Hsl agm

[hibbydad]

If I perceive that HSL are in any way hindering outside investment being made in the club I will be cancelling my monthly direct debit immediately.
Trust me I was at the meeting and they are going to try to block the investment so I am cancelling my direct debit

[lucky]

HSL have 4000 members how many were at the meeting? Surely an electronic vote of the full membership should have taken place rather than a handful who turned up at a meeting.

[Brightside]

HSL have 4000 members how many were at the meeting? Surely an electronic vote of the full membership should have taken place rather than a handful who turned up at a meeting.

Still waiting for those numbers.

[Golden Bear]

Still waiting for those numbers.

Correct.

Percentages tell us nothing. Not to mention the number of abstentions.

[CentreLine]

Still waiting for those numbers.

I’m not convinced HSL have any need to release numbers. Provided the meeting had a quorum then it meets the rules. The fact that as many as sixty people were present covers that in spades, without the proxy votes sent in. Every member of HSL had the opportunity to vote. What exactly is the problem with that?. HSL is a limited company. If you have any issue with how you think they are behaving I’m not sure what the appropriate route would be to go down but suppose companies house would be a good start. Mumping on a supporter forum is just pointless noise.

[Bostonhibby]

Still waiting for those numbers.I'd like to know the numbers as well, worth noting that HSL did the same as the club for the impending AGM by using a proxy for those who couldn't get there on the night, hopefully everyone eligible to vote got one so non delivery aside surely every member who wanted to vote will have had a chance to air their views?

Got to say I know a few who did and they all instructed the proxy nominee to vote in favour of the investment.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[BoomtownHibees]

I’m not convinced they have 4000 actual members. Can anyone confirm if that’s the case or if it’s 4000 folk who have donated at some point?

[Brightside]

I’m not convinced HSL have any need to release numbers. Provided the meeting had a quorum then it meets the rules. The fact that as many as sixty people were present covers that in spades, without the proxy votes sent in. Every member of HSL had the opportunity to vote. What exactly is the problem with that?. HSL is a limited company. If you have any issue with how you think they are behaving I’m not sure what the appropriate route would be to go down but suppose companies house would be a good start. Mumping on a supporter forum is just pointless noise.

They said they’d release the numbers.

[greenginger]

Still waiting for those numbers.

I emailed HSL asking for the total number of votes counted at the AGM poll.

No answer was the only reply. :dunno:

[CentreLine]

They said they’d release the numbers.

Then that’s great but they don’t have to. Any more than the club, any business for that matter, need to. Their release certainly said more or less 75% of votes were against the motion. That vote was understandable and will surely have been anticipated by the club. After all a vote for would have been to fly in the face of the HSL raison d’etre. It is certainly not the business of a fan forum full of random lurkers in amongst the genuine supporters.

[Golden Bear]

I'd like to know the numbers as well, worth noting that HSL did the same as the club for the impending AGM by using a proxy for those who couldn't get there on the night, hopefully everyone eligible to vote got one so non delivery aside surely every member who wanted to vote will have had a chance to air their views?

Got to say I know a few who did and they all instructed the proxy nominee to vote in favour of the investment.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

If there's any possibility at all that the legality of the vote by HSL can be challenged then it certainly should be. This is far too important an issue for a handful of people to dictate what I suspect, that the overwhelming majority of the Hibs support want - ie added investment and subsequently a better team.

[Pagan Hibernia]

If there's any possibility at all that the legality of the vote by HSL can be challenged then it certainly should be. This is far too important an issue for a handful of people to dictate what I suspect, that the overwhelming majority of the Hibs support want - ie added investment and subsequently a better team.

The overwhelming majority of the hibs support arent HSL members. If they are they'd have been entitled to vote.

Do you think Hibs fans should be able to challenge Leslie Rob on his vote too?

[CentreLine]

If there's any possibility at all that the legality of the vote by HSL can be challenged then it certainly should be. This is far too important an issue for a handful of people to dictate what I suspect, that the overwhelming majority of the Hibs support want - ie added investment and subsequently a better team.

I think everyone understands your passion but this is a business decision. In the same way as the club is engineering a business decision to marginalise if not remove the small shareholder from the club ownership model.

