Hsl

[Rocky]

That the Gordon family are keeping control and we as fans are being diluted without the opportunity to put further money in is a FACT. It is NOT an aspersion as you call it.

If you go to the boozer with 4 mates and each put 20 quid in the kitty you have 20% of the kitty. If another 5 folk turn up before you've even been to the bar and also put 20 quid each in the kitty your share of the kitty is diluted to 10%. Are you worse off?

[RMQ1967]

Hopefully not to bore anyone too much, but by chance, I'm reading Pat Nevins book and just reached the part where John Boyle has invested in Motherwell. A few of Pat's observations about that period seem pretty similar to our current situation - this is one:

"But the discounts were all part of a long-term strategy aimed to build up the core support from a young age, to tempt those who were not regulars and reward families. There were many in the community who were well onboard at the open day. Families milled around the pitch and stadium, checking out the stalls and meeting some of the players and staff personally. It underlined to me that *the positive customers for any business are usually quietly satisfied, but that those less enamoured, even if a minority, are more vocal*. I couldn't be angry about the season-ticket complainants, however: they might not have all shown up for the open day, but they were the true dedicated fans, the backbone of the support, and they didn't deserve to be aggravated by us."

[Rocky]

Just to check. If you're a member of a company limited by by guarantee, you don't get a share of the assets?

Good question for HSL AGM imo

[RMQ1967]

Pat Nevin - Football & How to Survive It

"I had always warned JB that football was an unusual business, that it didn't always follow the normal rules, and that this 'experiment' of his may take a generation or two to bear fruit. Even so, we expected at least some increase in the numbers coming through the turnstiles - but, for a period, they actually began to dip to lower than they were before we arrived, which was confusing and deeply dispiriting.

A few fans I talked to suggested: 'The new regime just isn't popular with some of the old fan base.' And there were some dark mutterings of certain fans not trusting 'those Catholics'. I dismissed that idea out of hand, but maybe there was a deeper mistrust, or just disbelief, that this would work out in the long term."

[CentreLine]

HSL. Apparently the victims in all this.

HSL are c4000 supported, not a faceless victim, if it turns out those supporters are victims. So too would be all of the supporters who have purchased shares over the years. I think it would do every one of those supporters a disservice to dehumanise them as simply HSL.

[Rocky]

HSL are c4000 supported, not a faceless victim, if it turns out those supporters are victims. So too would be all of the supporters who have purchased shares over the years. I think it would do every one of those supporters a disservice to dehumanise them as simply HSL.
I'm a full member of HSL

[CropleyWasGod]

Just to check. If you're a member of a company limited by by guarantee, you don't get a share of the assets?

That should be covered by their constitution.

In others I have seen, admittedly mostly charities (in the days when many charities were Guarantee companies), any assets left over had to be donated to other charities.

Edit... Just looked at their Mem&Arts, and that's what would happen. Distribution to a charity or similar with similar aims, and not to members.

PB's windfall ain't happening :greengrin

[CentreLine]

That should be covered by their constitution.

In others I have seen, admittedly mostly charities (in the days when many charities were Guarantee companies), any assets left over had to be donated to other charities.

My memory isn’t great for these things but it runs in my mind that, should HSL cease to exist, all of its shares and finances would default to the club. Not entirely sure if that’s the case but just throwing it in the mix

[CropleyWasGod]

My memory isn’t great for these things but it runs in my mind that, should HSL cease to exist, all of its shares and finances would default to the club. Not entirely sure if that’s the case but just throwing it in the mix

See my edit above. They get distributed to other organisations with similar objects.

That may include the Club, of course.

[marinello59]

HSL. Apparently the victims in all this.

You think they were there to make money?

[marinello59]

HSL are c4000 supported, not a faceless victim, if it turns out those supporters are victims. So too would be all of the supporters who have purchased shares over the years. I think it would do every one of those supporters a disservice to dehumanise them as simply HSL.

:agree:

[Rocky]

See my edit above. They get distributed to other organisations with similar objects.

That may include the Club, of course.

Just had a look at those. Promotion of football, sport etc in Leith, Edinburgh and East Lothian is listed as a secondary objective. I'm sure members in Midlothian, West Lothian and further afield will be delighted when it comes to divvying up the £millions.

Thank god we didn't end up fan owned.

[Rocky]

You think they were there to make money?

Nope, but we're a one member one voice organisation. It's only fair that if Jim Adie goes on Sky Sports and say a bunch of stuff I don't agree with then I should be free to hold and express an opinion that the HSL leadership are acting a bit victim-y.

[uwxm07]

That the Gordon family are keeping control and we as fans are being diluted without the opportunity to put further money in is a FACT. It is NOT an aspersion as you call it.

Are you planning to invest a significant sum of cash (I.e. more than the Gordon’s) to move our club forward in the modern day football world ?
If your not I’d love to hear your plans for success ggtth - hopefully in the foreseeable future. ( like before I die ? C 20yrs )

[Hibeesdaft16]

Maybe worth considering whether the Gordon family really feel it's not a cruel world when they've lost a family member who showed nothing but good intentions and threw plenty of money at our club yet there are folk on here such as yourself who don't even understand the basics of the proposals yet are casting aspersions on their family?

Throwing plenty of money at the club insinuates (probably not the correct word) that the Gordon's have spent/lost their own money. They haven't at all, they have loaned the club money and will eventually not only have that repaid at an interest rate we are unsure of but the value of the club they bought will increase and they will make a profit. They haven't spent or gambled any of their money at all. I'm not suggesting they should have by the way but let's no pretend they are doing something they haven't.
s
'

[Rumble de Thump]

Throwing plenty of money at the club insinuates (probably not the correct word) that the Gordon's have spent/lost their own money. They haven't at all, they have loaned the club money and will eventually not only have that repaid at an interest rate we are unsure of but the value of the club they bought will increase and they will make a profit. They haven't spent or gambled any of their money at all. I'm not suggesting they should have by the way but let's no pretend they are doing something they haven't.
s
'

How did the club's debt get cleared when Ron Gordon bought his shares?

[Hibbyradge]

All correct, but of course this is different from a "normal" company.

None of "us" are interested in doubling our money. "They" are, which is the perennial conflict in these situations.

If these investments lead to our value doubling, I doubt many of us will be complaining about anything, whether or not we're shareholders.

[uwxm07]

Just browsing the recent email from HSL and the fact that it's shareholding will soon be diluted to 7%

Which makes me think - What's the point of it now?

This isn't a criticism of HSL. I've been on board from the start but the way things are now I need to try and understand if it's a worthwhile vehicle anymore.



And I thought it maybe needed a thread of it's own to discuss the merits.

Anyone got a view?

It was always a dodgy vehicle if you were looking at an investment. I bought shares directly when the were first offered -however I had to get a signed letter from my bank /financial advisor confirming I understood I was investing in a non saleable share , potentially worthless and I could afford to lose this money ( no more than 10% of my net worth)
So a donation - which I was fully aware off .
Did anyone really believe it was /is an investment ? I doubt the Gordon’s do .

[Rocky]

Throwing plenty of money at the club insinuates (probably not the correct word) that the Gordon's have spent/lost their own money. They haven't at all, they have loaned the club money and will eventually not only have that repaid at an interest rate we are unsure of but the value of the club they bought will increase and they will make a profit. They haven't spent or gambled any of their money at all. I'm not suggesting they should have by the way but let's no pretend they are doing something they haven't.
s
'
They're about to write off £5.75m of debt and in the process REDUCE their share of ownership. Damn straight they've put their own money in. The lack of comprehension among fans is such a compelling argument against fan ownership. Sooner this deal is done the better.

[MelbourneHibees]

We will get diluted to nothing and our investment in the club is therefore worth nothing.

I think we are talking about 2 different things. You are referring to the new share issue which will dilite HSL holdings to around 7%. Separately they have also altered our company policy whereby if 80% (currently it is 90%) of shareholders opt to sell their shares to a new investor then the remaining 20% have to also sell for the same price. That means that HSL will get the money for their 7% of shares. That money effectively belongs to the supporters who signed up to HSL and HSL may even make a profit (or loss...)!


My question is do HSL have the capability to identify how much each fan has put in and return their share of the...shares that they sold.

Hope that makes sense.


And yes, you are ultimately right, the HSL holdings would be reduced to 0.

[Forza Fred]

Throwing plenty of money at the club insinuates (probably not the correct word) that the Gordon's have spent/lost their own money. They haven't at all, they have loaned the club money and will eventually not only have that repaid at an interest rate we are unsure of but the value of the club they bought will increase and they will make a profit. They haven't spent or gambled any of their money at all. I'm not suggesting they should have by the way but let's no pretend they are doing something they haven't.
s
'

Just sayin like………..

[Pagan Hibernia]

HSL. Apparently the victims in all this.

Leaving Jim Adie's interview aside, is it not clear that an organisation formed to build and protect a shareholding for supporters, clearly are the fall guys (victims if you prefer) of a deal which will ultimately see their shareholding reduced to nothing? Even if you want the deal to go through, and it's clear many do, that statement remains the case.

I'm sure you intended your statement as some sort of smart arsed insult but in terms of the organisation and its clear and stated aims, then yeah they're the victims. No "apparently" about it.

[Rocky]

Leaving Jim Adie's interview aside, is it not clear that an organisation formed to build and protect a shareholding for supporters, clearly are the fall guys (victims if you prefer) of a deal which will ultimately see their shareholding reduced to nothing? Even if you want the deal to go through, and it's clear many do, that statement remains the case.

I'm sure you intended your statement as some sort of smart arsed insult but in terms of the organisation and its clear and stated aims, then yeah they're the victims. No "apparently" about it.
Right, so if somebody came along and invested a billion quid and Hibs get the helipad, filled in corners with a four tier megastand on top, win the Champions League and beat hearts by a minimum of 6 goals 4 times a season but as a consequence the HSL holding is reduced to 0.1% we're supposed to see them as the victims?

Far too many folk with the bowling club committee mentality. My posts on here started with concern about the pre-emption rights and the worry about us being forced to sell our own and HSL's shares. Now I completely understand why those conditions are in the deal and will 100% be voting in favour.

[Pagan Hibernia]

Right, so if somebody came along and invested a billion quid and Hibs get the helipad, filled in corners with a four tier megastand on top, win the Champions League and beat hearts by a minimum of 6 goals 4 times a season but as a consequence the HSL holding is reduced to 0.1% we're supposed to see them as the victims?

Far too many folk with the bowling club committee mentality. My posts on here started with concern about the pre-emption rights and the worry about us being forced to sell our own and HSL's shares. Now I completely understand why those conditions are in the deal and will 100% be voting in favour.

It's your prerogative to support or not support the deal.

The insults towards HSL are a low blow.

[MelbourneHibees]

Right, so if somebody came along and invested a billion quid and Hibs get the helipad, filled in corners with a four tier megastand on top, win the Champions League and beat hearts by a minimum of 6 goals 4 times a season but as a consequence the HSL holding is reduced to 0.1% we're supposed to see them as the victims?

Far too many folk with the bowling club committee mentality. My posts on here started with concern about the pre-emption rights and the worry about us being forced to sell our own and HSL's shares. Now I completely understand why those conditions are in the deal and will 100% be voting in favour.

If we are using extreme examples to make a point then what about the scenario where in a years time the BKG and Gordons take us from midtable to relegation fight whilst selling off one of our key players to Bournemouth (okay really extreme!)
Suddenly they want to abandon ship to the next Vlad and HSL along with Robb with their diluted shares can no longer block the sale?

The first half of that is exactly what has happened to Lorient.
Who are the victims then?

[Rocky]

If we are using extreme examples to make a point then what about the scenario where in a years time the BKG and Gordons take us from midtable to relegation fight whilst selling off one of our key players to Bournemouth (okay really extreme!)
Suddenly they want to abandon ship to the next Vlad and HSL along with Robb with their diluted shares can no longer block the sale?

The first half of that is exactly what has happened to Lorient.
Who are the victims then?
All of us, but a) that ship has already sailed. I did my bit in joining HSL and buying shares in the club, not enough others did so this deal is going through regardless and b) the alternative is perennially trying to cling to the coat tails of Aberdeen and hearts financially. Even if a choice existed, which it doesn't, it's not hard to choose between HSL's 200k war chest with zero influence on the club versus 10 million quid with half of zero influence on the club.

[Forza Fred]

I think the aims of those behind HSL were totally honourable, but the likliehood that any shareholding the organisation held would be diluted, was a fairly identifiable, ongoing risk.

They were, to a degree, always chasing their tail.

I can see why they are disappointed, but time etc marches on,

[Ship of Hope]

Correct me if I am wrong but have hibs not always had an owner / benefactor? It seems to me that the only difference now is that the current incumbent is prepared to put their money where their mouth is and try to move the club forward. I fully trust in the Gordons intentions for the club and believe whole heartedly that Ron’s intentions were entirely honourable. The family are determined to carry this legacy on and I think they deserve a bit more trust from our support. In my mind the club is on an upward trajectory with off field improvements already happening and I am confident the football side will follow. If the ownership can double, treble, quadruple the value of the club then fantastic. We as fans can look forward to spending more time in our happy place than squabbling amongst ourselves. We have spent too long in the doldrums over the years and this investment represents a real opportunity to change the direction of travel in a really positive way. All we have to do as fans is embrace it and enjoy the ride. Like others I am hoping to see out my days supporting a successful team. It would be interesting to have a survey of HSL members on here to see what the consensus amongst HSL actually is. I suspect the majority would be in favour of this investment despite the dilution of share percentage (not value). My hope is something positive for the club can be done with the funds raised and it does not become something that leads to division and bitterness.

[McD]

Throwing plenty of money at the club insinuates (probably not the correct word) that the Gordon's have spent/lost their own money. They haven't at all, they have loaned the club money and will eventually not only have that repaid at an interest rate we are unsure of but the value of the club they bought will increase and they will make a profit. They haven't spent or gambled any of their money at all. I'm not suggesting they should have by the way but let's no pretend they are doing something they haven't.
s
'


The lack of understanding of what’s happening whilst lashing out here is incredible, especially when it’s been talked about for days on here and elsewhere.

For owners who have had their loans repaid with interest on top, have a look across the road.



They're about to write off £5.75m of debt and in the process REDUCE their share of ownership. Damn straight they've put their own money in. The lack of comprehension among fans is such a compelling argument against fan ownership. Sooner this deal is done the better.


:agree: Exactly

[CallumLaidlaw]

If we are using extreme examples to make a point then what about the scenario where in a years time the BKG and Gordons take us from midtable to relegation fight whilst selling off one of our key players to Bournemouth (okay really extreme!)
Suddenly they want to abandon ship to the next Vlad and HSL along with Robb with their diluted shares can no longer block the sale?

The first half of that is exactly what has happened to Lorient.
Who are the victims then?

I think some folk are using this Lorient example to the extreme. They have had ONE season where they finished 10th. Aside from that the are a perennial yoyo side. Much like Bournemouth. BKE clearly targeted that type of team to get them to the next level. At the minute at hasn’t worked yet with Lorient but they were probably always gonna be back in a relegation battle this season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[adam middlemass]

Correct me if I am wrong but have hibs not always had an owner / benefactor? It seems to me that the only difference now is that the current incumbent is prepared to put their money where their mouth is and try to move the club forward. I fully trust in the Gordons intentions for the club and believe whole heartedly that Ron’s intentions were entirely honourable. The family are determined to carry this legacy on and I think they deserve a bit more trust from our support. In my mind the club is on an upward trajectory with off field improvements already happening and I am confident the football side will follow. If the ownership can double, treble, quadruple the value of the club then fantastic. We as fans can look forward to spending more time in our happy place than squabbling amongst ourselves. We have spent too long in the doldrums over the years and this investment represents a real opportunity to change the direction of travel in a really positive way. All we have to do as fans is embrace it and enjoy the ride. Like others I am hoping to see out my days supporting a successful team. It would be interesting to have a survey of HSL members on here to see what the consensus amongst HSL actually is. I suspect the majority would be in favour of this investment despite the dilution of share percentage (not value). My hope is something positive for the club can be done with the funds raised and it does not become something that leads to division and bitterness.

