Who are you likely to support regarding club ownership?

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I do not think i am polite at all regarding the current shareholders........its a dig and indeed more than a dig.......but in terms of LD and AS they are making good headway.

i do not agree with the HOH approach by the way just to be clear and am not a member of Buy Hibs. I question LD being CEO of HSL and Hibs.....its a clear conflict of interest in my opinion......i would feel more comfortable if that was not the case.

Its not about trusting LD or her abilities......its the conflict of interest that bothers me.

I think you are getting hung up on a point that doesn't really matter.

HSL exists, for now, for one purpose and that is to buy shares in the football club on behalf of the support. That is all it will do (save for some small amount of admin and audit tasks). Until it has a 20% holding (iirc) HSL has no presence on the Hibs board and effectively no say in the running of the club.
It matters very little what LD's interests are, HSL has laid out how it operates, it will take money in then when that money reaches a pre-agreed level it will buy shares.

At 20% holding, HSL is guaranteed a seat on the board, as LD is Chief Exec of Hibs she will not take that seat, rather an elected person will.

It is very difficult to see where a conflict of interests could arise in this situation.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think when the owner is due to the repayment then he should ensure that the club is profitable and is back in the premier league at least before repayment commences.

having 500k come out of the club when it then goes on to make a loss would be wrong in my opinion.......and....if the monies raised in share issue bridge the gap between loss and repayment then i will not be a happy camper and will do something about it.

Matty, i have read conflicting messages.......on money raised re share issue....what is your take on it ?

My take on it is very straightforward.

Hibs have agreed the repayments at a level that it can comfortably afford from existing operating costs. We had a debt that needed repaid, we would pay c£500k (give or take) to the bank regardless of our income prior to the debt restructure.

We now have to make £500k in debt repayments from our normal income. What's left of that income is largely available to spend on the team. The share issue then gives Stubbs and co a figure over and above that remainder to invest on the park.

In the unlikely event that the club have got the budgets all wrong and we end up in deficit when the debt is repaid from our income, then instead of Stubbs having to sell or cut back he still has the remainder of the share income to spend.

The debt is debt - it needs repaid and the club needs to cut its cloth accordingly. LD and RP will have worked hard and carefully to ensure that the debt is at a level that is manageable with room to spare from our income. STF would have me reason to put the club in a position where it's taken on a repayment agreement that would result in the club operating at a loss.

Bear in mind also that the debt is to the holding company which exists for the sole purpose of running the football club. STF has guaranteed that the share money is not being put towards debt, he promised this to the shareholders at the AGM, therefore I think your fears are unfounded.

[Tyler Durden]

I think Global Hibby makes some good points here. If some of the boards detractors framed their argument in such a way they might have gained more support. To attempt to summarise

* A repayment of the clubs settlement with the bank over a 10 year period would be c£200k a year
* On the basis the bank debt was bought for c£2m, the boards framing of a "debt for equity" is disingenuous as effectively they've taken credit for a bank write off
* The other £3m owed to holding co has effectively covered trading losses. This is arguably due to mismanagement
* This £3m has never had a repayment schedule previously - is it right and just to ask the club to begin repaying now?

So STF is absolutely within his rights to take the approach he has and seek repayment of the holding co loans. However Global argues that the holding co £3m could have been deferred until we're in a better financial position in the top flight.

It shouldn't be forgotten STF is diluting his shareholding though.

For me personally I think we can continue to pore over all this or move forward with the boards proposals. I will be doing the latter and buying shares.

[ano hibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think Global Hibby makes some good points here. If some of the boards detractors framed their argument in such a way they might have gained more support. To attempt to summarise

* A repayment of the clubs settlement with the bank over a 10 year period would be c£200k a year
* On the basis the bank debt was bought for c£2m, the boards framing of a "debt for equity" is disingenuous as effectively they've taken credit for a bank write off
* The other £3m owed to holding co has effectively covered trading losses. This is arguably due to mismanagement
* This £3m has never had a repayment schedule previously - is it right and just to ask the club to begin repaying now?

So STF is absolutely within his rights to take the approach he has and seek repayment of the holding co loans. However Global argues that the holding co £3m could have been deferred until we're in a better financial position in the top flight.