It is completely understandable that neither party see the place to consider business being a football forum.

[Stairway 2 7]

Then that’s great but they don’t have to. Any more than the club, any business for that matter, need to. Their release certainly said more or less 75% of votes were against the motion. That vote was understandable and will surely have been anticipated by the club. After all a vote for would have been to fly in the face of the HSL raison d’etre. It is certainly not the business of a fan forum full of random lurkers in amongst the genuine supporters.

What's best for hibs should trump their raison d'etre, as it did during Covid. No one actually cares about HSL as an entity we care about the club. Its fair enough if they think voting no is best for the club though mind

I've said before and it refers more to hibs than HSL who are a small group but not doing online voting is embarrassing for the club in this day and age. Your wanting at least a third of available voters casting to give it legitimacy. Online AGM voting is easy, cheap and secure

[Bostonhibby]

If there's any possibility at all that the legality of the vote by HSL can be challenged then it certainly should be. This is far too important an issue for a handful of people to dictate what I suspect, that the overwhelming majority of the Hibs support want - ie added investment and subsequently a better team.I don't think HSL have done anything wrong in this process, at the end of the day they represent a group of members who they hold shares on behalf of and they have sought the views of those members on the proposals which affect what they do on behalf of those members.

As others have said the very proposals prevent HSL doing what it was set up for. I suspect it's time has gone but am not surprised at the apparent vote outcome.I don't think it makes any difference unless there is a reason for Robb to align with HSL.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[TrinityHFC]

If there's any possibility at all that the legality of the vote by HSL can be challenged then it certainly should be. This is far too important an issue for a handful of people to dictate what I suspect, that the overwhelming majority of the Hibs support want - ie added investment and subsequently a better team.

What they say on their website:

How often do Hibernian Supporters expect to consult the members, or will members simply elect a board who will have executive authority to make all decisions regarding how the Hibernian Supporters shareholding will vote?
We shall consult clearly before every AGM. However, in general terms consultation requirements will be driven by the members. Voting intentions at the AGM will be determined by a simple majority of the membership.

They don’t do this. This is the first time they’ve asked members how to vote and they selected the two resolutions to be voted on.

They also didn’t do this on a simple majority of members.

Their articles contradict the Q&A on the website. A quorum at a meeting is 20 members so in reality 11 people can decide how HSL vote.

It is all a bit of a mess.

[Chipper1875]

If there's any possibility at all that the legality of the vote by HSL can be challenged then it certainly should be. This is far too important an issue for a handful of people to dictate what I suspect, that the overwhelming majority of the Hibs support want - ie added investment and subsequently a better team.

Why ? It’s. Changing nothing

[DanishJohn]

If there's any possibility at all that the legality of the vote by HSL can be challenged then it certainly should be. This is far too important an issue for a handful of people to dictate what I suspect, that the overwhelming majority of the Hibs support want - ie added investment and subsequently a better team.

You better watch what you are typing . Your statement could be construed as you are saying perhaps HSL have done something the opposite to Legal and that is illegal. Yes ?

HSL have done nothing illegal , and you might just be getting into the area of libel.

[DanishJohn]

What they say on their website:

How often do Hibernian Supporters expect to consult the members, or will members simply elect a board who will have executive authority to make all decisions regarding how the Hibernian Supporters shareholding will vote?
We shall consult clearly before every AGM. However, in general terms consultation requirements will be driven by the members. Voting intentions at the AGM will be determined by a simple majority of the membership.

They don’t do this. This is the first time they’ve asked members how to vote and they selected the two resolutions to be voted on.

They also didn’t do this on a simple majority of members.

Their articles contradict the Q&A on the website. A quorum at a meeting is 20 members so in reality 11 people can decide how HSL vote.

It is all a bit of a mess.

You are becoming very tiresome. We all get it . You don't like HSL or the people that run it.

Can you answer 3 questions for me ?

Are you a member of HSL
If You are a member, did you ever contact them to offer your services when they asked for volunteers?
With your undoubted skills and vast knowledge, did you ever consider becoming a director of HSL ?

