Share Donations

[OfficialHSL]

We are delighted to report that we continue to receive kind donations of Shares from ordinary supporters as can be seen here http://hiberniansupporters.co.uk/news.html

Please contact us at info@hiberniansupporters.co.uk if you would like to donate shares.


HSL

[HappyHibby93]

Many have said over the last few months that donating shares to HSL would help them grow their share %. Personally, I feel this is a cracking way to grow their share % as I've always said 25.01% is a must for HSL.

For me, and I know many may not agree, but a strong HSL would prevent any such issues like the 'Mercer' debacle and prevent any such issues before they got off the ground. We (I've said it before) also need to look to the bigger picture and ask ourselves what kind of club will we be leaving for future generations? Granted, we have a sizable % within the club, but surely a strong HSL would be a good thing. Leeann, RP, and STF won't be around for ever and I do worry what will become of our club once they/we have all moved on.

Some have also touched on the fact that there are sizable shareholders that surpass what most would call a small shareholding, this is a big concern for me also.

Not sure what their % is sitting at (perhaps HSL Official can give an update?) thought it was around 12%. Also, the link doesn't work on my phone but I follow you on facebook anyway.


https://www.facebook.com/hfcsupporte...type=3&theater






GGTTH

[Pagan Hibernia]

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

Many have said over the last few months that donating shares to HSL would help them grow their share %. Personally, I feel this is a cracking way to grow their share % as I've always said 25.01% is a must for HSL.

For me, and I know many may not agree, but a strong HSL would prevent any such issues like the 'Mercer' debacle and prevent any such issues before they got off the ground.

thats pretty factual tbh. Don’t see how’s anyone could disagree or argue with it

[Bostonhibby]

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

Many have said over the last few months that donating shares to HSL would help them grow their share %. Personally, I feel this is a cracking way to grow their share % as I've always said 25.01% is a must for HSL.

For me, and I know many may not agree, but a strong HSL would prevent any such issues like the 'Mercer' debacle and prevent any such issues before they got off the ground. We (I've said it before) also need to look to the bigger picture and ask ourselves what kind of club will we be leaving for future generations? Granted, we have a sizable % within the club, but surely a strong HSL would be a good thing. Leeann, RP, and STF won't be around for ever and I do worry what will become of our club once they/we have all moved on.

Some have also touched on the fact that there are sizable shareholders that surpass what most would call a small shareholding, this is a big concern for me also.

Not sure what their % is sitting at (perhaps HSL Official can give an update?) thought it was around 12%. Also, the link doesn't work on my phone but I follow you on facebook anyway.


https://www.facebook.com/hfcsupporte...type=3&theater






GGTTH

Agree. A meaningful, and hopefully protective shareholding above 25% for HSL has been my ambition for it since the outset. Will review again when that's achieved. The larger or nominee shareholding are not necessarily a huge concern as a fair few will be Hibbies who can either afford to spend more or just choose not to have their holding known publicly. I know at least one who doesn't want his family to know he's spending even more cash on Hibs

[Argylehibby]

Did Leann not say on the radio recently that 30% of Hibs shares were owned by fans? If that is correct we are already protected from the Mercer type attack but that being said still good to build up the fan shareholding percentage.

[Blaster]

I’m more interested in more cash coming in for HSL

Whilst it’s good that people are donating their shares it’s not providing any extra funding

Indeed others may see as getting closer to the target percentage and think they don’t really need to get involved

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Did Leann not say on the radio recently that 30% of Hibs shares were owned by fans? If that is correct we are already protected from the Mercer type attack but that being said still good to build up the fan shareholding percentage.

Included in that are the nominee holdings, some of which are quite substantial. Whilst I'm confident that the Board will do their own vetting of those, there remains the concern that some or all might have their own agendas. Hence the need to have 1 body (ie HSL) with a 25.1% holding.

[Bostonhibby]

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

Included in that are the nominee holdings, some of which are quite substantial. Whilst I'm confident that the Board will do their own vetting of those, there remains the concern that some or all might have their own agendas. Hence the need to have 1 body (ie HSL) with a 26% holding.

And as the 30% includes all individual smaller shareholders the 26% target for HSL remains the figure I'd like to see them achieve first.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[Arch Stanton]

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

We are delighted to report that we continue to receive kind donations of Shares from ordinary supporters as can be seen here http://hiberniansupporters.co.uk/news.html

Please contact us at info@hiberniansupporters.co.uk if you would like to donate shares.

HSL

I'm guessing that the second sction (New Website) and the last section (about having continuing direct debits) are also 'new' - the rest are certainly from a few years back talking about Stubbs and the like.