It shouldn't be forgotten STF is diluting his shareholding though.

For me personally I think we can continue to pore over all this or move forward with the boards proposals. I will be doing the latter and buying shares.

I agree there are, as always, pros & cons of a deal such as this. There will hence be debate. But if your points, ie HOH, are buried so deep in vitriol & personal attacks you can only expect to be met in kind and not taken seriously.

I agree with some of GH's points also but have come to the same conclusion that you have in your last paragraph. I support the deal, will subscribe direct & via HSL and hope the detractors come round.

Also like greenginger noted above I'm not in the 700 registered but will be me + 3/4 family members to add to the list.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I do not think i am polite at all regarding the current shareholders........its a dig and indeed more than a dig.......but in terms of LD and AS they are making good headway.

i do not agree with the HOH approach by the way just to be clear and am not a member of Buy Hibs. I question LD being CEO of HSL and Hibs.....its a clear conflict of interest in my opinion......i would feel more comfortable if that was not the case.

Its not about trusting LD or her abilities......its the conflict of interest that bothers me.

The question was asked the other night of LD "Why are you involved?".

She looked the questioner (Jim Slaven I believe ) straight in the eye and said "because I have experience in this". It was a clear answer to the question, as well as a dig at those who have yet to come up with anything that has convinced the support of a credible alternative.

HSL exists solely to raise money to buy shares in HFC. That is its sole purpose. With the exception of the running costs, all money raised goes out again.

There are currently another 5 directors, with the possibility of another 2 soon.

The members have the ability to vote her off.

Against the backdrop of that, I am struggling to see what LDs conflict of interest is. Even if there is one, it can be dealt with by getting rid of her.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It is very difficult to see where a conflict of interests could arise in this situation.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Against the backdrop of that, I am struggling to see what LDs conflict of interest is. Even if there is one, it can be dealt with by getting rid of her.

There is no conflict of interest.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The 2.5 m would be used up pretty quickly to support the 1.5m of working capital the club needs in the summer ...

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You mentioned £1.5m working capital previously what is this? A football club doesn't need inventory or to fund debtors..we get cash up front or on the day & pay players as we go. You don't mean transfer fees do you?

No answer to this one. Sometimes it seems that there are numbers plucked from the air, and then presented as insurmountable obstacles. When did we last need £1.5m in the summer? If GH is talking about transfer fees, then the summer would be too late to buy for this season. But it can't be transfer fees, because that would not be described as working capital. GH - are you saying that you believe our season ticket income will be down by this amount, on the assumption that we don't go straight back up? Maybe that's what you mean?

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think Global Hibby makes some good points here. If some of the boards detractors framed their argument in such a way they might have gained more support. To attempt to summarise

* A repayment of the clubs settlement with the bank over a 10 year period would be c£200k a year
* On the basis the bank debt was bought for c£2m, the boards framing of a "debt for equity" is disingenuous as effectively they've taken credit for a bank write off
* The other £3m owed to holding co has effectively covered trading losses. This is arguably due to mismanagement
* This £3m has never had a repayment schedule previously - is it right and just to ask the club to begin repaying now?

Thank you Tyler, and if this is a correct summary of GH's points, then he is beginning to make sense to me. These are good points, and they've made me think about the situation.

There appears to be an assumption that the £6.3m of bank debt has been bought out for £2m. Has this been verified anywhere? If so, then I'd say that STF has struck a very good deal on behalf of Hibs.

If the Board aren't to take credit for this bank deal, who should? BuyHibs? (That was a joke btw).

Whatever the cause, the £3m owed to holding co is a debt - Hibs pay their debts.

Just because something doesn't have a repayment schedule, doesn't mean that it isn't repayable. Some people have been concerned about STF's exit strategy - here he has presented one, and others are complaining.

Thanks both Tyler and Global - these viewpoints are interesting, and I think I can see where you're coming from. Still doesn't change my view that the proposal on the table is a good one, one which takes into account the positions of all stakeholders in Hibs.

[Mikey]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Thank you Tyler, and if this is a correct summary of GH's points, then he is beginning to make sense to me. These are good points, and they've made me think about the situation.

There appears to be an assumption that the £6.3m of bank debt has been bought out for £2m. Has this been verified anywhere? If so, then I'd say that STF has struck a very good deal on behalf of Hibs.