Agree entirely; I didn’t buy shares in Hibernian to profit from it. I don’t give a monkeys how low my percentage drops. Would just like to see a better product on the park, and this development i hope gives us a better chance of that. Onwards and upwards :flag:

[Golden Bear]

Agree entirely; I didn’t buy shares in Hibernian to profit from it. I don’t give a monkeys how low my percentage drops. Would just like to see a better product on the park, and this development i hope gives us a better chance of that. Onwards and upwards :flag:

Hear hear!!!

[Jack]

There was a view to bring back the Shareholders Association at the time of the launch of HSL and the share issue that went with it. Thinks that was about 2015ish.

A couple of posters on here (although one is probably more active on the Bounce) were involved but it never really got off the ground. I was at one meeting with them at ER as I was doing a few things with HSL at the time. I think it was something that there just wasn't a huge appetite for as it wasn't deemed as necessary as it was immediately post Mercer. It's arguably something that would be useful right about now though.

Good grief! I go away for a few days and all hell let's loose!

Yes, I was one of those people long ago that attempted to revive the Hibernian Shareholders Association as the original had lain dormant for many years.

Despite encouragement and help from the club there was absolutely no traction with the old or new Shareholders at that time.

After many months of trying to get something put together it was decided to to return the Association to its dormant state.

There are articles of association, a constitution (or whatever they're called) and a bank account with the subscriptions of the folk that tried to put this together.

I probably do post more on the HibeesBounce but I am still active here contributing where I can and on threads where I can keep up 😆 I'm abroad at the moment and have read less than half of this thread. Hopefully I'll catch up with the rest soon.

[RMQ1967]

Correct me if I am wrong but have hibs not always had an owner / benefactor? It seems to me that the only difference now is that the current incumbent is prepared to put their money where their mouth is and try to move the club forward. I fully trust in the Gordons intentions for the club and believe whole heartedly that Ron’s intentions were entirely honourable. The family are determined to carry this legacy on and I think they deserve a bit more trust from our support. In my mind the club is on an upward trajectory with off field improvements already happening and I am confident the football side will follow. If the ownership can double, treble, quadruple the value of the club then fantastic. We as fans can look forward to spending more time in our happy place than squabbling amongst ourselves. We have spent too long in the doldrums over the years and this investment represents a real opportunity to change the direction of travel in a really positive way. All we have to do as fans is embrace it and enjoy the ride. Like others I am hoping to see out my days supporting a successful team. It would be interesting to have a survey of HSL members on here to see what the consensus amongst HSL actually is. I suspect the majority would be in favour of this investment despite the dilution of share percentage (not value). My hope is something positive for the club can be done with the funds raised and it does not become something that leads to division and bitterness.

Great post & encouraging to see so many in support of the investment.

A poll on here would be really interesting. Does anyone know how to set up one of those vote/poll things?

[Stairway 2 7]

I think some folk are using this Lorient example to the extreme. They have had ONE season where they finished 10th. Aside from that the are a perennial yoyo side. Much like Bournemouth. BKE clearly targeted that type of team to get them to the next level. At the minute at hasn’t worked yet with Lorient but they were probably always gonna be back in a relegation battle this season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They have also been knackered by the fact that this year league 1 has been cut from 22 clubs to 18. Much easier to go down.

[green day]

Yes but unless we waive this protection they're keeping their 10 million.

Bear in mind that in theory this dilution does nothing to the VALUE of our holding, it just reduces the PERCENTAGE of the club we own. Roughly speaking, instead of HSL owning 15% of a £9 million pound company we'll now own 7% of a £19.5m company. It's still roughly £1.5 million worth of shares.

It would be useful if HSL (of which I am a full member) would inform members this type of detail - simply telling fans that "our shareholdings are being diluted" with no context is incredibly unhelpful.

With no context, its just like those Simon Pia / Kano financial masterclasses.........

[jacomo]

It would be useful if HSL (of which I am a full member) would inform members this type of detail - simply telling fans that "our shareholdings are being diluted" with no context is incredibly unhelpful.

With no context, its just like those Simon Pia / Kano financial masterclasses.........


This comparison keeps coming up and I don’t think it’s valid.

Pia / Kano embellished and spread their conspiracy theory based on half truths and personal beef with Tom Farmer.

HSL are not in this boat… but the tone seems to be lamenting the failure to secure a big enough stake in the club when shares were being offered to fans.

That time has gone. If you were a Hibs fan concerned about outside owners then the time to act was 2015: either buying into to the share issue personally, or promoting the idea amongst friends and fellow supporters.

No point crying over spilt milk now…

[green day]

This comparison keeps coming up and I don’t think it’s valid.

Pia / Kano embellished and spread their conspiracy theory based on half truths and personal beef with Tom Farmer.

HSL are not in this boat… but the tone seems to be lamenting the failure to secure a big enough stake in the club when shares were being offered to fans.

That time has gone. If you were a Hibs fan concerned about outside owners then the time to act was 2015: either buying into to the share issue personally, or promoting the idea amongst friends and fellow supporters.

No point crying over spilt milk now…

That's probably fair. I just get a bit annoyed when half a story emerges and is taken up by people as full fact.

You are right on that share ownership issue, that ship sailed a long time ago and harking back to it is pointless.

[Hibbyradge]

I've donated £18.75 pm to HSL since the start and I'm disappointed that our goal wasn't achieved, but if we had achieved our targeted 25.1% shareholding, would we be standing in the way of this investment?

[Bostonhibby]

This comparison keeps coming up and I don’t think it’s valid.

Pia / Kano embellished and spread their conspiracy theory based on half truths and personal beef with Tom Farmer.

HSL are not in this boat… but the tone seems to be lamenting the failure to secure a big enough stake in the club when shares were being offered to fans.

That time has gone. If you were a Hibs fan concerned about outside owners then the time to act was 2015: either buying into to the share issue personally, or promoting the idea amongst friends and fellow supporters.

No point crying over spilt milk now…Exactly this. I really didn't require much thought to appreciate what HSL was, and is compared to Ponzi schemes, and everything else those with destructive negative influences seemed to be behind.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Rocky]

I've donated £18.75 pm to HSL since the start and I'm disappointed that our goal wasn't achieved, but if we had achieved our targeted 25.1% shareholding, would we be standing in the way of this investment?
I don't personally think Ron Gordon would have got involved if we'd got to 25.1%, never mind BKFE. Maybe he would, but only on condition that we were diluted to less than 25%.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't personally think Ron Gordon would have got involved if we'd got to 25.1%, never mind BKFE. Maybe he would, but only on condition that we were diluted to less than 25%.

RG got involved when the collective fans' involvement was 33%. But, in hindsight, it was probably his aim to eventually reduce that.

[Bostonhibby]

I don't personally think Ron Gordon would have got involved if we'd got to 25.1%, never mind BKFE. Maybe he would, but only on condition that we were diluted to less than 25%.I think the same way, the ship for protective shareholdings as a minimum, has sailed. The need for it might or might not exist as we move into the next chapter..

Onwards and upwards.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Rocky]

RG got involved when the collective fans' involvement was 33%. But, in hindsight, it was probably his aim to eventually reduce that.

I meant HSL specifically. A member organisation with a blocking vote would have been a substantial risk.

[green day]

Exactly this. I really didn't require much thought to appreciate what HSL was, and is compared to Ponzi schemes, and everything else those with destructive negative influences seemed to be behind.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
Just to be 100% clear........my point, perhaps not that eloquently made, is that giving fans - some with little knowledge of shares or finance - half a story is incredibly unhelpful.

My Pia/Kano ref was only pointing out that "influential" people need to be careful with their public utterances.

[Bostonhibby]

Just to be 100% clear........my point, perhaps not that eloquently made, is that giving fans - some with little knowledge of shares or finance - half a story is incredibly unhelpful.

My Pia/Kano ref was only pointing out that "influential" people need to be careful with their public utterances.[emoji106]understood.

That's the way I saw your post

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Rocky]

I've had a thought that may be genius or may be dumb as a rock, interested in folks views.

Realistically once this deal goes through HSL will no longer be even close to having a voting influence and therefore can't provide any protection to the club. Plus there's a reasonable chance that at some point an outright buyer will appear and HSL will be forced to sell all shares, thereby ending up with £1m plus in the bank and no clear idea what to do with it.

How about if HSL proposed an "equity for land" deal, and exchanged all of their shares for a parcel of land within the footprint of Easter Road. As long as the piece of land was big enough and strategically placed enough it would prevent the club ever selling off the ground without HSL permission. At the end of the day it's only the ground and the name that matters in preserving our club, all of the people, players, management, execs come and go.

If the Gordons agree then in reality HSL end up providing more protection to the club than they ever have before, if not, well why not? I appreciate it would be a risk if they ever want to sell up and move to a ginormodome somewhere but really, if that's ever a plan, they should be able to take the fans along with them in support anyway.

[CropleyWasGod]

I've had a thought that may be genius or may be dumb as a rock, interested in folks views.

Realistically once this deal goes through HSL will no longer be even close to having a voting influence and therefore can't provide any protection to the club. Plus there's a reasonable chance that at some point an outright buyer will appear and HSL will be forced to sell all shares, thereby ending up with £1m plus in the bank and no clear idea what to do with it.

How about if HSL proposed an "equity for land" deal, and exchanged all of their shares for a parcel of land within the footprint of Easter Road. As long as the piece of land was big enough and strategically placed enough it would prevent the club ever selling off the ground without HSL permission. At the end of the day it's only the ground and the name that matters in preserving our club, all of the people, players, management, execs come and go.

If the Gordons agree then in reality HSL end up providing more protection to the club than they ever have before, if not, well why not? I appreciate it would be a risk if they ever want to sell up and move to a ginormodome somewhere but really, if that's ever a plan, they should be able to take the fans along with them in support anyway.

That's similar to the arrangement STF had with the ticket office.

If I were the Gordons, I'd laugh at it before saying "no chance". I can't see what's in it for them (other than HSL goodwill). The restrictions on selling would arguably reduce the value of their shares.

Good shout, though. Might be worth a try, if for no reason other than to test the Gordons' attitude to the fans.

[Rocky]

That's similar to the arrangement STF had with the ticket office.

If I were the Gordons, I'd laugh at it before saying "no chance". I can't see what's in it for them (other than HSL goodwill). The restrictions on selling would arguably reduce the value of their shares.

Good shout, though. Might be worth a try, if for no reason other than to test the Gordons' attitude to the fans.

I'm not so sure they'd be so dismissive. If it's proposed to them and they say no then the follow up is, "why not and under what circumstances would you intend to sell the ground without the support of fans?". Consequence is a culture of suspicion and distrust.

If they say yes we're all happy, we trust their intentions, and we all get on the same page to drive the club forward. Also their shareholding is whatever the opposite of diluted is as 7% of the existing shares are cancelled. I don't think a blocking land share is as much of a deterrent to investment as a noisy minority shareholder is (unless the investors motives are land related in which case they can gtf anyway)

[Bostonhibby]

I've had a thought that may be genius or may be dumb as a rock, interested in folks views.

Realistically once this deal goes through HSL will no longer be even close to having a voting influence and therefore can't provide any protection to the club. Plus there's a reasonable chance that at some point an outright buyer will appear and HSL will be forced to sell all shares, thereby ending up with £1m plus in the bank and no clear idea what to do with it.

How about if HSL proposed an "equity for land" deal, and exchanged all of their shares for a parcel of land within the footprint of Easter Road. As long as the piece of land was big enough and strategically placed enough it would prevent the club ever selling off the ground without HSL permission. At the end of the day it's only the ground and the name that matters in preserving our club, all of the people, players, management, execs come and go.

If the Gordons agree then in reality HSL end up providing more protection to the club than they ever have before, if not, well why not? I appreciate it would be a risk if they ever want to sell up and move to a ginormodome somewhere but really, if that's ever a plan, they should be able to take the fans along with them in support anyway.Clever idea, similar to Matthew Harding's arrangement at Chelsea, reputedly to protect the stadium from development?.

I recall floating something of that kind around the time RG took over, lukewarm reaction I recall.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[lucky]

Jim Adie has been brilliant for HSL but he should be saying nothing publicly until after HSL AGM. He holds the same share in HSL as all other members. HSL is not his vehicle its for all members to decide on this deal.

The Foley deal does dilute all existing shareholders' percentage share of the club. But the whole point of Hibs is to win football matches. If the Foley money helps us to do that then I would imagine the vast majority of fans would be delighted.

[CropleyWasGod]

Clever idea, similar to Matthew Harding's arrangement at Chelsea, reputedly to protect the stadium from development?.

I recall floating something of that kind around the time RG took over, lukewarm reaction I recall.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

We had it with STF.

Presumably, RG didn't like the idea.

[Bostonhibby]

We had it with STF.

Presumably, RG didn't like the idea.[emoji106]

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[CapitalGreen]

We had it with STF.

Presumably, RG didn't like the idea.

Did we really have protection with STF considering he owned both rather than them being held by separate parties? Did STF really provide any protection by doing this considering he sold them together to the same party?

[CropleyWasGod]

Did we really have protection with STF considering he owned both rather than them being held by separate parties? Did STF really provide any protection by doing this considering he sold them together to the same party?

Short answer, in hindsight, is probably not.

I was quite surprised (disappointed even) that the ticket office was sold as well. I can only presume that either (or both):-

1. it was a deal-breaker for Ron .

2. STF was comfortable that he wasn't an asset-stripper.

Events have probably backed up the latter, but at the time I did wish that STF had kept the ticket-office. Those doubts have surfaced again this week since the Drag-along chat surfaced, but hopefully that's irrational paranoia.

[Rocky]

Clever idea, similar to Matthew Harding's arrangement at Chelsea, reputedly to protect the stadium from development?.

I recall floating something of that kind around the time RG took over, lukewarm reaction I recall.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

That doesn't surprise me if I'm honest. Hibs fans seem to be much better at ill informed noise than they are at putting money up or doing anything of practical value

[Bostonhibby]

That doesn't surprise me if I'm honest. Hibs fans seem to be much better at ill informed noise than they are at putting money up or doing anything of practical valueNot sure that would ever be in the fans gift, if the theory was to become reality it would need the club or incoming owner to want to do it.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Rocky]

Not sure that would ever be in the fans gift, if the theory was to become reality it would need the club or incoming owner to want to do it.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

I agree it'll never be in the fans gift but if it's only getting a lukewarm reception from fans then there's zero pressure on the owner to do anything about it.

Bottom line is we have one signifant fans vehicle, the chairman of which has vented his spleen on sky sports without membership backing, and another board member has openly said he's avoiding the threads on here. In the time that we need leadership they've been found wanting. And I don't care how much they've volunteered their own time, ultimately if you choose to lead a venture that owns 15% of our club then take the responsibility for that.

[banchoryhibs]

I agree it'll never be in the fans gift but if it's only getting a lukewarm reception from fans then there's zero pressure on the owner to do anything about it.

Bottom line is we have one signifant fans vehicle, the chairman of which has vented his spleen on sky sports without membership backing, and another board member has openly said he's avoiding the threads on here. In the time that we need leadership they've been found wanting. And I don't care how much they've volunteered their own time, ultimately if you choose to lead a venture that owns 15% of our club then take the responsibility for that.

