & BUILD IT THEY WILL COME !

 

What I understand is that he council wrote to Hearts (in the spring) requesting some extra time to allow them to make a decison and in doing so wanted some answers to questions that need answered prior to any decision being made. (I have no idea what the questions were but I know there were outstanding issues re tram payments and the triage agreement between Hearts/Council/Diaego (sp).

 

As of last week I was told that the council were getting fed up with the non communication coming from the club.

[scott herbertson]

That's what I thought. It's a shame, but it's the way it is, and also why the quality of life in much of Edinburgh is so good compared to places dependent or formerly dependent on heavy industry I guess.

 

Where I live (South West London is not only a hugely affluent area, it is 90% Chelsea fans.

 

The divide roughly into four groups

 

1. Working class used to go can't afford it watch on telly (still buy strips and shout "Come on my Chels!" at the pub telly

 

2. Working class who have made it to middle class and kept their season tickets going (good guys in my experience)

 

3. Combat 18/loyalist neds - not many of them but enough to cause trouble on away trips

 

4. prawn sandwiches johnny come latelys who started oing when they got rich in the 80's

 

Chelsea only need category 4 now, sadly.

[pivotno1]

surely the letter cant have done any harm,fair enough the fan figures are a bit over the top,but whats the matter with you lot,at least they are trying to do something to aid the clubs bid for a new stand.

[Guest]

We've been in that much debt for ages - even going up to the Prem for a year made no difference! The reason's because we've invested so much in real estate - meaning attendances of 25,000 (good), but being up to our eyeballs in debt and interest payments (bad). When Peter Cullum tried and failed to takeover a few weeks ago, the truth of the matter emerged: Delia's deliberately dug her heels in and, through such a strategy, made it incredibly unlikely that anyone'll buy her out. Because what was the price the club demanded from Cullum? Thanks to the debt, a ludicrous ?56m.

 

As for our plan - it's, um, to 'be smarter' than the competition, apparently. This must explain the decision to give Gary Doherty a new contract - because I'm buggered if I can see the reasons why! Roeder could've kept Hucks on had he so wished, but having spoken to fans of other clubs he's managed (sic), he seems to have a major inferiority complex viz. flair players, so Huckerby was ushered out of the door in a manner that shamed the whole club. The fans weren't even told our final game of last season at Hillsborough was to be his as well: so it became a grand 'Farewell to Dion' day, and poor old Hucks wasn't given the same courtesy. It was appalling.

 

Sorry for taking this off topic,

 

I appreciate that its a fans dream to have a billionaire fan and former youth player wanting to take control of your club, but the way I saw it he was trying to buy Norwich on the cheap and still gain full control.

 

He's minted, determined, doesn't like to lose and will be retired in the next few years. I reckon he'll be back to Norwich City sometime within the next 5 years.

[shaun.lawson]

Sorry for taking this off topic,

 

I appreciate that its a fans dream to have a billionaire fan and former youth player wanting to take control of your club, but the way I saw it he was trying to buy Norwich on the cheap and still gain full control.

 

He's minted, determined, doesn't like to lose and will be retired in the next few years. I reckon he'll be back to Norwich City sometime within the next 5 years.

 

I think he'll be back if (when?) things go pear shaped this season - the pressure on Delia to come to some sort of deal would be immense if we were in danger of relegation. I agree with you, by the way: but think his starting price of ?20m was a negotiating position, and overall, was more persuaded by his case than Delia's. She's always insisted she'd walk away for nothing if a Norwich fan came forward who was prepared to invest large amounts in the team: and the point is, given she suddenly demanded her money back when Cullum popped up, this was shown to be a pack of lies.

 

Not that I have any problem with her getting her money back, incidentally: that'd be more than fair. But why lie in the first place? The bottom line is she and her husband are patricians: soft touches in today's ruthless Championship world, and it's abundantly clear they've run out of ideas on how to take the club forward. They've been less than honest about the reality behind the securitisation of the Jarrold Stand too. In which case, she should sell - but instead, has dug her heels in, and I'm guessing there'll be blood on the carpet before this is finally resolved. Which is very sad for everyone concerned.

[Carl Spackler]

What I understand is that he council wrote to Hearts (in the spring) requesting some extra time to allow them to make a decison and in doing so wanted some answers to questions that need answered prior to any decision being made. (I have no idea what the questions were but I know there were outstanding issues re tram payments and the triage agreement between Hearts/Council/Diaego (sp).

 

As of last week I was told that the council were getting fed up with the non communication coming from the club.

There's no letters from the council to Hearts on the application file or any formal requests to extend the determination time.

 

No other letters on ther file either though and there must be loads of objections/letters of support too.