If the Board aren't to take credit for this bank deal, who should? BuyHibs? (That was a joke btw).

Whatever the cause, the £3m owed to holding co is a debt - Hibs pay their debts.

Just because something doesn't have a repayment schedule, doesn't mean that it isn't repayable. Some people have been concerned about STF's exit strategy - here he has presented one, and others are complaining.

Thanks both Tyler and Global - these viewpoints are interesting, and I think I can see where you're coming from. Still doesn't change my view that the proposal on the table is a good one, one which takes into account the positions of all stakeholders in Hibs.

The figure is thought to be £1.872m and that came from a mole at the bank. We'll never get that confirmed by Hibs.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The figure is thought to be £1.872m and that came from a mole at the bank. We'll never get that confirmed by Hibs.

And, for avoidance of doubt, the £3m is not a definite figure either.

If I heard RP right the other night, the holding company paid some of the bank loan instalments between July and December. If that's the case, the £3m may well be a lot higher.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The figure is thought to be £1.872m and that came from a mole at the bank. We'll never get that confirmed by Hibs.

Thanks. Wow. Maybe I should try that with my mortgage.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Thanks. Wow. Maybe I should try that with my mortgage.

Where do you live if you've got a £6m mortgage?!

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It took them 11 months to thrash out a deal with the bank. If STF had just paid it back with no discount then that would taken less than 11 seconds for the bank to agree.

Rod said discussions about the deal took that long. They might have spent ten if those asking for a discount. The facts are there in the numbers without the guesswork.

Remember that there would have been a fair amount of interest due if we continued the arrangement. Even just accepting early payment of the full amount outdtsnding would be a discount. Talk of paying less than £2m for over £6m worth doesn't add up.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The figure is thought to be £1.872m and that came from a mole at the bank. We'll never get that confirmed by Hibs.

Why would holding company debt have been £9.5m if that was the case?

Someone would be lying to us about the need for the debt for equity swap.

[Hibbyradge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What is the basis for your belief?

The facts, as presented in the accounts, are there to be seen. The cash that we spent on the bank loan is as has been stated, broken down into interest and capital.

[Eyrie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why would holding company debt have been £9.5m if that was the case?

Someone would be lying to us about the need for the debt for equity swap.

Read it carefully ....

And just in case - I heard that the bank insisted on £7.0m but settled for £6.2m.

In practice there is a limit on how much of a hit the bank will have taken. I don't know where the £2m settlement figure comes from, and don't trust it because why would the bank agree to write off £4m from a business which has always paid its debts on time and which has those debts secured over valuable assets and guaranteed by a very wealthy man?

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Where do you live if you've got a £6m mortgage?!

heh heh good one. I was really speaking of the principle of offering less than a third of my outstanding balance. Which is a bit less than £6m, admittedly.

[Tyler Durden]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Read it carefully ....

And just in case - I heard that the bank insisted on £7.0m but settled for £6.2m.

In practice there is a limit on how much of a hit the bank will have taken. I don't know where the £2m settlement figure comes from, and don't trust it because why would the bank agree to write off £4m from a business which has always paid its debts on time and which has those debts secured over valuable assets and guaranteed by a very wealthy man?

The bank insisted on £7m for a debt of £6.3m - that wouldn't have been much of a deal.

The banks rationale has been covered in other threads. People are entitled to believe what they like but it would be very naive to think Hibs or other SPFL teams have paid anywhere near the full amounts outstanding.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The bank insisted on £7m for a debt of £6.3m - that wouldn't have been much of a deal.

The banks rationale has been covered in other threads. People are entitled to believe what they like but it would be very naive to think Hibs or other SPFL teams have paid anywhere near the full amounts outstanding.

Whoosh? "£7.0m but settled for £6.2m".???

As an aside, they wanted a £1.5m settlement fee........

[Eyrie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Whoosh? "£7.0m but settled for £6.2m".???

As an aside, they wanted a £1.5m settlement fee........

So our bank manager was a Yam - surprised he didn't believe we owed it to ourselves and then let us walk away from the debt in exchange for the charity funds that were just resting in our account for months.