Lots of people have complained that HSL is not good at communicating and having a new website is not of itself going to cure that. There really is no reason for the News section to be such a dogs dinner.

IMO they really need to get away from having all those weel kent personalities on board and getting people with savvy involved.

[ancient hibee]

I would be happier if those keen on HSL increasing its shareholding to a significant figure would be able to help it become more professional.It might be for example that paid administrators may be necessary.I only say this because HSL seems to get a lot of criticism on here which is clearly partly because it’s run on a voluntary basis .

[OfficialHSL]

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

Agree. A meaningful, and hopefully protective shareholding above 25% for HSL has been my ambition for it since the outset. Will review again when that's achieved. The larger or nominee shareholding are not necessarily a huge concern as a fair few will be Hibbies who can either afford to spend more or just choose not to have their holding known publicly. I know at least one who doesn't want his family to know he's spending even more cash on Hibs

Bostonhibby

We would be most grateful if you could pass on our details to your friend. We can assure him/her that any donation would not be made public so no need for anyone to know how much they are helping Hibs !

HSL

[OfficialHSL]

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

Did Leann not say on the radio recently that 30% of Hibs shares were owned by fans? If that is correct we are already protected from the Mercer type attack but that being said still good to build up the fan shareholding percentage.

Argylehibby

Agreed completely. Of course the biggest benefit of all is simply getting more money to help Neil keep improving the playing squad.

HSL

[OfficialHSL]

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

Included in that are the nominee holdings, some of which are quite substantial. Whilst I'm confident that the Board will do their own vetting of those, there remains the concern that some or all might have their own agendas. Hence the need to have 1 body (ie HSL) with a 25.1% holding.

CropleyWasGod

We agree with you completely and hope that other fans can see the sense in have a fully transparent and democratic vehicle that will facilitate such a vote.

HSL

[Bostonhibby]

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

Bostonhibby

We would be most grateful if you could pass on our details to your friend. We can assure him/her that any donation would not be made public so no need for anyone to know how much they are helping Hibs !

HSL

He's already an HSL member too. Like many, was also a long standing shareholder who took up the last share offering as well.




Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[Brummie_Hibs]

Is this the monumental HSL relaunch?

[HappyHibby93]

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

I’m more interested in more cash coming in for HSL

Whilst it’s good that people are donating their shares it’s not providing any extra funding

Indeed others may see as getting closer to the target percentage and think they don’t really need to get involved

Absolutely agree, the cash that has come in over the years has made a difference and it would be really good if it could grow.

What I don't get it why so many have to have a kick at HSL when they have clearly asked for help with admin. I have paid in and I'm now a full member, unfortunately I couldn't keep it going and the help I got from them was brilliant.

Do people just jump on and have a kick at them for the sake of it. If you have a real issue then get in touch with them and they will sort it, why wouldn't they?

I genuinely can't be ar$ed with all this bickering towards a group who have put themselves in a position the help the club. The finances they raised probably went a fair way towards us winning the cup.

There are elections coming up at some point this year (not sure when) so my guess is that there will be many changes.


GGTTH

[OfficialHSL]

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

Absolutely agree, the cash that has come in over the years has made a difference and it would be really good if it could grow.

What I don't get it why so many have to have a kick at HSL when they have clearly asked for help with admin. I have paid in and I'm now a full member, unfortunately I couldn't keep it going and the help I got from them was brilliant.

Do people just jump on and have a kick at them for the sake of it. If you have a real issue then get in touch with them and they will sort it, why wouldn't they?

I genuinely can't be ar$ed with all this bickering towards a group who have put themselves in a position the help the club. The finances they raised probably went a fair way towards us winning the cup.

There are elections coming up at some point this year (not sure when) so my guess is that there will be many changes.


GGTTH

HappyHibby93

Thank you for your kind words and support.

We know we have not always got things right all of the time and that mistakes have been made. We are doing our best to get better.

Please note that the donate page on our web site is fully functional and that the proposition remains extremely simple. If you can spare an extra £10 per month why not help Neil to keep improving our team ?

http://hiberniansupporters.co.uk/donate.html

HSL

[OfficialHSL]

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

I’m more interested in more cash coming in for HSL

Whilst it’s good that people are donating their shares it’s not providing any extra funding

Indeed others may see as getting closer to the target percentage and think they don’t really need to get involved

Blaster

We couldn't agree more and as you can see from our note below ( item 4 ) we just want to get as much additional money into our playing squad as possible, long term.

