Hands Back On Hibs?

[smurf]

Can anyone tell me any differences between where we are today and where we were in early 1998 when Hands On Hibs were set up?

[matty_f]

People were less likely to overreact in 1998.

[Keith_M]

What is it your suggesting?


:dunno:

[jdships]

Can anyone tell me any differences between where we are today and where we were in early 1998 when Hands On Hibs were set up?


Your point is ?
These are two completely different situations surely.
In '98 we were about to lose our club today we are fighting relegation
:confused:

flag:

[smurf]

People were less likely to overreact in 1998.

So if they were less likely why was Hands on Hibs set up in 1998?

[smurf]

Your point is ?
These are two completely different situations surely.
In '98 we were about to lose our club today we are fighting relegation
:confused:

flag:

In what way in 1998 were we about to lose our club?

I think you are all of EIGHT years out.:wink:

[jdships]

In what way in 1998 were we about to lose our club?

I think you are all of EIGHT years out.:wink:


Apologies for another senior moment
The years just fly past :greengrin

[matty_f]

So if they were less likely why was Hands on Hibs set up in 1998?

Because that time it wasn't an overreaction.

[smurf]

Because that time it wasn't an overreaction.

Ok so what was different then from now?

[matty_f]

It was set up when we were relegated, not in november when action has already been taken to address the situation.

[smurf]

It was set up when we were relegated, not in november when action has already been taken to address the situation.

Except It was not set up when we were relegated.:wink:

The evening up at the Royal High School building on Calton Hill was before relegation. Indeed a few days after a soon to be relegated Hibs side stopped a good Yam side marching onto the title...

And are you suggesting that by changing Manager that's us having addressed the situation?

IF that's your suggestion then why in early 1998 were Hands On Hibs not just satisfied that Duffy had been replaced by GJP?

[PaulSmith]

Can anyone tell me any differences between where we are today and where we were in early 1998 when Hands On Hibs were set up?


What would be the aims of the group?

To increase spending on footballing matters - The club has a statement that it aims to break even each year but it actively trying to drive up income on all fronts to improve footballing matters.

Have you confirmed to Hibs that you intend to attend the supporter focus groups in the coming couple of weeks?

[greenlex]

What would be the aims of the group?

To increase spending on footballing matters - The club has a statement that it aims to break even each year but it actively trying to drive up income on all fronts to improve footballing matters.

Have you confirmed to Hibs that you intend to attend the supporter focus groups in the coming couple of weeks?
Maybe he would rather just snipe away at the board at every opportuntiy on here?

[smurf]

What would be the aims of the group?

To increase spending on footballing matters - The club has a statement that it aims to break even each year but it actively trying to drive up income on all fronts to improve footballing matters.

Have you confirmed to Hibs that you intend to attend the supporter focus groups in the coming couple of weeks?

I've not been invited. Is it an open forum?

[Andy74]

Can anyone tell me any differences between where we are today and where we were in early 1998 when Hands On Hibs were set up?

There was a great deal of uncertainty about the ownership of the club and the intentions back then. There was some feeling that we had been taken advantage odd and that RP and Sir Tom had lined thir posckets in proprty deals and that the club would be on the decline overall in terms of infrastructure as well as on the pitch.

Where we are now is a million miles from that and we are in a footballing situation which needs to be addressed by the management and coaching team.

[smurf]

Maybe he would rather just snipe away at the board at every opportuntiy on here?

Poor stuff. Honestly....

I'm maybe in the eyes of some being negative or whatever but the truth is i'm trying to engage in honest debate about where we are as a club. And where we are going.

I've no agenda against the board. But something at the club is rotten to the core. We've had a huge turnover in management and players in the football department and we are and have been on the whole since 2007 very poor.

So i just don't get this 'Under no circumstances should the board be questioned' mentality. And the almost verging on bullying anyone who dares to do so as your reply suggests IMHO.:wink:

The board are paid 500K a year by us the fans.

I'd suggest that we are entitled to ask questions. It's not personal and it's conducted in a respectful manner.

No?

[greenlex]

Poor stuff. Honestly....

I'm maybe in the eyes of some being negative or whatever but the truth is i'm trying to engage in honest debate about where we are as a club. And where we are going.

I've no agenda against the board. But something at the club is rotten to the core. We've had a huge turnover in management and players in the football department and we are and have been on the whole since 2007 very poor.

So i just don't get this 'Under no circumstances should the board be questioned' mentality. And the almost verging on bullying anyone who dares to do so as your reply suggests IMHO.:wink:

The board are paid 500K a year by us the fans.

I'd suggest that we are entitled to ask questions. It's not personal and it's conducted in a respectful manner.

No?
Bullying!!!!!!:rolleyes:
Just questioning your agenda. Feel free to carry on.:wink:

Do you not think the bit in bold is the important bit? You obviously think the board are being negligent and not worth their salaries. The bit in bold is a result of trying to get it right on the park. no? The only thing that is rotten is the playing side. You are suggesting its more than that.

[Andy74]

Poor stuff. Honestly....

I'm maybe in the eyes of some being negative or whatever but the truth is i'm trying to engage in honest debate about where we are as a club. And where we are going.

I've no agenda against the board. But something at the club is rotten to the core. We've had a huge turnover in management and players in the football department and we are and have been on the whole since 2007 very poor.

So i just don't get this 'Under no circumstances should the board be questioned' mentality. And the almost verging on bullying anyone who dares to do so as your reply suggests IMHO.:wink:

The board are paid 500K a year by us the fans.

