Hsl

[DaveF]

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?

[Hibeesforever]

The dilution is being forced upon shareholders...why didn't the club ask if the fans wanted to put more money in first..this is not how Sir Tom saw the ownership being set up..

[Pretty Boy]

The benefit for me, arguably the only one now, is that it's a fan owned vehicle with a sizable pot of money ready to go should the need, or ability, to buy shares present itself again in future.

I was at the point of stopping my payments had a decision been taken on how to vote (or to abstain) on the clubs proposals being put forward at the AGM without consulting members but that isn't the case.

I'm still not keen on money being handed over to the club for nothing tangible in return, particularly when the club have actively diluted/are seeking to dilute the fan owned shareholdings (through HSL and individually) twice now. As we approach a point at which less than 25% of shares are in the hands of fans and thus the ability to block special resolutions as a collective goes with it then I'm not convinced handing money over with little held in reserve is wise. In that regards it's incomparable to FoH who have reached an end point we were never likely to reach and is for the moment impossible.

It's going to be a hard sell trying to get people to continue paying in now though.

[Pretty Boy]

The dilution is being forced upon shareholders...why didn't the club ask if the fans wanted to put more money in first..this is not how Sir Tom saw the ownership being set up..

Technically it's not being forced upon shareholders. If the fans who hold shares vote as a block and there was consensus to do so then the resolution could be voted down. Of course that is highly unlikely to happen because there is every chance a significant majority of those fans will be in favour of the changes and the investment (in whatever form still to be clarified) that comes with it; but then that's the will of the shareholders of the club and it's hard to argue it's been forced upon people who chose to vote for it.

[Bostonhibby]

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?I'm the same and so are a few other members of family. We bought shares directly from the issue and stayed in monthly until Ron Gordon's acquisition diluted the value of the holdings and made getting that protective share holding impossible .

No issue with Ron or his motives its just as folk with bitter memories of the Mercer bid we were in it only for the hope of getting 25%.For me it was never about ownership.

I know at least one nominee shareholder too who had similar Hopes, That's no longer an option.

To me it's a ship that's sailed and was prejudiced a bit by some of the idiocy around Ponzi schemes etc. Whether everyone who joineds aspirations will be met is a moot point but I respected everyone who did whatever they were in for.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Brightside]

Should they not just keep it going as a way for fans to invest in player budget? Forget the ownership model as that will never work. But get a point where you are bringing in 200k a quarter, that would be a good amount of money for additional players. (or a wee bit of a top player)

[weecounty hibby]

I stopped my DD a couple of months ago. With no money going into the club anymore I just didn't see the point. My driver for paying in was always to give more money to Hibs, it wasn't necessarily about getting shares myself or having a shareholding as a block, although I understand why folk might like that. Well done to everyone involved in HSL, from the board to the subscribers, for the work done. And a big slap to those who helped to see it fail (maybe not the right term) you know, the ponzi scheme mob

[Stuart93]

Should they not just keep it going as a way for fans to invest in player budget? Forget the ownership model as that will never work. But get a point where you are bringing in 200k a quarter, that would be a good amount of money for additional players. (or a wee bit of a top player)

But it’s a lot of money to expect supporters just to chuck in for absolutely nothing in return.

And considering how gash we’ve been on the pitch any more going towards the playing budget is getting pished up against the wall

[Stairway 2 7]

But it’s a lot of money to expect supporters just to chuck in for absolutely nothing in return.

And considering how gash we’ve been on the pitch any more going towards the playing budget is getting pished up against the wall

You wouldn't be forced to pay it! ****bos fans across the road know they are getting nothing for it but put in millions a year. They get to know they own them but what difference does that make, some bootlicker on the board. They don't decide any meaningful decisions it's kidology. They had the advantage of how they were set up in needing the money. Once the direct debits were set then people just continued them

I pay for other useless things I hardly use on direct debit like audible and the gym ha. I'd happily put in an amount monthly if it was promised for the football budget. I'm sure a good amount would do similar. It would obviously be optional and people would be free to keep their hard earned in their pockets.

[VoltaireHibs]

You wouldn't be forced to pay it! ****bos fans across the road know they are getting nothing for it but put in millions a year. They get to know they own them but what difference does that make, some bootlicker on the board. They don't decide any meaningful decisions it's kidology. They had the advantage of how they were set up in needing the money. Once the direct debits were set then people just continued them

I pay for other useless things I hardly use on direct debit like audible and the gym ha. I'd happily put in an amount monthly if it was promised for the football budget. I'm sure a good amount would do similar. It would obviously be optional and people would be free to keep their hard earned in their pockets.

The neighbours own their club. That's why they pay in. I'm not sure I see the benefit of me handing over chump change to a multi millionaire (IG) and now a billionaire (BF).If they want all the shares and power, okay, no problem, but then it's their money that has to go in.

Say we all donate lots of monthly direct debits, like our neighbours, we perform better on the pitch, the value of the club rises, Ian Gordon sells his share to Foley or whoever and makes a handsome profit, that is not a scenario I am on board with, making people who inherited wealth even richer with my own money. It may not pan out like that, but there's every chance it could. If the Gordon's told us their plans for the future of Hibs as a financial entity, what their long term goals were then it may be worth considering, until that point, for me personally, it's not.

They want control, they put the money in. The fans have been unbelievably loyal re season tickets considering the absolute dross we've had to watch since the Gordon's came in.

[Brightside]

They have a million quid in the bank. Could be handy in the summer.

[GloryGlory]

The neighbours own their club. That's why they pay in. I'm not sure I see the benefit of me handing over chump change to a multi millionaire (IG) and now a billionaire (BF).If they want all the shares and power, okay, no problem, but then it's their money that has to go in.

Say we all donate lots of monthly direct debits, like our neighbours, we perform better on the pitch, the value of the club rises, Ian Gordon sells his share to Foley or whoever and makes a handsome profit, that is not a scenario I am on board with, making people who inherited wealth even richer with my own money. It may not pan out like that, but there's every chance it could. If the Gordon's told us their plans for the future of Hibs as a financial entity, what their long term goals were then it may be worth considering, until that point, for me personally, it's not.

They want control, they put the money in. The fans have been unbelievably loyal re season tickets considering the absolute dross we've had to watch since the Gordon's came in.

It has been and will be their money going in.

[Pagan Hibernia]

Totally disillusioned tbh.

People keep saying there was no interest in HSL when the shares were available, and its true that progress was slow but we were steadily making our way to our target. If I remember correctly we were at around 20% at the point where the gordons arrived and diluted it down to just over 15%. That's not nothing. We were within touching distance of the goal that a lot of us had. I will never say a word against Tom Farmer after everything he did for us but I felt let down at that point, and afterwards when Ron put a block on individual shareholders selling to HSL or each other.

I'm angry with the idiots who threw a bucket of cold water on any enthusiam or momentum that HSL had at the beginning with their ridiculous slander, libel and lies about it, and I'm angry with HSL themselves for their poor marketing and advertising of themselves for the first two or three years of the organisations existence and also some truly awful communication. As an example I sent them messages or emails at the beginning with a few queries and no one got back to me. I sent follow up messages and still nothing. It was a year later when someone finally got back to me and I got on board. So that's a full year of my contributions that they missed out on and I know others had similar experiences. HsL did then, belatedly get its act together and was driving membership and numbers forward but then the gordons arrived.
Then there was the club itself, who for some reason known only to themselves could barely bring themselves to acknowledge HSL's existence despite getting handed thousands of pounds a month from that organisation and its members. With all of this incompetence, can anyone be surprised that the whole thing is seen as a failure?

What does the future hold for HSL now? I'm not sure I'm bothered tbh. The aims are gone and it would take something special to get me contributing again.

Whole thing feels like an terrible waste of an opportunity.

[VoltaireHibs]

It has been and will be their money going in.

I know, that's the way it should be. It's the handing money to millionaires but I have an issue with. I think the best thing HSL can do right now is to get as many folk registered as possible, donating or not, in order to create a huge Hibs fan database that can be contacted/mobilised easily if required.

[heid the baw]

As someone who has been contributing regularly, I am now unsure what the point of it is. Happy to keep contributing if it benefits the club but we need clarification as to what that would look like. The original proposal has been outdated for some time and is now completely unachievable.
My preference would be funding of some tangible aspect of youth development. Something ring fenced so that contributers have transparency as to how donations are being used

[Stairway 2 7]

I think it's weird that there is such strong voices every time people say they would like to put money in like hearts fans do ,towards the club. Do people think they are going to be forced to. If you don't want to put in for the various reasons above then don't. I think many would. If your personally against putting in yourself then surely you encourage us mugs that would put in, it's more money for your team especially if it's ring fenced for the player budget

[Tyler Durden]

Jim Adie (I think) from HSL on Sky tonight and his comments for me were embarrassing.

Says it’s heartbreaking that HSL shares will be diluted. Questions how we have reached a position where we need fresh external investment. Thinks the accounts are very worrying.

Making a fool of himself IMO. Ignores that we’ve made a loss because we’ve invested in Hospitality, Floodlights, Screens etc.

Not helpful and only stirs division.

[JohnM1875]

Jim Adie (I think) from HSL on Sky tonight and his comments for me were embarrassing.

Says it’s heartbreaking that HSL shares will be diluted. Questions how we have reached a position where we need fresh external investment. Thinks the accounts are very worrying.

Making a fool of himself IMO. Ignores that we’ve made a loss because we’ve invested in Hospitality, Floodlights, Screens etc.

Not helpful and only stirs division.

Aye, really poor stuff to be honest. Get he's passionate about HSL but that won't help them at all.

[Jones28]

Jim Adie (I think) from HSL on Sky tonight and his comments for me were embarrassing.

Says it’s heartbreaking that HSL shares will be diluted. Questions how we have reached a position where we need fresh external investment. Thinks the accounts are very worrying.

Making a fool of himself IMO. Ignores that we’ve made a loss because we’ve invested in Hospitality, Floodlights, Screens etc.

Not helpful and only stirs division.

Yep, he came across as a real slaver.

[Pagan Hibernia]

Jim Adie (I think) from HSL on Sky tonight and his comments for me were embarrassing.

Says it’s heartbreaking that HSL shares will be diluted. Questions how we have reached a position where we need fresh external investment. Thinks the accounts are very worrying.

Making a fool of himself IMO. Ignores that we’ve made a loss because we’ve invested in Hospitality, Floodlights, Screens etc.

Not helpful and only stirs division.

I didn't see the interview but I'm not sure I'd disagree with him on any of the points you've mentioned

[Tyler Durden]

I didn't see the interview but I'm not sure I'd disagree with him on any of the points you've mentioned

That’s your prerogative.

I’d expect someone who represents a body of shareholders to be better informed.

[Alex Trager]

That’s your prerogative.

I’d expect someone who represents a body of shareholders to be better informed.

Is it a matter of fact that the losses account for the capital expenditure.

I thought they were supposed to be separate?

[CropleyWasGod]

Is it a matter of fact that the losses account for the capital expenditure.

I thought they were supposed to be separate?

Capital expenditure doesn't affect losses.

[Tyler Durden]

Is it a matter of fact that the losses account for the capital expenditure.

I thought they were supposed to be separate?

Ok so I’ve confused matters myself there.

Looking at the bigger picture. Jim Adie says the whole situation is worrying. Gives the board no credit for the work that’s been undertaken off the field. The fact that it’s been explained that the wage ratio has been recovered during this season.

The fact that the new investment is a massive opportunity for the club.

[jacomo]

I know, that's the way it should be. It's the handing money to millionaires but I have an issue with. I think the best thing HSL can do right now is to get as many folk registered as possible, donating or not, in order to create a huge Hibs fan database that can be contacted/mobilised easily if required.


:agree:

Good idea.

[1875Sean]

I didn't see the interview but I'm not sure I'd disagree with him on any of the points you've mentioned

https://x.com/ScotlandSky/status/1755312865232175500?s=20

Link to interviews

[Rumble de Thump]

It was badly promoted from those running it, with poor communication. Meanwhile some eejits were gaslighting people about ponzi schemes. It was a decent opportunity for the fanbase but we've moved on, and big investment and various opportunities to help the club improve are on the way.

[Alex Trager]

Capital expenditure doesn't affect losses.

I thought so.

So everyone saying that the £3M losses are down to the hospitality etc. are wrong.

[Ronniekirk]

I stopped my DD a couple of months ago. With no money going into the club anymore I just didn't see the point. My driver for paying in was always to give more money to Hibs, it wasn't necessarily about getting shares myself or having a shareholding as a block, although I understand why folk might like that. Well done to everyone involved in HSL, from the board to the subscribers, for the work done. And a big slap to those who helped to see it fail (maybe not the right term) you know, the ponzi scheme mob

Think that’s the point I am now at Haven’t cancelled dd yet but am on the brink unless its clear what money is to be used for

[AugustaHibs]

https://x.com/ScotlandSky/status/1755312865232175500?s=20

Link to interviews

Cheers

[Slim Shady]

Jim Adie (I think) from HSL on Sky tonight and his comments for me were embarrassing.

Says it’s heartbreaking that HSL shares will be diluted. Questions how we have reached a position where we need fresh external investment. Thinks the accounts are very worrying.

Making a fool of himself IMO. Ignores that we’ve made a loss because we’ve invested in Hospitality, Floodlights, Screens etc.

Not helpful and only stirs division.

I agree. On the back of listening to that slaver I’ll be cancelling my payments tomorrow.

Done himself or HSL no favours and come across as bitter.

Bar the performance of team at the minute and being 22 points behind them, the club is in a decent place off the pitch.

[matty_f]

I agree. On the back of listening to that slaver I’ll be cancelling my payments tomorrow.

Done himself or HSL no favours and come across as bitter.

Bar the performance of team at the minute and being 22 points behind them, the club is in a decent place off the pitch.

Just watched it and I’m really surprised at the tone of the interview. This isn’t a bail out with the investment, we’ve not gone searching investment to dig us out of a hole which is what’s implied here, and the chat around the accounts really didn’t show a good understanding of the situation.

Lots of scaremongering and emotive language, really poor.

[May21/05/16]

That's not a very good interview its sad as Jim and the rest of the team have been good at getting funds into the club especially during covid but I've decided to end my subscriptions because deal the deal looks as if its going to happen

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

[Gmack7]

I'll be keeping mine going until I hear officially from HSL, not that slaver, it was as if they'd stopped someone after coming out the boozer

[Chipper1875]

Jim Adie (I think) from HSL on Sky tonight and his comments for me were embarrassing.

Says it’s heartbreaking that HSL shares will be diluted. Questions how we have reached a position where we need fresh external investment. Thinks the accounts are very worrying.

Making a fool of himself IMO. Ignores that we’ve made a loss because we’ve invested in Hospitality, Floodlights, Screens etc.