As you point out HSL is a members organisation. It is clearly in the process of canvassing members' views via [email protected] and, I have no doubt, is carefully considering the implications of the club's actions.
Jim Adie confirmed that HSL was not privy to any advance discussion with the club so can only now examine and consider the documents referenced in the club's correspondence. For example a careful scrutiny of new Articles of Association cannot be done overnight.
HSL's AGM has been arranged at very short notice. It takes place prior to the club's AGM and is the appropriate forum for its members' full and frank debate on all issues arising from the club's actions. An invitation to attend the AGM has been issued to all HSL members.
The HSL board will take instruction from both members attending and those submitting proxy votes.

[Rocky]

As you point out HSL is a members organisation. It is clearly in the process of canvassing members' views via [email protected] and, I have no doubt, is carefully considering the implications of the club's actions.
Jim Adie confirmed that HSL was not privy to any advance discussion with the club so can only now examine and consider the documents referenced in the club's correspondence. For example a careful scrutiny of new Articles of Association cannot be done overnight.
HSL's AGM has been arranged at very short notice. It takes place prior to the club's AGM and is the appropriate forum for its members' full and frank debate on all issues arising from the club's actions. An invitation to attend the AGM has been issued to all HSL members.
The HSL board will take instruction from both members attending and those submitting proxy votes.
Confirmation that professional advice on the articles has been sought can easily be done overnight. I've asked three times on two forums if that's happening and had no definitive response. And I've seen a board member ask if votes can be cast at the AGM despite it being patently obvious that they can to anyone who read the paperwork. I have read an impassioned defence of Jim from a board member though. I guess that's more important.

[banchoryhibs]

Confirmation that professional advice on the articles has been sought can easily be done overnight. I've asked three times on two forums if that's happening and had no definitive response. And I've seen a board member ask if votes can be cast at the AGM despite it being patently obvious that they can to anyone who read the paperwork. I have read an impassioned defence of Jim from a board member though. I guess that's more important.

I suggest that you contact HSL directly if you wish to ask such questions, just as all HSL members can.
That's the appropriate avenue to use.

The email address is as above.

[Daniel 1875]

I agree it'll never be in the fans gift but if it's only getting a lukewarm reception from fans then there's zero pressure on the owner to do anything about it.

Bottom line is we have one signifant fans vehicle, the chairman of which has vented his spleen on sky sports without membership backing, and another board member has openly said he's avoiding the threads on here. In the time that we need leadership they've been found wanting. And I don't care how much they've volunteered their own time, ultimately if you choose to lead a venture that owns 15% of our club then take the responsibility for that.

Is it any wonder a “board member” is avoiding the threads on here when anonyomous users like yourself, aka ‘Rocky’ can say what they like without any recourse? I volunteer my time, you might not care how much, and in the last few days I’ve taken the decision for my own mental health it’d be better to avoid these threads. You might not agree with that position, but it’s necessary for my own sanity.

I know how the votes work at the AGM, my response the other day was in reply to another user who clearly didn’t know how they worked. That didn’t stop he or she talking down to me like I was an idiot though, did it?

I’m not sure publicly discussing legal advice to an anonymous user is the wisest of moves - if you’d like to discuss it please send us an email to [email protected].

[Rocky]

Is it any wonder a “board member” is avoiding the threads on here when anonyomous users like yourself, aka ‘Rocky’ can say what they like without any recourse? I volunteer my time, you might not care how much, and in the last few days I’ve taken the decision for my own mental health it’d be better to avoid these threads. You might not agree with that position, but it’s necessary for my own sanity.

I know how the votes work at the AGM, my response the other day was in reply to another user who clearly didn’t know how they worked. That didn’t stop he or she talking down to me like I was an idiot though, did it?

I’m not sure publicly discussing legal advice to an anonymous user is the wisest of moves - if you’d like to discuss it please send us an email to [email protected].
I didn't ask for details of legal advice, I asked if it was being sought. I'll PM you my email address, you can check my membership status if that's somehow relevant to the points I've raised.

[Daniel 1875]

I didn't ask for details of legal advice, I asked if it was being sought. I'll PM you my email address, you can check my membership status if that's somehow relevant to the points I've raised.

Your membership status is of no relevance to the points you’ve made, but it’s not appropriate to discuss what you’ve asked on a public fans forum. Try and keep in mind we are all Hibs fans and we are all doing what we can to help our club for the long term.

Whether you care how many hours people have dedicated to HSL or not is neither here nor there, but please don’t talk down to people who are doing the best they can for this club - that is not fair.

I’ve avoided these threads for this very reason - it’s not worth the hassle and pain ensued by taking part.

[Rocky]

Your membership status is of no relevance to the points you’ve made, but it’s not appropriate to discuss what you’ve asked on a public fans forum. Try and keep in mind we are all Hibs fans and we are all doing what we can to help our club for the long term.

Whether you care how many hours people have dedicated to HSL or not is neither here nor there, but please don’t talk down to people who are doing the best they can for this club - that is not fair.

I’ve avoided these threads for this very reason - it’s not worth the hassle and pain ensued by taking part.
I have the utmost concern and respect for anyone's mental health but no one has ever been forced to be an HSL director. I wouldn't do it in a million years. This isn't the time for those who chose to put themselves in that position of responsibility to become thin skinned though. This is when we all need you to step up.

[CentreLine]

I have the utmost concern and respect for anyone's mental health but no one has ever been forced to be an HSL director. I wouldn't do it in a million years. This isn't the time for those who chose to put themselves in that position of responsibility to become thin skinned though. This is when we all need you to step up.

C’mon Rocky, from the club announcing their AGM and some very radical resolutions, from a standing start the HSL directors have “stepped up”. We now have an AGM organised and the opportunity to discuss the issues and implications. The directors cannot just do a knee jerk, unconsidered response. They have to pull stuff together and create the environment for the best consideration to be given by HSL membership and to represent the feelings of those members as best they can.

Having an exchange on Hibs net, is not the manner or place to conduct HSL administrative business. It is simply not reasonable to expect that.

[Ship of Hope]

I think it is very reasonable to discuss HSL role in either attempting to block or support the bk investment. At it’s conception HSL was all about gaining the mythical 25% share of the club but only managed to garner a small minority of hibs fans support. That is not to belittle anyones efforts just a reality that it did not gain enough momentum. For clarity does HSL represent only the views of it’s subscribers or is it a vehicle for the betterment of the club and the wider support? It seems clear that the overwhelming majority of hibs fans are pro this investment irrespective of their previous involvement with HSL. When HSL are taking decisions that could impact the wider support that do not necessarily support fan ownership is that any different than any other “owner” or shareholder imposing their decisions? IMO the relevance of HSL initial aims is pretty much defunct and it perhaps needs to adapt it’s aims to find a way of supporting the club going forward in a way that is more inclusive of the broader support with something the majority can get behind. At the moment it is starting to feel like “them and us” and at the end of the day we are all hibs fans. The HSL directors “disapointment” at the inward investment whilst the majority of fans are excited by it perhaps serves to highlight this disparity.

[superfurryhibby]

I think it is very reasonable to discuss HSL role in either attempting to block or support the bk investment. At it’s conception HSL was all about gaining the mythical 25% share of the club but only managed to garner a small minority of hibs fans support. That is not to belittle anyones efforts just a reality that it did not gain enough momentum. For clarity does HSL represent only the views of it’s subscribers or is it a vehicle for the betterment of the club and the wider support? It seems clear that the overwhelming majority of hibs fans are pro this investment irrespective of their previous involvement with HSL. When HSL are taking decisions that could impact the wider support that do not necessarily support fan ownership is that any different than any other “owner” or shareholder imposing their decisions? IMO the relevance of HSL initial aims is pretty much defunct and it perhaps needs to adapt it’s aims to find a way of supporting the club going forward in a way that is more inclusive of the broader support with something the majority can get behind. At the moment it is starting to feel like “them and us” and at the end of the day we are all hibs fans. The HSL directors “disapointment” at the inward investment whilst the majority of fans are excited by it perhaps serves to highlight this disparity.


Can HSL not represent the views of it’s subscribers and still be for what they see as the betterment of the club?

It doesn’t really feel like us and them to me. It feels like a group formed with the aim of safeguarding the football club have had to face the reality that business decisions from our ownership have effectively negated any opposition to their plans by reducing their (HSL) shareholding via new share issue.

I think most of us can cope with alternative views on the Gordon’s plans for the club, have some reservations whilst at the same time recognising that change is coming regardless.

You have no idea what the future will bring for Hibs, neither do I. What we can say with certainty is that the safeguarding element is now rendered obsolete. You must accept that is a fairly emotive and discussion worthy topic?

[Dmas]

I think it is very reasonable to discuss HSL role in either attempting to block or support the bk investment. At it’s conception HSL was all about gaining the mythical 25% share of the club but only managed to garner a small minority of hibs fans support. That is not to belittle anyones efforts just a reality that it did not gain enough momentum. For clarity does HSL represent only the views of it’s subscribers or is it a vehicle for the betterment of the club and the wider support? It seems clear that the overwhelming majority of hibs fans are pro this investment irrespective of their previous involvement with HSL. When HSL are taking decisions that could impact the wider support that do not necessarily support fan ownership is that any different than any other “owner” or shareholder imposing their decisions? IMO the relevance of HSL initial aims is pretty much defunct and it perhaps needs to adapt it’s aims to find a way of supporting the club going forward in a way that is more inclusive of the broader support with something the majority can get behind. At the moment it is starting to feel like “them and us” and at the end of the day we are all hibs fans. The HSL directors “disapointment” at the inward investment whilst the majority of fans are excited by it perhaps serves to highlight this disparity.

Are you suggesting the 4000 members shouldn’t get a say just in case it goes against the wider hibs supports views?

[Bostonhibby]

What Dmas says seem to me to be the facts of the matter.

They act within their articles of association it's all they can do.

For example, when the climate changed, especially during Covid, they acted within those articles to see if the members wanted to give money to Hibs unconditionally. If members want to do something else differently here company law allows for a similar vote and change. It's down to the members who are all fans.

The volunteers who run it shouldn't be in any fans sights here, they are just working free, warts and all, for the members.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[McD]

Are you suggesting the 4000 members shouldn’t get a say just in case it goes against the wider hibs supports views?


All HSL members should be given the opportunity to vote how they wish HSL to vote their block (which they have/will be at the HSL agm, as far as I’m aware)


Is it a straight 50%+1 vote needed at the HSL agm, with the entire block then being voted that way at the club agm, or is it proportional in line with the HSL voting split (for example, 60% vote for, so the block would be voted the same at the club agm)?

[Stairway 2 7]

One thing is for certain bot hibs and HSL are 10 years behind the times on AGM voting. It should have been an online vote. The systems for this a cheap and the way most companies vote post covid. You can't have groups of 4000 being decided by two dozen in a room and another few dozen emailed applications. Hibs are just as bad although probably pointless as only a few peoples votes count there

[CentreLine]

Are you suggesting the 4000 members shouldn’t get a say just in case it goes against the wider hibs supports views?

Especially when those c4000 members currently represent the second largest shareholders in the club. Soon to be overtaken, against the current club constitution but which the current majority shareholders wish to change.

This is a big issue and needs careful consideration. It may be that HSL are now powerless to do anything and it may be that the future is only bright. Sadly the reverse could also be the case.

Those with shares in HSL have a responsibility to debate the stance HSL wish to take and the HSL directors have a responsibility to vote in conjunction with the conclusions of those members. Similarly, every person holding a single share in the club has the opportunity to consider the same issues and vote accordingly.

Regardless of how passionate they are and may feel, every other Hibs supporter can only look in from the outside with no influence whatsoever. With that in mind, should all of the proposed resolutions come to fruition, as it seems they inevitably will, that will be the position of every traditional Hibs supporter. Powerless onlookers.

I’d genuinely love to hear the views of Simon Pia and his followers right now

[flash]

Interesting to read all the different viewpoints and opinions.

I have sent in my vote in favour already as I am clear in my mind that I want the club to try something different.

I get the reasons why some people are a bit wary but I have seen nothing that makes me think the Gordons would shaft us. Quite the reverse in fact.

[matty_f]

Can HSL not represent the views of it’s subscribers and still be for what they see as the betterment of the club?

It doesn’t really feel like us and them to me. It feels like a group formed with the aim of safeguarding the football club have had to face the reality that business decisions from our ownership have effectively negated any opposition to their plans by reducing their (HSL) shareholding via new share issue.

I think most of us can cope with alternative views on the Gordon’s plans for the club, have some reservations whilst at the same time recognising that change is coming regardless.

You have no idea what the future will bring for Hibs, neither do I. What we can say with certainty is that the safeguarding element is now rendered obsolete. You must accept that is a fairly emotive and discussion worthy topic?
I agree that it's worth discussing, what I would add though is I hadn't really considered the point that HSL could, theoretically, act contrary to the wider support.

It would seem unlikely but there is, I think, a clear conflict of interests if you follow the logic that HSL's directors are duty bound to act in the interests of HSL and its members, they (we, I'm a member) might well think that preserving 15% of a company with £6m debt is more preferable to owning 7% of a company with no debt and with no real say in what happens to it.

When you consider that there are significantly more Hibs fans who did not get on board with HSL and its principles than did, then there is a risk, however unlikely it is to materialise, that HSL acts contrary to the wider support and blocks an investment that many people are largely in favour of. Particularly if the HSL vote is close - if that went 51%/49% against, for example. I'm only using the wider support as being "for" to make the point. I don't know what an accurate picture is as to where the preference is, do you can flip the argument the other way and the point still stands.

I do think it's a moot point anyway. My guess is that the Gordons and Foley have already got assurances that they have the support that they need to post the resolutions, but it is an interesting point to discuss, and I do also get the point that folk can't complain about HSL because they had the chance to sign up etc, but the reality is that there is a conflict of interests and it's a good point that's been raised.

[BSEJVT]

Throwing plenty of money at the club insinuates (probably not the correct word) that the Gordon's have spent/lost their own money. They haven't at all, they have loaned the club money and will eventually not only have that repaid at an interest rate we are unsure of but the value of the club they bought will increase and they will make a profit. They haven't spent or gambled any of their money at all. I'm not suggesting they should have by the way but let's no pretend they are doing something they haven't.
s
'

I am sorry but that is just factually wrong

The monies the Gordon's have to date lent the club will under these proposals be converted to equity.

Taken in isolation the new shares being issued for the Black Nights will dilute along with HSL and small shareholders their percentage holding.

Whilst the end result of the debt for equity swap may well be that the Gordon's own roughly the same percentage of shares as they do at present, they will have achieved this by the debt for equity swap referenced above. i.e. they have put more money into the club to retain the same stake (by not taking the loaned money back)

There are absolutely no guarantees that the proposed transactions will make the club more valuable and hence increase the value of their stake.

When the Gordon's time to move on comes there will be a very small number of parties involved in purchasing their shares.

I think both they and the Black Knights grossly underestimate the chances of breaching the OF glass ceiling that exists in Scottish Football and without doing that consistently or Pan European league reconstruction their chances of making money out of Hibs is nil.

It looks like rich boys playthings to me.

I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing as its time to at least try and change the status quo, but i wont be surprised if there is a FOH type of event required in the decades to come.

[superfurryhibby]

I'll be voting against the motion.

I'm sceptical about the lack of detailed plans, worry about the future autonomy of the club and whether the dilution of the supporters stake is wise.