Can we also point out that no one is suggesting that supporters should donate all of their shares, far from it. We would suggest that any supporter who is minded to donate shares should retain some to allow them to continue to attend the Club AGM and keep their Share Certificate on the wall and pass it on when they pass on.. Many supporters hold 5000 shares and some of our donations involved the supporter retaining 1000 shares and donating 4000. Hope the note below better explains our position :


"We are often asked by both existing Members and prospective Members what is the best way to invest in Hibs – buy shares directly or through HSL ?

Well the first and most obvious thing to say is not to consider any contribution as an “investment” in the normal sense of the word. This is essentially a donation to provide additional financial support to your Club. Having said this, we make no apology for pointing any supporter with a spare £225 firmly in the direction of HSL, and here is why :

1. Proof of Ownership

In both cases, supporters will be given a Certificate with their own name on it. A Share Certificate and a Membership Certificate are legal equivalents. When joining HSL with £225 a member will own a part of their Club in the same sense as a fellow supporter acquiring £225 worth of shares. An HSL Member is not in any sense an inferior owner. They have slightly different ownership rights but they are both owners. And in both cases supporters can pass on their part ownership of the Club to their family. HSL Members proudly display their Ownership Certificate on their walls at home or office or work place.

1. Voting Rights/Democracy

For many supporters, one of the reasons for becoming financially involved with their Club is to have some sort of say or influence in how their Club is run. A fundamental principle of HSL is our belief that every single supporter should have an equal voice. No matter who you are, your opinion is just as important as any other supporter. This means that when we have matters that we are required to vote upon each member has one vote. One member who has contributed £1000 cannot overrule the votes of four other members who have each contributed £225.
This was the very principles on which our great Club was established. More able members of the Community were able to assist those who were less able. Supporters buying shares however must be aware that one individual wealthy supporter who has many more shares can overrule the will of hundreds of other supporters, especially those who have bought the minimum of £200.

1. Supporter Representation

Apart from those occasions that require formal voting, the ongoing running of the Club falls to the Board of Directors. HSL has an exclusive formal agreement with the Club that entitles HSL to appoint a Director to the Board on a permanent basis once our shareholding and donations have reached a certain level. This means that there is a formal process for introducing the views of many ordinary Hibs fans. Supporters buying individual shares do not have this legal entitlement.

1. Accessible to All

The reality of a Football Club operating in the environment that we do is that we all have a responsibility for our Club. We cannot for ever look towards an individual to financially support our Club. HSL gives a realistic prospect to all fans to share this responsibility by offering the facility to pay a small amount each month. Not many supporters actually have a spare £200 which means that direct Shareholding is limited to the more affluent supporters. HSL gives all supporters the chance to own part of their Club and as stated earlier, owning it on an equal basis with our fellow supporters.

1. Loss of Voting Rights

One of the principle benefits of HSL is the certainty that none of our voting rights will ever be wasted. Whatever ownership stake we end up with 10%, 25% or 35% our entire voting block will always be exercised. This means that if we owned 26% of our Club and a contentious issue arose, even if only 1800 Members out of a 2000 Membership voted, our 26% voting rights would still be exercised. For those supporters owning, in the same example, the remaining 25% of the Club it is very unlikely that every single shareholder will cast a vote ( many have died, or have been passed on to those who don’t have an interest).


These are all the reasons why it feels great to be a part of HSL and an owner of our Club."



HSL

[Eyrie]

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

Proof of Ownership

In both cases, supporters will be given a Certificate with their own name on it. A Share Certificate and a Membership Certificate are legal equivalents. When joining HSL with £225 a member will own a part of their Club in the same sense as a fellow supporter acquiring £225 worth of shares. An HSL Member is not in any sense an inferior owner. They have slightly different ownership rights but they are both owners. And in both cases supporters can pass on their part ownership of the Club to their family. HSL Members proudly display their Ownership Certificate on their walls at home or office or work place.

I'm a member of HSL and would encourage others to join for most of the reasons stated.

However the part you've quoted is poorly worded as it implies that my HSL membership is the equivalent of my own shareholding when it isn't.

HSL enables me to part of a much bigger shareholding but I have no real say in how that shareholding votes because I am only one small voice amongst hundreds. It doesn't make me an owner of any part of Hibs but it does make me part of a supporter's collective providing funds to the club which is exactly what I signed up for.

My own shareholding may be only one small voice amongst hundreds but crucially it is still my own voice and a direct holding in the club.

[OfficialHSL]

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

I'm a member of HSL and would encourage others to join for most of the reasons stated.

However the part you've quoted is poorly worded as it implies that my HSL membership is the equivalent of my own shareholding when it isn't.