Not helpful and only stirs division.

Thought his points were valid . Disgusting how Ron and Bydand sports have treated HSL. Incredible they haven’t spoken to HSL but you can guarantee they have spoken to Mr Robb , to get his casting vote. HSL would be nuts to donate money to millionaires the Gordon’s and billionaires Black Knights. Also, look at who owns BK, some of biggest asset managers in the world looking after trillions upon trillions of dollars.

Look at the articles of association and what appears they are trying to do to circumvent due process if the wish to sell the club and our small personal shareholding , bought out of love

[BSEJVT]

Thought his points were valid . Disgusting how Ron and Bydand sports have treated HSL. Incredible they haven’t spoken to HSL but you can guarantee they have spoken to Mr Robb , to get his casting vote. HSL would be nuts to donate money to millionaires the Gordon’s and billionaires Black Knights. Also, look at who owns BK, some of biggest asset managers in the world looking after trillions upon trillions of dollars.

Look at the articles of association and what appears they are trying to do to circumvent due process if the wish to sell the club and our small personal shareholding , bought out of love

I think that whilst Ron Gordon’s takeover of Hibs and the way it was structured knifed HSL the latest proposal sounds it’s death knell.

I understand how Jim feels as he has put so much into HSL and has had ti deal with so much personally and in his role as Chairman of HSL and he is bound to be scarred and disillusioned by what has transpired.

FWIW I think HSL have been treated abominably by the Gordon’s and whilst I understand why what has happened has happened think they could have dealt better with an organisation which whether the like its existence or not represents 4000 supporters.

They could have dealt with HSL and given them a bit more dignity whilst still reaching the same point

That casual arrogant dismissal doesn’t sit well with me and it’s a further indication that we are consumers rather than supporters now

The Gordon ‘s recognise that to have any chance of success we need to break the mould of how Scottish Football is and we all hope and pray they are successful

If after a while this doesn’t work I wouldn’t be surprised to see a FOH type rescue required

But IMO for the moment HSL has ran its race and donations should cease

The reduced shareholding percentage offers no protection / influence at all and HSL itself should be mothballed and its shares held in trust by a group of Hibs people not aligned with the current board or better still returned to its members

[nonshinyfinish]

They could have dealt with HSL and given them a bit more dignity whilst still reaching the same point

What would that look like in practice?

If things were to reach the same point as you say (reduced to 7% holding and probably effectively killed off), I'm struggling to think of ways the club could have engaged with HSL that would amount to anything more than just stringing them along.

[Chipper1875]

I think that whilst Ron Gordon’s takeover of Hibs and the way it was structured knifed HSL the latest proposal sounds it’s death knell.

I understand how Jim feels as he has put so much into HSL and has had ti deal with so much personally and in his role as Chairman of HSL and he is bound to be scarred and disillusioned by what has transpired.

FWIW I think HSL have been treated abominably by the Gordon’s and whilst I understand why what has happened has happened think they could have dealt better with an organisation which whether the like its existence or not represents 4000 supporters.

They could have dealt with HSL and given them a bit more dignity whilst still reaching the same point

That casual arrogant dismissal doesn’t sit well with me and it’s a further indication that we are consumers rather than supporters now

The Gordon ‘s recognise that to have any chance of success we need to break the mould of how Scottish Football is and we all hope and pray they are successful

If after a while this doesn’t work I wouldn’t be surprised to see a FOH type rescue required

But IMO for the moment HSL has ran its race and donations should cease

The reduced shareholding percentage offers no protection / influence at all and HSL itself should be mothballed and its shares held in trust by a group of Hibs people not aligned with the current board or better still returned to its members

All good points, however, Upto HSL members to decide but based on what lve read on the articles, Bydand will sell to BK and all hibs fans shareholders will be wiped out

[Rumble de Thump]

Thought his points were valid . Disgusting how Ron and Bydand sports have treated HSL. Incredible they haven’t spoken to HSL but you can guarantee they have spoken to Mr Robb , to get his casting vote. HSL would be nuts to donate money to millionaires the Gordon’s and billionaires Black Knights. Also, look at who owns BK, some of biggest asset managers in the world looking after trillions upon trillions of dollars.

Look at the articles of association and what appears they are trying to do to circumvent due process if the wish to sell the club and our small personal shareholding , bought out of love

As far as I'm aware, HSL has only ever passed money to the club for the benefit of the football department and not individuals as you suggest, no matter their financial status.

[CropleyWasGod]

All good points, however, Upto HSL members to decide but based on what lve read on the articles, Bydand will sell to BK and all hibs fans shareholders will be wiped out

Can you show us that in the proposed Articles?

[Chipper1875]

Can you show us that in the proposed Articles?

Post on the bounce, guy has reviewed it . Clearly, this is a view and won’t happen until SFA rules allow it.

[CropleyWasGod]

Post on the bounce, guy has reviewed it . Clearly, this is a view and won’t happen until SFA rules allow it.

Doesn't really answer my question.

Can you cut and paste the particular reference? It's an important point.

[Rick Rude]

Thought his points were valid . Disgusting how Ron and Bydand sports have treated HSL. Incredible they haven’t spoken to HSL but you can guarantee they have spoken to Mr Robb , to get his casting vote. HSL would be nuts to donate money to millionaires the Gordon’s and billionaires Black Knights. Also, look at who owns BK, some of biggest asset managers in the world looking after trillions upon trillions of dollars.

Look at the articles of association and what appears they are trying to do to circumvent due process if the wish to sell the club and our small personal shareholding , bought out of love

Any more nuts that continuing to take money off people with no clear plan on what to do with it? A lot of said people are still under the impression the money is being passed to the club when it's sitting in a bank doing absolutely nothing.

[Chipper1875]

As far as I'm aware, HSL has only ever passed money to the club for the benefit of the football department and not individuals as you suggest, no matter their financial status.

I think you know what l mean… also money doesn’t get ring fenced for the “football department “. Terrible word. Everything that’s wrong with modern fitba

[Chipper1875]

Any more nuts that continuing to take money off people with no clear plan on what to do with it? A lot of said people are still under the impression the money is being passed to the club when it's sitting in a bank doing absolutely nothing.

HSL members agreed to the approach , they know this is happening . If you aren’t an active HSL member then it’s nothing to do with you. If active HSL members decide to stop contributing, that’s their prerogative.

[Rick Rude]

HSL members agreed to the approach , they know this is happening . If you aren’t an active HSL member then it’s nothing to do with you. If active HSL members decide to stop contributing, that’s their prerogative.

Not really. Members who went to an AGM voted for it. How many of the reported 4000 was that? Then a small note in an email said this was the decision taken. I found out about it later, most people I know who contribute aren't aware of it at all.

I stopped my contributions but the money I paid in is still sitting doing absolutely nothing in a bank account somewhere.

[Daniel 1875]

Not really. Members who went to an AGM voted for it. How many of the reported 4000 was that? Then a small note in an email said this was the decision taken. I found out about it later, most people I know who contribute aren't aware of it at all.

I stopped my contributions but the money I paid in is still sitting doing absolutely nothing in a bank account somewhere.

That’s not a fair assessment of the situation.

The norm was never money being handed over to the club as a gift. It was being handed over to the club, for use in the football department, to buy shares.

That arrangement was pulled away without any consultation when the majority stake in the club was sold in 2019.

During Covid, members decided to change the direction of travel in the interests of the club to funnel all funds into the football club. That continued for as long as the pandemic lasted with over £500,000 passed on from fans to the club.

A vote was then taken to revert back to the principle and original aims of the organisation.

I’ve been involved in sending countless emails, updating the website, updating the FAQs, replying to countless questions, messages, DMs, PMs, texts, tweets clarifying the position of the organisation and reiterating where the contributions go and what they’re for.

If anyone still doesn’t know where the money is going I’m sorry but I’m really unsure what more we can do to make this clear.

[Chipper1875]

Not really. Members who went to an AGM voted for it. How many of the reported 4000 was that? Then a small note in an email said this was the decision taken. I found out about it later, most people I know who contribute aren't aware of it at all.

I stopped my contributions but the money I paid in is still sitting doing absolutely nothing in a bank account somewhere.
Commms were issued to members, their Choice if they attended . Like Hibs AGM most shareholders don’t attend or vote

[Chipper1875]

That’s not a fair assessment of the situation.

The norm was never money being handed over to the club as a gift. It was being handed over to the club, for use in the football department, to buy shares.

That arrangement was pulled away without any consultation when the majority stake in the club was sold in 2019.

During Covid, members decided to change the direction of travel in the interests of the club to funnel all funds into the football club. That continued for as long as the pandemic lasted with over £500,000 passed on from fans to the club.

A vote was then taken to revert back to the principle and original aims of the organisation.

I’ve been involved in sending countless emails, updating the website, updating the FAQs, replying to countless questions, messages, DMs, PMs, texts, tweets clarifying the position of the organisation and reiterating where the contributions go and what they’re for.

If anyone still doesn’t know where the money is going I’m sorry but I’m really unsure what more we can do to make this clear.

Well said

[TrinityHFC]

It has been tricky but HSL are a bit all over the place on decision making.

They say on their website that how they use their votes at the Hibs AGM will be decided by simple majority of the members.

First of all I cant recall being asked about any other AGM votes.

Secondly, why are they Messi g about with emails and the discussions at their own AGM? That isn’t how they say the decision is made.

Lastly, simple majority of members means they need the majority of members, not a majority of those who voted.

Seems like they might be moving to a position where, let’s say 20 people turn up at their AGM and 11 vote for not approving the resolutions. That’s a small number to be influencing a decent percentage of the register.

I’m not sure how their website and their articles line up.

[Chipper1875]

It has been tricky but HSL are a bit all over the place on decision making.

They say on their website that how they use their votes at the Hibs AGM will be decided by simple majority of the members.

First of all I cant recall being asked about any other AGM votes.

Secondly, why are they Messi g about with emails and the discussions at their own AGM? That isn’t how they say the decision is made.

Lastly, simple majority of members means they need the majority of members, not a majority of those who voted.

Seems like they might be moving to a position where, let’s say 20 people turn up at their AGM and 11 vote for not approving the resolutions. That’s a small number to be influencing a decent percentage of the register.

I’m not sure how their website and their articles line up.

We get it you don’t like HSL…

[Rick Rude]

That’s not a fair assessment of the situation.

The norm was never money being handed over to the club as a gift. It was being handed over to the club, for use in the football department, to buy shares.

That arrangement was pulled away without any consultation when the majority stake in the club was sold in 2019.

During Covid, members decided to change the direction of travel in the interests of the club to funnel all funds into the football club. That continued for as long as the pandemic lasted with over £500,000 passed on from fans to the club.

A vote was then taken to revert back to the principle and original aims of the organisation.

I’ve been involved in sending countless emails, updating the website, updating the FAQs, replying to countless questions, messages, DMs, PMs, texts, tweets clarifying the position of the organisation and reiterating where the contributions go and what they’re for.

If anyone still doesn’t know where the money is going I’m sorry but I’m really unsure what more we can do to make this clear.

Why not just stop taking money from people then? If it has one aim and that aim is unachievable then why continue? Ron Gordon made clear in the first AGM it wasn't happening.

Yeah people should be aware but there's a reason ever large company on earth is pushing subscriptions, people don't pay that much attention and their payments continue regardless.

[Rocky]

Doesn't really answer my question.

Can you cut and paste the particular reference? It's an important point.
This is what I put on the Bounce, but I have no idea if I've got the right end of the stick so I also asked Daniel if it was within HSL remit to use funds held to engage a commercial lawyer to give them a once over.



I've had another go at fathoming the proposed Articles of Association and section 14 looks interesting. I think it says that if 80% of shareholders accept a bid from a buyer then ALL shareholders are required to accept it too. Basically if the Gordons and Black Knights decide to sell up then we'll lose our shareholdings too (for a price obviously) and the buyer will end up with 100% of the club. It rings a bell that this sort of thing might be standard practice but I suspect not many are aware of it.

This footnote is included too, not sure if it was intended to be, but it sure makes it sound like the section is intentionally being drafted in a way that suits the Gordons and the Black Knights:

1 AG Note: our logic is to strike the right balance between being close, but not at, the 90% threshold in the Companies Act but with the benefit of a contractual drag mechanism and a slightly lower acceptance threshold than the Companies Act. 75% is too low for BKFE, given it will hold 25%. Burness: on reflection, if we are not going for the 90% threshold then 80% feels right to us so as to ensure we never require more than Bydand and BKFE.

[JohnM1875]

We get it you don’t like HSL…

They make a totally valid point though

[Chipper1875]

Why not just stop taking money from people then? If it has one aim and that aim is unachievable then why continue? Ron Gordon made clear in the first AGM it wasn't happening.

Yeah people should be aware but there's a reason ever large company on earth is pushing subscriptions, people don't pay that much attention and their payments continue regardless.
HSL aren’t gangsters forcing people to donate. It’s simple, if people don’t want to they won’t send money.

[Rick Rude]

Commms were issued to members, their Choice if they attended . Like Hibs AGM most shareholders don’t attend or vote

As you appear in the know, can you confirm how many people attended and voted for compared to members? Would be interested in the percentage.

[Chipper1875]

They make a totally valid point though

Who is they ?

[Chipper1875]

As you appear in the know, can you confirm how many people attended and voted for compared to members? Would be interested in the percentage.

I don’t care . If you are an active member , ask HSL. If you aren’t with all due respect it’s none of your business

[JohnM1875]

Who is they ?

Who do you think I was meaning? The poster you quoted.

[Rick Rude]

I don’t care . If you are an active member , ask HSL. If you aren’t with all due respect it’s none of your business

Aye some of my money is sitting in their bank account so think I am entitled to know. Guessing it's an embarrassingly low percentage though hence the lack of an answer.

[Daniel 1875]

Why not just stop taking money from people then? If it has one aim and that aim is unachievable then why continue? Ron Gordon made clear in the first AGM it wasn't happening.

Yeah people should be aware but there's a reason ever large company on earth is pushing subscriptions, people don't pay that much attention and their payments continue regardless.

Why don’t we stop taking payments? Because the aim of the organisation is to purchase shares in the club if they’re available. 2014, today, next month, next year. The organisation’s aims remain the same.

If shares become available the organisation would be well placed to have at least some of the required funds to act on that share issue.

Until Monday this week, we had no idea what form this new investment proposal would take. If it was a standard share issue, as many people speculated it would be, and we stopped taking payments in 2019 as you suggest then we’d have been left with a standing start and very little prospect of having the finance available to protect our shareholding.

We have been absolutely clear on the intended use of the funds. Anyone is welcome to stop contributing at any time, we have never, ever taken money from supporters who didn’t want to contribute it.