[CentreLine]

What they say on their website:

How often do Hibernian Supporters expect to consult the members, or will members simply elect a board who will have executive authority to make all decisions regarding how the Hibernian Supporters shareholding will vote?
We shall consult clearly before every AGM. However, in general terms consultation requirements will be driven by the members. Voting intentions at the AGM will be determined by a simple majority of the membership.

They don’t do this. This is the first time they’ve asked members how to vote and they selected the two resolutions to be voted on.

They also didn’t do this on a simple majority of members.

Their articles contradict the Q&A on the website. A quorum at a meeting is 20 members so in reality 11 people can decide how HSL vote.

It is all a bit of a mess.

Certainly this last one was the first AGM
I have attended for HSL but I have certainly had the opportunity to vote in the past. Just chose to ignore those opportunities, as I suspect a lot of members did this one. The directors can only act on what has been passed. I absolutely get people’s disappointment but if they chose, not to or were unable to buy shares in the club, in HSL or individually then they are, regrettably, excluded from business decisions.

If the numbers are correct, Gordons, with 67%,cannot rely on HSL 15%. They must therefore rely on the 8% held by individual supporters (unlikely) or the 10% owned by Mr Robb. (Very likely).

[Brightside]

Certainly this last one was the first AGM
I have attended for HSL but I have certainly had the opportunity to vote in the past. Just chose to ignore those opportunities, as I suspect a lot of members did this one. The directors can only act on what has been passed. I absolutely get people’s disappointment but if they chose, not to or were unable to buy shares in the club, in HSL or individually then they are, regrettably, excluded from business decisions.

If the numbers are correct, Gordons, with 67%,cannot rely on HSL 15%. They must therefore rely on the 8% held by individual supporters (unlikely) or the 10% owned by Mr Robb. (Very likely).

Not sure why you think individual supporters won’t vote for it. Certainly the shareholders I know are all voting for it.

[CentreLine]

Not sure why you think individual supporters won’t vote for it. Certainly the shareholders I know are all voting for it.

I believe they will but sadly not all 8% will be able to vote for many reasons so the whole 8% would not be available to the club. It then comes down to Mr Robb. It would be hard to believe he has not already declared his position but if he voted against ones have to be for a good reason. HSL reason is obvious. His would be less so.

[Eyrie]

I’m not convinced they have 4000 actual members. Can anyone confirm if that’s the case or if it’s 4000 folk who have donated at some point?

The threshold for membership was total donations of £225, so I can easily believe that there are 4000 members in total.

The number of active members still contributing after passing the threshold will be much smaller. I continued for a few years before stopping (pre-Covid) and it didn't feel right for me to take part in the HSL vote.

[Golden Bear]

Why ? It’s. Changing nothing

If the HSL voting procedures can be proved to be incorrect in any way then hopefully someone with much more clout than me should challenge it.

[Just Alf]

You are becoming very tiresome. We all get it . You don't like HSL or the people that run it.

Can you answer 3 questions for me ?

Are you a member of HSL
If You are a member, did you ever contact them to offer your services when they asked for volunteers?
With your undoubted skills and vast knowledge, did you ever consider becoming a director of HSL ?Answer to 1st question is no I'd guess.

Whilst we don't get much contact from HSL over the years I've always received an invite to their AGM where the upcoming Hibs AGM gets discussed.

[WestStandWillie]

HSL seem intent in keeping the club in a malaise.

Imagine trying to block investment into the club. Fools.

[RMQ1967]

I’m not convinced HSL have any need to release numbers. Provided the meeting had a quorum then it meets the rules. The fact that as many as sixty people were present covers that in spades, without the proxy votes sent in. Every member of HSL had the opportunity to vote. What exactly is the problem with that?. HSL is a limited company. If you have any issue with how you think they are behaving I’m not sure what the appropriate route would be to go down but suppose companies house would be a good start. Mumping on a supporter forum is just pointless noise.

I don't disagree but I think it would be good to have some perspective on the numbers that voted. It's been stated that HSL have/had around 4000 or so contributors, and that seems significant.

However, consider there were maybe 70 people, tops, at the AGM. As the room was filling up, someone asked one of the directors if there had received many proxy votes. If I recall correctly, the response was something along the lines of - yes similar numbers to what we have here (I'm paraphrasing but that was the gist of it). Now I want to say that I might hvae misheard and it might be utter pi** (I'm pretty sure of what I heard) but I wonder if anyone else that was there can confirm that they heard that same statement??