The misguided approach to recruitment these past couple of years shows me the pitfalls of owners previous model of growth. Hopefully, they will have judged the involvement of the Foley group correctly and we will show the on-field progress we all crave, but let's not pretend it's not without risk.

[flash]

I agree that it's worth discussing, what I would add though is I hadn't really considered the point that HSL could, theoretically, act contrary to the wider support.

It would seem unlikely but there is, I think, a clear conflict of interests if you follow the logic that HSL's directors are duty bound to act in the interests of HSL and its members, they (we, I'm a member) might well think that preserving 15% of a company with £6m debt is more preferable to owning 7% of a company with no debt and with no real say in what happens to it.

When you consider that there are significantly more Hibs fans who did not get on board with HSL and its principles than did, then there is a risk, however unlikely it is to materialise, that HSL acts contrary to the wider support and blocks an investment that many people are largely in favour of. Particularly if the HSL vote is close - if that went 51%/49% against, for example. I'm only using the wider support as being "for" to make the point. I don't know what an accurate picture is as to where the preference is, do you can flip the argument the other way and the point still stands.

I do think it's a moot point anyway. My guess is that the Gordons and Foley have already got assurances that they have the support that they need to post the resolutions, but it is an interesting point to discuss, and I do also get the point that folk can't complain about HSL because they had the chance to sign up etc, but the reality is that there is a conflict of interests and it's a good point that's been raised.

Interesting point about the wider support.

I must have talked to 30 or 40 supporters since this was announced and, whilst some have a few reservations, have yet to talk to someone who doesn't want it to happen.

I have a nagging fear that if we were to turn this down we will find ourselves on the outside looking in as several other teams take up similar options not to mention most likely finding the club up for sale.

[Stairway 2 7]

Interesting point about the wider support.

I must have talked to 30 or 40 supporters since this was announced and, whilst some have a few reservations, have yet to talk to someone who doesn't want it to happen.

I have a nagging fear that if we were to turn this down we will find ourselves on the outside looking in as several other teams take up similar options not to mention most likely finding the club up for sale.

I was going to post the same in that the 50 or so I've asked have all said the want it, although the post above yours shows it won't be unanimous. I think it'll be a tiny amount of hibs fans that will turn down almost 10 million in investment. I'm sure many will have lots of reservations including the diluting of HSL, but what's the other option sitting around 5th whilst those above us pull away

I also think other teams will get bought. We could end up being dwarfed by city owned Motherwell or Saudi owned killie i suppose.

[Bostonhibby]

Interesting point about the wider support.

I must have talked to 30 or 40 supporters since this was announced and, whilst some have a few reservations, have yet to talk to someone who doesn't want it to happen.

I have a nagging fear that if we were to turn this down we will find ourselves on the outside looking in as several other teams take up similar options not to mention most likely finding the club up for sale.In my wider circle of friends who are fans, shareholders and / or HSL members there's no one who is against, there's just a bit of frustration about the possibility of no longer being shareholders-they bought for entirely emotional reasons.

I've informed HSL I want them to vote in favour of all 6 resolutions and completed the proxy for my own shareholdings on the same basis. Everyone else I know has done similar.

At the end of the day it feels like a fait accompli since it's what two or three individuals want to do that will decide this.

A leap of faith as an alternative to stagnating is how one friend described it.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[superfurryhibby]

My Hibs supporting pals don't really think too hard about the possible pitfalls of the road we're about to go down, but they are sick of the lack of success and view change as a way of achieving that.

There is probably a wee bit of blind faith involved in the attitude that even if it goes spectacularly wrong, Hibs will survive with it's main assets, the ground and East Mains intact. After all that's what happened along the road at Hearts.

[matty_f]

Interesting point about the wider support.

I must have talked to 30 or 40 supporters since this was announced and, whilst some have a few reservations, have yet to talk to someone who doesn't want it to happen.

I have a nagging fear that if we were to turn this down we will find ourselves on the outside looking in as several other teams take up similar options not to mention most likely finding the club up for sale.
I'm the same, people I've talked to in person are behind it, even if they have reservations.

I think three reality is that other clubs will do this, we've already seen Burnley linking with Dundee and others will follow. I've no desire to see us left standing thinking about what might have been so I'm willing to roll the dice and tusker the chance.

I'll be voting for it both with my HSL vote and the miniscule vote I've got as a shareholder in the club.

[Hibbyradge]

I’d genuinely love to hear the views of Simon Pia and his followers right now

I wouldn't. They'd just double down on their nonsense. They certainly wouldn't admit that they were totally wrong and, as a result, have led us into a situation that they didn't want.

[Hibbyradge]

I'll be voting against the motion.

I'm sceptical about the lack of detailed plans, worry about the future autonomy of the club and whether the dilution of the supporters stake is wise.

The misguided approach to recruitment these past couple of years shows me the pitfalls of owners previous model of growth. Hopefully, they will have judged the involvement of the Foley group correctly and we will show the on-field progress we all crave, but let's not pretend it's not without risk.

You're entitled to vote in any way you choose, but it's important to realise that staying as we are carries risk too.

It also promises no success, no next level signings and no infrastructure improvements.

It does, however, risk (guarantee?) Hearts' continuing dominance over us, resulting in falling crowds and poor recruitment.

[CentreLine]

I wouldn't. They'd just double down on their nonsense. They certainly wouldn't admit that they were totally wrong and, as a result, have led to a situation that they didn't want.

Perhaps not but it’s his views on the present issue I’d be interested in. He was an excellent investigative reporter back in the day. My own feeling is he was wrong to allow an, arguably justified, personal grievance to blur his view of the bigger picture and that had a lasting effect on our, fan owned, ability to influence future events. But that is now past, surely the present events have a much greater potential to affect our club views are interesting across the board. Not personal criticisms but genuine views on a situation that may take our club to a whole different level or see it asset striped to oblivion. Perhaps somewhere in between. We have a short time to consider and may already be incapable of influencing things but I believe it’s important we get a broad view.

[GloryGlory]

I'm the same, people I've talked to in person are behind it, even if they have reservations.

I think three reality is that other clubs will do this, we've already seen Burnley linking with Dundee and others will follow. I've no desire to see us left standing thinking about what might have been so I'm willing to roll the dice and tusker the chance.

I'll be voting for it both with my HSL vote and the miniscule vote I've got as a shareholder in the club.

I'm the same - I've given a proxy to HSL to vote for the resolutions at the HSL AGM and I shall be giving the Hibs directors a proxy to vote in favour of the resolutions at Hibs AGM, too.

I don't see anyone else queueing up to put money into Hibs and if we don't take this chance we could end up being left well behind as others look at the precedent set by the SFA and become open to outside minority investors. Dundee look like they are going that way, Aberdeen with Cormack at the helm could be another club that looks at this model. Like everything in life it's a risk, but not doing anything is IMO a greater risk.

I don't care that my already miniscule share interest is further diluted.

[superfurryhibby]

You're entitled to vote in any way you choose, but it's important to realise that staying as we are carries risk too.

It also promises no success, no next level signings and no infrastructure improvements.

It does, however, risk (guarantee?) Hearts' continuing dominance over us, resulting in falling crowds and poor recruitment.

I'm not in favour of staying as we are.

I think there are alternative ways of growing and developing the club to achieve the things you highlight.

Hearts are not the only benchmark of Hibs success though and for all their financial advantages over Hibs over the past 40 years, they have precious little to show for it really.

Promises are just that, promises. Hopefully we're all sitting here in four or five years celebrating the events that transformed our club's fortunes, Only time will tell.

Clearly, it will take a lot more than Foley's initial investment to achieve the level of success people fantasise about. For now I'll retain my scepticism, hopefully when the plans are outlined we'll be able to see substance behind them and gauge their implications.

[Hibbyradge]

Perhaps not but it’s his views on the present issue I’d be interested in. He was an excellent investigative reporter back in the day. My own feeling is he was wrong to allow an, arguably justified, personal grievance to blur his view of the bigger picture and that had a lasting effect on our, fan owned, ability to influence future events. But that is now past, surely the present events have a much greater potential to affect our club views are interesting across the board. Not personal criticisms but genuine views on a situation that may take our club to a whole different level or see it asset striped to oblivion. Perhaps somewhere in between. We have a short time to consider and may already be incapable of influencing things but I believe it’s important we get a broad view.

Usually I would agree with that, but I don't trust Simon Pia to give a balanced view. He'll be well aware of the disdain in which he's held by many Hibs fans now and that will colour his stated opinions.

[superfurryhibby]

Usually I would agree with that, but I don't trust Simon Pia to give a balanced view. He'll be well aware of the disdain in which he's held by many Hibs fans now and that will colour his stated opinions.

Pia will have his own views, why do they need to be balanced?

I knew Simon years ago, through playing football. He was a decent guy then and I'm sure he still is. He did a lot foe Hibs, including some of his work with Scotland on Sunday, which came at a time when Hibs owners were keen on moving the club away from Easter Road That's all ancient history now.

Pia's observations on the share issue, just playing Devils advocate, but wasn't this ultimately proven right in that hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of fan investment were wipe out at the stroke of a pen when the Gordon' took over and soon to be diluted again?

I was shocked when that happened when STF sold the club. It may be a standard business practice or whatever, but I thought it was poor and still do.

[Hibbyradge]

Pia will have his own views, why do they need to be balanced?

I knew Simon years ago, through playing football. He was a decent guy then and I'm sure he still is. He did a lot foe Hibs, including some of his work with Scotland on Sunday, which came at a time when Hibs owners were keen on moving the club away from Easter Road That's all ancient history now.

Pia's observations on the share issue, just playing Devils advocate, but wasn't this ultimately proven right in that hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of fan investment were wipe out at the stroke of a pen when the Gordon' took over and soon to be diluted again?

I was shocked when that happened when STF sold the club. It may be a standard business practice or whatever, but I thought it was poor and still do.

He was totally wrong about HSL.

[RMQ1967]

I'm the same - I've given a proxy to HSL to vote for the resolutions at the HSL AGM and I shall be giving the Hibs directors a proxy to vote in favour of the resolutions at Hibs AGM, too.

I don't see anyone else queueing up to put money into Hibs and if we don't take this chance we could end up being left well behind as others look at the precedent set by the SFA and become open to outside minority investors. Dundee look like they are going that way, Aberdeen with Cormack at the helm could be another club that looks at this model. Like everything in life it's a risk, but not doing anything is IMO a greater risk.

I don't care that my already miniscule share interest is further diluted.

Where has everyone got this information about the HSL AGM and proxies etc.

I've been paying £18.75 for years and never had any communications from HSL - actually I forgot I was paying it until I checked recently 😬

Is there a website or something where I need to register?

[RMQ1967]

Pia will have his own views, why do they need to be balanced?

I knew Simon years ago, through playing football. He was a decent guy then and I'm sure he still is. He did a lot foe Hibs, including some of his work with Scotland on Sunday, which came at a time when Hibs owners were keen on moving the club away from Easter Road That's all ancient history now.

Pia's observations on the share issue, just playing Devils advocate, but wasn't this ultimately proven right in that hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of fan investment were wipe out at the stroke of a pen when the Gordon' took over and soon to be diluted again?

I was shocked when that happened when STF sold the club. It may be a standard business practice or whatever, but I thought it was poor and still do.

How do you work out that hundreds of thousands of fan investment has been wiped out??

That's completely wrong and if that's what's going around it's no wonder that some people are against it.

[superfurryhibby]

How do you work out that hundreds of thousands of fan investment has been wiped out??

That's completely wrong and if that's what's going around it's no wonder that some people are against it.


What else do you call dilution of the fan based shareholding

Value was linked to the percentage of the club owned, that has been reduced to a level where it no longer has the capacity to meaningfully oppose any boardroom proposal.

[Daniel 1875]

Where has everyone got this information about the HSL AGM and proxies etc.

I've been paying £18.75 for years and never had any communications from HSL - actually I forgot I was paying it until I checked recently 😬

Is there a website or something where I need to register?

PM me your email address or drop an email to [email protected] and we’ll ensure this is rectified.

[Hibbyradge]

What else do you call dilution of the fan based shareholding

Value was linked to the percentage of the club owned, that has been reduced to a level where it no longer has the capacity to meaningfully oppose any boardroom proposal.

HSL still own the same number of shares, as do I.

We were powerless before the Gordons arrived, not in small part due to Simon Pia's spiteful campaign, and we're poweless now.

[Chipper1875]

HSL still own the same number of shares, as do I.

We were powerless before the Gordons arrived, not in small part due to Simon Pia's spiteful campaign, and we're poweless now.

What was Pia’s campaign?

[El Gubbz]

HSL still own the same number of shares, as do I.

We were powerless before the Gordons arrived, not in small part due to Simon Pia's spiteful campaign, and we're poweless now.

That’s not true.

HSL and fans (excl. Robb) owned more than 25.1% of the club before the Gordons.

HSL, Robb and the fans own more than 25.1% of the club today.

HSL, Robb and the fans will own less than 15% of the club after the dilution.

25.1% fan ownership protects the club from potential malicious behaviour from an owner that gets bored or greedy.

There are many possible options that can bring decent investment into the club, allow them to have sufficient ownership, influence and control without diluting fans shares below the 25.1% safety net but unfortunately what’s been tabled is an all or nothing proposal which would see that safety net killed forever, leaving us at the peril of millionaire/billionaires with no emotional skin in the game.

[flash]

That’s not true.

HSL and fans (excl. Robb) owned more than 25.1% of the club before the Gordons.

HSL, Robb and the fans own more than 25.1% of the club today.

HSL, Robb and the fans will own less than 15% of the club after the dilution.

25.1% fan ownership protects the club from potential malicious behaviour from an owner that gets bored or greedy.

There are many possible options that can bring decent investment into the club, allow them to have sufficient ownership, influence and control without diluting fans shares below the 25.1% safety net but unfortunately what’s been tabled is an all or nothing proposal which would see that safety net killed forever, leaving us at the peril of millionaire/billionaires with no emotional skin in the game.

Whilst I get your point about the safety net would be interested in hearing what the many possible alternative options are.

[Hibbyradge]

What was Pia’s campaign?

Telling everyone and anyone not to subscribe to HSL (or whatever it was called then) because it was a Ponzi scheme.

I saw posters on lamposts etc urging people not to get involved.

[McD]

I'll be voting against the motion.

I'm sceptical about the lack of detailed plans, worry about the future autonomy of the club and whether the dilution of the supporters stake is wise.

The misguided approach to recruitment these past couple of years shows me the pitfalls of owners previous model of growth. Hopefully, they will have judged the involvement of the Foley group correctly and we will show the on-field progress we all crave, but let's not pretend it's not without risk.



Whilst I am for the changes (I don’t have any vote), I respect your position, and you’ve articulated your thoughts well.


Perhaps more clarity will come from the club agm, presumably Ian Gordon and Bill Foley will be there, and one would hope that they should welcome questions about the future, it’s their opportunity to get our widespread buy-in to their plans.

Whatever the outcome of all of this, we’re all Hibs fans and wanting to see success for our club

[CentreLine]

HSL still own the same number of shares, as do I.

We were powerless before the Gordons arrived, not in small part due to Simon Pia's spiteful campaign, and we're poweless now.

I really wish you had that many shares as HSL HR. HSL are currently the second largest shareholder with a diluted c14%. Diluted from c22% and soon to fall to c7%. Despite having that position HSL, who are a significant minority in our core support, have been completely disregarded by the club. I do feel that the majority shareholder could and should have given more recognition to the value of our support rather than dismiss us an irrelevant. I just don’t think they appreciate the emotional connection supporters here have to what has always been a community club.