It’s easy to start or stop payments. Fans who do not agree with the principles of the organisation are absolutely welcome to stop at any time, and in fact we are duty bound to support them to do this if they so wish.

[GreenPJ]

This is what I put on the Bounce, but I have no idea if I've got the right end of the stick so I also asked Daniel if it was within HSL remit to use funds held to engage a commercial lawyer to give them a once over.



I've had another go at fathoming the proposed Articles of Association and section 14 looks interesting. I think it says that if 80% of shareholders accept a bid from a buyer then ALL shareholders are required to accept it too. Basically if the Gordons and Black Knights decide to sell up then we'll lose our shareholdings too (for a price obviously) and the buyer will end up with 100% of the club. It rings a bell that this sort of thing might be standard practice but I suspect not many are aware of it.

This footnote is included too, not sure if it was intended to be, but it sure makes it sound like the section is intentionally being drafted in a way that suits the Gordons and the Black Knights:

1 AG Note: our logic is to strike the right balance between being close, but not at, the 90% threshold in the Companies Act but with the benefit of a contractual drag mechanism and a slightly lower acceptance threshold than the Companies Act. 75% is too low for BKFE, given it will hold 25%. Burness: on reflection, if we are not going for the 90% threshold then 80% feels right to us so as to ensure we never require more than Bydand and BKFE.

Drag along rights are pretty common, especially where you have a lot of shareholders with small holdings.

[Chipper1875]

Who do you think I was meaning? The poster you quoted.

So is your point, HSL are not following their own articles?

[Rocky]

Drag along rights are pretty common, especially where you have a lot of shareholders with small holdings.

Common they may be, but how many HSL members and small shareholders know that if the Gordons and BKFE sell up, they're potentially going to have to sell up too? Have to assume that in the long term HSL are going to receive a wad of cash for their shares - what happens then? Not suggesting anything untoward but the practicalities of returning cash to members are going to be tricky.

[Sergio sledge]

Doesn't really answer my question.

Can you cut and paste the particular reference? It's an important point.

I think the OP is referring to Article 14 - Drag Along.

"14.4 If the holders of not less than 80 per cent in nominal value of the Ordinary Shares then in issue (the “Accepting Shareholders”) have indicated in writing that they wish to accept the Qualifying Offer, then the provisions of this Article 14 (Drag Along) shall apply.

14.5 The Accepting Shareholders may give written notice (a “Drag Notice”) to the remaining Shareholders (the “Other Shareholders”) of their wish to accept the Qualifying Offer and each of the Other Shareholders shall thereupon become bound to accept the Qualifying Offer and to transfer the legal and beneficial interest in their Shares to the Offeror (or his nominee) with full title guarantee on the date specified by the Accepting Shareholders (the “Drag Completion Date”) by delivering to the Company on or before the Drag Completion Date:

14.5.1 the relevant share certificate(s) (or a suitable indemnity in lieu thereof) in respect of the Shares held by him;

14.5.2 a duly executed sale agreement or form of acceptance (in a form acceptable to the Accepting Shareholders) pursuant to which the Other Shareholders provide
representations and warranties as to title to and ownership of the Shares held by them; and

14.5.3 a duly executed form of transfer in respect of those Shares in favour of the Offeror (or its nominee),
and, if required by the Board, shall sign, execute and deliver such other documents as may reasonably be required to effect the transfer of any shares, debt instruments or other securities to the Offeror (or its nominee)."

With the footnotes stating:

"AG Note: our logic is to strike the right balance between being close, but not at, the 90% threshold in the Companies Act but with the benefit of a contractual drag mechanism and a slightly lower acceptance threshold than the Companies Act. 75% is too low for BKFE, given it will hold 25%. Burness: on reflection, if we are not going for the 90% threshold then 80% feels right to us so as to ensure we never require more than Bydand and BKFE"

Certainly seems like they are amending the articles to make it so that Bydand and BKFE can accept an offer, to sell the club and all shareholders will be legally obliged to accept. So BKFE could set up a new holding company in order to buy the entirety of the club and HSL, Leslie Robb and all the individual shareholders would have to see to them and we'd lose any ownership of the club we have. I have to say that is a little concerning, if the legal norm is that threshold is set at 90% of the shareholding has to accept for it to be mandatory, then why not leave it at that and convince the minor shareholders the purchase is the right thing to do.

Although thinking about it, Bydand and BKFE could get themselves above Companies Act 90% pretty easily with another share issue/debt for equity swap, so what is the point in changing this article to 80%?

Maybe I'm reading that wrong though.

[Rick Rude]

Why don’t we stop taking payments? Because the aim of the organisation is to purchase shares in the club if they’re available. 2014, today, next month, next year. The organisation’s aims remain the same.

If shares become available the organisation would be well placed to have at least some of the required funds to act on that share issue.

Until Monday this week, we had no idea what form this new investment proposal would take. If it was a standard share issue, as many people speculated it would be, and we stopped taking payments in 2019 as you suggest then we’d have been left with a standing start and very little prospect of having the finance available to protect our shareholding.

We have been absolutely clear on the intended use of the funds. Anyone is welcome to stop contributing at any time, we have never, ever taken money from supporters who didn’t want to contribute it.

It’s easy to start or stop payments. Fans who do not agree with the principles of the organisation are absolutely welcome to stop at any time, and in fact we are duty bound to support them to do this if they so wish.

Why not put the vote on what's to happen to the money to all members rather than just an AGM as was done at COVID?

Or alternatively, send a mailing making clear all money is going to sit in a bank account indefinitely in the hope something changes, if you want to continue with your DD let us know else it will be stopped.

[CropleyWasGod]

This is what I put on the Bounce, but I have no idea if I've got the right end of the stick so I also asked Daniel if it was within HSL remit to use funds held to engage a commercial lawyer to give them a once over.



I've had another go at fathoming the proposed Articles of Association and section 14 looks interesting. I think it says that if 80% of shareholders accept a bid from a buyer then ALL shareholders are required to accept it too. Basically if the Gordons and Black Knights decide to sell up then we'll lose our shareholdings too (for a price obviously) and the buyer will end up with 100% of the club. It rings a bell that this sort of thing might be standard practice but I suspect not many are aware of it.

This footnote is included too, not sure if it was intended to be, but it sure makes it sound like the section is intentionally being drafted in a way that suits the Gordons and the Black Knights:

1 AG Note: our logic is to strike the right balance between being close, but not at, the 90% threshold in the Companies Act but with the benefit of a contractual drag mechanism and a slightly lower acceptance threshold than the Companies Act. 75% is too low for BKFE, given it will hold 25%. Burness: on reflection, if we are not going for the 90% threshold then 80% feels right to us so as to ensure we never require more than Bydand and BKFE.

Thanks for this.

On first reading, this is potentially much more important than the bickering about HSL.

As I read it, it would need a 3rd party (maybe connected to either Bydand or BK) to offer to buy 80% of the Club's shares. That would be enough to include Bydand, BK and Leslie Robb. If that happened, yes the remaining shareholders would be bound to accept that offer.

From my scant knowledge of Company law, 90% is a common threshold at which to trigger this type of action. 80% seems very low.

The footnote is illuminating. It has now been removed from the original uploaded copy, as it clearly wasn't meant to be for public sight.

A few things cross my mind:-

1. what is Leslie Robb's view of that particular proposal?

2. it obviously couldn't happen under the current dual-ownership rules.

3. how do the Turquoise people fit into all of this?

[lyonhibs]

Should they not just keep it going as a way for fans to invest in player budget? Forget the ownership model as that will never work. But get a point where you are bringing in 200k a quarter, that would be a good amount of money for additional players. (or a wee bit of a top player)

If they'd said from the get go this is effectively a kitty fund for the manager, I wonder if it would've been better received?

[Chipper1875]

Thanks for this.

On first reading, this is potentially much more important than the bickering about HSL.

As I read it, it would need a 3rd party (maybe connected to either Bydand or BK) to offer to buy 80% of the Club's shares. That would be enough to include Bydand, BK and Leslie Robb. If that happened, yes the remaining shareholders would be bound to accept that offer.

From my scant knowledge of Company law, 90% is a common threshold at which to trigger this type of action. 80% seems very low.

The footnote is illuminating. It has now been removed from the original uploaded copy, as it clearly wasn't meant to be for public sight.

A few things cross my mind:-

1. what is Leslie Robb's view of that particular proposal?

2. it obviously couldn't happen under the current dual-ownership rules.

3. how do the Turquoise people fit into all of this?
Eloquently put , much better than my effort. Do you have the PDF version with the lawyers comments that you can post ?

[CropleyWasGod]

Certainly seems like they are amending the articles to make it so that Bydand and BKFE can accept an offer, to sell the club and all shareholders will be legally obliged to accept. So BKFE could set up a new holding company in order to buy the entirety of the club and HSL, Leslie Robb and all the individual shareholders would have to see to them and we'd lose any ownership of the club we have. I have to say that is a little concerning, if the legal norm is that threshold is set at 90% of the shareholding has to accept for it to be mandatory, then why not leave it at that and convince the minor shareholders the purchase is the right thing to do.

Although thinking about it, Bydand and BKFE could get themselves above Companies Act 90% pretty easily with another share issue/debt for equity swap, so what is the point in changing this article to 80%?

Maybe I'm reading that wrong though.

We're on the same page I think.

I'm finding it a bit disturbing tbh.

They have thrown this proposal out without explanation. In order for people to make up their own mind, they need to have clear information about the consequences of their vote. We obvously don't have that, and it's up to random people online to try and make sense of it all.

Our individual votes may not be significant enough to affect the vote, but it would be nice to be informed.

[Rocky]

Thanks for this.

On first reading, this is potentially much more important than the bickering about HSL.

As I read it, it would need a 3rd party (maybe connected to either Bydand or BK) to offer to buy 80% of the Club's shares. That would be enough to include Bydand, BK and Leslie Robb. If that happened, yes the remaining shareholders would be bound to accept that offer.

From my scant knowledge of Company law, 90% is a common threshold at which to trigger this type of action. 80% seems very low.

The footnote is illuminating. It has now been removed from the original uploaded copy, as it clearly wasn't meant to be for public sight.

A few things cross my mind:-

1. what is Leslie Robb's view of that particular proposal?

2. it obviously couldn't happen under the current dual-ownership rules.

3. how do the Turquoise people fit into all of this?
I don't think Leslie Robb would even come into it if the new share issue is approved. At that point I think Bydand have about 60% and BKFE have 25% so they can sell up and there's nowt he or HSL or anyone else can do about it if these Articles are passed.

[Chipper1875]

We're on the same page I think.

I'm finding it a bit disturbing tbh.

They have thrown this proposal out without explanation. In order for people to make up their own mind, they need to have clear information about the consequences of their vote. We obvously don't have that, and it's up to random people online to try and make sense of it all.

Our individual votes may not be significant enough to affect the vote, but it would ne nice to be informed.

That’s the distain Ron has held for us pesky hibs fans who hold shares. From his first meeting he held at ER he made that clear .

[JohnM1875]

That’s the distain Ron has held for us pesky hibs fans who hold shares. From his first meeting he held at ER he made that clear .

Classy.

[Chipper1875]

Classy.

Were you at the meeting?

[Ringothedog]

That’s the distain Ron has held for us pesky hibs fans who hold shares. From his first meeting he held at ER he made that clear .

Or protecting their investment?

[Chipper1875]

Or protecting their investment?

From minority shareholders , who have been shareholders since late 80s and if we don’t get wiped out , will
Be shareholders long after Bydand sports sell up

[Rocky]

2. it obviously couldn't happen under the current dual-ownership rules.

3. how do the Turquoise people fit into all of this?

On 2, I'd say it set things up nicely for some kinds of arms length Black Knights entity to buy the club outright.

On 3 - isn't Turquoise just the name of the Black Knights bid vehicle?

[Pretty Boy]

We're on the same page I think.

I'm finding it a bit disturbing tbh.

They have thrown this proposal out without explanation. In order for people to make up their own mind, they need to have clear information about the consequences of their vote. We obvously don't have that, and it's up to random people online to try and make sense of it all.

Our individual votes may not be significant enough to affect the vote, but it would ne nice to be informed.

I think this just hammers home a point I made previously that shouts of 'there is no down side to any of this' are fanciful.

I'm not suggesting there is anything nefarious at play but individual shareholders and the ability of fans to work as a collective are being placed into a far weaker position than is currently the case and it seems that is very much intentional.

[CropleyWasGod]

On 2, I'd say it set things up nicely for some kinds of arms length Black Knights entity to buy the club outright.

On 3 - isn't Turquoise just the name of the Black Knights bid vehicle?

You're right about 3, but I always grow hackles when another name gets thrown in.

On 2, I don't know enough about dual-interest rules. Would that be allowed, given that there is a connection of sorts?

[matty_f]

I don’t care . If you are an active member , ask HSL. If you aren’t with all due respect it’s none of your business

Is that the same with fans who aren’t shareholders for the BK investment? If you’re not a shareholder don’t get involved in the discussion as it’s none of your business?

[MelbourneHibees]

I think the OP is referring to Article 14 - Drag Along.

"14.4 If the holders of not less than 80 per cent in nominal value of the Ordinary Shares then in issue (the “Accepting Shareholders”) have indicated in writing that they wish to accept the Qualifying Offer, then the provisions of this Article 14 (Drag Along) shall apply.

14.5 The Accepting Shareholders may give written notice (a “Drag Notice”) to the remaining Shareholders (the “Other Shareholders”) of their wish to accept the Qualifying Offer and each of the Other Shareholders shall thereupon become bound to accept the Qualifying Offer and to transfer the legal and beneficial interest in their Shares to the Offeror (or his nominee) with full title guarantee on the date specified by the Accepting Shareholders (the “Drag Completion Date”) by delivering to the Company on or before the Drag Completion Date:

14.5.1 the relevant share certificate(s) (or a suitable indemnity in lieu thereof) in respect of the Shares held by him;

14.5.2 a duly executed sale agreement or form of acceptance (in a form acceptable to the Accepting Shareholders) pursuant to which the Other Shareholders provide
representations and warranties as to title to and ownership of the Shares held by them; and

14.5.3 a duly executed form of transfer in respect of those Shares in favour of the Offeror (or its nominee),
and, if required by the Board, shall sign, execute and deliver such other documents as may reasonably be required to effect the transfer of any shares, debt instruments or other securities to the Offeror (or its nominee)."