So if you say 70 max present, and 70 max by proxy I'd estimate 140 maximum votes (at the very top). That doesn't make if any less democratic than if 3000 votes have been cast but HSL members want to know and I don't think there should be any issue with being transparent about the numbers.

[CapitalGreen]

I’m not convinced HSL have any need to release numbers. Provided the meeting had a quorum then it meets the rules. The fact that as many as sixty people were present covers that in spades, without the proxy votes sent in. Every member of HSL had the opportunity to vote. What exactly is the problem with that?. HSL is a limited company. If you have any issue with how you think they are behaving I’m not sure what the appropriate route would be to go down but suppose companies house would be a good start. Mumping on a supporter forum is just pointless noise.

Surely it’s up to the members if they want the numbers published?

[RMQ1967]

HSL seem intent in keeping the club in a malaise.

Imagine trying to block investment into the club. Fools.

They are not trying to block the investment - they just don't agree that they should be blocked from buying more shares.

[brog]

I’m not convinced HSL have any need to release numbers. Provided the meeting had a quorum then it meets the rules. The fact that as many as sixty people were present covers that in spades, without the proxy votes sent in. Every member of HSL had the opportunity to vote. What exactly is the problem with that?. HSL is a limited company. If you have any issue with how you think they are behaving I’m not sure what the appropriate route would be to go down but suppose companies house would be a good start. Mumping on a supporter forum is just pointless noise.

I'm a member of HSL since inception. I didn't get opportunity to vote. I suspect I'm not alone.

[Pretty Boy]

If the HSL voting procedures can be proved to be incorrect in any way then hopefully someone with much more clout than me should challenge it.

That would seem an extraordinary waste of both time and money.

The HSL vote is highly unlikely to impact the resolutions put forward by the club. When they pass HSLs shareholding will become (even more) negligible. In addition the percentage of shares in the hands of fans drops well below 25% so both HSL and individual shareholders no longer have a potential blocking vote on future special resolutions anyway. What HSL decide to do in future for as long as they are able to attend AGMs will impact nobody, what the majority shareholders want from now on, they will get.

There may well be a case but it would be the most pyrrhic of victories ever. A chance to say 'told you so' that costs a lot of money and changes nothing.

[CentreLine]

Surely it’s up to the members if they want the numbers published?

That is absolutely true. Inasmuch as, if HSL send the numbers breakdown to us they will be on here in a flash. That’s a member choice I’d say but would be dead against the directors directly conducting HSL business on a random fan forum.

[Pagan Hibernia]

You better watch what you are typing . Your statement could be construed as you are saying perhaps HSL have done something the opposite to Legal and that is illegal. Yes ?

HSL have done nothing illegal , and you might just be getting into the area of libel.

I don't include Golden Bear in this as I don't believe he implied anything seriously dodgy is going on, but certainly there have been plenty of insidious suggestions online over the last couple of days.

Of course these sleekit wee cowards on twitter and facebook are neither brave enough or stupid enough to spell out their allegations in black and white. Just nasty, snidey little remarks without an ounce of truth or anything factual, but which they know will be lapped up by some of their empty headed followers who will believe anything they read.

It feels very much like 2015 again with some of the anti HSL lies flying about.

[CapitalGreen]

They are not trying to block the investment - they just don't agree that they should be blocked from buying more shares.

Resolutions 5 & 6 were conditional resolutions so by voting against them they are voting to block the investment. It’s really that simple and this was stated within the materials published by the club. It’s concerning that people seemed to have voted without grasping this.

[Brightside]

They are not trying to block the investment - they just don't agree that they should be blocked from buying more shares.

They could do that next year if they like.

[matty_f]

They could do that next year if they like.

Is it right that it's the case that the 'ban' on buying shared would only be valid until the next AGM?

[RMQ1967]

Resolutions 5 & 6 were conditional resolutions so by voting against them they are voting to block the investment. It’s really that simple and this was stated within the materials published by the club. It’s concerning that people seemed to have voted without grasping this.

