Loyalty Scheme - Back To The Drawing Board

[marinello59]

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

It's been mentioned previously .. for some that chose the route of buying shares directly there wasn't the HSL option. Existing shareholders received an invitation through the post to purchase additional shares as part of a club share initiative to allow fan ownership. Shareholders could send in a form to purchase these shares before HSL was an option.
I could be wrong but I think that HSL evolved in the following weeks (partly?) because financial rules dictated that non-shareholders had to purchase them through a financial advisor. HSL was born as a way of purchasing shares without having to find an independent financial advisor, and very quickly became the HSL of today. If I'm not mistaken there was actually another fan led group (can't remember their name) that appeared at the outset of the share issue, and possibly even before HSL, but they never got off the ground as the club promoted HSL.

So in short .. no, not everyone had a choice.

I thought HSL was launched at the same time as the share issue. My memory is poor though. I'm not so sure it is that bad though. I do recall discussions on here about the merits of both options.
Actually I am sure the choice was there from the start of the share issue.

[marinello59]

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

I don't think that's right. I think there were both options at the same time. I certainly choose to do both at the same time.

You bring up another point to take into account. A lot of fans who bought shares direct also went to the expense of getting the form signed off by a financial advisor.

The fact that there was a choice and people still felt it worthwhile paying a financial adviser suggests that for some direct share ownership had a very strong attraction compared to donating via HSL. It makes it harder to claim there is no difference between the schemes.

[Bostonhibby]

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

I thought HSL was launched at the same time as the share issue. My memory is poor though. I'm not so sure it is that bad though. I do recall discussions on here about the merits of both options.
Actually I am sure the choice was there from the start of the share issue.

The offer pack for both arrived around the same time but existing shareholders could buy more shares direct immediately as they didn't have to get an IFA to put them through the advice process.

[marinello59]

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

The offer pack for both arrived around the same time but existing shareholders could buy more shares direct immediately as they didn't have to get an IFA to put them through the advice process.

That's how I remember it. HSL was mentioned as an option at the same time.

[Ozyhibby]

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

The fact that there was a choice and people still felt it worthwhile paying a financial adviser suggests that for some direct share ownership had a very strong attraction compared to donating via HSL. It makes it harder to claim there is no difference between the schemes.

Funny thing is, STF doesn't even have direct shares in Hibs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HappyHanlon]

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

When they need more sign ups it will roll out again. It'll be on offer again.

^^^^

This

What better way to get sign ups - entice the punters in with the lure of loyalty points.

"Short of points cause you haven't bothered yer erse all season?......sign up to HSL and we'll give you some!"

Guaranteed to be seen again at some point in the later stages of the season.

[marinello59]

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

Funny thing is, STF doesn't even have direct shares in Hibs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Attracted to HSL by the power of the loyalty point. Hopefully he gets enough for a cup final ticket.

[StevieC]

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

The offer pack for both arrived around the same time but existing shareholders could buy more shares direct immediately as they didn't have to get an IFA to put them through the advice process.

I'm pretty sure existing shareholders received the letter and invitation first. Can't remember if it was required or just courtesy. Can't remember if the rest of the support received the rest of the information automatically or if they had to ask for it? Maybe it was a download?
Anyway, the IFA aspect is correct and I think that anyone that wasn't a shareholder was told they had to consult one before going down either route. As time progressed I think that they got round the IFA stumbling block and eventually you could buy into HSL without one.

My memory might not be perfect on this, but certainly wasn't as straight forward a choice as some are trying to make out.

[marinello59]

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

I'm pretty sure existing shareholders received the letter and invitation first. Can't remember if it was required or just courtesy. Can't remember if the rest of the support received the rest of the information automatically or if they had to ask for it? Maybe it was a download?
Anyway, the IFA aspect is correct and I think that anyone that wasn't a shareholder was told they had to consult one before going down either route. As time progressed I think that they got round the IFA stumbling block and eventually you could buy into HSL without one.

My memory might not be perfect on this, but certainly wasn't as straight forward a choice as some are trying to make out.

HSL definitely did not evolve as a means of getting around the financial advisor thing. The choice between HSL and direct shareholding was there from the start of the share issue.

[Andy74]

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

HSL definitely did not evolve as a means of getting around the financial advisor thing. The choice between HSL and direct shareholding was there from the start of the share issue.

Yep. A bit too much overthinking going on with this one I think.

The share offer was trailed and most were excited about getting the chance to buy direct into the club.

When it was actually announced that you could buy direct but it was going to be tricky but HSL was an option many were disappointed. After a bit the idea of a collective in the long term became a bit more attractive.

Many were still wedded to buying direct just for that extra feeling of being a real shareholder. Some decided both was a good option. Others fancied just HSL and I'm sure others just had to settle for HSL.

No option deserves any particular praise over another. I think that's just the point about the loyalty points.

[matty_f]

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

Yep. A bit too much overthinking going on with this one I think.

The share offer was trailed and most were excited about getting the chance to buy direct into the club.

When it was actually announced that you could buy direct but it was going to be tricky but HSL was an option many were disappointed. After a bit the idea of a collective in the long term became a bit more attractive.

Many were still wedded to buying direct just for that extra feeling of being a real shareholder. Some decided both was a good option. Others fancied just HSL and I'm sure others just had to settle for HSL.

No option deserves any particular praise over another. I think that's just the point about the loyalty points.

You're absolutely right that no option deserved particular praise over the other. They were, clearly, viewed as different though. For a start, buying shares directly was only on offer for a limited period of time (with a caveat that the club could extend the window if there was an appetite for it).

Due to the restrictions around buying shares directly, and the fact that HSL gave a pay monthly option, HSL was (and is) seen as a slow burner. It is HSL which will, over time, get the percentage to a point where the support has control (along with the shareholders).

There were and are benefits to both options depending on what your own views and priorities are. At launch, my priority was to take the chance to directly own a piece of the club, which ruled HSL out for me.

Now, i see the momentum that is building around HSL and the positive impact it's having on the club - and crucially the long term benefit of thousands of supporters plowing money into the club - I think HSL is a viable option for me.

I have no issue with Hibs giving HSL a boost by offering an incentive. Was 100 points the right one, all things considered? Probably not, but not because of any notion that shareholders should have got the points. I think it was wrong because it could have upset the balance of the loyalty points scheme (in theory).

Even then, i'd think the practical impact of the 100 points is minimal. I'd guess that a large portion of our home and away support probably got involved with HSL to some extent, and for those that aren't home and away supporters that joined HSL, I'd be surprised if they all of a sudden wanted to go to whichever ground we might have a ticketing issue with.

[Kojock]

Meanwhile back on topic, I'm not against the idea that the fans who attend most games should have an advantage for limited tickets. What the scheme has created is an exclusive club of around 800 fans who are guaranteed tickets. IMO when tickets are limited, for arguments sake let's say 1000. The system means that we have loads of fans basically fighting over 200 tickets. An idea would be to lower the first wave threshold so that around 3000 would be in with a chance. That still gives fans with high points an advantage but not an exclusivity.