With the footnotes stating:

"AG Note: our logic is to strike the right balance between being close, but not at, the 90% threshold in the Companies Act but with the benefit of a contractual drag mechanism and a slightly lower acceptance threshold than the Companies Act. 75% is too low for BKFE, given it will hold 25%. Burness: on reflection, if we are not going for the 90% threshold then 80% feels right to us so as to ensure we never require more than Bydand and BKFE"

Certainly seems like they are amending the articles to make it so that Bydand and BKFE can accept an offer, to sell the club and all shareholders will be legally obliged to accept. So BKFE could set up a new holding company in order to buy the entirety of the club and HSL, Leslie Robb and all the individual shareholders would have to see to them and we'd lose any ownership of the club we have. I have to say that is a little concerning, if the legal norm is that threshold is set at 90% of the shareholding has to accept for it to be mandatory, then why not leave it at that and convince the minor shareholders the purchase is the right thing to do.

Although thinking about it, Bydand and BKFE could get themselves above Companies Act 90% pretty easily with another share issue/debt for equity swap, so what is the point in changing this article to 80%?

Maybe I'm reading that wrong though.

This is just getting a wee bit too shady for me. Why are they even considering changing this from normal operating practice?

[Chipper1875]

Is that the same with fans who aren’t shareholders for the BK investment? If you’re not a shareholder don’t get involved in the discussion as it’s none of your business?

AGM is for shareholders.HSL business is for HSL members.

[SickBoy32]

It’s all starting to sound very underhand the way this is trying to be slipped under the radar by these financial speculators we are dealing with - not to be trusted IMO.

I’d like to hope any shareholder voting these changes through, does so in the full knowledge of the potential path this could lead us down. Turkeys voting for Xmas springs to mind.

[Rocky]

You're right about 3, but I always grow hackles when another name gets thrown in.

On 2, I don't know enough about dual-interest rules. Would that be allowed, given that there is a connection of sorts?
I don't know either but it seems that Black Knights is plugged into a massive network of £££s and corporate entities so I'd fancy their chances of finding a bit of the empire that's sufficiently remote that it wouldn't count as dual ownership.

[Rumble de Thump]

It’s all starting to sound very underhand the way this is trying to be slipped under the radar by these financial speculators we are dealing with - not to be trusted IMO.

I’d like to hope any shareholder voting these changes through, does so in the full knowledge of the potential path this could lead us down. Turkeys voting for Xmas springs to mind.

I doubt there's a Jambo who would disagree with any of that.

[Gatecrasher]

I'm not sure of what's really going on here but it definitely sounds like we are at a cross roads. When this gets voted through at the AGM there is definitely going to be a massive change in the ownership and the way the club is run. Some might feel uncomfortable with our shares being diluted and I am kind of in that camp, I always liked we had a strong fan influence on things but that looks like it's going to disappear. If these people have the best intentions for us then this won't be much of an issue, they seem to want to build some kind of footballing conglomerate and have the resources to bring success to our club. That's if the intentions are good. If they are not good the future of the club is outwith our hands.

It's situations like this I wish the last share issue was more successful.

[Chipper1875]

I don't know either but it seems that Black Knights is plugged into a massive network of £££s and corporate entities so I'd fancy their chances of finding a bit of the empire that's sufficiently remote that it wouldn't count as dual ownership.

Posted similar earlier the entity that is owns Black Knights is incredible in is size . Interesting who it makes money for its investors.

[matty_f]

Shady/underhand etc isn’t helpful language.

The information has been shared, there’s an AGM to ask questions about it before anything is voted on.

The inference that wool is being pulled over people’s eyes etc is very reminiscent of the language used at the time of HSL’s launch, which put it on the back foot from the start and ultimately ended up with us in a position where it would be really desirable to have HSL representing the fans on the board and having a blocking vote but don’t due to it not being the numbers it needed.

[matty_f]

AGM is for shareholders.HSL business is for HSL members.

So nobody other than shareholders should discuss the AGM, following your logic?

[Chipper1875]

So nobody other than shareholders should discuss the AGM, following your logic?

Do want they want . Do a podcast on it? Do it live from Inverness or on one of the supporter buses travelling up. Share some of the concerning points raised on this thread . Some will be concerned others won’t care. That’s life.

Also, could all the podcasts get together and put one on and get knowledgeable hibs fans on to walk the fans through what’s being proposed. There’s plenty knowledge fans out there.

[MelbourneHibees]

Shady/underhand etc isn’t helpful language.

The information has been shared, there’s an AGM to ask questions about it before anything is voted on.

The inference that wool is being pulled over people’s eyes etc is very reminiscent of the language used at the time of HSL’s launch, which put it on the back foot from the start and ultimately ended up with us in a position where it would be really desirable to have HSL representing the fans on the board and having a blocking vote but don’t due to it not being the numbers it needed.

This part, which is obviously not meant to be public knowledge, is worded as though they are at least thinking about the sale of the club down the line. Why change it if not and why describe it as a "benefit"?

"AG Note: our logic is to strike the right balance between being close, but not at, the 90% threshold in the Companies Act but with the benefit of a contractual drag mechanism and a slightly lower acceptance threshold than the Companies Act.

[Chipper1875]

Shady/underhand etc isn’t helpful language.

The information has been shared, there’s an AGM to ask questions about it before anything is voted on.

The inference that wool is being pulled over people’s eyes etc is very reminiscent of the language used at the time of HSL’s launch, which put it on the back foot from the start and ultimately ended up with us in a position where it would be really desirable to have HSL representing the fans on the board and having a blocking vote but don’t due to it not being the numbers it needed.
Info is buried in a document that most rank
And file shareholders won’t understand and should not have to. If hibs wanted to be transparent they would have shared the articles and explained why they feel these changes are beneficial to
Hibs progressing . And why they need to have the option to wipe out loyal
Individual de minimus shareholders.

[CropleyWasGod]

Shady/underhand etc isn’t helpful language.

The information has been shared, there’s an AGM to ask questions about it before anything is voted on.

The inference that wool is being pulled over people’s eyes etc is very reminiscent of the language used at the time of HSL’s launch, which put it on the back foot from the start and ultimately ended up with us in a position where it would be really desirable to have HSL representing the fans on the board and having a blocking vote but don’t due to it not being the numbers it needed.

Part of my issue is that, although it has been "shared", it hasn't really ....... (read on)

We have been presented with a proposed new Articles of Association. No context, and no reference to what is new.

Some of us have managed to find a few new bits, and we're doing our best to understand them.

I asked the Club directly to tell me what the new bits are. They haven't yet told me.

The Club could help themselves, and possibly their case, by being more explicit about what these changes are, and what they actually mean. Otherwise the unhelpful language will continue.

Edit. The Club read these forums. Maybe they should take this idea up.

[Pretty Boy]

Shady/underhand etc isn’t helpful language.

The information has been shared, there’s an AGM to ask questions about it before anything is voted on.

The inference that wool is being pulled over people’s eyes etc is very reminiscent of the language used at the time of HSL’s launch, which put it on the back foot from the start and ultimately ended up with us in a position where it would be really desirable to have HSL representing the fans on the board and having a blocking vote but don’t due to it not being the numbers it needed.

I agree and have been careful to stress that I don't think anything nefarious is at play but rather that I believe that there is clarity required and people need to fully understand the consequences of their vote in a context that is longer term that skelping Hearts for a few seasons (as welcome as that would be).

Equally I don't think dismissing those raising concerns as 'jambos' or similar is helpful either.

[Rocky]

Shady/underhand etc isn’t helpful language.

The information has been shared, there’s an AGM to ask questions about it before anything is voted on.

The inference that wool is being pulled over people’s eyes etc is very reminiscent of the language used at the time of HSL’s launch, which put it on the back foot from the start and ultimately ended up with us in a position where it would be really desirable to have HSL representing the fans on the board and having a blocking vote but don’t due to it not being the numbers it needed.
The voting form positions the changes to the Articles of Association as follows:

"The changes introduced in the new Articles are primarily to reflect developments in market practice and legal and regulatory requirements"

Yet buried away in them is an article enabling the owners to force us to sell our shares, and the unintended publication of the lawyers' comments clearly show that the threshold has been set to suit Bydand and BKFE. Folk can make their own minds up as to whether that's shady and underhand. One thing is for certain, it absolutely lacks transparency.

[matty_f]

Do want they want . Do a podcast on it? Do it live from Inverness or on one of the supporter buses travelling up. Share some of the concerning points raised on this thread . Some will be concerned others won’t care. That’s life.

Also, could all the podcasts get together and put one on and get knowledgeable hibs fans on to walk the fans through what’s being proposed. There’s plenty knowledge fans out there.


You could do that?

[Chipper1875]

You could do that?

I don’t even know what a podcast is . Far less set one up. I’m old skool who with others took the battle to mercer’s house , they exact day that hertz bar
Steward announced he wanted to kills us.

[matty_f]

I agree and have been careful to stress that I don't think anything nefarious is at play but rather that I believe that there is clarity required and people need to fully understand the consequences of their vote in a context that is longer term that skelping Hearts for a few seasons (as welcome as that would be).

Equally I don't think dismissing those raising concerns as 'jambos' or similar is helpful either.

Yeah definitely not helpful branding concerned people as Jambos.

Are the shareholders still represented by a group? I have in my head that there used to be a shareholder’s association.

I think it’s absolutely right to ask questions and dig into the detail, I’ll be at the AGM and while i know where my voting intention sits just now, it’s not set in stone and I’ll be listening intently to the proposal and the questions asked (and I’ll ask questions if I’m unsure on anything).


My understanding is that the board are required legally to act in the best interests of the business and shareholders, that there are Hibs fans on the board and they are recommending the proposal gives me comfort that the resolutions are in the best interests of the club and me as a shareholder.

Reading this thread, though, you’d think that this is all smoke and mirrors to dupe the fans - not from every poster and is good to get some informed opinion on it.

[Chipper1875]

Shady/underhand etc isn’t helpful language.

The information has been shared, there’s an AGM to ask questions about it before anything is voted on.

The inference that wool is being pulled over people’s eyes etc is very reminiscent of the language used at the time of HSL’s launch, which put it on the back foot from the start and ultimately ended up with us in a position where it would be really desirable to have HSL representing the fans on the board and having a blocking vote but don’t due to it not being the numbers it needed.
Also, they don’t tell shareholders where the accounts and articles are located ld on clubs website . Very difficult to find . Should have posted an article with the links . Instead of having to mine the site to find them

[matty_f]

Also, they don’t tell shareholders where the accounts and articles are located ld on clubs website . Very difficult to find . Should have posted an article with the links . Instead of having to mine the site to find them

That’s fair.

[Pretty Boy]

Yeah definitely not helpful branding concerned people as Jambos.

Are the shareholders still represented by a group? I have in my head that there used to be a shareholder’s association.

I think it’s absolutely right to ask questions and dig into the detail, I’ll be at the AGM and while i know where my voting intention sits just now, it’s not set in stone and I’ll be listening intently to the proposal and the questions asked (and I’ll ask questions if I’m unsure on anything).


My understanding is that the board are required legally to act in the best interests of the business and shareholders, that there are Hibs fans on the board and they are recommending the proposal gives me comfort that the resolutions are in the best interests of the club and me as a shareholder.

Reading this thread, though, you’d think that this is all smoke and mirrors to dupe the fans - not from every poster and is good to get some informed opinion on it.

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.

[Chipper1875]

Yeah definitely not helpful branding concerned people as Jambos.

Are the shareholders still represented by a group? I have in my head that there used to be a shareholder’s association.

I think it’s absolutely right to ask questions and dig into the detail, I’ll be at the AGM and while i know where my voting intention sits just now, it’s not set in stone and I’ll be listening intently to the proposal and the questions asked (and I’ll ask questions if I’m unsure on anything).


My understanding is that the board are required legally to act in the best interests of the business and shareholders, that there are Hibs fans on the board and they are recommending the proposal gives me comfort that the resolutions are in the best interests of the club and me as a shareholder.

Reading this thread, though, you’d think that this is all smoke and mirrors to dupe the fans - not from every poster and is good to get some informed opinion on it.

Sadly the group withered away. Modern communication methods it would be easier to run now . Chap that ran it did a good job.

[BSEJVT]

What would that look like in practice?

If things were to reach the same point as you say (reduced to 7% holding and probably effectively killed off), I'm struggling to think of ways the club could have engaged with HSL that would amount to anything more than just stringing them along.

It would look like a **** sandwich but there are niceties involved.

We will all in our work have had to deliver **** sandwiches to customers and subordinates, but it is about the niceties involved, trying to understand folks positions and kid them on they are valued to keep them onside.

As the recipient of several **** sandwiches in 40 odd years in financial services you get a bit of context as to why what has happened has and don't have to actually feel as though you are touching the ****, but the bread it is wrapped in.

[Rumble de Thump]

I agree and have been careful to stress that I don't think anything nefarious is at play but rather that I believe that there is clarity required and people need to fully understand the consequences of their vote in a context that is longer term that skelping Hearts for a few seasons (as welcome as that would be).

Equally I don't think dismissing those raising concerns as 'jambos' or similar is helpful either.

Exactly. With the ponzi scheme lies of yesteryear it was an extremely tiny miniority of Hibs fans pushing that damaging narrative, and Hearts fans were all too happy to run with it. So it stands to reason that not everyone on a Hibs fans forum who is always disingenuously trying to paint the club, its owners and staff in a negative light will be a Hearts fan pretending to be a Hibs fan, despite it being exactly the same chat Hearts fans come out with on Kickback.

[Just Alf]

They make a totally valid point thoughNot really "can't recall any other AGM votes"
Is wrong... I've had an email from HSL every year re an AGM...... only gone to a couple tho.

[Pagan Hibernia]

So some people who couldn't be arsed voting when HSL were seeking guidance on how to use funds (every member would have received notifications about this) are now whining that HSL continue to do the bidding of those members who did vote.

Unbelievable.

[LeithMike]

I appreciate the views on the other but I have to say that the new investment doesn’t sit well with me for the following reasons:

1. Disapplication of existing shareholders’ pre-emption rights - pre-emption rights (to protect the proportion of your shareholding) is a significant protection for minority shareholders. Was there really a need to do this? If it’s about investment, why not allow existing shareholders to contribute to it? This is not just about investment and I don’t think it’s possible to conclude otherwise - otherwise why not be inclusive?

2. Drag-along rights - this is not your average commercial limited company but a 150 year old community institution. Forcing small shareholders to part with their shareholding (however small) on a sale so one party can control the entire club is a pretty callous way to treat individuals who have helped financially support the club over the years (albeit in a small way but likely at personal cost).

3. HSL is representative of the supporters. To treat the lifeblood of the club with such disdain is pretty shocking. They have purposely sought to exclude supporters from owning in the club and getting to 25% to stop things like disapplication of pre-emption rights and amending the Articles to suit the majority owner ensuring the club is here for future generations.

4. General trend of commercialisation - I don’t enjoy going to Easter Road as much. My sister commented recently after being for the first time in about 15 years - nobody sings any more. No wonder with all the adverts and activities on the screen. And who remembers when a lucky kid got drawn to be mascot and feel like a million dollars (ironic Americanism)but now you need your parents to shell out £100 and you’re just the one of ten.