It’s odd for me that block 7 get more recognition from the club than HSL. Perhaps there is a history to that, I don’t know but may ask at the HSL AGM

[CapitalGreen]

That’s not true.

HSL and fans (excl. Robb) owned more than 25.1% of the club before the Gordons.

HSL, Robb and the fans own more than 25.1% of the club today.

HSL, Robb and the fans will own less than 15% of the club after the dilution.

25.1% fan ownership protects the club from potential malicious behaviour from an owner that gets bored or greedy.

There are many possible options that can bring decent investment into the club, allow them to have sufficient ownership, influence and control without diluting fans shares below the 25.1% safety net but unfortunately what’s been tabled is an all or nothing proposal which would see that safety net killed forever, leaving us at the peril of millionaire/billionaires with no emotional skin in the game.

Why is Robb grouped in with HSL and individual shareholders? Is there any evidence he is more aligned with those parties rather than the Gordon’s (and Foley)? To your final point, I’d be very surprised if the Gordon family have no emotional attachment to Hibs at this point.

[Hibbyradge]

I really wish you had that many shares as HSL HR. HSL are currently the second largest shareholder with a diluted c14%. Diluted from c22% and soon to fall to c7%. Despite having that position HSL, who are a significant minority in our core support, have been completely disregarded by the club. I do feel that the majority shareholder could and should have given more recognition to the value of our support rather than dismiss us an irrelevant. I just don’t think they appreciate the emotional connection supporters here have to what has always been a community club.

It’s odd for me that block 7 get more recognition from the club than HSL. Perhaps there is a history to that, I don’t know but may ask at the HSL AGM

:hilarious

I have the same number of shares I had before Ron Gordon bought the club. "As do I, not "As I do"!

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the lack of a proper shareholder's association made us all easy to ignore.

[Chipper1875]

Telling everyone and anyone not to subscribe to HSL (or whatever it was called then) because it was a Ponzi scheme.

I saw posters on lamposts etc urging people not to get involved.

I don’t think he was part of that group

[Hibbyradge]

I don’t think he was part of that group

He was the loudest anti voice.

[Lago]

Whilst I get your point about the safety net would be interested in hearing what the many possible alternative options are.
I asked that same question many pages back on this thread, there was no alternatives given apart from one suggestion that HSL might get another roll of the dice, hardly inspiring :confused:

[RMQ1967]

What else do you call dilution of the fan based shareholding

Value was linked to the percentage of the club owned, that has been reduced to a level where it no longer has the capacity to meaningfully oppose any boardroom proposal.

I ask again - how do you work out that hundreds of thousands of fans investment has been wiped out?

The value of the investment stays the same (except what has gone on expenses etc.) and is as meaningful in terms of providing security as it ever was.

Claiming that our investments have somehow been grifted by Ron, the Gordon's or Foley is plainly wrong and I'd hope you would agree with that.

[Chipper1875]

He was the loudest anti voice.

I knew the lads who ran the group, it wasn’t pia

[Hibbyradge]

I knew the lads who ran the group, it wasn’t pia

I don't care who ran what. Pia was the most vocal and highest profile voice against the scheme. He christened it a Ponzi scheme.

Maybe there was another independent group which coincidentally held exactly the same preposterous and damaging views as Simon Pia, but that's the first time I've heard about it.

And frankly, I don't believe it.

[Stairway 2 7]

It was another Jim Slaven conspiracy but Pia and Kano were very much involved, they made a fool of themselves at the AGM prior to HSL starting up imo

[Chipper1875]

It was another Jim Slaven conspiracy but Pia and Kano were very much involved, they made a fool of themselves at the AGM prior to HSL starting up imo

Kano had nothing to do with that group. Utter nonsense what you posted

[Chipper1875]

[QUOTE=Hibbyradge;7583599]I don't care who ran what. Pia was the most vocal and highest profile voice against the scheme. He christened it a Ponzi scheme.

Maybe there was another independent group which coincidentally held exactly the same views as Simon Pia, but that's the first time I've heard about it.

And frankly, I don't believe it.[/

You don’t believe the truth …

[CapitalGreen]

I knew the lads who ran the group, it wasn’t pia

He may not have been part of the “group” but he very much promoted their message and helped spread it to a wider audience while also adding legitimacy to it as well known investigative journalist.

27683

27684

[Stairway 2 7]

Kano had nothing to do with that group. Utter nonsense what you posted

He wasn't involved in HOH but he aligned his voice with them

[Stairway 2 7]

From the Herald at the time. Remember we could have had 51% of the club in this ponzi scheme

The fans' groups who have raised deep concerns about Hibernian's share offer are expected to meet next week to consider their next move.

The Hibernian Supporters Association, Shareholder Association, Former Players Association, BuyHibs and Hands On Hibs have all raised opposition to the scheme that has made 50 per cent of the Easter Road outfit available to fans.

Together with the one per cent of the club that supporters would already hold, the move - which was approved at Wednesday night's annual general meeting - would place a controlling interest in the hands of the fans.

However, whilst the club have indicated that around 700 have expressed an interest in supporting Hibernian Supporters Limited (HSL), the vehicle set up to buy shares on behalf of supporters, a handful of groups have hit out at the plans.

Their concerns centre on a perceived lack of influence fans would have under the scheme and the move that saw £9.3 million of debt due to the bank and holding company amalgamated into one £5 million mortgage that is payable, interest free, to HFC Holdings, a company owned by Sir Tom Farmer and chairman Rod Petrie.

The groups contend that the debt has been built up through mismanagement at boardroom level and that fans should not have to pay back the money to Farmer, a multi-millionaire.

Their concerns were voiced at a stormy AGM at Easter Road on Wednesday when, in contrast, in contrast individual shareholders showed their support for Farmer and the share and debt moves.

It is understood the dissenting fans' organisations will now come together early next week and, although likely to remain as separate groups, are expected to discuss collectively how best to take their campaign of opposition forward. HSL will start gathering members, who will have to pay a minimum of £18.75 a month or £225 per year, from Monday, with the aim of eventually attracting the £2.5 million needed to purchase a 50 per cent stake in the club.

However, one of the groups opposed, Hands on Hibs (HOH), yesterday repeated the call they made at the AGM for the share scheme to be postponed to allow further discussions. Making a plea for 'calm heads and common sense', HOH said: "Hands On Hibs today call on Tom Farmer and the Hibs board to pause their HSL scheme and enter into dialogue with all supporters groups with a view to forming a working group to address the legitimate concerns many supporters have over the lack of transparency regarding the £5 million debt to the holding company, the fact that Farmer holds Easter Road Stadium as security over this new debt and also the structure of the HSL scheme.

"Hands On Hibs believe we are on the precipice. The club's decision to launch the HSL scheme as a fait accompli was an error. That error was compounded by insisting on opening the scheme within days of the AGM with no meaningful dialogue with supporters.

"It is important the club get this right, not that we get it quickly.

"The board's actions are dividing the support. Hands On Hibs are asking for a pause so calm heads and common sense can prevail.

"Let us get everyone around the table and find agreement on how the club moves forward - together.

"Hands On Hibs urge Tom Farmer and the board to think again. Take a pause and consider the possibility that an inclusive approach could produce a better deal for Hibernian going forward.

[Chipper1875]

He wasn't involved in HOH but he aligned his voice with them

So In the space of ten mins you’ve went from very much involved to aligned . I very much think you are talking nonsense

[Chipper1875]

From the Herald at the time. Remember we could have had 51% of the club in this ponzi scheme

The fans' groups who have raised deep concerns about Hibernian's share offer are expected to meet next week to consider their next move.

The Hibernian Supporters Association, Shareholder Association, Former Players Association, BuyHibs and Hands On Hibs have all raised opposition to the scheme that has made 50 per cent of the Easter Road outfit available to fans.

Together with the one per cent of the club that supporters would already hold, the move - which was approved at Wednesday night's annual general meeting - would place a controlling interest in the hands of the fans.

However, whilst the club have indicated that around 700 have expressed an interest in supporting Hibernian Supporters Limited (HSL), the vehicle set up to buy shares on behalf of supporters, a handful of groups have hit out at the plans.

Their concerns centre on a perceived lack of influence fans would have under the scheme and the move that saw £9.3 million of debt due to the bank and holding company amalgamated into one £5 million mortgage that is payable, interest free, to HFC Holdings, a company owned by Sir Tom Farmer and chairman Rod Petrie.

The groups contend that the debt has been built up through mismanagement at boardroom level and that fans should not have to pay back the money to Farmer, a multi-millionaire.

Their concerns were voiced at a stormy AGM at Easter Road on Wednesday when, in contrast, in contrast individual shareholders showed their support for Farmer and the share and debt moves.

It is understood the dissenting fans' organisations will now come together early next week and, although likely to remain as separate groups, are expected to discuss collectively how best to take their campaign of opposition forward. HSL will start gathering members, who will have to pay a minimum of £18.75 a month or £225 per year, from Monday, with the aim of eventually attracting the £2.5 million needed to purchase a 50 per cent stake in the club.

However, one of the groups opposed, Hands on Hibs (HOH), yesterday repeated the call they made at the AGM for the share scheme to be postponed to allow further discussions. Making a plea for 'calm heads and common sense', HOH said: "Hands On Hibs today call on Tom Farmer and the Hibs board to pause their HSL scheme and enter into dialogue with all supporters groups with a view to forming a working group to address the legitimate concerns many supporters have over the lack of transparency regarding the £5 million debt to the holding company, the fact that Farmer holds Easter Road Stadium as security over this new debt and also the structure of the HSL scheme.

"Hands On Hibs believe we are on the precipice. The club's decision to launch the HSL scheme as a fait accompli was an error. That error was compounded by insisting on opening the scheme within days of the AGM with no meaningful dialogue with supporters.

"It is important the club get this right, not that we get it quickly.

"The board's actions are dividing the support. Hands On Hibs are asking for a pause so calm heads and common sense can prevail.

"Let us get everyone around the table and find agreement on how the club moves forward - together.

"Hands On Hibs urge Tom Farmer and the board to think again. Take a pause and consider the possibility that an inclusive approach could produce a better deal for Hibernian going forward.

No sure what’s that’s proving . I’m was very much aware of their aims . People trying to revisit history and forgetting the mess hibs were in . HSL were never getting 51% of hibs and trying to get a seat on the board.

[Stairway 2 7]

So In the space of ten mins you’ve went from very much involved to aligned . I very much think you are talking nonsense

Your using semantics to try and prove a losing point. Pia, kane slaven were a united front in stopping the uptake to HSL

[Bridge hibs]

Your using semantics to try and prove a losing point. Pia, kane slaven were a united front in stopping the uptake to HSL

Pia has never mentioned Ponzi scheme, but..

27685

[green day]

From the Herald at the time. Remember we could have had 51% of the club in this ponzi scheme

Aye, and for the bargain price of £2.5m.

As I said yesterday, influential people had a voice and used it badly.

We had that fan ownership chance, blew it and the ship has well and truly sailed.

Anyone suggesting otherwise should be ignored as they are quite obviously clueless.

[CapitalGreen]

Your using semantics to try and prove a losing point. Pia, kane slaven were a united front in stopping the uptake to HSL

This is correct, the idea it was simply HOH calling it a “ponzi scheme” and the like is complete nonsense and smacks of revisionism. Pia used that exact term to describe it on his on Twitter account while also praising the Slaven and Welsh at the time.

[Chipper1875]

Aye, and for the bargain price of £2.5m.

As I said yesterday, influential people had a voice and used it badly.

We had that fan ownership chance, blew it and the ship has well and truly sailed.

Anyone suggesting otherwise should be ignored as they are quite obviously clueless.

So a gorilla suit stopped hibs fans buying shares …. Hibs fans had their chance and there wasn’t appetite .

[VoltaireHibs]

What this whole thread shows is that anything HSL want to achieve will probably need a rebrand and a new management setup. Nothing against those involved but sometimes you can't fight the optics.

[Chipper1875]

Your using semantics to try and prove a losing point. Pia, kane slaven were a united front in stopping the uptake to HSL

Proof it ? I know who drove HoH.

[CapitalGreen]

So a gorilla suit stopped hibs fans buying shares …. Hibs fans had their chance and there wasn’t appetite .

Nobody suggested it was just a gorilla suit, you’ve been made to look foolish stop digging deeper.

[green day]

So a gorilla suit stopped hibs fans buying shares …. Hibs fans had their chance and there wasn’t appetite .

Missing the point. People with a voice and profile were assuring fans this was a Ponzi scheme and cut it off at the knees.

I like Paul Kane, I wish him well as I know he has been unwell......but being in the ears of people with negative chat about this was not his finest hour.

That's undeniable.

[Hibbyradge]

Your using semantics to try and prove a losing point. Pia, kane slaven were a united front in stopping the uptake to HSL

Yes, and that's the point.

They damaged HSL whatever group or groups they "belonged" to.

It would be like someone campaigning for the Tories by feeding stories to the press, leafletting, attending hustings etc etc then arguing that they're not members of the conservative party.

[CapitalGreen]

Proof it ? I know who drove HoH.

You’re the only person trying to suggest it was solely HOH who were pushing that narrative.

[Chipper1875]

Missing the point. People with a voice and profile were assuring fans this was a Ponzi scheme and cut it off at the knees.

I like Paul Kane, I wish him well as I know he has been unwell......but being in the ears of people with negative chat about this was not his finest hour.

That's undeniable.

I’m not missing the point . Nonsense is getting posted . Kano never been a fan of farmer and Petrie . Tried to get wealthy Hibs business men to get involved in buying hibs or a different type of deal
To run hibs .

He wasn’t part of Ponzi scheme. It was a well run scheme, irospective, if people agreed with its views . Pia and Kano weren’t involved despite what the experts claim . My good friend 💚 was .

[Chipper1875]

You’re the only person trying to suggest it was solely HOH who were pushing that narrative.

Sill no proof from you . Also , I didn’t say others didn’t push that view. Go on twitter you’ll see lots agreed with that view

[McD]

Telling everyone and anyone not to subscribe to HSL (or whatever it was called then) because it was a Ponzi scheme.

I saw posters on lamposts etc urging people not to get involved.


I don’t think he was part of that group


He was the loudest anti voice.


I knew the lads who ran the group, it wasn’t pia


I don't care who ran what. Pia was the most vocal and highest profile voice against the scheme. He christened it a Ponzi scheme.

Maybe there was another independent group which coincidentally held exactly the same preposterous and damaging views as Simon Pia, but that's the first time I've heard about it.

And frankly, I don't believe it.



Cant remember who, but when this exact point came up a few weeks/months back, someone found and shared tweets from Pia using exactly that language about HSL

[McD]

He may not have been part of the “group” but he very much promoted their message and helped spread it to a wider audience while also adding legitimacy to it as well known investigative journalist.

27683

27684



Hah thanks for doing a better job than me :greengrin

[CapitalGreen]

Sill no proof from you . Also , I didn’t say others didn’t push that view. Go on twitter you’ll see lots agreed with that view

Proof of what? I have already provided proof earlier in the thread that Pia was pushing the “Ponzi scheme” narrative.

[McD]

Sill no proof from you . Also , I didn’t say others didn’t push that view. Go on twitter you’ll see lots agreed with that view

There’s literally tweets displayed on this thread showing Pia using the description Ponzi scheme :rolleyes:

[green day]

Proof of what? I have already provided proof earlier in the thread that Pia was pushing the “Ponzi scheme” narrative.
He means no proof that Kano was pushing it.

Which is true, but it's also true to say that Kano was telling all and sundry that this deal was a bad one.

Sadly, his dislike of Farmer blinkered him to what would have been a great deal.

[McD]

He means no proof that Kano was pushing it.