I'd suggest that we are entitled to ask questions. It's not personal and it's conducted in a respectful manner.

No?

The board have taken pretty quick action this year on the footballing side having previously backed the manager yet again in brining in more players than the budget could really take.

The aims seem to be pretty clear that they want to try and achieve success on the pitch and they will use every pound we have spare and then some to try and do that.

Football though is played on the big green thing and there isn't a way for the Board to guarantee success.

The problems we have now are really for the manager to go and resolve.

[oregonhibby]

As I recall the big difference is that in 1998, the Club was separated from the stadium and the land and HonH considered that this was ploy by the owner to move the Club to Straiton, sell the land and make a huge profit. Huge scepticism existed as to the true intentions of STF and the Board. This was all exacerbated by the performance on the park that led to relegation and thereby heightened the emotion and distrust.

Twelve years on the only similarity is the performance on the park. The stadia, training centre and the stability of the Club is testimony to the long term vision of the owner and Board(s) that worked through that period.

It does illustrate one thing though that the performance on the park cannot be guaranteed given the resources we have cf others. The Board have sought to appoint managers and thereafter support the manager procure players to win and be successful.

Any argument around selection of managers may have some credence but as fans we have imperfect knowledge as to who was available or who applied. Also the manager selects players to obtain. Any argument around selling assets may also have credence but there is also agents involved who seek to move players on and make money. The Board have been successful in maximising revenues through player sales.

As to the replacements that is for the manager to identify and the Chairman to obtain. I think questions around these aspects are valid and every AGM I have gone to the Board have sought to answer those questions.

In my view the squad is weak and Calderwood needs to weed out (significant) weaknesses and build his own team. The Board will be well aware of this. They will also be well aware of the cost of relegation, which is why they probably moved early in the season compared to Duffy. If the Board fail to support Calderwood in this regard then they will come under severe pressure, and rightly so.

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban1862l.jpg

[hibee_nation]

Poor stuff. Honestly....

I'm maybe in the eyes of some being negative or whatever but the truth is i'm trying to engage in honest debate about where we are as a club. And where we are going.

I've no agenda against the board. But something at the club is rotten to the core. We've had a huge turnover in management and players in the football department and we are and have been on the whole since 2007 very poor.

So i just don't get this 'Under no circumstances should the board be questioned' mentality. And the almost verging on bullying anyone who dares to do so as your reply suggests IMHO.:wink:

The board are paid 500K a year by us the fans.

I'd suggest that we are entitled to ask questions. It's not personal and it's conducted in a respectful manner.

No?

:fibber:

[smurf]

DarlingtonHibee put me on your ignore list. Your problem solved. You would be better to as you obviously don't actually read my posts.

[smurf]

I note the bullying is indeed kicking in. For some you can't question the board otherwise you have an agenda against them. And for that a group queue up against you making you out to be a liar etc etc... Many times in the past I've had reason to praise the board and have done so. And will hopefully do so again.

[hibee_nation]

I note the bullying is indeed kicking in. For some you can't question the board otherwise you have an agenda against them. And for that a group queue up against you making you out to be a liar etc etc... Many times in the past I've had reason to praise the board and have done so. And will hopefully do so again.

Too true i'm getting sick of you brown nosing, your just a Petrie sycophant these days. :grr:

[greenlex]

I note the bullying is indeed kicking in. For some you can't question the board otherwise you have an agenda against them. And for that a group queue up against you making you out to be a liar etc etc... Many times in the past I've had reason to praise the board and have done so. And will hopefully do so again.
Stop greeting then and debate. If I am bullying you give me a blooy nose and I will leave you alone. (spelling mistake is deliberate):greengrin

[smurf]

I'm not Greetin. Folk can try all they want to try and avoid the issues by suggesting other motives etc etc. Do what they want. Makes no difference to me.

The real issues are issues and they won't just go away.

The point of the OP is to ask what's the difference between our support in 1998 and today. If there is indeed any....

FWIW I think the difference is that there is now the internet with .net and the Bounce. But I also think there is a belief that the problems all related to Hughes. But there were issues with Mixu and JC.

We are in a real mess and to suggest as some are that the board should avoid all scrutiny is just IMHO Bizzare and not Hibs like.

[greenlex]

I'm not Greetin. Folk can try all they want to try and avoid the issues by suggesting other motives etc etc. Do what they want. Makes no difference to me.

The real issues are issues and they won't just go away.

The point of the OP is to ask what's the difference between our support in 1998 and today. If there is indeed any....

FWIW I think the difference is that there is now the internet with .net and the Bounce. But I also think there is a belief that the problems all related to Hughes. But there were issues with Mixu and JC.

We are in a real mess and to suggest as some are that the board should avoid all scrutiny is just IMHO Bizzare and not Hibs like.
I dont think anyone is saying the board should not be scrutinised.
YOU are suggesting the board are the problem and indeed rotten. What could or should they have done differently than they have done?

[smurf]

I'm not saying they are rotten or are the problem. I do think though that under the circumstances we find ourselves scrutiny isn't just fair its right?

[greenlex]

I'm not saying they are rotten or are the problem. I do think though that under the circumstances we find ourselves scrutiny isn't just fair its right?
So what should they do or what should they have done? Or should they all just resign or give up half their wages?

[Andy74]

Smurf. I notice you haven't replied to any of the posts highlighting the differences between then and now.