HSL enables me to part of a much bigger shareholding but I have no real say in how that shareholding votes because I am only one small voice amongst hundreds. It doesn't make me an owner of any part of Hibs but it does make me part of a supporter's collective providing funds to the club which is exactly what I signed up for.

My own shareholding may be only one small voice amongst hundreds but crucially it is still my own voice and a direct holding in the club.

Eyrie

Thank you for your comments, I'm sorry if you feel this is poorly worded, I can assure you there is no intention to mislead.

As you know, HFC Holdings is the principal owner of Hibernian Football Club Ltd. HFC Holdings is 90% owned by Sir Tom Farmer and 10% Rod Petrie.

This does not stop everyone from recognising that Hibs are owned by Sir Tom and Rod. It is not at all uncommon for ownership to be held like this.

There is however a significant difference. Our Members own HSL and HSL now owns almost 14 % of Hibs. What should be noted is that unlike other similar situations HSL can't own anything else. It is exclusive ownership of Hibs. Many of our Members do not want to hold their ownership stake through the Shareholder method as they like the fact that all of our Members are equal. Our voices are all equal. You may be one Member among 1700 but it needs two Members to outvote you. You and every other small shareholder can have you voice cancelled out by one wealthy supporter. They like the collective strength. Wealthy contributors have the same voice as someone who can only manage £5 per month.

I am simply trying to highlight that many people do not feel it is an inferior method of owning Hibs, it is simply their method of choice.

Likewise, we fully recognise that others may prefer the Shareholding method.

I hope this helps.



HSL

[Criswell]

I'm a HSL contributor and obviously take an interest in its progress. I'm a bit confused, while reading through this thread when HSL states it has 1300 members then later states it has 1700 members. I know both figures are pretty modest but the latter is of course more encouraging. So which is the true figure?

[HappyHibby93]

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

I'm a HSL contributor and obviously take an interest in its progress. I'm a bit confused, while reading through this thread when HSL states it has 1300 members then later states it has 1700 members. I know both figures are pretty modest but the latter is of course more encouraging. So which is the true figure?

You are confusing me, can't see anywhere that quotes 1300 members.
(if I am wrong then fair do's)


HSLOfficial

Can we have an update to the figures that actually matter. Would be good to clear up a lot of this kind of nonsense..

[Argylehibby]

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

Eyrie

Thank you for your comments, I'm sorry if you feel this is poorly worded, I can assure you there is no intention to mislead.

As you know, HFC Holdings is the principal owner of Hibernian Football Club Ltd. HFC Holdings is 90% owned by Sir Tom Farmer and 10% Rod Petrie.

This does not stop everyone from recognising that Hibs are owned by Sir Tom and Rod. It is not at all uncommon for ownership to be held like this.

There is however a significant difference. Our Members own HSL and HSL now owns almost 14 % of Hibs. What should be noted is that unlike other similar situations HSL can't own anything else. It is exclusive ownership of Hibs. Many of our Members do not want to hold their ownership stake through the Shareholder method as they like the fact that all of our Members are equal. Our voices are all equal. You may be one Member among 1700 but it needs two Members to outvote you. You and every other small shareholder can have you voice cancelled out by one wealthy supporter. They like the collective strength. Wealthy contributors have the same voice as someone who can only manage £5 per month.

I am simply trying to highlight that many people do not feel it is an inferior method of owning Hibs, it is simply their method of choice.

Likewise, we fully recognise that others may prefer the Shareholding method.

I hope this helps.



HSL

The highlighted text is where I think HSL has it wrong though.

You quote 1700 members so if 851 members vote one way and 849 the opposite way you vote all of the HSL shares with the 851. You only have a voice that is listened to if you vote with the majority. Is that right or fair? If HSL were listening to all of their members then 50.5% of the shares HSL own should be voted with the majority and 49.5% with the others. It is of course highly unlikely that every member would vote and if HSL used those non votes with the majority it would just about be acceptable but not using the "shares" of someone who said no and voting yes.

Only my opinion of course, but one formed through many years experience of working with companies in relation to and at their AGM's.

[Just Alf]

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

The highlighted text is where I think HSL has it wrong though.

You quote 1700 members so if 851 members vote one way and 849 the opposite way you vote all of the HSL shares with the 851. You only have a voice that is listened to if you vote with the majority. Is that right or fair? If HSL were listening to all of their members then 50.5% of the shares HSL own should be voted with the majority and 49.5% with the others. It is of course highly unlikely that every member would vote and if HSL used those non votes with the majority it would just about be acceptable but not using the "shares" of someone who said no and voting yes.

Only my opinion of course, but one formed through many years experience of working with companies in relation to and at their AGM's.