5. Decision-making - the club is very poorly run - existing staff appeared to be dispensed with early and money wasted on a lot of vanity projects. Why pay so much to agencies to run catering and the shop when you could be a key community employer. The money we have wasted in a football sense is also shocking.

It’s sad that as a club we spent so long doing things the right way while Hearts didn’t yet they end up the community club and we are now at the whim of the investment market.

Credit to HSL and their board for a valiant effort to safeguard the future of the club but I think the desperation for instant football success means the message just isn’t as appealing. We live in hope that it all works out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CallumLaidlaw]

I appreciate the views on the other but I have to say that the new investment doesn’t sit well with me for the following reasons:

1. Disapplication of existing shareholders’ pre-emption rights - pre-emption rights (to protect the proportion of your shareholding) is a significant protection for minority shareholders. Was there really a need to do this? If it’s about investment, why not allow existing shareholders to contribute to it? This is not just about investment and I don’t think it’s possible to conclude otherwise - otherwise why not be inclusive?

2. Drag-along rights - this is not your average commercial limited company but a 150 year old community institution. Forcing small shareholders to part with their shareholding (however small) on a sale so one party can control the entire club is a pretty callous way to treat individuals who have helped financially support the club over the years (albeit in a small way but likely at personal cost).

3. HSL is representative of the supporters. To treat the lifeblood of the club with such disdain is pretty shocking. They have purposely sought to exclude supporters from owning in the club and getting to 25% to stop things like disapplication of pre-emption rights and amending the Articles to suit the majority owner ensuring the club is here for future generations.

4. General trend of commercialisation - I don’t enjoy going to Easter Road as much. My sister commented recently after being for the first time in about 15 years - nobody sings any more. No wonder with all the adverts and activities on the screen. And who remembers when a lucky kid got drawn to be mascot and feel like a million dollars (ironic Americanism)but now you need your parents to shell out £100 and you’re just the one of ten.

5. Decision-making - the club is very poorly run - existing staff appeared to be dispensed with early and money wasted on a lot of vanity projects. Why pay so much to agencies to run catering and the shop when you could be a key community employer. The money we have wasted in a football sense is also shocking.

It’s sad that as a club we spent so long doing things the right way while Hearts didn’t yet they end up the community club and we are now at the whim of the investment market.

Credit to HSL and their board for a valiant effort to safeguard the future of the club but I think the desperation for instant football success means the message just isn’t as appealing. We live in hope that it all works out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just on 4, there’s still Hibs kids drawn out each week to be mascots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LeithMike]

Just on 4, there’s still Hibs kids drawn out each week to be mascots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah but you know what I mean and I think the point stands. I know other clubs do it as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ship of Hope]

Think HSL need to read the room. The vast majority of fans want this investment to happen and are excited by it. IMO of course.. I would way rather have the Gordons /BK running the club than the guy interviewed on behalf of HSL on tv. That was shocking. I have stopped my payments to HSL as I feel they are contributing nothing towards the club at this time. If an alternative to HSL was set up similar to FOH with the goal to raise funds with no intent on fan ownership I would contribute.

[MelbourneHibees]

If an alternative to HSL was set up similar to FOH with the goal to raise funds with no intent on fan ownership I would contribute.

That's effectively what HSL has now become by default.
They just need to decide what they want to do with the money now.

[offshorehibby]

That's effectively what HSL has now become by default.
They just need to decide what they want to do with the money now.

It's already in the records what the HSL money is intended for and has been highlighted several times.

[Just Alf]

Folk still think HSL was about fans/HSL running the club?

After all these years the old scare mongering by Pia etc seems still to have an impact.
:-(

[Stairway 2 7]

That's effectively what HSL has now become by default.
They just need to decide what they want to do with the money now.

They are now just building up money incase shares go on sale in the future, you'd think it'll be many years from now

[7Hero]

Jim Adie (I think) from HSL on Sky tonight and his comments for me were embarrassing.

Says it’s heartbreaking that HSL shares will be diluted. Questions how we have reached a position where we need fresh external investment. Thinks the accounts are very worrying.

Making a fool of himself IMO. Ignores that we’ve made a loss because we’ve invested in Hospitality, Floodlights, Screens etc.

Not helpful and only stirs division.

All capital costs, therefore not the real reason for such a huge loss of money, simply bad management by the club. The accounts are worrying..

[El Gubbz]

They are now just building up money incase shares go on sale in the future, you'd think it'll be many years from now

And at what price.. if the plan is for Gordon and Foley to “add value” to the club then we as a fan base decide fan ownership is the model for us in the future it just means we’ll be more out of pocket than if we had the opportunity/drive to do it today.

I think HSL need to totally repackage themselves once this has been voted through by Robb (the only vote that matters other than HSL’s at the AGM). The dilution of fans shares and the changes to the articles of association kills fan ownership until such times the club would rely on fans to bail them out should Project Scotland not be a success.

Best route for HSL for me would be to elbow their way into an official club backed working group where they have the opportunity to scrutinise and influence the club strategy (like a shadow government) but to be a success and get buy in from the club and fans they really need a decent calibre of professional volunteers.

Needs to keep (reignite) a presence regardless of their share %age so as to ensure the club is aware of fan views and is ready to go should Project Scotland be a failure

[Blaster]

Think HSL need to read the room. The vast majority of fans want this investment to happen and are excited by it. IMO of course.. I would way rather have the Gordons /BK running the club than the guy interviewed on behalf of HSL on tv. That was shocking. I have stopped my payments to HSL as I feel they are contributing nothing towards the club at this time. If an alternative to HSL was set up similar to FOH with the goal to raise funds with no intent on fan ownership I would contribute.

That’s where I am too. Stopped my payment when the money stopped going to the club. The shares they got previously was just a bonus in my eyes. I just liked using it as a vehicle for me to make a modest monthly payment to help the club

[Bostonhibby]

I appreciate the views on the other but I have to say that the new investment doesn’t sit well with me for the following reasons:

1. Disapplication of existing shareholders’ pre-emption rights - pre-emption rights (to protect the proportion of your shareholding) is a significant protection for minority shareholders. Was there really a need to do this? If it’s about investment, why not allow existing shareholders to contribute to it? This is not just about investment and I don’t think it’s possible to conclude otherwise - otherwise why not be inclusive?

2. Drag-along rights - this is not your average commercial limited company but a 150 year old community institution. Forcing small shareholders to part with their shareholding (however small) on a sale so one party can control the entire club is a pretty callous way to treat individuals who have helped financially support the club over the years (albeit in a small way but likely at personal cost).

3. HSL is representative of the supporters. To treat the lifeblood of the club with such disdain is pretty shocking. They have purposely sought to exclude supporters from owning in the club and getting to 25% to stop things like disapplication of pre-emption rights and amending the Articles to suit the majority owner ensuring the club is here for future generations.

4. General trend of commercialisation - I don’t enjoy going to Easter Road as much. My sister commented recently after being for the first time in about 15 years - nobody sings any more. No wonder with all the adverts and activities on the screen. And who remembers when a lucky kid got drawn to be mascot and feel like a million dollars (ironic Americanism)but now you need your parents to shell out £100 and you’re just the one of ten.

5. Decision-making - the club is very poorly run - existing staff appeared to be dispensed with early and money wasted on a lot of vanity projects. Why pay so much to agencies to run catering and the shop when you could be a key community employer. The money we have wasted in a football sense is also shocking.

It’s sad that as a club we spent so long doing things the right way while Hearts didn’t yet they end up the community club and we are now at the whim of the investment market.

Credit to HSL and their board for a valiant effort to safeguard the future of the club but I think the desperation for instant football success means the message just isn’t as appealing. We live in hope that it all works out.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkGood post

Not much to disagree with there. Points 1 & 2 are the ones that really stick in my throat. Was never about the money for us, we have shareholdings that go way back and bought at every opportunity since.

An entirely emotional buy in to something we care about more than money. Now an entity claiming to have common goals with us is willing to expose us to giving that up without any regard for why we own them.

I guess, looking at how the vote (on special resolutions in particular) will go it comes down to what a few money men think is best, a key player in this is purported to have excellent Hibs credentials.

Hopefully the new manifestation of the club will want to take on board what they're intending to do to fans for whom it's about more than money and acquisition

I've never felt so disconnected from what Hibs were to me. That said, I doubt we will ever see perfection and it looks like the future at ER doesn't have room for the small buy in unless its buying food, drink, merchandising and the like.

Choosing between standing still, or going backwards on the pitch as we have been for a while now, and what seems to be the only show in town I am just about in favour of taking the leap to see what the new world brings to us.

But however its spun there's a real feeling that supporters have become less respected. I hesitate to say less important as we are there to be marketed to so a number of charm offensives will follow the resolutions being nodded through.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[flash]

After much difficulty I have managed to fill my proxy vote form in and send it back to HSL.

Not sure I am completely comfortable with everything that's going on but having suffered for the vast majority of my near 50 years watching Hibs there's no way I am turning down this opportunity.

Grateful to those with some knowledge for the info they have provided about all this, both positive and negative, which helped me make a slightly informed decision.

Presuming it all goes through look forward to seeing what it all might mean for us.

[DanishJohn]

Think HSL need to read the room. The vast majority of fans want this investment to happen and are excited by it. IMO of course.. I would way rather have the Gordons /BK running the club than the guy interviewed on behalf of HSL on tv. That was shocking. I have stopped my payments to HSL as I feel they are contributing nothing towards the club at this time. If an alternative to HSL was set up similar to FOH with the goal to raise funds with no intent on fan ownership I would contribute.


This is some post. Sometimes you just have to let something go but this post is akin to the "Ponzi" scheme posts from years ago. They damaged HSL severely.

I don't know if you are holding a grudge from the past or just have a lack of understanding of the facts.

I will give you now the opportunity to respond.

"The vast majority of fans want this to happen " _ How do you know this ? what information are you basing this on ?
" The guy interviewed on behalf of HSL. That was shocking" - Tell me, what did the guy (Chairman of HSL) say that was shocking ?
" I would rather have Gordons/BK running the club than the guy interviewed on behalf of HSL" Really ? You are aware of Hibs accounts for the last two years ? Massive losses.
And are you happy with the performance of the team on the park ? Yep again under the stewardship of the Gordons and Kensell
"I feel they are contributing nothing to the club at this moment in time" - Are you aware if they have ever contributed in the past ?

Your last sentence is the daddy of them all. - What you are saying is a good idea is for ordinary hard working Hibs fans, to hand money over to a club that is owned by millionaires or soon to be billionaires ? And whilst we do that The Gordon family obliterate good decent Hibs fan's share ownership of the club ?



Finally just a little footnote.

The chairman of HSL and his fellow directors and 4000 members have raised over a £ million pounds for Hibernian FC.
What would you have done ? And don't say have a race night !

[matty_f]

This is some post. Sometimes you just have to let something go but this post is akin to the "Ponzi" scheme posts from years ago. They damaged HSL severely.

I don't know if you are holding a grudge from the past or just have a lack of understanding of the facts.

I will give you now the opportunity to respond.

"The vast majority of fans want this to happen " _ How do you know this ? what information are you basing this on ?
" The guy interviewed on behalf of HSL. That was shocking" - Tell me, what did the guy (Chairman of HSL) say that was shocking ?
" I would rather have Gordons/BK running the club than the guy interviewed on behalf of HSL" Really ? You are aware of Hibs accounts for the last two years ? Massive losses.
And are you happy with the performance of the team on the park ? Yep again under the stewardship of the Gordons and Kensell
"I feel they are contributing nothing to the club at this moment in time" - Are you aware if they have ever contributed in the past ?

Your last sentence is the daddy of them all. - What you are saying is a good idea is for ordinary hard working Hibs fans, to hand money over to a club that is owned by millionaires or soon to be billionaires ? And whilst we do that The Gordon family obliterate good decent Hibs fan's share ownership of the club ?



Finally just a little footnote.

The chairman of HSL and his fellow directors and 4000 members have raised over a £ million pounds for Hibernian FC.
What would you have done ? And don't say have a race night !

Who are the soon-to-be billionaires?

[Stairway 2 7]

This is some post. Sometimes you just have to let something go but this post is akin to the "Ponzi" scheme posts from years ago. They damaged HSL severely.

I don't know if you are holding a grudge from the past or just have a lack of understanding of the facts.

I will give you now the opportunity to respond.

"The vast majority of fans want this to happen " _ How do you know this ? what information are you basing this on ?
" The guy interviewed on behalf of HSL. That was shocking" - Tell me, what did the guy (Chairman of HSL) say that was shocking ?
" I would rather have Gordons/BK running the club than the guy interviewed on behalf of HSL" Really ? You are aware of Hibs accounts for the last two years ? Massive losses.
And are you happy with the performance of the team on the park ? Yep again under the stewardship of the Gordons and Kensell
"I feel they are contributing nothing to the club at this moment in time" - Are you aware if they have ever contributed in the past ?

Your last sentence is the daddy of them all. - What you are saying is a good idea is for ordinary hard working Hibs fans, to hand money over to a club that is owned by millionaires or soon to be billionaires ? And whilst we do that The Gordon family obliterate good decent Hibs fan's share ownership of the club ?



Finally just a little footnote.

The chairman of HSL and his fellow directors and 4000 members have raised over a £ million pounds for Hibernian FC.
What would you have done ? And don't say have a race night !

I posted similar previously but never got an answer. Why is there hibs fans that are against the idea of other hibs fans putting in direct debits to go to the player budget. I've said I definitely would and I've seen a dozen other say similar

No one would ever force you to put in. If you feel you shouldn't have to or don't want to don't. But surely if you are a hibby you would happy if what you think are fools like me want to put money in, as you would get the benefit to your team. I hardly use the gym but that rolls along monthly and I'd put an amount into hibs like thousands of hearts fan's do.

I just really don't get why there is a squad of people who put down the idea. Surely you say that wouldn't be for me but bash on all who would wish to

[matty_f]

I don’t even know what a podcast is . Far less set one up. I’m old skool who with others took the battle to mercer’s house , they exact day that hertz bar
Steward announced he wanted to kills us.

FWIW, i have invited both Jim from HSL and Ben Kensell on to the podcast to discuss.

Maybe if you don’t know what a podcast is you might want to pull back your accusation about them not being critical, i would think knowing what you’re talking about would be a good starting point before having a go at someone about it.

And thank you for taking action back in the day. Hibs needed people to step up at the time. :aok:

[matty_f]

I posted similar previously but never got an answer. Why is there hibs fans that are against the idea of other hibs fans putting in direct debits to go to the player budget. I've said I definitely would and I've seen a dozen other say similar

No one would ever force you to put in. If you feel you shouldn't have to or don't want to don't. But surely if you are a hibby you would happy if what you think are fools like me want to put money in, as you would get the benefit to your team. I hardly use the gym but that rolls along monthly and I'd put an amount into hibs like thousands of hearts fan's do.