Which is true, but it's also true to say that Kano was telling all and sundry that this deal was a bad one.

Sadly, his dislike of Farmer blinkered him to what would have been a great deal.



If he has then he’s shifted the goalposts, because the conversation started specifically about Pia

[HNA11]

Can we try and keep this debate respectful please.

There are names getting thrown about who don't have the ability to answer on here and given the emotive nature this topic has proven to be for several years now it's not something we wish to revisit.

HSL provked and continues to provoke strong reactions. The exact nature of the make up of the opposition to it, more specifically the people involved, has been gone over for pages now. Maybe it is time to move the discussion on.

[CapitalGreen]

He means no proof that Kano was pushing it.

Which is true, but it's also true to say that Kano was telling all and sundry that this deal was a bad one.

Sadly, his dislike of Farmer blinkered him to what would have been a great deal.

I have never mentioned Kano so not sure what proof he is after from me about that. Somebody mentioned Pia pushing the Ponzi scheme narrative which he seemed to take some offence to but that has been proven to be unequivocally true.

[McD]

Can we try and keep this debate respectful please.

There are names getting thrown about who don't have the ability to answer on here and given the emotive nature this topic has proven to be for several years now it's not something we wish to revisit.

HSL provked and continues to provoke strong reactions. The exact nature of the make up of the opposition to it, more specifically the people involved, has been gone over for pages now. Maybe it is time to move the discussion on.



Fair point :aok:

[CentreLine]

:hilarious

I have the same number of shares I had before Ron Gordon bought the club. "As do I, not "As I do"!

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the lack of a proper shareholder's association made us all easy to ignore.

Bugger! This getting older thing disnae come itsel’ 👴🏻

[Jones28]

Cant remember who, but when this exact point came up a few weeks/months back, someone found and shared tweets from Pia using exactly that language about HSL

It was me that raised it. I think Matty found the tweet and posted it.

Chipper is being deliberately obtuse and is refusing to acknowledge there was a United front against HSL and they did their best to torpedo it.

Saying there was no appetite is wrong, there could have been if there isn’t been the number of dissenting voices there were.

[Hibbyradge]

Bugger! This getting older thing disnae come itsel’ 👴🏻

:greengrin

[chippy]

Yes, and that's the point.

They damaged HSL whatever group or groups they "belonged" to.

It would be like someone campaigning for the Tories by feeding stories to the press, leafletting, attending hustings etc etc then arguing that they're not members of the conservative party.

I think the whole saga of HSL / Buy Hibs / HOH is more complex than what’s being posted on this thread. I’ve been in HSL since its formation. The guys you are slagging of all wanted fan ownership afaik. I think the key problem was the linkage of HSL to the Club. I recall our CEO was on the board. I didn’t like that either but folks got into different camps and the slagging commenced. As it worked out HSL became independent of the club which is to the board members credit. Sadly the chaos theory of history prevailed and competing concepts of fan shareholding / ownership meant that HSL never took off as it could have with a united fan base. The game had changed now and we have to decide how to progress our club. I’d hope that HSL were trying to have conversations with our CEO/ Ian Gordon about us maintaining more than 8% of the club once this deal is approved. It’s a hard deal to turn down cos if we do what happens next? We all also need to know what funds HSL have in the kitty and determining what we do with that if the deal goes through in its current form.

[CapitalGreen]

I think the whole saga of HSL / Buy Hibs / HOH is more complex than what’s being posted on this thread. I’ve been in HSL since its formation. The guys you are slagging of all wanted fan ownership afaik. I think the key problem was the linkage of HSL to the Club. I recall our CEO was on the board. I didn’t like that either but folks got into different camps and the slagging commenced. As it worked out HSL became independent of the club which is to the board members credit. Sadly the chaos theory of history prevailed and competing concepts of fan shareholding / ownership meant that HSL never took off as it could have with a united fan base. The game had changed now and we have to decide how to progress our club. I’d hope that HSL were trying to have conversations with our CEO/ Ian Gordon about us maintaining more than 8% of the club once this deal is approved. It’s a hard deal to turn down cos if we do what happens next? We all also need to know what funds HSL have in the kitty and determining what we do with that if the deal goes through in its current form.

Our CEO was still on the HSL board until after RG bought the club. Questions should have been asked in 2019 about the obvious conflict of interest for someone sitting on the board of an organisation which was soliciting donations for the purpose of purchasing outstanding shares while simultaneously sitting on the Hibs board while it was in negotiations to sell the those outstanding shares to a 3rd party in a deal that would ultimately result in the former groups shareholding being diluted.

[Hibbyradge]

I think the whole saga of HSL / Buy Hibs / HOH is more complex than what’s being posted on this thread. I’ve been in HSL since its formation. The guys you are slagging of all wanted fan ownership afaik. I think the key problem was the linkage of HSL to the Club. I recall our CEO was on the board. I didn’t like that either but folks got into different camps and the slagging commenced. As it worked out HSL became independent of the club which is to the board members credit. Sadly the chaos theory of history prevailed and competing concepts of fan shareholding / ownership meant that HSL never took off as it could have with a united fan base. The game had changed now and we have to decide how to progress our club. I’d hope that HSL were trying to have conversations with our CEO/ Ian Gordon about us maintaining more than 8% of the club once this deal is approved. It’s a hard deal to turn down cos if we do what happens next? We all also need to know what funds HSL have in the kitty and determining what we do with that if the deal goes through in its current form.

I'm not slagging anyone off. I'm stating some facts.

I had people criticising me for getting onboard with HSL from the outset. People who had been influenced by those mentioned above.

To get this back on track, I'll say that I support the BK/Foley investment if for no other reason than if we don't embrace it, we will fall further behind our opponents.

Hopefully, however, it will lead to some more fun for us, and some more success.

[Baldy Foghorn]

I think the whole saga of HSL / Buy Hibs / HOH is more complex than what’s being posted on this thread. I’ve been in HSL since its formation. The guys you are slagging of all wanted fan ownership afaik. I think the key problem was the linkage of HSL to the Club. I recall our CEO was on the board. I didn’t like that either but folks got into different camps and the slagging commenced. As it worked out HSL became independent of the club which is to the board members credit. Sadly the chaos theory of history prevailed and competing concepts of fan shareholding / ownership meant that HSL never took off as it could have with a united fan base. The game had changed now and we have to decide how to progress our club. I’d hope that HSL were trying to have conversations with our CEO/ Ian Gordon about us maintaining more than 8% of the club once this deal is approved. It’s a hard deal to turn down cos if we do what happens next? We all also need to know what funds HSL have in the kitty and determining what we do with that if the deal goes through in its current form.

Yip CEO and another Hibs director were on HSL board. For me that was strange

[Hibbyradge]

Yip CEO and another Hibs director were on HSL board. For me that was strange

Yeah, at first glance, it seems a bit strange, but given that STF was essentially giving away his stake in the club for no personal gain, I can understand why he'd want to keep an eye on what was happening to it.

[Baldy Foghorn]

Yeah, at first glance, it seems a bit strange, but given that STF was essentially giving away his stake in the club for no personal gain, I can understand why he'd want to keep an eye on what was happening to it.

Wonder what he'd make of all current proposals. 🤔

[Billy Whizz]

Wonder what he'd make of all current proposals. 🤔

I don’t know and Rod too! Wonder if they hold any shares?

[Bostonhibby]

I don’t know and Rod too! Wonder if they hold any shares?Can just see RP, sitting in his Bond villain chair stroking his Cat and combing his moustache whilst simultaneously counting his nominee shareholdings deciding whether to scupper the whole thing or not [emoji16]

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Baldy Foghorn]

Can just see RP, sitting in his Bond villain chair stroking his Cat and combing his moustache whilst simultaneously counting his nominee shareholdings deciding whether to scupper the whole thing or not [emoji16]


Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Haha. I did genuinely wonder what STF will male of it all, though not his concern anymore

[Hibees1973]

Haha. I did genuinely wonder what STF will male of it all, though not his concern anymore

If it goes all t*ts up he won't be bailing us out this time.

[Baldy Foghorn]

If it goes all t*ts up he won't be bailing us out this time.

Definitely. Let's hope it doesn't go Pete Tong

[Lago]

If it goes all t*ts up he won't be bailing us out this time.
If that happens Jambos will quite rightly call Hibs the wee team.

[Golden Bear]

I was originally contributing but some time ago I cancelled as quite frankly I was sick to the back teeth of the politics behind the share issues. It's a decision I've not regretted as there are other methods of contributing directly to HFC.

[Pagan Hibernia]

I was originally contributing but some time ago I cancelled as quite frankly I was sick to the back teeth of the politics behind the share issues. It's a decision I've not regretted as there are other methods of contributing directly to HFC.

What politics behind the share issues?

[Golden Bear]

What politics behind the share issues?

As in this thread.

[Just Alf]

As in this thread.I've always struggled with the whole thing.

HSL simply wanted to group supporters together to reach that critical 25.1% share ownership to act as a break on anyone wanting to do something negative to the club in the fans eyes.
It was a simple message, no fan "control" , no fans running the club etc.

The politics always seemed to involve people other than HSL, but (to me at least) it seemed like HSL and the supporters that had backed it were the ones that lost out off the back of the "politics"

[jacomo]

Kano had nothing to do with that group. Utter nonsense what you posted


Kano was telling fans not to buy shares because it was a scam. So was Pia.

Doesn’t matter what grouping they may or may not have been part of, does it?

[Chorley Hibee]

Kano was telling fans not to buy shares because it was a scam. So was Pia.

Doesn’t matter what grouping they may or may not have been part of, does it?

I think we exaggerate the effect Kane and Pia had on this, to be honest.

I don't think too many people were taking their advice from Paul Kane and Simon Pia at the end of the day, certainly not enough for it to have failed in the manner it did.

Ultimately, I don't think it was packaged in the right manner, it came across pretty unprofessional, and the club paid it almost zero interest from the start.

Those were much more telling factors than a couple of non-entities sounding off their disapproval.

[CentreLine]

I think we exaggerate the effect Kane and Pia had on this, to be honest.

I don't think too many people were taking their advice from Paul Kane and Simon Pia at the end of the day, certainly not enough for it to have failed in the manner it did.

Ultimately, I don't think it was packaged in the right manner, it came across pretty unprofessional, and the club paid it almost zero interest from the start.

Those were much more telling factors than a couple of non-entities sounding off their disapproval.

I think you do Paul Kane and Simon Pia a major disservice calling them non-entities. Kano was not only a significant player in a largely uninspiring Hibs side but also a popular publican and member of Leith society. He is still a popular presence today. Simon Pia was a well respected broadsheet journalist with a broad exposure and reputation as a thorough and capable investigative journalist. His loss in that field was and is regrettable.

I do not know the truth in either case but there is plenty of conjecture, including on this site, that both men had an arguably justified issue with Sir Tom Farmer. The fact that all of us were very much aware of their perceived presence and influence in the “Ponzi Scheme” narrative says they were definitely not non-entities in the debate in the minds of people at the time, whether they intended to be or not.

[Chorley Hibee]

I think you do Paul Kane and Simon Pia a major disservice calling them non-entities. Kano was not only a significant player in a largely uninspiring Hibs side but also a popular publican and member of Leith society. He is still a popular presence today. Simon Pia was a well respected broadsheet journalist with a broad exposure and reputation as a thorough and capable investigative journalist. His loss in that field was and is regrettable.

I do not know the truth in either case but there is plenty of conjecture, including on this site, that both men had an arguably justified issue with Sir Tom Farmer. The fact that all of us were very much aware of their perceived presence and influence in the “Ponzi Scheme” narrative says they were definitely not non-entities in the debate in the minds of people at the time, whether they intended to be or not.

You're right, non-entity is too harsh.

But, likewise, I think you do the average Hibs fan a disservice to believe these two had such a sway over, ultimately, thousands of Hibs fans who failed to get on board with HSL.

There's a good portion of younger generations who probably have little idea of who Paul Kane and Simon Pia even are.

Ultimately, I don't believe the club were ever invested in HSL succeeding, and HSL didn't help themselves, at times, with what looked like a pretty cobbled together approach. These were much bigger factors, in my eyes, than both Kane and Pia ever were.

I speak as someone who contributed from early on as well.

[Pagan Hibernia]

You're right, non-entity is too harsh.

But, likewise, I think you do the average Hibs fan a disservice to believe these two had such a sway over, ultimately, thousands of Hibs fans who failed to get on board with HSL.

There's a good portion of younger generations who probably have little idea of who Paul Kane and Simon Pia even are.

Ultimately, I don't believe the club were ever invested in HSL succeeding, and HSL didn't help themselves at times, with what looked like a pretty cobbled together approach. These were much bigger factors in my eyes than both Kane and Pia ever were.

I speak as someone who contributed from early on as well.

I agree with you. The two factors you mentioned were huge failures.

I mentioned earlier in the thread how HSL's inability to respond to a simple query, and also the follow up message that I sent cost them more than a year's worth of monthly donations from me at the start. I remember speaking to other people who had a similar experience. You're just never going to gain the momentum you need with that sort of unprofessionalism. Eventually they did get back to me when on the third attempt I resorted to messaging them on twitter and HSL was much better at communication and responsiveness at the end than they were at the start but I feel a lot of the damage was already done. A lot of people just wouldn't have given them a second or third chance.

And you're right about the club too. Up to £15k a month pouring in from supporters (a lot more than that at certain times like the covid pandemic) and they barely acknowledged it. No interest.

[chippy]

I think we exaggerate the effect Kane and Pia had on this, to be honest.

I don't think too many people were taking their advice from Paul Kane and Simon Pia at the end of the day, certainly not enough for it to have failed in the manner it did.

Ultimately, I don't think it was packaged in the right manner, it came across pretty unprofessional, and the club paid it almost zero interest from the start.

Those were much more telling factors than a couple of non-entities sounding off their disapproval.

If you’re calling Kano, a loyal player and fan and Simon Pia, a very good Hibs supporting journalist non entities , what sort of entity should you be described as ?

[Chorley Hibee]

If you’re calling Kano, a loyal player and fan and Simon Pia, a very good Hibs supporting journalist non entities , what sort of entity should you be described as ?

In terms of my influence over Hibs supporters buying into HSL, I'd describe myself as a non-entity too.

That was the context the phrase was used in, but I appreciate it might have been construed differently.

I stand by my opinion that they didn't influence anywhere near the amount of subscribers that is often exaggerated on here, and that most of the damage came from the club, and the running of HSL itself.

[chippy]

In terms of my influence over Hibs supporters buying into HSL, I'd describe myself as a non-entity too.

That was the context the phrase was used in, but I appreciate it might be have been construed differently.

I stand by my opinion that they didn't influence anywhere near the amount of subscribers that is often exaggerated on here, and that most of the damage came from the club, and the running of HSL itself.

I don’t entirely disagree with the points you were raising but best to steer away from personal insults. I agree the packaging of HSL was poor but mainly it should not have been corporately linked to the club at birth

[DanishJohn]

In terms of my influence over Hibs supporters buying into HSL, I'd describe myself as a non-entity too.

That was the context the phrase was used in, but I appreciate it might be have been construed differently.

I stand by my opinion that they didn't influence anywhere near the amount of subscribers that is often exaggerated on here, and that most of the damage came from the club, and the running of HSL itself.


I'm afraid I have to disagree with you.