You failing to grasp that people were not voting to block the investment. They were invited to consider that the resolutions went against HSL's ability to purchase more shares, with FULL VISIBILITY of the statement
The Board confirms that it intends to utilise this authority to effect the Loan Conversion and the BKFE Investment. To the extent this resolution is not passed, neither the Loan Conversion nor the BKFE Investment shall
proceed.”

No-one at the meeting was under any illusion that voting against the resolution COULD block the investment, nor were they under any illusion that their vote would likely be meaningless is the scheme of things, but it's important you understand that those who did so were not voting against the investment - they were voting against the resolution. As far as I could tell, everyone wanted the investment - some also wanted to be able to buy shares.

I and those around me voted for the resolution, I still surprised by the size of the majority TBH.

[RMQ1967]

They could do that next year if they like.

Yes absolutely but I think there's also concern that some kind of compulsory purchase scheme might be implemented somehow - don't think it was covered at the AGM but I'm sure it was covered here in another thread.

[Stairway 2 7]

Its been made clear voting no on the resolutions means no deal and no £12 million, unfair probably but that's the rules set unfortunately.

I and everyone I've asked have asked and almost all on here said they voted yes. Either a coincidence who I've spoken to or some are saying the did when they didn’t? Understandable as there is a lot of anger around it.

[Brightside]

Is it right that it's the case that the 'ban' on buying shared would only be valid until the next AGM?

Yes.

[CentreLine]

Yes absolutely but I think there's also concern that some kind of compulsory purchase scheme might be implemented somehow - don't think it was covered at the AGM but I'm sure it was covered here in another thread.

It was covered at the HSL AGM. It’s this drag through thingy, ooh wee Mrs, something like that. The thing where a buyer holding 80%of shares can compulsorily purchase all of our shares whether we like it or not. That was within one of the proposals. It was also pointed out that once proposal 5 is passed proposal 6 is almost complete anyway.

[CapitalGreen]

You failing to grasp that people were not voting to block the investment. They were invited to consider that the resolutions went against HSL's ability to purchase more shares, with FULL VISIBILITY of the statement
The Board confirms that it intends to utilise this authority to effect the Loan Conversion and the BKFE Investment. To the extent this resolution is not passed, neither the Loan Conversion nor the BKFE Investment shall
proceed.”

No-one at the meeting was under any illusion that voting against the resolution COULD block the investment, nor were they under any illusion that their vote would likely be meaningless is the scheme of things, but it's important you understand that those who did so were not voting against the investment - they were voting against the resolution. As far as I could tell, everyone wanted the investment - some also wanted to be able to buy shares.

I and those around me voted for the resolution, I still surprised by the size of the majority TBH.

Unfortunately you can’t choose to suspend the conditions of a conditional resolution when voting so by voting against they have de-facto voted against the investment.

The choices are either A) vote for the resolutions and therefore in favour of the investment or B) vote against the resolutions and therefore not in favour of the investment. There is no magical option C) vote against the resolutions but in favour of the investment.

[Hibernian Verse]

Unfortunately you can’t choose to suspend the conditions of a conditional resolution when voting so by voting against they have de-facto voted against the investment.

The choices are either A) vote for the resolutions and therefore in favour of the investment or B) vote against the resolutions and therefore not in favour of the investment. There is no magical option C) vote against the resolutions but in favour of the investment.

And that is one of the reasons fan ownership should be bottom of the list of options. People who don’t know what they’re voting for, voting against the betterment of the club.

[RMQ1967]

Its been made clear voting no on the resolutions means no deal and no £12 million, unfair probably but that's the rules set unfortunately.

I and everyone I've asked have asked and almost all on here said they voted yes. Either a coincidence who I've spoken to or some are saying the did when they didn’t? Understandable as there is a lot of anger around it.

Yes ultimately it's not a good look for HSL and will probably result in a sharp decline in it's financial contributors. It's a real shame as the guys running it are good guys with the best interests of HSL and Hibs at heart and they could still run it as a valuable organisation for support of all things Hibs.

I don't believe for a second there's been any impropriety in terms of the voting process but perhaps HSL providing transparency in terms of voting numbers and the independence of vote counters and the vote verification process would cut the feet from anyone making such allegations.