[lucky]

The deal is the deal. We pay £500k for the next 10 years or bring through and develope another Scott Brown and we are debt free with a cracking stadium and training facility. As fans we can choose to buy shares, join HSL, join BuyHibs ( are they going to buy shares?) ,form another group , shout abuse or do nothing. But the deal is still the deal

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The deal is the deal. We pay £500k for the next 10 years or bring through and develope another Scott Brown and we are debt free with a cracking stadium and training facility. As fans we can choose to buy shares, join HSL, join BuyHibs ( are they going to buy shares?) ,form another group , shout abuse or do nothing. But the deal is still the deal

in a nutshell!

[Tyler Durden]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Whoosh? "£7.0m but settled for £6.2m".???

As an aside, they wanted a £1.5m settlement fee........

That moment when you realise you've been whooshed....

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And your collective statement of 29 May re Petrie wasn't editorialising?

I know this has probably been answered but I haven't read to the end of the thread yet.

The decision to post that statement and subsequently email various individuals at Hibs was not taken lightly. I wrote a large part of it and was very careful to make it clear that was the personal views of the admin team not .net as a whole entity.

A number of posters then contacted myself asking to be signatories to the emails sent. In the end we sent the email a 2nd time with upwards of 250 signature. Again still clearly stating it was only the opinion of those who had signed. At no point did we censor or edit anyone who disagreed with our viewpoint and there was a few posters who continued to back Rod Petrie freely on here.

[Global Hibby]

A good news topic for debate this Sunday morning.

Now that Hibs have gained an near additional 1m gain this year.

What's the views on how much more the share offering will add to this years pot?

Are we seeing the benefits yet coming from the gain ?

Where would you like to see it invested ?

Will it prevent a loss this current year ?

How will we cope when the 1m is not there next year if the share offering does not replace it ?

Be great to see more questions, thoughts and ideas on this when I pop back later.

Have a great Sunday !

[blackpoolhibs]

If you had been successful with your takeover, would you have pumped in money every year on top of what you had originally put in?

How would the club under your ownership have dealt with loses?

Would your investment have prevented loses this year?

If you would not have put extra money in, how would we have coped not having that money the year after?

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A good news topic for debate this Sunday morning.

Now that Hibs have gained an near additional 1m gain this year.

What's the views on how much more the share offering will add to this years pot?

Are we seeing the benefits yet coming from the gain ?

Where would you like to see it invested ?

Will it prevent a loss this current year ?

How will we cope when the 1m is not there next year if the share offering does not replace it ?

Be great to see more questions, thoughts and ideas on this when I pop back later.

Have a great Sunday !

What the heck are you talking about?

[21.05.2016]

HSL for me. The HoH campaign is an absolute embarrassment, they keep making big claims and sweeping statements that they have absolutely nothing to back it up with and quite frankly im getting sick of them constantly trying to create a war with the club.

[FranckSuzy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A good news topic for debate this Sunday morning.

Now that Hibs have gained an near additional 1m gain this year.

What's the views on how much more the share offering will add to this years pot?

Are we seeing the benefits yet coming from the gain ?

Where would you like to see it invested ?

Will it prevent a loss this current year ?

How will we cope when the 1m is not there next year if the share offering does not replace it ?

Be great to see more questions, thoughts and ideas on this when I pop back later.

Have a great Sunday !

Where is the 'fasten your seatbelts' smilie when you need it?

One question for you...where have you been these last few months, as you seem to have only reappeared after the share issue/HSL scheme was announced?

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What the heck are you talking about?

Glad it's not just me.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A good news topic for debate this Sunday morning.

Now that Hibs have gained an near additional 1m gain this year.

What's the views on how much more the share offering will add to this years pot?

Are we seeing the benefits yet coming from the gain ?

Where would you like to see it invested ?

Will it prevent a loss this current year ?

How will we cope when the 1m is not there next year if the share offering does not replace it ?

Be great to see more questions, thoughts and ideas on this when I pop back later.

Have a great Sunday !

One question re your comments earlier in this thread - Given that the stated aim of this share offer is to surrender a degree of control to the fans how do you think the current majority shareholder underwriting the issue would achieve that aim? Can you also explain how the concept of prospective shareholders underwriting their own subscription would work for this particular issue?