Apart from the names mentioned, was there not an individual from the Hibs Club who was linked to the Ponzi" scheme headlines ? I could be wrong but was he not quoted in the Scotsman ? I think he was speaking but not under the authority of the Hibs club? ( The Hibs Club have always been very supportive of HSL)
That's what happens when people who may lead a group or influence people decide to let people know what their own individual opinion is.
Its akin to to a talk show host inviting the Leader of The Conservative Party and the Leader of the Labour Party on to his post to debate the upcoming election.
Before the show starts he says " Oh by the way I'm voting Conservative". Its not right and wouldn't be allowed. It can be damaging and in HSL's case it was.

Finally, could I ask you about the running of HSL? They asked on a few occasions for volunteers to help with the running of it. They have also had election for board members.
What was your thoughts on that?

[Chorley Hibee]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you.

Apart from the names mentioned, was there not an individual from the Hibs Club who was linked to the Ponzi" scheme headlines ? I could be wrong but was he not quoted in the Scotsman ? I think he was speaking but not under the authority of the Hibs club? ( The Hibs Club have always been very supportive of HSL)
That's what happens when people who may lead a group or influence people decide to let people know what their own individual opinion is.
Its akin to to a talk show host inviting the Leader of The Conservative Party and the Leader of the Labour Party on to his post to debate the upcoming election.
Before the show starts he says " Oh by the way I'm voting Conservative". Its not right and wouldn't be allowed. It can be damaging and in HSL's case it was.

Finally, could I ask you about the running of HSL? They asked on a few occasions for volunteers to help with the running of it. They have also had election for board members.
What was your thoughts on that?

I never had the time to commit to such a cause, and whilst appreciative of the folk who did surrender their time, I'm of the belief that such an undertaking really required full-time professionals running the show.

That is where the club should have played a bigger part.

My own experiences with HSL were often laborious and frequently unanswered, and this eventually turned me away, and likely many others as well.

[Brizo]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you.

Apart from the names mentioned, was there not an individual from the Hibs Club who was linked to the Ponzi" scheme headlines ? I could be wrong but was he not quoted in the Scotsman ? I think he was speaking but not under the authority of the Hibs club? ( The Hibs Club have always been very supportive of HSL)
That's what happens when people who may lead a group or influence people decide to let people know what their own individual opinion is.
Its akin to to a talk show host inviting the Leader of The Conservative Party and the Leader of the Labour Party on to his post to debate the upcoming election.
Before the show starts he says " Oh by the way I'm voting Conservative". Its not right and wouldn't be allowed. It can be damaging and in HSL's case it was.

Finally, could I ask you about the running of HSL? They asked on a few occasions for volunteers to help with the running of it. They have also had election for board members.
What was your thoughts on that?


If it's the same individual your talking about that I think it is , they had a track record of using their position in the Hibs Supporters Association to make a lot of statements that they hadn't discussed or cleared with the membership and certainly weren't the majority views of the Hibs Club membership. I understand that he's been suspended from the HSA on a couple of occasions for taking advantage of his position but still manages to have undue influence amongst a small cabal of like-minded individuals.

[Hibbyradge]

In terms of my influence over Hibs supporters buying into HSL, I'd describe myself as a non-entity too.

That was the context the phrase was used in, but I appreciate it might have been construed differently.

I stand by my opinion that they didn't influence anywhere near the amount of subscribers that is often exaggerated on here, and that most of the damage came from the club, and the running of HSL itself.

Fear is a hugely powerful motivator.

The fear of being ripped off, of looking silly and of losing money, affects how we interact with individuals, retailers and companies.

There are many sites dedicated to reassure people that using xyz company is safe e.g. Checkatrade, Trustpilot, Money Saving Expert. Even TripAdvisor is used to avoid bad experiences.

If you read someone saying things like "Don't use that company, they're scammers" etc, most people would avoid using them.

Don't contribute to HSL , it's a scam (Ponzi) had the same effect on many.

Several acquaintances of mine who have donated to things like Club 86, Hands off Hibs etc in the past, tried to put me off donating to HSL. One even called me a clown for doing so.

The effect of the anti-HSL was significant.

[malcolm]

Fear is a hugely powerful motivator.

The fear of being ripped off, of looking silly and of losing money, affects how we interact with individuals, retailers and companies.

There are many sites dedicated to reassure people that using xyz company is safe e.g. Checkatrade, Trustpilot, Money Saving Expert. Even TripAdvisor is used to avoid bad experiences.

If you read someone saying things like "Don't use that company, they're scammers" etc, most people would avoid using them.

Don't contribute to HSL , it's a scam (Ponzi) had the same effect on many.

Several acquaintances of mine who have donated to things like Club 86, Hands off Hibs etc in the past, tried to put me off donating to HSL. One even called me a clown for doing so.

The effect of the anti-HSL was significant.

Yes but I’d think the lack of any urgency to the situation (compared to them across the city) also had a huge impact. Though of course the tendency to distrust any investment into the club is perhaps always the noisiest side of the distribution curve compared to the optimistic side.

[Hibbyradge]

Yes but I’d think the lack of any urgency to the situation (compared to them across the city) also had a huge impact. Though of course the tendency to distrust any investment into the club is perhaps always the noisiest side of the distribution curve compared to the optimistic side.

Yes, I agree.

[Ringothedog]

Anyone know how the AGM went this evening?

[The Spaceman]

HSL came across as completely amateur from the start. An investment tool with poor grammar and spelling was never going to fly very well. I’ve got shares directly in the club and that’ll do me.

[Dmas]

Yes but I’d think the lack of any urgency to the situation (compared to them across the city) also had a huge impact. Though of course the tendency to distrust any investment into the club is perhaps always the noisiest side of the distribution curve compared to the optimistic side.

There was a huge difference in the situations between why HSL was formed and why FoH was formed, which is why there’s a difference in urgency, one of the groups was saving a club from death and the other was aiming for a fans seat on the board of directors, I also don’t believe a time limit was set by STF so a sale to the Gordon’s wasn’t expected, considering he was open to offers the vast majority of his ownership it’s easy to see why some people where willing to take their time.

There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind the anti-HSL mob done enough to put a lot of people off which stopped us gaining the 25%, and is probably the reason why now we’re not seeing interviews with Kano or social media posts from Pia because if it wasn’t for them and their followers spreading nonsense, we’d have much more of a voice now as a support

[CentreLine]

HSL came across as completely amateur from the start. An investment tool with poor grammar and spelling was never going to fly very well. I’ve got shares directly in the club and that’ll do me.

Interesting that the present club amendment 6, at next week’s AGM, will open the door to a single buyer compulsorily purchasing those few shares we own. Then you and I and many others will not have shares in the club any more. It’s an odd one but I’m looking forward to the AGM to see what the vision for the future actually is. It may be the last AGM we are entitled to attend.
Had HSL achieved the 25.1% safety net it was set up to achieve it would have ensured that the choice to keep or sell our shares remained in our own hands. It may or may not be amateurish but it’s creation was to protect all of us from aggressive business practice or the kind of takeover that Mercer attempted.

[Chipper1875]

There was a huge difference in the situations between why HSL was formed and why FoH was formed, which is why there’s a difference in urgency, one of the groups was saving a club from death and the other was aiming for a fans seat on the board of directors, I also don’t believe a time limit was set by STF so a sale to the Gordon’s wasn’t expected, considering he was open to offers the vast majority of his ownership it’s easy to see why some people where willing to take their time.

There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind the anti-HSL mob done enough to put a lot of people off which stopped us gaining the 25%, and is probably the reason why now we’re not seeing interviews with Kano or social media posts from Pia because if it wasn’t for them and their followers spreading nonsense, we’d have much more of a voice now as a support
More nonsense. Kano trying to recuperate from a serious life changing condition.

So 20000 hibs fans were influenced by a gorilla suit …

Also . a massive assumption on your part , that HSL members would vote against the resolutions.

Hibs fans had 33% of the shares and the Gordon’s amd BK want to wipe that out

[Stairway 2 7]

Interesting that the present club amendment 6, at next week’s AGM, will open the door to a single buyer compulsorily purchasing those few shares we own. Then you and I and many others will not have shares in the club any more. It’s an odd one but I’m looking forward to the AGM to see what the vision for the future actually is. It may be the last AGM we are entitled to attend.
Had HSL achieved the 25.1% safety net it was set up to achieve it would have ensured that the choice to keep or sell our shares remained in our own hands. It may or may not be amateurish but it’s creation was to protect all of us from aggressive business practice or the kind of takeover that Mercer attempted.

I agree but I also don't think Foley would have invested in us or any other outside investment. We'd be still £7 million a season behind hearts every year. I'm personally fed up of not having a go, with the right outside investment and structure 3rd is doable each year.

[SickBoy32]

Interesting that the present club amendment 6, at next week’s AGM, will open the door to a single buyer compulsorily purchasing those few shares we own. Then you and I and many others will not have shares in the club any more. It’s an odd one but I’m looking forward to the AGM to see what the vision for the future actually is. It may be the last AGM we are entitled to attend.
Had HSL achieved the 25.1% safety net it was set up to achieve it would have ensured that the choice to keep or sell our shares remained in our own hands. It may or may not be amateurish but it’s creation was to protect all of us from aggressive business practice or the kind of takeover that Mercer attempted.

A very important point that I think may be being overlooked by a fair number of fans, on this promise of investment from our second wave of American speculators.

IMO the proposed change to the Articles of Association is reason enough to vote against the Bournemouth link, has a rather ominous feel to it (not helped by the way the club tried to smuggle it through amidst legal and financial jargon)

As mentioned on another thread, this is a permanent change, and I think it’s safe to say this ‘drag along’ lever isn’t being added for no reason.

You may well be correct that this will be the last Hibernian AGM with genuine supporters present.

[SickBoy32]

I agree but I also don't think Foley would have invested in us or any other outside investment. We'd be still £7 million a season behind hearts every year. I'm personally fed up of not having a go, with the right outside investment and structure 3rd is doable each year.

Interestingly Motherwell have been in the press this week, linked with an American consortium, who are looking to takeover the club and reduce the fans % to just under 50% - from the current 71%.

If Motherwell can find an investor who doesn’t desire a situation where 0% fan shareholding is critical to the deal going ahead, I’m sure we could’ve.

[Betty Boop]

There was a huge difference in the situations between why HSL was formed and why FoH was formed, which is why there’s a difference in urgency, one of the groups was saving a club from death and the other was aiming for a fans seat on the board of directors, I also don’t believe a time limit was set by STF so a sale to the Gordon’s wasn’t expected, considering he was open to offers the vast majority of his ownership it’s easy to see why some people where willing to take their time.

There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind the anti-HSL mob done enough to put a lot of people off which stopped us gaining the 25%, and is probably the reason why now we’re not seeing interviews with Kano or social media posts from Pia becoause if it wasn’t for them and their followers spreading nonsense, we’d have much more of a voice now as a support

A bit off bad mouthing Paul Kane when he is seriously ill .

[CentreLine]

I agree but I also don't think Foley would have invested in us or any other outside investment. We'd be still £7 million a season behind hearts every year. I'm personally fed up of not having a go, with the right outside investment and structure 3rd is doable each year.

Yes indeed. That’s certainly why I want to attend the AGM as open minded as possible. I hope to see a great future for the club. On the face of it there seem to be potential positives from this takeover but we also need to be sure not to be blinded with a bunch of money dangled infront of us. So far that seems to be the only thing we have been told. That, along with a threat at bottom of the crucial amendments that implies we accept the amendments 5 and 6 or the money will vanish like it had never been there in the first place. I have never quite got my head round what the need was for the threats.

But today I got some good news in an email. Apparently there’s a huge bundle of cash sitting waiting for me at a place called “the office of unclaimed funds”. I need to get off Hibs net so that I can click the link on the email and claim my money. Then, in the words of Dr Hook, I’ll have more money than a horse has hairs. What could possibly go wrong?

[TrinityHFC]

Interestingly Motherwell have been in the press this week, linked with an American consortium, who are looking to takeover the club and reduce the fans % to just under 50% - from the current 71%.

If Motherwell can find an investor who doesn’t desire a situation where 0% fan shareholding is critical to the deal going ahead, I’m sure we could’ve.

That section in the articles only refers to a future situation where an offer is made for 80% of the total shares. It has nothing to do with the current investment and talk of shares being taken away from shareholders now or in the near future is not accurate.

[SickBoy32]

That section in the articles only refers to a future situation where an offer is made for 80% of the total shares. It has nothing to do with the current investment and talk of shares being taken away from shareholders now or in the near future is not accurate.

So on whose instruction has this amendment to the Articles been proposed?

You don’t think it’s possible that the Gordons and Foley have agreed this as an exit strategy / mechanism to finally wipe out the fans’ shareholding ?

[Alex Trager]

That section in the articles only refers to a future situation where an offer is made for 80% of the total shares. It has nothing to do with the current investment and talk of shares being taken away from shareholders now or in the near future is not accurate.

Shares may not be being taken away for supporters but they are set to get diluted to a point of no control.

[CentreLine]

That section in the articles only refers to a future situation where an offer is made for 80% of the total shares. It has nothing to do with the current investment and talk of shares being taken away from shareholders now or in the near hi future is not accurate.

That’s good news Trinty. I am genuinely excited at the prospect of our club getting to another level. Can you take that information further for me? I really would like to know what the need was to have the threat at the bottom
Of amendments 5 and 6. Reading that, it seems to me that there is an absolute urgency to make the drag through thingy available. It just flies a little in the face of “och no, that’s a thing way down the line”. I’m hoping and expecting the club to give us bigger picture the AGM but do feel uncomfortable that the club have not engaged more fully in advance.

We, the fans and supporters, have invested emotionally and financially, in the club for most of our lives. Those of us that hold shares, albeit tiny amounts, have a right to feel we have a small say in events. It’s fairly expected that these amendments will go through at the AGM but it would be nice to see a bit more clarity on what we are getting and why. Not intending to be obstructive but I do feel a little like there are implications coming along all to quickly with some of this and that small say in the club could vanish very soon.
I just don’t feel that “nothing to see here” quite covers it. Maybe ensuring that the supporters are included rather than excluded would be a help. Right now I’m feeling more like a customer than a supporter and shareholder.

[easty]

A bit off bad mouthing Paul Kane when he is seriously ill .

If you class what was in that post as “bad mouthing” then I think you need to tweak your sensitivity dial down a few notches.

[Alex Trager]

A bit off bad mouthing Paul Kane when he is seriously ill .

I don’t think the poster has bad mouthed PK?

They’ve not said anything that is untrue. PK was shouting loudly about how to not trust HSL, to the extent that my dad who is not interested in football said he had seen a sticker and looked up ‘ponzi scheme’.

No one has said anything about PK’s health.

[JohnM1875]

Shares may not be being taken away for supporters but they are set to get diluted to a point of no control.

Aren't they already at a point of no control though? And quite a ways off the 25% needed?

[CropleyWasGod]

Aren't they already at a point of no control though? And quite a ways off the 25% needed?

Non-Gordon shareholdings are currently at 33%. It's fair to assume that most, if not all, of these are supporters.

[JohnM1875]

Non-Gordon shareholdings are currently at 33%. It's fair to assume that most, if not all, of these are supporters.

Thought we were talking about hsl shares, sorry. Probably jumped in mid convo and misunderstood.

[CropleyWasGod]

Thought we were talking about hsl shares, sorry. Probably jumped in mid convo and misunderstood.

Nah, you're cool... I think I jumped in without reading :greengrin

[overdrive]

That’s good news Trinty. I am genuinely excited at the prospect of our club getting to another level. Can you take that information further for me? I really would like to know what the need was to have the threat at the bottom
Of amendments 5 and 6. Reading that, it seems to me that there is an absolute urgency to make the drag through thingy available. It just flies a little in the face of “och no, that’s a thing way down the line”. I’m hoping and expecting the club to give us bigger picture the AGM but do feel uncomfortable that the club have not engaged more fully in advance.