[smurf]

I am out and about just now. Surprisingly I do have a life.... will reply later. I appreciate the constructive replies.

[new malkyhib]

My main concern, and one that you can (IMO) lay at the Board's door is fairly straightforward:

For every Murphy we sell, we get a van Zanten in his place; for Scott Brown we get Joe Keenan; Kevin Thomson we get McBride; for Jones we get Dickoh; for Stokes we get Trakys, etc., etc. Feel free to add to the list...

Maybe it's an over-simplistic argument, but there's been a massive turnover of staff on the playing side, where good players are sold for decent money, and we replace them with guys who are not just slightly inferior, but who simply should not get near a green jersey.

Now successive managers have (reportedly) remarked on the "restrictions" placed on them in transfer dealings on their departure.

That tells me that the Chairman has the last say on any deal that takes place - and the manager is not working with a free hand...

Filled Rolls is quick to tell us, there's too many "barrack-room directors" on here who wouldn't know how to run a football club - and he might have a point - however you could apply that same rationale to the Board - how can Petrie and or Lindsay make judgments on the merits/demerits of a prospective player - surely that's the sole province of the manager?

I know what i'd rather have, and it's a nucleus of 15 players jostling for a starting place, supplemented by three or four young lads knocking at the door. What we've got right now is a top-heavy Jim Duffy-type squad of sub-standard players that's taking us in one direction.

Decision time looms in January, I can only hope the Board realises that and takes the blinkers off, and are aware that we need to take a short-term hit and bring some ready-made players in - but I won't hold my breath.

[greenlex]

It is a bit simplistic.
A player is on 2k a week and he leaves as someone else is gonna pay him 6k because that is what his commercial width has become. We cannot replace him with a 6k a week player so we are back to 2k a week. Sometimes the replacement works others it doesn't. Most over the past three seasons haven't.

. Do you reallythink anyone, and I mean anyone, from the board is sitting down with the manager and discussing the merits of various footballers abilities?
The Manager will have a budget fir the playing staff. That will certainly be discussed. Signing targets will be discussed in a financial sense. Once the budget is gone it is gone. This is what Hughes was alluding to when he was talking about siffling the pack. Players would need to leave before others came in. If the manager signs players that are underperforming or just plain gash we/ he s stuck with them till the end of the contract or they move on.The board won't and I think correctly try to overspend when the side are toiling. I do however reckon if we are still in trouble in January the budget will be increased short term to allow players in. This shouldn't be to onerous as there are so many that can be got rid of at the end of the season. Do
My main concern, and one that you can (IMO) lay at the Board's door is fairly straightforward:

For every Murphy we sell, we get a van Zanten in his place; for Scott Brown we get Joe Keenan; Kevin Thomson we get McBride; for Jones we get Dickoh; for Stokes we get Trakys, etc., etc. Feel free to add to the list...

Maybe it's an over-simplistic argument, but there's been a massive turnover of staff on the playing side, where good players are sold for decent money, and we replace them with guys who are not just slightly inferior, but who simply should not get near a green jersey.

Now successive managers have (reportedly) remarked on the "restrictions" placed on them in transfer dealings on their departure.

That tells me that the Chairman has the last say on any deal that takes place - and the manager is not working with a free hand...

Filled Rolls is quick to tell us, there's too many "barrack-room directors" on here who wouldn't know how to run a football club - and he might have a point - however you could apply that same rationale to the Board - how can Petrie and or Lindsay make judgments on the merits/demerits of a prospective player - surely that's the sole province of the manager?

I know what i'd rather have, and it's a nucleus of 15 players jostling for a starting place, supplemented by three or four young lads knocking at the door. What we've got right now is a top-heavy Jim Duffy-type squad of sub-standard players that's taking us in one direction.

Decision time looms in January, I can only hope the Board realises that and takes the blinkers off, and are aware that we need to take a short-term hit and bring some ready-made players in - but I won't hold my breath.

[BroxburnHibee]

Debate the point with Smurf by all means - but please do it with a bit of respect.

Whether you agree or not. :greengrin

[PaulSmith]

I've not been invited. Is it an open forum?

Email Fife Hyland or club@hibernian and ask to attend.

It needs to be constructive though mate, we're all past even the frustrated stage and at boiling point but in reality if you or anyone expects a £1 or £2m investment on top of an already operating loss of c£1.7m then it ain't going to happen.
I do genuinely believe that the board wish to increase turnover and the CE said that they want to increase the crowd at ER by 5k, now we can all scoff and say how much of a joke that is right now but I admire their optimism and target.
Genuinely interested in what the aims of a Hands on Hibs campaign would be.
My own opinion is that we've seen certain factions within the club at loggerheads for a good part of all my life and we should perhaps aim to be stronger by being together

[smurf]

The board have taken pretty quick action this year on the footballing side having previously backed the manager yet again in brining in more players than the budget could really take.

The aims seem to be pretty clear that they want to try and achieve success on the pitch and they will use every pound we have spare and then some to try and do that.

Football though is played on the big green thing and there isn't a way for the Board to guarantee success.

The problems we have now are really for the manager to go and resolve.

Not so sure that i actually agree with that. IIRC late on in 2007 the club bought extra land down at East Mains that they said they didn't know exactly what use they'd put it to but it was too good an opportunity or something. IIRC it was a significant six figure sum. What has happened to this land? And would that money not have been better spent on the park? And does this not highlight a Board choice on capital infrastructure v every pound available going on the park? (Pretty confident i've remembered this accurately and will do some digging....)