I just really don't get why there is a squad of people who put down the idea. Surely you say that wouldn't be for me but bash on all who would wish to

That seems perfectly reasonable, to be honest. :agree:

[Brightside]

That seems perfectly reasonable, to be honest. :agree:

Did we not do that previously? Maybe my mind is playing tricks.

[DanishJohn]

Who are the soon-to-be billionaires?

Possible new owners ? Are they not billionaires ?

[matty_f]

Did we not do that previously? Maybe my mind is playing tricks.

Yeah, we had the option to choose where our donations went.

I have to say that with the wealth of the owners and with Foley due to come on board, I'm far less inclined to see fans putting anything other than ticket money, hospitality, and merchandise purchases into the club as donations.

I would miss an extra £50/month and these guys would make more money in the time it took them to pick up a £50 note that they'd dropped.

If wealthy guys want to take on a football club then great, they are welcome to do so, but they don't need my money to fund it, their pockets are plenty deep enough.

That said, as above, I have no qualms at all with anyone wanting to do that.

I think there's potential for HSL to create a fighting fund should we ever need it to bring the club into the hands of the supporters - the logistics of that would be difficult however, as it's surely not a great idea to have a large pot of money for an indefinite period of time that may or may not be needed, and if it never raised enough, how do folk get their money back etc?


Think I've just talked myself out of that idea :greengrin

[matty_f]

Possible new owners ? Are they not billionaires ?

The minority investor is already a billionaire, who are the soon to be ones?

[DanishJohn]

FWIW, i have invited both Jim from HSL and Ben Kensell on to the podcast to discuss.

Maybe if you don’t know what a podcast is you might want to pull back your accusation about them not being critical, i would think knowing what you’re talking about would be a good starting point before having a go at someone about it.

And thank you for taking action back in the day. Hibs needed people to step up at the time. :aok:

'
That's a great idea actually ! A proper good debate between two individuals. Almost like Presidential television debates where two individuals go at it giving their own take on things. I think it could be very useful for the Hibs support to hear.

[nonshinyfinish]

The minority investor is already a billionaire, who are the soon to be ones?

I think the poster was saying we are owned by millionaires and are soon to be (part) owned by billionaires, not that BK are soon to be billionaires.

[DanishJohn]

The minority investor is already a billionaire, who are the soon to be ones?

Iv'e read on here that the black Knights are billionaires. Am I getting something wrong ?

[Chipper1875]

The minority investor is already a billionaire, who are the soon to be ones?

What minority owner is a billionaire?

[Chipper1875]

Iv'e read on here that the black Knights are billionaires. Am I getting something wrong ?

I think he’s trying to be a smart arse or awkward

[Chipper1875]

FWIW, i have invited both Jim from HSL and Ben Kensell on to the podcast to discuss.

Maybe if you don’t know what a podcast is you might want to pull back your accusation about them not being critical, i would think knowing what you’re talking about would be a good starting point before having a go at someone about it.

And thank you for taking action back in the day. Hibs needed people to step up at the time. :aok:
Well done asking them.

Hardly an accusation… it’s a view … bit touchy about your pod

[DanishJohn]

I think he’s trying to be a smart arse or awkward

Are you referring to me ? If so why ?

[Chipper1875]

Are you referring to me ? If so why ?

Nope it’s quite clear BK are soon to be buying shares and are billionaires. Your post was excellent and well considered

[matty_f]

What minority owner is a billionaire?

Foley, once the deal goes through. Not really trying to be arsey, just seen the Gordon family referred to as billionaires as well on the forum recently and it's not accurate.

[Chipper1875]

Foley, once the deal goes through. Not really trying to be arsey, just seen the Gordon family referred to as billionaires as well on the forum recently and it's not accurate.

That’s not what the chap did .. it was clear.

[CapitalGreen]

I think he’s trying to be a smart arse or awkward

But rich from someone who claimed not to know what a podcast was earlier in the thread.

[matty_f]

Well done asking them.

Hardly an accusation… it’s a view … bit touchy about your pod

Not touchy about the podcast, it's the accusation from someone who doesn't know what a podcast is (your words) saying that folk aren't critical because they're worried about access to interviews. If you don't know what a podcast is, how can you have that view?

I am touchy about it because other folk read it and think it might be true, and so they repeat it and it's miles away from being true so folk think it's ok to take digs about something they don't even listen to.

[matty_f]

That’s not what the chap did .. it was clear.

I didn't say he did, I was just looking for clarification. I only asked a question.

[Chipper1875]

Yeah, we had the option to choose where our donations went.

I have to say that with the wealth of the owners and with Foley due to come on board, I'm far less inclined to see fans putting anything other than ticket money, hospitality, and merchandise purchases into the club as donations.

I would miss an extra £50/month and these guys would make more money in the time it took them to pick up a £50 note that they'd dropped.

If wealthy guys want to take on a football club then great, they are welcome to do so, but they don't need my money to fund it, their pockets are plenty deep enough.

That said, as above, I have no qualms at all with anyone wanting to do that.

I think there's potential for HSL to create a fighting fund should we ever need it to bring the club into the hands of the supporters - the logistics of that would be difficult however, as it's surely not a great idea to have a large pot of money for an indefinite period of time that may or may not be needed, and if it never raised enough, how do folk get their money back etc?


Think I've just talked myself out of that idea :greengrin
Yes , IT’s people’s choice of want to donate money to a billionaire. I wouldn’t do it.

My preference is HSL keep it for a fighting fund . Yanks will wipe out hibs fans as shareholders.

If it goes wrong or we get the chance to buy shares in future , be good to have a pot of cash

[matty_f]

Yes , IT’s people’s choice of want to donate money to a billionaire. I wouldn’t do it.

My preference is HSL keep it for a fighting fund . Yanks will wipe out hibs fans as shareholders.

If it goes wrong or we get the chance to buy shares in future , be good to have a pot of cash

In principle that would be good, but the issue is what happens to what would be a sizeable pot of money if there's no need for it or there's no opportunity to use it?

[DanishJohn]

I think the poster was saying we are owned by millionaires and are soon to be (part) owned by billionaires, not that BK are soon to be billionaires.


Yes you have done a grand job in clarifying my point. Well done. .

[matty_f]

Yes you have done a grand job in clarifying my point. Well done. .

:aok: I mis-read what you meant.

[DanishJohn]

Yes , IT’s people’s choice of want to donate money to a billionaire. I wouldn’t do it.

My preference is HSL keep it for a fighting fund . Yanks will wipe out hibs fans as shareholders.

If it goes wrong or we get the chance to buy shares in future , be good to have a pot of cash

Brilliant post Chipper. You have actually grasped the matter in hand.
Here's another reason for keeping a big fighting fund. Legal advice and help doesn't come cheap. You never know when it might be needed.

[Chipper1875]

In principle that would be good, but the issue is what happens to what would be a sizeable pot of money if there's no need for it or there's no opportunity to use it?

Long time since l looked at HSL articles but there was a mechanism, if HSL cease to exsist. They if required could amend articles eg cash goes to charities, Hibernian Historical Trust and Hibs Community

[Rumble de Thump]

Yes , IT’s people’s choice of want to donate money to a billionaire. I wouldn’t do it.

My preference is HSL keep it for a fighting fund . Yanks will wipe out hibs fans as shareholders.

If it goes wrong or we get the chance to buy shares in future , be good to have a pot of cash

Has anyone suggested donating money to Bill Foley? It's been repeated quite a few times but I thought people were talking about donating to the club's football department.

[Chipper1875]

Has anyone suggested donating money to Bill Foley? It's been repeated quite a few times but I thought people were talking about donating to the club's football department.

Smoke and mirrors…

[Brightside]

Smoke and mirrors…

This kind of stuff doesnt help the debate. when .net gives money to the club does it go to the area suggested or does it go in Ben's back pocket? Lets stop all the unnecessary digs at the club.

[Rumble de Thump]

Smoke and mirrors…

Sorry. I'm not really sure what this means. Are you referring to people talking about donating to a billionaire when donations wouldn't be going to a billionaire. They would actually being going to the club's football department?

[Pagan Hibernia]

Sorry. I'm not really sure what this means. Are you referring to people talking about donating to a billionaire when donations wouldn't be going to a billionaire. They would actually being going to the club's football department?

How can anyone know where it goes?

Even when HSL used to clarify that their cash went to the 'football department' it was something I'd take with a pinch of salt. I mean it's all the same thing really isn't it, whether it gets spent on Kensells salary or on players. It's all outgoings from HFC

[Chipper1875]

This kind of stuff doesnt help the debate. when .net gives money to the club does it go to the area suggested or does it go in Ben's back pocket? Lets stop all the unnecessary digs at the club.

Let’s stop being silly … legally it’s different entities.. but in reality it’s milllires , billionaires and the trillionaires asset managers that own BK

[Chipper1875]

Sorry. I'm not really sure what this means. Are you referring to people talking about donating to a billionaire when donations wouldn't be going to a billionaire. They would actually being going to the club's football department?

Money isn’t ring fenced when money goes to fitba department… over years l know of groups insisting on knowing what was getting bought with the money

[Brightside]

Jesus we are falling right in to the Pia world now.

[matty_f]

Sorry. I'm not really sure what this means. Are you referring to people talking about donating to a billionaire when donations wouldn't be going to a billionaire. They would actually being going to the club's football department?

FWIW, i wasn’t suggesting that anyone is donating to billionaires or millionaires, my point was that if they want to run the club they’re wealthy enough to put the money in themselves and it shouldn’t be on the ordinary fan to prop it up. If they want to own a competitive football club, that’s their decision and they should cover the cost.

I’m not suggesting anyone is taking the funds out the club or anything like that.

[flash]

Jesus we are falling right in to the Pia world now.

Definitely hearing a lot from people we have rarely, if ever, heard from before.

[jacomo]

Jesus we are falling right in to the Pia world now.


Simon Pia conspired against a very straightforward scheme - fan ownership of the club via discounted shares - due to his personal enmity (jealousy?) with Tom Farmer. Thanks to him and other like-minded idiots, HSL failed in its primary objective: to gain enough shares to get a seat on the board.

The world has changed. First we got bought by a multi-millionaire who I believe was well-meaning but treated us supporters like American sports fans: ie customers. The fan ownership scheme was scuttled and HSL’s share of ownership was diluted.

Now we’ve got investment by American billionaires and HSL’s ownership will be diluted further.

Based on what we know, and the context, I think HSL is probably right to vote in favour, not least because there is little option to influence this move in another direction.

I bought into HSL because I thought it was a good initiative but stopped contributing once Ron Gordon’s plans became clear. Folk are welcome to continue to put money into the club via donations if they wish but personally I think it’s pointless now. If we are going to be treated like consumers, you might as well get something in return.

[Pretty Boy]

It's a shame that a discussion that is of fundamental importance to the future of the club and the role of supporters as shareholders as part of that has been reduced to this level.

There have been some fantastic contributions to this thread that have really given food for thought. Then there has been snide remarks, insinuations and name calling which really adds nothing to the whole debate.

Disappointing even if it's not surprising.

[Chipper1875]

Jesus we are falling right in to the Pia world now.

Why do you think that ?

[DanishJohn]

Simon Pia conspired against a very straightforward scheme - fan ownership of the club via discounted shares - due to his personal enmity (jealousy?) with Tom Farmer. Thanks to him and other like-minded idiots, HSL failed in its primary objective: to gain enough shares to get a seat on the board.

The world has changed. First we got bought by a multi-millionaire who I believe was well-meaning but treated us supporters like American sports fans: ie customers. The fan ownership scheme was scuttled and HSL’s share of ownership was diluted.

Now we’ve got investment by American billionaires and HSL’s ownership will be diluted further.

Based on what we know, and the context, I think HSL is probably right to vote in favour, not least because there is little option to influence this move in another direction.

I bought into HSL because I thought it was a good initiative but stopped contributing once Ron Gordon’s plans became clear. Folk are welcome to continue to put money into the club via donations if they wish but personally I think it’s pointless now. If we are going to be treated like consumers, you might as well get something in return.

Why would HSL vote in favour ? I would not be thinking along those lines. Voting for something that was intended to stop the ordinary man/woman owning a bit of their football club ? No way. There is another option.

Stop it in its tracks.

Let the Gordon family and Mr Foley come up with another solution to get money into the club without being so detrimental to Hibs fans.

Here's a thought. Next time you drive into a Shell or BP garage ask if you can donate some money to their company.
Remember when were were told we were going to have to pony up ? The audacity of it !

[Pagan Hibernia]

Simon Pia conspired against a very straightforward scheme - fan ownership of the club via discounted shares - due to his personal enmity (jealousy?) with Tom Farmer. Thanks to him and other like-minded idiots, HSL failed in its primary objective: to gain enough shares to get a seat on the board.

The world has changed. First we got bought by a multi-millionaire who I believe was well-meaning but treated us supporters like American sports fans: ie customers. The fan ownership scheme was scuttled and HSL’s share of ownership was diluted.

Now we’ve got investment by American billionaires and HSL’s ownership will be diluted further.

Based on what we know, and the context, I think HSL is probably right to vote in favour, not least because there is little option to influence this move in another direction.

I bought into HSL because I thought it was a good initiative but stopped contributing once Ron Gordon’s plans became clear. Folk are welcome to continue to put money into the club via donations if they wish but personally I think it’s pointless now. If we are going to be treated like consumers, you might as well get something in return.

Great Post, and I agree, though I would add that after the initial slander and lies against them HSL often didn't help themselves with their awful communication and marketing in the early years, nor did the club help when they barely recognised the organisation publicly.

Several different factors conspired to see that we collectively squandered a fantastic opportunity that would have benefited everyone, the team included.

I won't be paying in again. If the rich men insist on owning the club to the point of squeezing out the shareholders who bought in out of love, then they can pay for it.

I'll be there in future if HSL or a similar organisation needs to bail the club out (hopefully this never happens) but for now Hibs are getting no more free money from me.

[Lago]

Smoke and mirrors…
Ridiculous comment.

[McD]

Well done asking them.

Hardly an accusation… it’s a view … bit touchy about your pod



You don’t know what a podcast is (your words), but you’re happy to accuse the hosts of being afraid of asking hard questions and sucking up to the club, when in truth you don’t have a clue whether they do or not, since you don’t know what a podcast is.


How can you claim it’s a view, when you know nothing about it? Sounds more like prejudice to me (literally pre-judging)

[McD]

Definitely hearing a lot from people we have rarely, if ever, heard from before.