We, the fans and supporters, have invested emotionally and financially, in the club for most of our lives. Those of us that hold shares, albeit tiny amounts, have a right to feel we have a small say in events. It’s fairly expected that these amendments will go through at the AGM but it would be nice to see a bit more clarity on what we are getting and why. Not intending to be obstructive but I do feel a little like there are implications coming along all to quickly with some of this and that small say in the club could vanish very soon.
I just don’t feel that “nothing to see here” quite covers it. Maybe ensuring that the supporters are included rather than excluded would be a help. Right now I’m feeling more like a customer than a supporter and shareholder.

Its the Articles of Association I'm more concerned about than the dilution. With the dilution, everyone (except Black Knights as they aren't an existing Shareholder of course) is getting diluted to some extent. The Gordons are getting diluted to a lesser extent than others but they've been loaning the club money that is now being converted into shares (so it is probably money they are saying goodbye to until they sell the club), so I can accept that by and large. It would have been nice if the smaller shareholders had been given a chance to buy shares in the new issue but then to get the Black Knight money from them taking a stake in the club, somebody had to have their percentage shareholding reduced.

It is the cloak and dagger stuff around the AofA that concerns me. The club wants this to pass so they need shareholders to vote for it. Why not make it easy and list what the key new things in it are? Why palm people off when they ask the club to explain it? Instead folk have to read the existing document and the proposed document and work out for themselves. I know this is probably a done deal as it just needs the Gordons and one of the two other larger minority shareholders to pass it. They've not spoken to HSL, so you would have to assume they've got Robb in the bag. I bet they've explained it to him.

Then there's the drag clause and the lawyer chat that was published by accident. I don't think the Gordons 'get' why the club had fan shareholders in the first place. I think they view it as an annoyance. I suspect they think it will put potential buyers off if they try to sell the club in the future. I think Foley probably thinks the same. It would certainly put a dodgy buyer off which is one of the points of having fan shareholders. Yes, we will probably still have a voice at AGMs under the Gordons and BK - not one that has any great power but a voice nonetheless. We won't when the Gordons and BK want to sell... and this deal won't go through without it. The cost of this deal is the smaller shareholders giving up their shares at some unknown point in the future. Giving up the other point of fans holding a shareholding - sentimental reasons.

Maybe that's worth it, though. We don't know as we haven't really been given a lot of information. I hope we get that at the AGM.

[CentreLine]

What’s past is over and done with and should stay in the past. We are in the present now and have a proposal infront of us that could go one way or the other. The positive view, that we all hope for, is that huge investment takes our club to the place it once occupied and where it could compete at the very highest level. The other possibility would take us down a very different route with mounting debt and relative oblivion. Personally I don’t see the latter version but feel the club could and should engage with a great deal more information on the former.

Not withstanding PK being ill, I would genuinely like to hear his take on the current situation. I would especially like to hear Simon Pia’s view. He was, and I’d like to thing still is, an excellent investigative journalist.

[overdrive]

That section in the articles only refers to a future situation where an offer is made for 80% of the total shares. It has nothing to do with the current investment and talk of shares being taken away from shareholders now or in the near future is not accurate.

Much of that is true, yet it clearly has got something to do with the current investment. It states if that resolution is not passed, then the deal won't go through.

[Alex Trager]

Nah, you're cool... I think I jumped in without reading :greengrin

Yeah you are saying what I would go on to say re the other shareholders. Wasn’t talking solely about HsL.

[devnull]

Yeah, it's really disappointing when you notice a company's shareholding taking a hit like that.

[CapitalGreen]

Can’t see those running HSL donating that money anywhere anytime soon as once they do any relevance HSL still has is gone.

[overdrive]

Can’t see those running HSL donating that money anywhere anytime soon as once they do any relevance HSL still has is gone.

That would be a decision for the members.

[CapitalGreen]

That would be a decision for the members.

Is it being put to the members to decide?

[Radium]

Can’t see those running HSL donating that money anywhere anytime soon as once they do any relevance HSL still has is gone.

One of the positions discussed last night was future share issues.

When Bydand/ Black Knights have their 85% combined holding they may look at new share issues to raise money. There’s no business need for them to increase their shareholding so HSL may be in a position to buy shares to retain its 7% holding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[matty_f]

One of the positions discussed last night was future share issues.

When Bydand/ Black Knights have their 85% combined holding they may look at new share issues to raise money. There’s no business need for them to increase their shareholding so HSL may be in a position to buy shares to retain its 7% holding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Vote went against the investment so HSL will vote no.

[Daniel 1875]

Vote went against the investment so HSL will vote no.

Just to be clear, there was no vote on the investment.

The vote went against the dis-application of pre-emption rights and the adoption of the new Articles of Association.

Semantics I know, but I think an important point to make.

[Golden Bear]

Numerically, how many people voted on the resolutions at last night's AGM?

[CapitalGreen]

Just to be clear, there was no vote on the investment.

The vote went against the dis-application of pre-emption rights and the adoption of the new Articles of Association.

Semantics I know, but I think an important point to make.

If those weren’t to pass vote at the AGM then the investment wouldn’t go ahead so it is a de-facto vote against the investment.

[JohnM1875]

Just to be clear, there was no vote on the investment.

The vote went against the dis-application of pre-emption rights and the adoption of the new Articles of Association.

Semantics I know, but I think an important point to make.

Can understand why HSL voted that way to be fair. But I’m glad I’m no longer actively contributing. We’re just after different things.

[matty_f]

Just to be clear, there was no vote on the investment.

The vote went against the dis-application of pre-emption rights and the adoption of the new Articles of Association.

Semantics I know, but I think an important point to make.

It's semantics but it amounts to the same thing.

[Leithenhibby]

Vote went against the investment so HSL will vote no.

That’s not correct, Matty…👍

[Brightside]

Just to be clear, there was no vote on the investment.

The vote went against the dis-application of pre-emption rights and the adoption of the new Articles of Association.

Semantics I know, but I think an important point to make.

So against the proposal for the investment.

[flash]

Just to be clear, there was no vote on the investment.

The vote went against the dis-application of pre-emption rights and the adoption of the new Articles of Association.

Semantics I know, but I think an important point to make.

Whatever you put it that's me out of HSL.

[matty_f]

That’s not correct, Matty…👍

It's a pedantic point, the investment is reliant on those being passed, no?

[CapitalGreen]

That’s not correct, Matty…👍

If Resolution 5 & 6 aren’t passed at the AGM then the investment doesn’t go ahead. HSL have chosen to vote against passing resolutions 5 & 6. They have de-facto voted against the investment.

[Leithenhibby]

So against the proposal for the investment.

You’ll need to explain your comment to me because I’m struggling to understand why so many thought the HSL vote was against investment…

[matty_f]

And for clarity, HSL's members voted that way.

[Monktonhall 7]

2024 AGM Update
Dear member,

Many of you will be aware that our Annual General Meeting was held last night at the Hibernian Supporters Association at Sunnyside.

Firstly, a huge thank you to everyone who attended - it was great to see so many people turn out and a big thanks to the Hibernian Supporters Association for their warm welcome once again.

We will of course be circulating the minutes of the meeting in due course, however we
understand that members who participated in our recent voting are keen to hear the
results.

You will recall that we were required to take instructions as to how members would want us to cast our vote in relation to proposals put to the club’s shareholders at next week's Hibernian FC AGM.

Resolution 5
In relation to Resolution 5 members instructed us, by a significant majority (72.5%), to vote against the proposal. This proposal invited members to allow the club to disapply pre-emption rights - in other words to deprive themselves of the opportunity to buy new shares in the club.

Resolution 6
In relation to Resolution 6 members instructed us, again by a significant majority (75%), to vote against the proposal for the club to adopt new Articles of Association.

I can confirm that having taken your instructions we will be casting our vote against the
proposals at Tuesday's Hibernian FC AGM.

[Stairway 2 7]

Hopefully this doesn't make a difference or there will be very real anger against HSL from those who are wanting the investment.

[Brightside]

You’ll need to explain your comment to me because I’m struggling to understand why so many thought the HSL vote was against investment…

The proposal. They have voted against the proposal. Therefore voting against the terms of the investment.

[Leithenhibby]

It's a pedantic point, the investment is reliant on those being passed, no?

Who knows, because the club haven’t exactly been transparent, have they?

[Silky]

Och well, never mind. We can dare to dream I guess.

[Monktonhall 7]

Who knows, because the club haven’t exactly been transparent, have they?

I think they have to Shareholders. Voting against the proposals means voting against the investment from BK.

[CapitalGreen]

Who knows, because the club haven’t exactly been transparent, have they?

They were clear investment relied on resolution 5 & 6 passing.

[Brightside]

335k in cash sitting with HSL now. I wasn’t at the AGM but I assume there was no discussion on how to use those funds.

[Stairway 2 7]

I think they have to Shareholders. Voting against the proposals means voting against the investment from BK.

Yeah its pretty simple really eh

[JohnM1875]

335k in cash sitting with HSL now. I wasn’t at the AGM but I assume there was no discussion on how to use those funds.

Keep in the hope shares become available I’d imagine?

[overdrive]

Keep in the hope shares become available I’d imagine?

That was discussed.

[CapitalGreen]

Keep in the hope shares become available I’d imagine?

Hopefully the HSL powers at be will give us members a vote on what happens with it, I won’t hold my breath though.

[Bakerman]

If they have voted against the investment, I'd care to hear their reasons for it, in detail. We require investment, especially from a man like Bill Foley.

[Bishop Hibee]

I think one of the lessons from this is that the majority view of those who post on .net is not necessarily the view of the majority of Hibs fans.

I couldn’t make the meeting last night and whilst I would have slightly reluctantly voted for the dilution of the HSL shareholding, I understand the view of those who voted the way they did.

[JohnM1875]

Hopefully the HSL powers at be will give us members a vote on what happens with it, I won’t hold my breath though.

Think they did that before? But it was after the COVID stuff and giving money to the club. It’s the reason I stopped my DD.

[Danderhall Hibs]

I think one of the lessons from this is that the majority view of those who post on .net is not necessarily the view of the majority of Hibs fans.

I couldn’t make the meeting last night and whilst I would have slightly reluctantly voted for the dilution of the HSL shareholding, I understand the view of those who voted the way they did.

Is this vote representative of the majority of Hibs fans? 72.5% of the vote but how big was the vote? How many members didn’t vote? I assume the vote wasn’t just the 70odd folk in attendance?

Can we see the split?

[CapitalGreen]

I think one of the lessons from this is that the majority view of those who post on .net is not necessarily the view of the majority of Hibs fans.

I couldn’t make the meeting last night and whilst I would have slightly reluctantly voted for the dilution of the HSL shareholding, I understand the view of those who voted the way they did.

HSL doesn’t represent a majority of Hibs fans either, not even close.

[GloryGlory]

You’ll need to explain your comment to me because I’m struggling to understand why so many thought the HSL vote was against investment…

Because the papers issued by Hibs for the AGM were very clear that if the resolutions re the new share issue and new articles of association do not pass then the proposed investment by BKG will NOT go ahead.

[Kaiser_Sauzee]

So, is this a vote for 5th place finishes for the next 20 years?

[CapitalGreen]

Is this vote representative of the majority of Hibs fans? 72.5% of the vote but how big was the vote? How many members didn’t vote? I assume the vote wasn’t just the 70odd folk in attendance?

Can we see the split?

I asked for voting numbers after the previous AGM vote and wasntildvthey wouldn’t share them, not a very transparent members organisation.

[Stairway 2 7]

I think one of the lessons from this is that the majority view of those who post on .net is not necessarily the view of the majority of Hibs fans.

I couldn’t make the meeting last night and whilst I would have slightly reluctantly voted for the dilution of the HSL shareholding, I understand the view of those who voted the way they did.

I think hibs.net will be more pessimistic to the deal, people against will be loudest I'd think. I've spoken to probably 100 hibbies in work friends hibs club ect (which is obviously a tiny amount) but haven't talked to one person that doesn't want the investment to happen and the £6 million to turn into shares. Many have sadness in the dilution of shares and some of the articles eg the right of new owner in future to buy all shares, but not one didn't want the investment. The difference is about £12 million in total this summer

[Daniel 1875]

Hopefully the HSL powers at be will give us members a vote on what happens with it, I won’t hold my breath though.

Out of interest, why won’t you hold your breath? That is, of course, exactly what will happen and it’s what has always happened.

[Stairway 2 7]

Out of interest, why won’t you hold your breath? That is, of course, exactly what will happen and it’s what has always happened.

What were the voting figures for each vote

[Brightside]

Is this vote representative of the majority of Hibs fans? 72.5% of the vote but how big was the vote? How many members didn’t vote? I assume the vote wasn’t just the 70odd folk in attendance?

Can we see the split?

Correct. Not having a e-vote for all members means that it’s only those with the strongest opinions having a say. And that means it’s was always going to be a NO.

[green day]

Are we saying that 70% of the 70 or 80 people who turned up voted No?

Not exactly representative (of people like me) who have been away.

[TrinityHFC]

Correct. Not having a e-vote for all members means that it’s only those with the strongest opinions having a say. And that means it’s was always going to be a NO.

The Q&A on the HSL website says HSL will vote at Hibs AGMs based on a simple majority of members.

That isn’t what has happened. This has been done on a majority of members that have voted.

They’ve only ever asked about these 2 resolutions.

[Leithenhibby]

Correct. Not having a e-vote for all members means that it’s only those with the strongest opinions having a say. And that means it’s was always going to be a NO.


Just like the club, you can vote by proxy or attendance.

Either way, every shareholder or member can vote...

[SickBoy32]

So, is this a vote for 5th place finishes for the next 20 years?

I must’ve imagined our recent third place finish. Likewise the jambos relegation / demotion. Money is important in football, but having competent staff even more so.

Glad to see HSL voting against, in the interests of the clubs long term future.

[Danderhall Hibs]

I think hibs.net will be more pessimistic to the deal, people against will be loudest I'd think. I've spoken to probably 100 hibbies in work friends hibs club ect (which is obviously a tiny amount) but haven't talked to one person that doesn't want the investment to happen and the £6 million to turn into shares. Many have sadness in the dilution of shares and some of the articles eg the right of new owner in future to buy all shares, but not one didn't want the investment. The difference is about £12 million in total this summer

The 100 you’ve spoken to may be more than voted last night.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Having said that they had to vote against this didn’t they? Otherwise they’d effectively be saying they’re irrelevant?

[flash]

Out of interest, why won’t you hold your breath? That is, of course, exactly what will happen and it’s what has always happened.

Can we have a percentage turnout and how many votes were cast please?

[flash]

Can just see this falling through now, every other club accepting investment, and nobody else coming near us after we knock back one of the biggest syndicates in world sport.

It would be peak Hibs.

[Golden Bear]

Numerically, how many people voted on the resolutions at last night's AGM?

Anyone ?

I can see the percentages but to put things into perspective I think we also need the actual numbers

[JohnM1875]

Can just see this falling through now, every other club accepting investment, and nobody else coming near us after we knock back one of the biggest syndicates in world sport.

It would be peak Hibs.

:agree:

Starting to worry a bit.

[CapitalGreen]

Can we have a percentage turnout and how many votes were cast please?

This was the answer I got when I asked about the previous vote.


Apologies. I’m unable to let you know the % of the membership as I’m not sure of the current numbers who have achieved full membership.

[Brightside]

Just like the club, you can vote by proxy or attendance.

Either way, every shareholder or member can vote...

How could I vote by proxy? I didn’t know anyone going. And unless I missed it there was not way to vote prior to the meeting?