Back to the OP and the constructive replies. There are certainly differences;

Off the park we are a far more professional football club. Better structured in all respects. And this obviously includede the Football club owning its ground again.

Off the park relations between the custodian and his board with the supporters are far better. There is more trust and IMHO more respect. I should add that this is on the whole right. But IMHO it can and should be further improved as it could be better.

So YES without question OFF THE PARK things are much much improved. And in this respect it's a job very well done by our custodian Sir Tom Farmer and his board of Directors led by Rod Petrie. But there are areas where we still need much improvement moving forward so there should be no complacency...

However, in the main most of us are bottom line ultimately interested in how we are ON THE PARK.

And in this respect we are as we were back in they miserable days of Hands on Hibs 1998 a complete shambles.

Yes of course this is the responsibility of the 'Football Management' side of things. Our Manager today and the long long list before him...

However, in any other business (and football isn't different... Though its always amusing to me how at times football owners and boards apply this sometimes and not at others...) it may well be the Middle Management or those on the ground that cause things to go wrong but ultimately the shareholders don't hold THEM to account now do they?

So ULTIMATELY the Board ARE responsible IMO and that of normal business practice opinion for that matter.

So do i want them out? Well not unless there are better standing ready to come in. And i don't see a queue of new potential owners knocking at the door of Sir Tom.

And Sir Tom will always judge the financial results well well ahead of what we do over a season on the park.

Therefore since 2004 our board paid 500K (By us the fans as its us that put in the money) a year have been safe. Safe because they had assets to sell.

John Collins spoke of raising 9.5 Million in one year. Yes well done to Rod Petrie for negotiating such fees but really with the players we've sold these past 5 years it's not really such a great achievement to deliver 5 yearly profits.

Because the reality is that underneath it all excluding these fees the club has been running at a loss for a few years now. Attendances are in decline. And are reflecting what's going on in the park...

When we sold a Scott Brown for 4.4 Million we replaced him with a Brian Kerr. And when we sold David Murphy for 1.5 Million we just didn't replace him....

I know we couldn't replace like-for-like. We couldn't afford to do so. But why not a strategy to bring in a genuinely good prospect with a view to selling on?

Mixu spoke of "Quality over quantity" but signed lots of poor quality. Some he didn't even play. What's that all about? Did he just decide to sign quantity after all... John Collins had John Rankin put to him. He didn't rate him but Rankin was signed a few days after Collins mysteriously walked.... Hughes made it clear he wanted Alan Gow. How did it not happen?

Is our Manager asked for a group of targets for signing and our board decides which ones they feel they should target based on their criteria?

Does our Manager have total control of discipline in the entire football department?

There are lots of issues relating to ON THE PARK. The main one being we are a shambolic and very poor Football Team.

IMHO it can't just be that previous Managers have all been hopeless. There are it appears to me other fundamental reasons for our complete under achievement. There has to be. Our budget isn't obviously competitive with Celtc or Scotland's Shame but it's at a level where there is simply no justification for our form and results stretching back in reality to late 2007.

If folk just want to focus all the attention on a belief that the Board have done and do do their job and it's all the responsibility of whoever they've appointed as Manager (YES who THEY'VE appointed!!) then fine that's a respectable POV.

But it's my honest opinion that that is misguided.

[CentreLine]

Email Fife Hyland or club@hibernian and ask to attend.

It needs to be constructive though mate, we're all past even the frustrated stage and at boiling point but in reality if you or anyone expects a £1 or £2m investment on top of an already operating loss of c£1.7m then it ain't going to happen.
I do genuinely believe that the board wish to increase turnover and the CE said that they want to increase the crowd at ER by 5k, now we can all scoff and say how much of a joke that is right now but I admire their optimism and target.
Genuinely interested in what the aims of a Hands on Hibs campaign would be.
My own opinion is that we've seen certain factions within the club at loggerheads for a good part of all my life and we should perhaps aim to be stronger by being together

Dates for the Supporters Feedback Sessions are 30th November, 1st and 2nd December. Topic the club wants to prioritise are:

Building the Hibernian Supporter Base (guess that's wher OP comes in primarily)

Ticketing and Membership

Heritage, Tours, stadium Branding

Club Communication

Hospitality, Conferencing and banqueting

Retail, Kit and merchandising

[Peevemor]

Not so sure that i actually agree with that. IIRC late on in 2007 the club bought extra land down at East Mains that they said they didn't know exactly what use they'd put it to but it was too good an opportunity or something.

IIRC the adjacent property has a right of access across (or at least a share access with) Hibs land. The Board decided to make the investment and thus avoid potential problems wih whoever else may have bought it.

As for the rest (and without wanting to sound patronising) it's the sort of good, well though out post that makes me want to come on to .net, even though I don't agree with a lot of it.

Each of JC, Mixu and Yogi had spells when the results were good - better than was deserved in a lot of instances.

However, each manager had faults that became more and more apparent as things started going wrong.

I don't believe there's necessarily an iffy culture among the players, though they've obviously lost (or never had) any semblence of a winning mentality. The bottom line is that if you're unhappy at work for whatever reason, then you don't perform well.

Hopefully CC doesn't have man management problems, isn't prone to favouritism or bullying and has some tactically savvy (:cool2:), and will be able to start turning things around.

[IWasThere2016]

Email Fife Hyland or club@hibernian and ask to attend.