Strictly speaking you're 100% correct, what changes it a little though is that there's no intention to "run" the club on a day to day (year to year?) basis so theres not going to be lots of voting opportunities .... What underpins the whole idea is to stop something like the Mercer situation, or some future new owner wanting to sell ER. I can't imagine the HSL members being anywhere near 50/50 in a vote in that scenario.



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Criswell]

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

You are confusing me, can't see anywhere that quotes 1300 members.
(if I am wrong then fair do's)


HSLOfficial

Can we have an update to the figures that actually matter. Would be good to clear up a lot of this kind of nonsense..

If you click onto the link to the HSL website (first post) it mentions 1300 members

[OfficialHSL]

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

I'm a HSL contributor and obviously take an interest in its progress. I'm a bit confused, while reading through this thread when HSL states it has 1300 members then later states it has 1700 members. I know both figures are pretty modest but the latter is of course more encouraging. So which is the true figure?

Criswell

Allow us to clarify. The 1300 is historical, at that point in time we had reached the 1300 mark but we have continued to grow to just over 1700. We know the web site is outdated but are working right now on the new one. Our ownership stake is now around 14%. We are past the half way mark of our target of 26%.


HSL

[OfficialHSL]

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

The highlighted text is where I think HSL has it wrong though.

You quote 1700 members so if 851 members vote one way and 849 the opposite way you vote all of the HSL shares with the 851. You only have a voice that is listened to if you vote with the majority. Is that right or fair? If HSL were listening to all of their members then 50.5% of the shares HSL own should be voted with the majority and 49.5% with the others. It is of course highly unlikely that every member would vote and if HSL used those non votes with the majority it would just about be acceptable but not using the "shares" of someone who said no and voting yes.

Only my opinion of course, but one formed through many years experience of working with companies in relation to and at their AGM's.

Argylehibby

Thank you for your view, we know we have discussed this before. There isn't a right or wrong answer here however can we perhaps share some thoughts on this :

Some would say that this is democracy in action. The simple majority carries the day. Prior to launch we considered this issue and came to the view that the idea that you prefer, which is essentially proportional representation, was more suited to political situations where decisions are being made constantly over a period of time. Some States choose voting methods which will deliberately produce a coalition to ensure that both left and right views can be heard over the course of a government. In our scenario, a social collective, where there is no real expectation of many major decisions to be made the view held was that simple democracy was the best way. We also felt it was very highly unlikely that we would ever have a vote that would split supporters down the middle. Imagine who the vote would go on a proposal to sell Easter Road ?

What is important of course id that we have made clear in our articles that this is how things operate and therefore Supporters can make a decision with this in mind.

HSL

[OfficialHSL]

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

Strictly speaking you're 100% correct, what changes it a little though is that there's no intention to "run" the club on a day to day (year to year?) basis so theres not going to be lots of voting opportunities .... What underpins the whole idea is to stop something like the Mercer situation, or some future new owner wanting to sell ER. I can't imagine the HSL members being anywhere near 50/50 in a vote in that scenario.



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

JustAlf

Just read your post and we think we have just given more or less the same response. Great minds think alike !

HSL

[Argylehibby]

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

Argylehibby

Thank you for your view, we know we have discussed this before. There isn't a right or wrong answer here however can we perhaps share some thoughts on this :

Some would say that this is democracy in action. The simple majority carries the day. Prior to launch we considered this issue and came to the view that the idea that you prefer, which is essentially proportional representation, was more suited to political situations where decisions are being made constantly over a period of time. Some States choose voting methods which will deliberately produce a coalition to ensure that both left and right views can be heard over the course of a government. In our scenario, a social collective, where there is no real expectation of many major decisions to be made the view held was that simple democracy was the best way. We also felt it was very highly unlikely that we would ever have a vote that would split supporters down the middle. Imagine who the vote would go on a proposal to sell Easter Road ?

What is important of course id that we have made clear in our articles that this is how things operate and therefore Supporters can make a decision with this in mind.

HSL

I agree that the likelihood of a split vote ever happening is remote but I find it strange that you compare the situation to a political vote and not to what would be considered normal in share ownership.

[OfficialHSL]

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

I agree that the likelihood of a split vote ever happening is remote but I find it strange that you compare the situation to a political vote and not to what would be considered normal in share ownership.

Argylehibby

We could debate this for ever, as I said there isn't a right or wrong answer. The political situation was the only comparable I could think of in terms of your preferred method. We also took our steer from Supporters Direct Scotland who also recommended this approach. The first vote our Members will be asked to take is just coming up, new Directors, and this will again be done on a simple majority.

HSL