Exactly :agree:

[Jones28]

Why do you think that ?

Because of the nonsense.

[El Gubbz]

Definitely hearing a lot from people we have rarely, if ever, heard from before.

Think that’s largely because most of us have Hibs group chats to vent trivial anger into.

This has provoked fans to get involved and trying to add context to an irreversible and transformative share issue (for possibly good or bad).

It amazes me how “F it” some posters attitude is to something that will have a major impact on the long term direction of the club

[Chipper1875]

Because of the nonsense.

Educate me on what is nonsense?

[JohnM1875]

Definitely hearing a lot from people we have rarely, if ever, heard from before.

Have to say, it's making me regret ever joining HSL a wee bit.

[Pagan Hibernia]

Have to say, it's making me regret ever joining HSL a wee bit.

It's making me regret not joining it earlier.

[Wilson]

It's making me regret not joining it earlier.

I regret not being a billionaire.

[jacomo]

I regret not being a billionaire.


No one should be a billionaire, it turns you into a dick.

[jacomo]

Why would HSL vote in favour ? I would not be thinking along those lines. Voting for something that was intended to stop the ordinary man/woman owning a bit of their football club ? No way. There is another option.

Stop it in its tracks.

Let the Gordon family and Mr Foley come up with another solution to get money into the club without being so detrimental to Hibs fans.

Here's a thought. Next time you drive into a Shell or BP garage ask if you can donate some money to their company.
Remember when were were told we were going to have to pony up ? The audacity of it !


I don’t think HSL can stop it, unless all other shareholders apart from the Gordon family are rejecting it too.

Very willing to be corrected on this, if the nominee share holder turns out to be anti this scheme.

[Wilson]

No one should be a billionaire, it turns you into a dick.

I'm already there. Just, without the money!

[jacomo]

I'm already there. Just, without the money!


Now now, don’t be so hard on yourself!

[DavieRoy]

I appreciate the views on the other but I have to say that the new investment doesn’t sit well with me for the following reasons:

1. Disapplication of existing shareholders’ pre-emption rights - pre-emption rights (to protect the proportion of your shareholding) is a significant protection for minority shareholders. Was there really a need to do this? If it’s about investment, why not allow existing shareholders to contribute to it? This is not just about investment and I don’t think it’s possible to conclude otherwise - otherwise why not be inclusive?

2. Drag-along rights - this is not your average commercial limited company but a 150 year old community institution. Forcing small shareholders to part with their shareholding (however small) on a sale so one party can control the entire club is a pretty callous way to treat individuals who have helped financially support the club over the years (albeit in a small way but likely at personal cost).

3. HSL is representative of the supporters. To treat the lifeblood of the club with such disdain is pretty shocking. They have purposely sought to exclude supporters from owning in the club and getting to 25% to stop things like disapplication of pre-emption rights and amending the Articles to suit the majority owner ensuring the club is here for future generations.

4. General trend of commercialisation - I don’t enjoy going to Easter Road as much. My sister commented recently after being for the first time in about 15 years - nobody sings any more. No wonder with all the adverts and activities on the screen. And who remembers when a lucky kid got drawn to be mascot and feel like a million dollars (ironic Americanism)but now you need your parents to shell out £100 and you’re just the one of ten.

5. Decision-making - the club is very poorly run - existing staff appeared to be dispensed with early and money wasted on a lot of vanity projects. Why pay so much to agencies to run catering and the shop when you could be a key community employer. The money we have wasted in a football sense is also shocking.

It’s sad that as a club we spent so long doing things the right way while Hearts didn’t yet they end up the community club and we are now at the whim of the investment market.

Credit to HSL and their board for a valiant effort to safeguard the future of the club but I think the desperation for instant football success means the message just isn’t as appealing. We live in hope that it all works out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What a brilliant post.

The focus the club want is on the investment and potential to spend and compete and that is fair enough but there is more going on here re the articles of association etc.

It is not being negative questioning the investment, changes to the articles of association, the accounts and the clubs future vision.

Debate is healthy and if there is nothing to hide, it will come out.

The club/Gordon’s would be better served just fronting up.

I am shocked people think it is bad or divisive for HSL not to question what is going on. They have a duty to as the next biggest shareholder. Just because the club say x doesn’t mean they are right. They might be but let’s question it, hold them to account and if we are comfortable with it then great.

HSL fronted up rightly or wrongly but Mr Robb will be the one that nods this through, maybe time for him to tell us why.

[VoltaireHibs]

Do HSL have a facility whereby I can register an interest in contributing should any kind of existential threat to Hibs arise, without actually donating at the moment for reasons I explained earlier? I also think that, given everything that's gone before, rightly or wrongly, HSL probably needs a rebrand and new directors/management.

[matty_f]

What a brilliant post.

The focus the club want is on the investment and potential to spend and compete and that is fair enough but there is more going on here re the articles of association etc.

It is not being negative questioning the investment, changes to the articles of association, the accounts and the clubs future vision.

Debate is healthy and if there is nothing to hide, it will come out.

The club/Gordon’s would be better served just fronting up.

I am shocked people think it is bad or divisive for HSL not to question what is going on. They have a duty to as the next biggest shareholder. Just because the club say x doesn’t mean they are right. They might be but let’s question it, hold them to account and if we are comfortable with it then great.

HSL fronted up rightly or wrongly but Mr Robb will be the one that nods this through, maybe time for him to tell us why.

Everyone should be questioning what is going on.

[Pretty Boy]

Everyone should be questioning what is going on.

:agree:

It's largely been a respectful and interesting debate which is an increasing rarity on any online platform.

A few of the personal jibes have been unfortunate both on this thread and others. It's an important discussion to have in whatever guise; I think people need to remember every fan wants the best for Hibs, it's just people have different opinions on what that means and how we get there.

[VoltaireHibs]

Everyone should be questioning what is going on.

Do you have genuine concerns or is it just the lack of clarity?

[matty_f]

:agree:

It's largely been a respectful and interesting debate which is an increasing rarity on any online platform.

A few of the personal jibes have been unfortunate both on this thread and others. It's an important discussion to have in whatever guise; I think people need to remember every fan wants the best for Hibs, it's just people have different opinions on what that means and how we get there.

Exactly that, mate. It shouldn’t get waved through without scrutiny and also it shouldn’t be shouted down without the facts, but respectful discussion to ask the pertinent questions is essential.

This is a potentially seismic moment for the club. We’re not going to turn into Man City but you would hope that whatever outcome is reached is for the best for the club.

[VoltaireHibs]

Exactly that, mate. It shouldn’t get waved through without scrutiny and also it shouldn’t be shouted down without the facts, but respectful discussion to ask the pertinent questions is essential.

This is a potentially seismic moment for the club. We’re not going to turn into Man City but you would hope that whatever outcome is reached is for the best for the club.


All well and good asking questions but realistically can anyone stop this? And if they did, how do you think that would play to the Hibs support? Badly I reckon.

Lots of folk going around shouting for answers about things that are, for the most part, irrelevant. There is nothing, I suspect, that anyone can do. The deal is going through, one way or another. All the bumping gums need to do what most of us are and buckle up for the ride.

[CropleyWasGod]

All well and good asking questions but realistically can anyone stop this? And if they did, how do you think that would play to the Hibs support? Badly I reckon.

Lots of folk going around shouting for answers about things that are, for the most part, irrelevant. There is nothing, I suspect, that anyone can do. The deal is going through, one way or another. All the bumping gums need to do what most of us are and buckle up for the ride.

In many ways, it doesn't matter whether it can be stopped. But it does matter that supporters realise what the implications of some of these votes are.

"bumping gums" is a poor description for those who want to have a deeper understanding of what might be happening to the Club IMO

[VoltaireHibs]

In many ways, it doesn't matter whether it can be stopped. But it does matter that supporters realise what the implications of some of these votes are.

"bumping gums" is a poor description for those who want to have a deeper understanding of what might be happening to the Club IMO

Okay, so we get a broad understanding of what's going on and we understand the risks inherent in the deal. Brilliant, then what?

Zero, nothing, because what we think will have no bearing on the outcome.

It looks to me like a lot of folk with overblown egos and a surfeit of self importance doing a version of John Brown outside Ibrox shouting the odds. And making zero difference.

[matty_f]

Do you have genuine concerns or is it just the lack of clarity?

I wouldn’t say I’m genuinely concerned - i just want to understand what’s happening so I can judge if it’s a good thing or a bad thing. As things stand i intend to back the resolutions and hope HSL do the same, but i don’t see any value in picking a side and sticking to it - there are more things that need to be clarified but from what i know so far I’m very comfortable that it’s the right thing for the club.


I think it’ll go through anyway but it would be good if it was a unifying moment for the club rather than a decisive one.

[Pagan Hibernia]

Okay, so we get a broad understanding of what's going on and we understand the risks inherent in the deal. Brilliant, then what?

Zero, nothing, because what we think will have no bearing on the outcome.

It looks to me like a lot of folk with overblown egos and a surfeit of self importance doing a version of John Brown outside Ibrox shouting the odds. And making zero difference.

So you have no interest in a respectful conversation then. Good to know.

[MelbourneHibees]

If Hibs came out and told us why they feel the need to reduce the "Drag" mechanism or whatever its called threshold down to 80% then I'd happily back all of the resolutions. Well depending on their answer of course 😁. But I'd assume they'd have a logical answer.

[CropleyWasGod]

If Hibs came out and told us why they feel the need to reduce the "Drag" mechanism or whatever its called threshold down to 80% then I'd happily back all of the resolutions. Well depending on their answer of course 😁. But I'd assume they'd have a logical answer.

The famous "footnote that shouldn't have been" possibly tells you the answer. Foley's side wanted it to be closer to 75%, I think. IMO, positioning themselves for the exit door.

But, yeah, some explanation would be welcome.

(btw, the Club are raging that that happened. According to them it wasn't their fault, it was the lawyers)

[Bostonhibby]

The famous "footnote that shouldn't have been" possibly tells you the answer. Foley's side wanted it to be closer to 75%, I think. IMO, positioning themselves for the exit door.

But, yeah, some explanation would be welcome.

(btw, the Club are raging that that happened. According to them it wasn't their fault, it was the lawyers)Not happy that the supporters get to see the whole picture is what I've heard.

Supporters are there for all the extea merchandising and sales opportunities but don't let them anywhere near the ownership of their club, and knock out the few who are is how it might seem to some?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Lago]

So for arguments sake let's suppose it fails to make the cut, rejected by the shareholders, what then, what's a realistic alternative to take the club forward?

[Jones28]

Not happy that the supporters get to see the whole picture is what I've heard.

Supporters are there for all the extea merchandising and sales opportunities but don't let them anywhere near the ownership of their club, and knock out the few who are is how it might seem to some?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Forgive me if I’m completely missing the point here, but supporters had a chance to purchase a meaningful part of the club but didn’t? We tried, I signed up to HSL along with lots of others but the momentum was killed for various reasons.

So we’ve only really got ourselves to blame, no?

[MelbourneHibees]

The famous "footnote that shouldn't have been" possibly tells you the answer. Foley's side wanted it to be closer to 75%, I think. IMO, positioning themselves for the exit door.

But, yeah, some explanation would be welcome.

(btw, the Club are raging that that happened. According to them it wasn't their fault, it was the lawyers)

A sharp exit for Foley or the Gordons or both?

[Bostonhibby]

Forgive me if I’m completely missing the point here, but supporters had a chance to purchase a meaningful part of the club but didn’t? We tried, I signed up to HSL along with lots of others but the momentum was killed for various reasons.

So we’ve only really got ourselves to blame, no?

I agree with you, long standing shareholder, family of HSL members.

My point is supporter shareholders like me arent welcome at the top, ownership table now.

I do agree that folk within our support didn't do HSL any favours, for whatever reason...... that ships sailed now though.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[MelbourneHibees]

So for arguments sake let's suppose it fails to make the cut, rejected by the shareholders, what then, what's a realistic alternative to take the club forward?

A proper roll of the dice for HSL round 2 for me.

[CapitalGreen]

I agree with you, long standing shareholder, family of HSL members.

My point is supporter shareholders like me arent welcome at the top, ownership table now.

I do agree that folk within our support didn't do HSL any favours, for whatever reason...... that ships sailed now though.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

You never were.

[CropleyWasGod]

A sharp exit for Foley or the Gordons or both?

I think either or both.

Having that clause in place makes the Club more attractive to a potential buyer, maybe?

I'm not suggesting that it would be imminent, but there is always the fear that it could be. And, of course, any decent investment strategy has an exit route.

[Lago]

A proper roll of the dice for HSL round 2 for me.
Hibs fans, or the majority of them, showed no appetite for fan ownership previously, I doubt it has changed.

[CapitalGreen]

I think either or both.

Having that clause in place makes the Club more attractive to a potential buyer, maybe?

I'm not suggesting that it would be imminent, but there is always the fear that it could be. And, of course, any decent investment strategy has an exit route.

Is the clause an obligation or an option to buy all the shares?

[Just Alf]

I agree with you, long standing shareholder, family of HSL members.

My point is supporter shareholders like me arent welcome at the top, ownership table now.

I do agree that folk within our support didn't do HSL any favours, for whatever reason...... that ships sailed now though.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
You never were.To be fair , we had the chance via HSL to reach 25.1% share ownership so there would be a safety net against selling off assets etc

For multiple reasons we (Hibs Supporters) never achieved that goal.

[MelbourneHibees]

Ignore.

[Rocky]

Stop it in its tracks.

Let the Gordon family and Mr Foley come up with another solution to get money into the club without being so detrimental to Hibs fans.

Here's a thought. Next time you drive into a Shell or BP garage ask if you can donate some money to their company.
Remember when were were told we were going to have to pony up ? The audacity of it !
I think a wee reality check is needed here. Hibs are currently a roughly £10 million club. If Hibs fans want 25% of the club they need to stump up over another million just to stand still, and then vote down the motions at the AGM (not that investing a million is even an option). And by the way if we do that the club will be saddled with £5.75m of debt to an owner who wants out because we've voted against their plans.

The Gordons and BKFE are prepared to put in £10 million. Laudable but we want to stay at 25% so we'd better match them so it's time to find another £3 million-ish.

So now we have a choice, find £4 million-ish (bear in mind HSL has raised about £1.5 million in its entire existence), or tell the Gordons and BKFE we don't want their £10 million.

Even if we could magically find £4 million between us, say the Gordons and BKFE want to stick another £20 million in to really transform the club's fortunes. Are we going to match that with another £7 million or so? There's just no chance.

The choice is really really simple. We bimble along as we are behind hearts and Aberdeen financially or we accept investment and deal with the fact that as fans we're not going to own a significant proportion of the club.