It needs to be constructive though mate, we're all past even the frustrated stage and at boiling point but in reality if you or anyone expects a £1 or £2m investment on top of an already operating loss of c£1.7m then it ain't going to happen.
I do genuinely believe that the board wish to increase turnover and the CE said that they want to increase the crowd at ER by 5k, now we can all scoff and say how much of a joke that is right now but I admire their optimism and target.
Genuinely interested in what the aims of a Hands on Hibs campaign would be.
My own opinion is that we've seen certain factions within the club at loggerheads for a good part of all my life and we should perhaps aim to be stronger by being together

Paul I agree with what you say but .. re the bit in bold, will that be achieveable and sustainable without spending more on the team? We do have some good players to come through - but are they good enough? Will they be good enough to be sold - a neccessity if we are to deal with the debt (as an operating loss of c£2m cannot).

It all points, to me, to an imbalance between the team and the infrastructure.

The swiftest address to which would be new investment in the club - and the Board need to be asked about this? And in absence of new money, the strategy for the football club/additional 5k attending etc.

[greenlad]

As has been said the club are in a far better position off the park now than say in November 1997 but thats not to say that what is happening on the park just now is not concerning.

For me the issue has been one of value for money from the signings we have made basically since the day Tony Mowbray walked out the door in October 2006. Mowbray for all his faults and naivety had a very happy knack of rustling up "quality" players (by this I mean players who were able to bed into the first team and make a discernible difference) either on a free (Murphy, Beuzelin, Stewart, Shiels, Killen, Benji) or for very a small fee (Jones, Sproule, Zemamma). I would challenge anyone to doubt the contributions these players made compared with the current encumbents - probably similar wage levels. Therefore for the period we had these players at our disposal, allied to having the best youngsters in the country, were able to punch above our weight. I can easily forgive Mowbray the odd dud such as Malkowski, Konte, Simon Brown etc as he is so far in credit.

However the signings from Collins onwards through Mixu and onto Hughes have been almost without exception the complete opposite in that they have provided poor value for money. Since the Jan 07 window I would contend the only signings we've made that fit my description of quality are Murray, Riordan, Bamba, Stokes and Miller (when bothered) - and possibly Szamatulski and Rosa if they were available more often. The poor signings - too many to list.

As we have increased our playing budget across the last five seasons or whatever (not too many SPL clubs outwith Celtic, rangers and them acn say that) I can only conclude that the current squad poverty on this increased budget is a simple result of yes, quality players moving on to a club with a larger wage structure, but also successive managers since Mowbray not having the contacts/imagination/knowledge/nous to be able to bring sufficient quality replacements in for the same money, and instead whinging about constraints.

[JimBHibees]

As has been said the club are in a far better position off the park now than say in November 1997 but thats not to say that what is happening on the park just now is not concerning.

For me the issue has been one of value for money from the signings we have made basically since the day Tony Mowbray walked out the door in October 2006. Mowbray for all his faults and naivety had a very happy knack of rustling up "quality" players (by this I mean players who were able to bed into the first team and make a discernible difference) either on a free (Murphy, Beuzelin, Stewart, Shiels, Killen, Benji) or for very a small fee (Jones, Sproule, Zemamma). I would challenge anyone to doubt the contributions these players made compared with the current encumbents - probably similar wage levels. Therefore for the period we had these players at our disposal, allied to having the best youngsters in the country, were able to punch above our weight. I can easily forgive Mowbray the odd dud such as Malkowski, Konte, Simon Brown etc as he is so far in credit.

However the signings from Collins onwards through Mixu and onto Hughes have been almost without exception the complete opposite in that they have provided poor value for money. Since the Jan 07 window I would contend the only signings we've made that fit my description of quality are Murray, Riordan, Bamba, Stokes and Miller (when bothered) - and possibly Szamatulski and Rosa if they were available more often. The poor signings - too many to list.

As we have increased our playing budget across the last five seasons or whatever (not too many SPL clubs outwith Celtic, rangers and them acn say that) I can only conclude that the current squad poverty on this increased budget is a simple result of yes, quality players moving on to a club with a larger wage structure, but also successive managers since Mowbray not having the contacts/imagination/knowledge/nous to be able to bring sufficient quality replacements in for the same money, and instead whinging about constraints.

Completely agree, our signing policy since Mowbray has been in the main pretty woeful.

[jdships]

Serious question

Does the "extra" piece of land at EM not belong to STF rathet than HFC ?
:confused:

[smurf]

Serious question

Does the "extra" piece of land at EM not belong to STF rathet than HFC ?
:confused:

The Evening News had the story relating to the extra land being purchased on 1st June 2007 but for some reason the story has disappeared?:greengrin

[matty_f]

IMHO, if a campaign is to be started (which I'm guessing the OP is sort of testing the water to see if there's an appetite for it), then the people to target are the fans.

The board have said, consistently for as long as I can remember, that gate receipts will go directly back into the team.

With that promise in mind, and knowing that the club is already about as exposed as it could be with what we're spending on the playing side at the moment, the ONLY realistic way to get more money into the club is to make a concerted effort to get people to spend more on Hibs.

If it's a campaign, it means campaigning to get people back to Easter Road, not just for big games, but for all of them. To sell out the home ends at Easter Road would make a massive, massive difference to what gets made available to CC.

Can we campaign to get people to take up half season tickets? Can we campaign to get folk to fill the hospitality areas every game?