 

I don't know what the council's policy on contributions towards the trams is but if I was in Hearts' shoes I'd be telling them to get stuffed. The trams were committed to before the Tynecastle application was made. If public transport is at capacity on match days then there may be an argument to fund some buses for a limited time but I wouldn't concede more than that.

 

Tram contributions have definitely been raised as an issue at one point though. They are on the file.

[portobellojambo1]

I think much of this thread, in fact all of it, could have been negated if the wording had used a realistic single figure which covered all 4 groups (which based on the ethos behind the Fans Forum effectively encompasses all, as the Fans Forum is for all Hearts supporters, therefore by name alone covers members of HMST, HMSA and FHSC and non affiliated supporters), had also emphasised local growth potential and possibly not felt the need to mention the 400,000 people worldwide who may have "feelings of affection" for HMFC, although might never have seen them or plan to see them in the future.

 

However in marketing circles figures, sometimes inflated figures, are often used to emphasise a point, and in this case I agree totally with pivotno1, I cannot see how this has caused any damage to the application process, has embarrassed anyone, and may indeed give those making the decision an idea of the thoughts in general of a large proportion of the Hearts existing fanbase.

 

In a perfect world I think the points could have been made without the need to include figures in relation to fans/worldwide admirers, but it has been done, and if it helps speed up the application process what real harm has been done.

[scott herbertson]

There's no letters from the council to Hearts on the application file or any formal requests to extend the determination time.

 

No other letters on ther file either though and there must be loads of objections/letters of support too.

 

I don't know what the council's policy on contributions towards the trams is but if I was in Hearts' shoes I'd be telling them to get stuffed. The trams were committed to before the Tynecastle application was made. If public transport is at capacity on match days then there may be an argument to fund some buses for a limited time but I wouldn't concede more than that.

 

Tram contributions have definitely been raised as an issue at one point though. They are on the file.

 

Telling the council to 'get stuffed' will hardly assist the chances of getting the application approved

 

If a plan is submitted for a development which will have an impact on traffic/ transport (which this one clearly does) then any council worth its salt will try to secure the maximum contribution from the developer in the interest of all residents. That can't be done after the development has been approved so the developer, if they are clever, will gauge through discussions with council officers what would be a realistic contribution prior to application. It's not an exact science and each side will often play it to the wire.

[davemclaren]

The letter is fine but the reference to the 25,000 and 400,000 certainly doesn't add to its credibility.

[wavydavy]

Unfortunately all i know is that the Council are still waiting on some answers dating back to April/May and as of last week they were still waiting.

 

I assume that one of the issues raised was the payment towards the trams which is a bit of a stumbling block at the moment.

 

What payment towards the trams?

 

Are the Hobos being asked to contribute after all they are going to be starting in Leith.

[Seymour M Hersh]

surely the letter cant have done any harm,fair enough the fan figures are a bit over the top,but whats the matter with you lot,at least they are trying to do something to aid the clubs bid for a new stand.

 

Absolutely!

 

I am wondering why there is so much angst and hand wringing on this thread. As you point out they are trying to do something to assist the club. Do people feel they have to everything to shreds just to keep up there online reputations?

[wavydavy]

Absolutely!

 

I am wondering why there is so much angst and hand wringing on this thread. As you point out they are trying to do something to assist the club. Do people feel they have to everything to shreds just to keep up there online reputations?

 

Are we supposed to fill in the missing word?

[Carl Spackler]

Telling the council to 'get stuffed' will hardly assist the chances of getting the application approved

 

I agree. I don't think I would use that precise phrase!

[topcat]

Can't believe I'm saying this, but spot on Shaun.

 

Further, and as GMan knows, we're not talking about sympathisers, we're talking about fans. People who would spend money on the club.

 

Even in the Burley euphoria era, the 400,000 is quite plainly ridiculous. The survey was based on just 5310 respondents covering the whole of Britain.

 

But let's put that to one side. Although it's stupid at least it came from an independent source.

 

How did the signatories arrive at the 25,000 figure?

 

25,000 is roughly the number who spent money on attending our UEFA cup Group stage games against Schalke and Ferencvaros.

 

It's about the number who spend money on going to Hampden for the big Semi the following year.

 

It's a little less than the number of people who spent money on tickets for the CL qualifying round match against Siroki Brijeg.

 

There aren't 25,000 people who all want to watch Hearts 20 times a year but there will be a lot of people for whom going to the football one of several ways of filling their Saturday and for whom "going to the Football" really means going to watch Hearts.

 

25,000 is not a ludicrous number in this context, in fact it might be a bit on the low side

 

However what is ridiculous is this....

 

"G10 represents the key Heart of Midlothian Football Club supporters organisations comprising over 25,000 active individuals from a total fanbase..."

 

Which suggest that the 25,000 are actively involved in the supporters organisations as opposed to merely active supporters