[MelbourneHibees]

I think a wee reality check is needed here. Hibs are currently a roughly £10 million club. If Hibs fans want 25% of the club they need to stump up over another million just to stand still, and then vote down the motions at the AGM (not that investing a million is even an option). And by the way if we do that the club will be saddled with £5.75m of debt to an owner who wants out because we've voted against their plans.

The Gordons and BKFE are prepared to put in £10 million. Laudable but we want to stay at 25% so we'd better match them so it's time to find another £3 million-ish.

So now we have a choice, find £4 million-ish (bear in mind HSL has raised about £1.5 million in its entire existence), or tell the Gordons and BKFE we don't want their £10 million.

Even if we could magically find £4 million between us, say the Gordons and BKFE want to stick another £20 million in to really transform the club's fortunes. Are we going to match that with another £7 million or so? There's just no chance.

The choice is really really simple. We bimble along as we are behind hearts and Aberdeen financially or we accept investment and deal with the fact that as fans we're not going to own a significant proportion of the club.

Is the 10 million figure coming from Foley investment plus the Debt for Equity swap? All I've ever heard is 6 Million from Foley?

[Bostonhibby]

To be fair , we had the chance via HSL to reach 25.1% share ownership so there would be a safety net against selling off assets etc

For multiple reasons we (Hibs Supporters) never achieved that goal.Yep, only reasons I and my family were in was for that 25% and the emotional one.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Is the clause an obligation or an option to buy all the shares?

It's an obligation for the other 20% to sell.


The Accepting Shareholders may give written notice (a “Drag Notice”) to the remaining
Shareholders (the “Other Shareholders”) of their wish to accept the Qualifying Offer and
each of the Other Shareholders shall thereupon become bound to accept the Qualifying Offer
and to transfer the legal and beneficial interest in their Shares to the Offeror

[Bostonhibby]

You never were.But we had the chance to buy shares for whatever reason.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Rocky]

Is the 10 million figure coming from Foley investment plus the Debt for Equity swap? All I've ever heard is 6 Million from Foley?
Yeah, based on the relative proportions of shares being allocated, Foley can't be buying as much as £6 million. Might be investing in other ways, who knows

[Rocky]

This has provoked fans to get involved and trying to add context to an irreversible and transformative share issue (for possibly good or bad).


That describes me, I stay off forums now as it's just the same stuff being rehashed relentlessly as a general rule. But this change is really fundamental for the club and I'm interested in the views of others on it.

[Lago]

I think a wee reality check is needed here. Hibs are currently a roughly £10 million club. If Hibs fans want 25% of the club they need to stump up over another million just to stand still, and then vote down the motions at the AGM (not that investing a million is even an option). And by the way if we do that the club will be saddled with £5.75m of debt to an owner who wants out because we've voted against their plans.

The Gordons and BKFE are prepared to put in £10 million. Laudable but we want to stay at 25% so we'd better match them so it's time to find another £3 million-ish.

So now we have a choice, find £4 million-ish (bear in mind HSL has raised about £1.5 million in its entire existence), or tell the Gordons and BKFE we don't want their £10 million.

Even if we could magically find £4 million between us, say the Gordons and BKFE want to stick another £20 million in to really transform the club's fortunes. Are we going to match that with another £7 million or so? There's just no chance.

The choice is really really simple. We bimble along as we are behind hearts and Aberdeen financially or we accept investment and deal with the fact that as fans we're not going to own a significant proportion of the club.
Great summary, here's another thought if we reject the investment it may well end up at Aberdeen, Foley did say they had a look at Dons before settling on hibs,it wouldn't be a surprise if they went back with firm proposal. Then I would expect Hibs would be bracketed with the likes of Motherwell, St. Mirren and Dundee, sad thought.

[Tyler Durden]

The famous "footnote that shouldn't have been" possibly tells you the answer. Foley's side wanted it to be closer to 75%, I think. IMO, positioning themselves for the exit door.

But, yeah, some explanation would be welcome.

(btw, the Club are raging that that happened. According to them it wasn't their fault, it was the lawyers)

Which is surely a cop out (this being the fault of the lawyers). Surely someone at Hibs has pushed the button to publish this on our website. That’s nothing to do with lawyers.

As with multiple poorly worded comms in recent years, there is a lack of attention to detail and basic oversight in what Hibs choose to publish. Amateur stuff.

[MelbourneHibees]

Which is surely a cop out (this being the fault of the lawyers). Surely someone at Hibs has pushed the button to publish this on our website. That’s nothing to do with lawyers.

As with multiple poorly worded comms in recent years, there is a lack of attention to detail and basic oversight in what Hibs choose to publish. Amateur stuff.

Let's be fair to whoever put it on the website. It will likely have been a young website admin who gets sent the file and told where to upload it. Not their job to trawl through potentially sensitive information. You would like to think our lawyers would send us 2 files. One for public consumption and one not.

[RMQ1967]

I think a wee reality check is needed here. Hibs are currently a roughly £10 million club. If Hibs fans want 25% of the club they need to stump up over another million just to stand still, and then vote down the motions at the AGM (not that investing a million is even an option). And by the way if we do that the club will be saddled with £5.75m of debt to an owner who wants out because we've voted against their plans.

The Gordons and BKFE are prepared to put in £10 million. Laudable but we want to stay at 25% so we'd better match them so it's time to find another £3 million-ish.

So now we have a choice, find £4 million-ish (bear in mind HSL has raised about £1.5 million in its entire existence), or tell the Gordons and BKFE we don't want their £10 million.

Even if we could magically find £4 million between us, say the Gordons and BKFE want to stick another £20 million in to really transform the club's fortunes. Are we going to match that with another £7 million or so? There's just no chance.

The choice is really really simple. We bimble along as we are behind hearts and Aberdeen financially or we accept investment and deal with the fact that as fans we're not going to own a significant proportion of the club.

This is an excellent post👌

It would have been great if HSL had achieved it's aims but we need to accept that times have moved on & there's a new very exciting solution on the horizon with people that have demonstrated their commitment to Hibs.

As you say it's the same stuff recycled over & over now. I hope the votes all go for the Gordons & HSL find a way to use the funds that many of us have provided over the last number of years to the benefit of Hibs.

I'll be interested to know how that will be done as holding it in reserve for a "fighting fund" or whatever was never what I signed up to.

[Rocky]

This is an excellent post👌

It would have been great if HSL had achieved it's aims but we need to accept that times have moved on & there's a new very exciting solution on the horizon with people that have demonstrated their commitment to Hibs.

As you say it's the same stuff recycled over & over now. I hope the votes all go for the Gordons & HSL find a way to use the funds that many of us have provided over the last number of years to the benefit of Hibs.

I'll be interested to know how that will be done as holding it in reserve for a "fighting fund" or whatever was never what I signed up to.
It's clear from the "not for publication" lawyers note that the end game is outright ownership, and the drag along clause will mean that HSL will have no choice but to sell up. That means over £1.5 million in HSL which imo needs returned to members.

[CropleyWasGod]

It's clear from the "not for publication" lawyers note that the end game is outright ownership, and the drag along clause will mean that HSL will have no choice but to sell up. That means over £1.5 million in HSL which imo needs returned to members.

Possibly more than that, depending on the price of the shares at that point.

Good luck in sorting that out :cb

[Fanforlife]

It's clear from the "not for publication" lawyers note that the end game is outright ownership, and the drag along clause will mean that HSL will have no choice but to sell up. That means over £1.5 million in HSL which imo needs returned to members.
Majority of that has been given in some shape or form to Hibs already has it not?

[Rocky]

Majority of that has been given in some shape or form to Hibs already has it not?

Yes, in exchange for shares. Those shares are valued at 7p or so each based on what the Gordons and BKFE are paying. All of us as members own those shares collectively. In the event of a forced sale my personal preference would be that I get my cut then piss it up the wall on a cracking day out with full hospitality.

[jacomo]

Majority of that has been given in some shape or form to Hibs already has it not?


Of course it has. But not as an altruistic donation: we got a share of ownership (or HSL did) in return.

[Ringothedog]

Majority of that has been given in some shape or form to Hibs already has it not?

But they would still hold shares that have a value

[MelbourneHibees]

It's clear from the "not for publication" lawyers note that the end game is outright ownership, and the drag along clause will mean that HSL will have no choice but to sell up. That means over £1.5 million in HSL which imo needs returned to members.

I never even considered this. Presumably HSL will have a database of donations to issue "refunds"?

[Rocky]

Good luck in sorting that out :cb

Indeed, hence I think it would be a good topic for discussion at HSL AGM. Is the record keeping up to scratch to enable disbursement of any funds from a share sale to members in appropriate proportions? What options will be put to members should a share sale be forced?

[jacomo]

I agree with you, long standing shareholder, family of HSL members.

My point is supporter shareholders like me arent welcome at the top, ownership table now.

I do agree that folk within our support didn't do HSL any favours, for whatever reason...... that ships sailed now though.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk


It’s a cultural thing. American owners of teams (or franchises) wouldn’t think of opening up ownership to the wider supporter base, it’s just not how they operate.

You are either in the tiny clique of owners, or a fan.

On the other hand, these Americans have access to money that we can only dream of. So much so that Foley describes his planned investment as ‘small’, whereas we see it as potentially game-changing.

The best we can hope for is that they are well intentioned and know what they are doing.

In the meantime, I do think HSL should build a database of interested supporters, to give us an informal voice (even if we have no real say in the running of the club).

[Pretty Boy]

I never even considered this. Presumably HSL will have a database of donations to issue "refunds"?

I was always big on the HSL model of one member, one vote even though, as we are about to see, common practice is that those with the most shares have voting power that reflects that.

I'd wager I have more HSL 'shares' than many so if there is £1.5M+ getting divvied up my principles will go right out the window😅

[CapitalGreen]

Yes, in exchange for shares. Those shares are valued at 7p or so each based on what the Gordons and BKFE are paying. All of us as members own those shares collectively. In the event of a forced sale my personal preference would be that I get my cut then piss it up the wall on a cracking day out with full hospitality.

In case of a sale, donations will be returned to HSL members in the form of “Francks”.

[RMQ1967]

Yes, in exchange for shares. Those shares are valued at 7p or so each based on what the Gordons and BKFE are paying. All of us as members own those shares collectively. In the event of a forced sale my personal preference would be that I get my cut then piss it up the wall on a cracking day out with full hospitality.

😂 I love that idea but I'd prefer that it goes towards the retractable roof and/or filling in the stand corners.

A more suitable legacy for our hard earned investment.

If it all goes tits up at least I won't be freezing as we work our way up from SPL3 or whatever.

[Is It On....]

We can vote against Resolution 5 to disapply pre-emption rights. That protects our current ownership rights and the clause is there to stop minority owners like ourselves getting screwed over.

[Rocky]

We can vote against Resolution 5 to disapply pre-emption rights. That protects our current ownership rights.

We can but it costs us 10 million.

"To the extent this resolution is not passed, neither the Loan Conversion nor the BKFE Investment shall proceed"

[Is It On....]

I never even considered this. Presumably HSL will have a database of donations to issue "refunds"?

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

[marinello59]

We can but it costs us 10 million.

"To the extent this resolution is not passed, neither the Loan Conversion nor the BKFE Investment shall proceed"

Bought and sold for American gold then?:greengrin

Im not being entirely serious here, I couldn’t resist.

[Pagan Hibernia]

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

Cruel world, isn't it.

[Rocky]

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

No, the shares will be sold for the same price as the majority owners' shares are sold.

[Is It On....]

We can but it costs us 10 million.

"To the extent this resolution is not passed, neither the Loan Conversion nor the BKFE Investment shall proceed"

The Gordon's are currently legally obliged to offer the right to existing shareholders to subscribe to new shares if they want to. Waiving this protection means our existing investment in the club will be diluted to heehaw

[Is It On....]

No, the shares will be sold for the same price as the majority owners' shares are sold.

So why won't they offer the right to all existing owners to subscribe? This is all about protecting themselves.

[Is It On....]

Cruel world, isn't it.

Not if you are the Gordon family

[CapitalGreen]

Not if you are the Gordon family

I’d maybe reconsider that statement if I were you.

[Rocky]

The Gordon's are currently legally obliged to offer the right to existing shareholders to subscribe to new shares if they want to. Waiving this protection means our existing investment in the club will be diluted to hehaw

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.

[Rocky]

So why won't they offer the right to all existing owners to subscribe? This is all about protecting themselves.

I'd want to protect myself anaw if I was launching 10 million at a company.

[Hibbyradge]

So why won't they offer the right to all existing owners to subscribe? This is all about protecting themselves.

Understandable, I guess. :dunno:

If I was going to invest serious money into a business, I'd want to make sure that if it ever became the time for me to back out, I could do so on my own terms.

[Hibbyradge]

I’d maybe reconsider that statement if I were you.

Good point.

[Is It On....]

I’d maybe reconsider that statement if I were you.

Why? They are maintaining their control of "our" club whilst we are getting massively diluted. These rules are in place to protect minority shareholders like ourselves.

[RMQ1967]

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

It's this kind of inaccurate comment that spreads mistrust.

Not sure if this is mischief making or just a lack of understanding of what's being proposed but it great that more than a few in here know what's going on & can pick up on it & set the record straight.

[Rocky]

Why? They are maintaining their control of "our" club whilst we are getting massively diluted. These rules are in place to protect minority shareholders like ourselves.

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?

[Lago]

We will get diluted to nothing and our investment in the club is therefore worth nothing.
As my pension provider routinely warned me the value of shares can rise or fall.

[marinello59]

I'd want to protect myself anaw if I was launching 10 million at a company.

If I had 10 million to launch at a company I reckon the protection would be a given. Not so much for the wee guys.

[Lago]

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?
Brilliant :aok:

[Rocky]

If I had 10 million to launch at a company I reckon the protection would be a given. Not so much for the wee guys.

If you put 10 million into a company with an aim to sell the stake it bought you for double that then the wee guy with £1.5 million worth is going to end up with £3 million. Not bad for ticking a box.

[Is It On....]

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?

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.

[CropleyWasGod]

If you put 10 million into a company with an aim to sell the stake it bought you for double that then the wee guy with £1.5 million worth is going to end up with £3 million. Not bad for ticking a box.

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.

[marinello59]

If you put 10 million into a company with an aim to sell the stake it bought you for double that then the wee guy with £1.5 million worth is going to end up with £3 million. Not bad for ticking a box.

The wee guy with 1.5 million? :greengrin

[Rocky]

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 Hibs end up worth £40 million, say, it ain't going to be because we're still a mediocre wee Scottish club. The only way to double the value is more fans, more Europe, more trophies. That's aligned to what we want as fans. Doubling our £££s is a fun side effect.

[Rocky]

The wee guy with 1.5 million? :greengrin

HSL. Apparently the victims in all this.

[Glory Lurker]

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