Can we encourage folk to increase their average spend on the club?

The board have said that they are trying to find ways to drive up revenue. We don't have more to do on the infrastructure side of things, so the team has to benefit from increased revenues.

Now, if we want a Hands on Hibs again, then I suggest that we lobby the fans from the die-hards to the casual supporters and get them on board. Then we make sure that the board come good on their promise to put gate receipts straight back into the playing side.

The board have a huge responsibility to increase revenue, but they're not Coca Cola or McDonalds, they don't have a massive customer base to tap into. At best we are looking at tens of thousands of people (unless we have 400,000 fans kicking about as well) to which the Club can appeal to. From those tens of thousands there are much fewer who can take commercial interest and effectively donate money to the club.

So it comes down to the fans, to turn up en mass week in/week out, to stump up for shirts, merchandise, season tickets and half-season tickets, Hibs Kids, visit the restaurant, book parties... whatever.

This is the area, IMHO, where people can make the biggest difference. If we want the board to stand up and be counted, we need to do it to.

[matty_f]

Serious question

Does the "extra" piece of land at EM not belong to STF rathet than HFC ?
:confused:

IIRC, it belongs to Hibs, all of East Mains and Easter Road do, too.

[Kaiser1962]

IIRC, it belongs to Hibs, all of East Mains and Easter Road do, too.

It does. It was easier to but all the land at East Mains than just the part Hibs needed. Shared access and all that.

[smurf]

IMHO, if a campaign is to be started (which I'm guessing the OP is sort of testing the water to see if there's an appetite for it), then the people to target are the fans.

The board have said, consistently for as long as I can remember, that gate receipts will go directly back into the team.

With that promise in mind, and knowing that the club is already about as exposed as it could be with what we're spending on the playing side at the moment, the ONLY realistic way to get more money into the club is to make a concerted effort to get people to spend more on Hibs.

If it's a campaign, it means campaigning to get people back to Easter Road, not just for big games, but for all of them. To sell out the home ends at Easter Road would make a massive, massive difference to what gets made available to CC.

Can we campaign to get people to take up half season tickets? Can we campaign to get folk to fill the hospitality areas every game?

Can we encourage folk to increase their average spend on the club?

The board have said that they are trying to find ways to drive up revenue. We don't have more to do on the infrastructure side of things, so the team has to benefit from increased revenues.

Now, if we want a Hands on Hibs again, then I suggest that we lobby the fans from the die-hards to the casual supporters and get them on board. Then we make sure that the board come good on their promise to put gate receipts straight back into the playing side.

The board have a huge responsibility to increase revenue, but they're not Coca Cola or McDonalds, they don't have a massive customer base to tap into. At best we are looking at tens of thousands of people (unless we have 400,000 fans kicking about as well) to which the Club can appeal to. From those tens of thousands there are much fewer who can take commercial interest and effectively donate money to the club.

So it comes down to the fans, to turn up en mass week in/week out, to stump up for shirts, merchandise, season tickets and half-season tickets, Hibs Kids, visit the restaurant, book parties... whatever.

This is the area, IMHO, where people can make the biggest difference. If we want the board to stand up and be counted, we need to do it to.

Excellent post. Best i've read in a long long time.

I DO want to see some campaign started. But i don't - as others are completely incorrectly suggesting - want to see some negative divisive campaign.

There's nothing to be achieved with such a campaign that's anti board. But there is IMHO absolutely everything to be achieved with a campaign totally independent from our club but working constructively with it holding it to account. With one united purpose and objective; to make things better for our club and therefore us the fans.

I started a thread on here the other week and in the main got pelters for it. My point was on the boards objective of getting more bums on seats. Obviously we all agree on such an objective. But i asked just how were they going to do so. And also perhaps the priority should be to focus on retaining our current base? Because by doing so that actually just might be the best strategy for getting additional numbers...

IF they get us regulars fully on board. And currently we are a diminishing number with very low morale... But with us on board then that's their only hope because IMHO it's only the product on the park and us relating that experience that gets folk along to ER.

"Word of mouth" applies to our club as much as it does any other product or service retailed or sold.

Hibees Reunited was a very good concept and all those involved deserve HUGE credit.

But just how successful was it?

Some may judge it on the additional or not numbers generated. I don't. I judge it on it being successful in maintaining our current numbers. It was a great reminder IMO of our responsibilities to OUR club to turn up at a time when the product on the park was poor (allow some results at its launch were good)

So i think the priority should be looking to protect the numbers we have at this current time. And looking to get extra cash out of us! Now i hear some saying "Eh?!! I'm paying enough to watch THAT tosh on the park..." and obviously who can argue. I'm on about the club in the first instance offering us more value to our Easter Road experience. To feel that it's not just about us coughing up in April/May June our £400 and that being that...

[Speedway]

I note the bullying is indeed kicking in. For some you can't question the board otherwise you have an agenda against them. And for that a group queue up against you making you out to be a liar etc etc... Many times in the past I've had reason to praise the board and have done so. And will hopefully do so again.

Where should the board be questioned. What haven't they done?


My main concern, and one that you can (IMO) lay at the Board's door is fairly straightforward:

For every Murphy we sell, we get a van Zanten in his place; for Scott Brown we get Joe Keenan; Kevin Thomson we get McBride; for Jones we get Dickoh; for Stokes we get Trakys, etc., etc. Feel free to add to the list...

Maybe it's an over-simplistic argument, but there's been a massive turnover of staff on the playing side, where good players are sold for decent money, and we replace them with guys who are not just slightly inferior, but who simply should not get near a green jersey.

Now successive managers have (reportedly) remarked on the "restrictions" placed on them in transfer dealings on their departure.

That tells me that the Chairman has the last say on any deal that takes place - and the manager is not working with a free hand...

Filled Rolls is quick to tell us, there's too many "barrack-room directors" on here who wouldn't know how to run a football club - and he might have a point - however you could apply that same rationale to the Board - how can Petrie and or Lindsay make judgments on the merits/demerits of a prospective player - surely that's the sole province of the manager?

I know what i'd rather have, and it's a nucleus of 15 players jostling for a starting place, supplemented by three or four young lads knocking at the door. What we've got right now is a top-heavy Jim Duffy-type squad of sub-standard players that's taking us in one direction.

Decision time looms in January, I can only hope the Board realises that and takes the blinkers off, and are aware that we need to take a short-term hit and bring some ready-made players in - but I won't hold my breath.

Disagree with this thinking.

Every player has been replaced by a nobody because the ones we sold were nobodies when they came to HIbs. Hibs can only afford nobodies on the whole and hope that they blossom into somebodies.

Brown, O'Connor, Murphy, Sproule etc etc all nobodies when they made their Hibs debut and in one case, an actual part timer.

Mowbray, seeing that we couldn't afford somebodies, tried the McLeish approach (reserve players from bigger teams) and it largely worked (Killen, Shiels, Zoumer, Boozy) etc.

Collins tried to step that up and went shopping at Chelsea, Newcastle, Monaco etc and *****ed his budget which meant that he then had to bring in HKT, MAC and other assorted crap...NOUBISSIE.

Mixu couldn't get his players to the club. Saddled with averageness and having had a few players signed on his behalf, he failed in attempts to get Litmanen, Niemi and that young midfield sensation of the time (name escapes me) Therefore he got saddled with Keenan, Thicot, Pinau etc. Got JJ just as JJ was finnished

Then in came Hughes who tried to mix it up. Got rid of some of the mince like Chisholm and went for the headline buys Stokes and Miller. One wound up the whole club and the other is a girl.

He couldn't get his players to the club because they had no interest inthe SPL. This led to Stack, Dickoh, Trackys style signings.

All the while, the board is funding this.

Now let's do some simple maths.

The club can get 35-40,000 to show up at a cup final so let's go mad and say that we could re-activate all of those people permanently.

Let's say that 40,000 could be split into 20,000 that we could fit in the ground x 20 ish matches a season paying on average £12 a piece as the board have highlighted = £4.8m

Then we could get the remaining 20,000 to spend money on Hibs somehow. Let's say on average £350 a year = £7m

Now up to £11.8m at wildly optimistic figures.

Add in TV money, Sponsorship, Merchandise, Food Sales etc and let's lump another £5m on top.

£16.8m turnover (not profit) total.

Roughly just under double what we're turning over, in the last couple of years by mobilising everyone.

The reality is that we have 11,000 showing up and are still funding player acquisition when other clubs in our division are not.

This is why I'm slow to attack the board. More can always be done but right now they're making a silk purse out of sow's ear and it's being badly spent by managers who they had to take a gamble on, because we can't afford somebodies without going into debt, which it is club policy not to do.

[Stevie Reid]

Where should the board be questioned. What haven't they done?



Disagree with this thinking.

Every player has been replaced by a nobody because the ones we sold were nobodies when they came to HIbs. Hibs can only afford nobodies on the whole and hope that they blossom into somebodies.

Brown, O'Connor, Murphy, Sproule etc etc all nobodies when they made their Hibs debut and in one case, an actual part timer.

Mowbray, seeing that we couldn't afford somebodies, tried the McLeish approach (reserve players from bigger teams) and it largely worked (Killen, Shiels, Zoumer, Boozy) etc.

Collins tried to step that up and went shopping at Chelsea, Newcastle, Monaco etc and *****ed his budget which meant that he then had to bring in HKT, MAC and other assorted crap...NOUBISSIE.

Mixu couldn't get his players to the club. Saddled with averageness and having had a few players signed on his behalf, he failed in attempts to get Litmanen, Niemi and that young midfield sensation of the time (name escapes me) Therefore he got saddled with Keenan, Thicot, Pinau etc. Got JJ just as JJ was finnished

Then in came Hughes who tried to mix it up. Got rid of some of the mince like Chisholm and went for the headline buys Stokes and Miller. One wound up the whole club and the other is a girl.

He couldn't get his players to the club because they had no interest inthe SPL. This led to Stack, Dickoh, Trackys style signings.

All the while, the board is funding this.

Now let's do some simple maths.

The club can get 35-40,000 to show up at a cup final so let's go mad and say that we could re-activate all of those people permanently.

Let's say that 40,000 could be split into 20,000 that we could fit in the ground x 20 ish matches a season paying on average £12 a piece as the board have highlighted = £4.8m

Then we could get the remaining 20,000 to spend money on Hibs somehow. Let's say on average £350 a year = £7m

Now up to £11.8m at wildly optimistic figures.

Add in TV money, Sponsorship, Merchandise, Food Sales etc and let's lump another £5m on top.

£16.8m turnover (not profit) total.

Roughly just under double what we're turning over, in the last couple of years by mobilising everyone.

The reality is that we have 11,000 showing up and are still funding player acquisition when other clubs in our division are not.

This is why I'm slow to attack the board. More can always be done but right now they're making a silk purse out of sow's ear and it's being badly spent by managers who they had to take a gamble on, because we can't afford somebodies without going into debt, which it is club policy not to do.

Excellent post.

Dundee Utd were in a similar position to ourselves a few years ago - after Eddie Thompson came in and gave Ian McCall a lot of money to spend, he failed to deliver (and had them much lower in the league than we've been in the last 8 years), and then Chisholm was appointed after he'd taken over and they'd received the new manager boost and got to the SC Final (sadly at our expense).

He was in turn given a good budget (they managed to offer more money to Lee Miller than Hearts could) but was then empied when he couldn't lift them away from the lower reaches of the league. Brewster was then appointed after doing well at ICT and being considered one of the best young managers in the game - 3 wins in 28 games later, he was emptied. They then got in Levein, and the rest is history.

All the way through McCall's, Chisholm's and Brewster's tenure, Utd were considered, as we have considered ourselves until very recently, to have much better players than their results implied, and somehow seemed to be much less than the sum of their parts. Eddie Thompson could not have backed his managers any more, he could only watch as each successive one failed to sign players to live up to the league position that their budget was allocated to achieve.

Eventually he got it right, Craig Levein made Dundee Utd a completely different proposotion to what they were for several years prior to his arrival (in fact since long before the days of their relegation from the Premier League, which is another parallel with us).

I firmly believe that the board are doing all they can to support the development of our club and the team on the park, but unfortunately successive managers have failed to live up to expectations placed on them by the fans and the budget supplied to them by the board. Hopefully CC will be the man to transform us from top to bottom as Levein did at Dundee Utd (he even ended up as Director of Football IIRC), he will have the ideal platform to do so at the end of this season, when he can use his 'perfect' budget to replace the 16 who will be going out the door.

The board have acted quickly to make sure that the worst shouldn't happen this year, having given the necessary budget for high league placings the previous 3 seasons, without getting them. All they can do is supply the budget and sign agreed targets to the manager's satisfaction - just because we are the 4th biggest spenders in the league is no guarantee that we will finish 4th in the league.

I believe that the board will allow CC much leeway in the January transfer window to bring in whoever he feels is required to lift us out of where we are - the cash cushion exists to prevent the worst from ever happening again, and that is how it should be. If the above does indeed happen, then I believe that the board will have truly done everything in their power to help every Hibs manager that they have employed.

[matty_f]

Stevie, Speedway, and Smurf - good posts from all of you (I'd have quoted you all but the post would be too long!

I suppose the question to raise now is 'what next?'.

Is there a wider appetite to get something off the ground to try and help the club?

The Hibees Reunited scheme was only ever intended to be a short term push to bring people in, maybe we need to get more of a commitment. Maybe there is scope to tap into what the 12th Man initiative is all about?

I am certain the club would welcome with open arms anything that helps them get people through the turnstiles on a matchday on a regular basis. I'm sure Calderwood and the players would, too.

[IWasThere2016]

I think it is unrealistic to expect the fans to turn up - during a recession, with rising inflation and job losses/wage cuts/freezes etc and more to come - when the product on the park doesn't merit it. The majority of those not attending will want improvement before turning up.

With a c.£2m loss - wages:turnover being too high - on park improvement will be extremely difficult without additional investment IMO.

Tough times ahead without investment, and CC and the Board have an extremely tough job IMHO.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I am only up for it if I get a nice blazer with a club crest on it.

[Hibbyradge]

Can anyone tell me any differences between where we are today and where we were in early 1998 when Hands On Hibs were set up?

We couldn't win 3 - 0 at Ibrox in 1998. :dunno:

[Kaiser1962]

Then in came Hughes who tried to mix it up. Got rid of some of the mince like Chisholm and went for the headline buys Stokes and Miller. One wound up the whole club and the other is a girl.



Would this be the same Liam Miller who is now, officiallly, a living God? :greengrin:greengrin:greengrin:greengrin

What a difference a game makes........

[matty_f]

I think it is unrealistic to expect the fans to turn up - during a recession, with rising inflation and job losses/wage cuts/freezes etc and more to come - when the product on the park doesn't merit it. The majority of those not attending will want improvement before turning up.

With a c.£2m loss - wages:turnover being too high - on park improvement will be extremely difficult without additional investment IMO.

Tough times ahead without investment, and CC and the Board have an extremely tough job IMHO.

So, with the recession clearly hitting Hibs, you would have to say that it's unrealistic to expect them to spend more? :dunno:


What I would say to counter that, TQM, is that if you want a better product on the park, stop whining like a girl on here (:greengrin that's a joke, btw) and get yer backside down to Easter Road regularly and help Calderwood do something about it.

You can't have it both ways. Ultimately, TV money and limited sponsorship aside (limited in that we don't have mass market appeal, and therefore don't make a sound advertising investment return for companies in the same way that the OF do) WE are Hibernian's income. We are the ones that literally can make a difference to the quality of player coming in to the club.

If turnover is to increase, a fair portion of that income needs to come from us -we're out of one cup already so there's a shortfall that needs to be made up. Hopefully we have a good run in the Scottish that fills the coffers a bit, but ultimately we need to try and fill Easter Road as frequently as possible to give the club the income needed to bring in better players.

[smurf]

We couldn't win 3 - 0 at Ibrox in 1998. :dunno:

:thumbsup:

Superb!:greengrin