[Baldy Foghorn]

Its been made clear voting no on the resolutions means no deal and no £12 million, unfair probably but that's the rules set unfortunately.

I and everyone I've asked have asked and almost all on here said they voted yes. Either a coincidence who I've spoken to or some are saying the did when they didn’t? Understandable as there is a lot of anger around it.

12m?

[CentreLine]

Unfortunately you can’t choose to suspend the conditions of a conditional resolution when voting so by voting against they have de-facto voted against the investment.

The choices are either A) vote for the resolutions and therefore in favour of the investment or B) vote against the resolutions and therefore not in favour of the investment. There is no magical option C) vote against the resolutions but in favour of the investment.

The club will be aware that their wording put HSL in an impossible position and will have taken in to account that HSL were unlikely to vote in favour of a proposal that was 180 degrees agains their saison d'etre.

I am certain the club will present a good case on Tuesday and give shareholders, generally, the confidence to vote in favour. Simply dangling millions infront of people can be a very tempting prospect but needs weighing up. They must surely tell us more. These are serious American businessmen, not former Russian submariners.

Digressing a little, the other day I was told, in an email, there was a large sum of unclaimed money awaiting me in a vault somewhere. Try as I might, I could not bring myself to click on the link and claim it. I wanted lot information than that before clicking on their link.

[offshorehibby]

Unfortunately you can’t choose to suspend the conditions of a conditional resolution when voting so by voting against they have de-facto voted against the investment.

The choices are either A) vote for the resolutions and therefore in favour of the investment or B) vote against the resolutions and therefore not in favour of the investment. There is no magical option C) vote against the resolutions but in favour of the investment.

Do you honestly think Foley and the BK's would walk away after putting all this ground work in to get to this stage. They are business men and have tried to structure any deal to best suit them. My betting is they have a plan B up their sleeve just in case resolution 5 & 6 never went their way.

I want this investment as much as the next man but would also like to retain my personal share holing and HSL holding in Hibs.

[RMQ1967]

Unfortunately you can’t choose to suspend the conditions of a conditional resolution when voting so by voting against they have de-facto voted against the investment.

The choices are either A) vote for the resolutions and therefore in favour of the investment or B) vote against the resolutions and therefore not in favour of the investment. There is no magical option C) vote against the resolutions but in favour of the investment.


And that is one of the reasons fan ownership should be bottom of the list of options. People who don’t know what they’re voting for, voting against the betterment of the club.

Yep - everyone at the AGM knew that. I wish people would stop saying people didn't know what they were voting for - it was clearly explained and debated - they absolutely did :wink:

I do agree with your point about fan ownership and you can begin to see why Ron Gordon wasn't in favour of it. If this vote result had really mattered, Hibs fans would have shafted their own club. You could also argue that if Hibs had really needed their support they'd have engaged more to allay any fears and come to a mutually beneficial agreement (as they must have done with Leslie Robb).

This vote kills the idea of fan ownership for me.

[CapitalGreen]

Do you honestly think Foley and the BK's would walk away after putting all this ground work in to get to this stage. They are business men and have tried to structure any deal to best suit them. My betting is they have a plan B up their sleeve just in case resolution 5 & 6 never went their way.

I want this investment as much as the next man but would also like to retain my personal share holing and HSL holding in Hibs.

They might not walk away but I’d expect the terms of the investment to change. The current proposal is to pay £6m for 30%, if they are no longer getting 30%, i wouldn’t expect them to be paying £6m.

[CapitalGreen]

The club will be aware that their wording put HSL in an impossible position and will have taken in to account that HSL were unlikely to vote in favour of a proposal that was 180 degrees agains their saison d'etre.

I am certain the club will present a good case on Tuesday and give shareholders, generally, the confidence to vote in favour. Simply dangling millions infront of people can be a very tempting prospect but needs weighing up. They must surely tell us more. These are serious American businessmen, not former Russian submariners.

Digressing a little, the other day I was told, in an email, there was a large sum of unclaimed money awaiting me in a vault somewhere. Try as I might, I could not bring myself to click on the link and claim it. I wanted lot information than that before clicking on their link.

There is nothing I disagree with above but it doesn’t change the fact that on this vote it is not possible to take a position where you are against Resolution 5 & 6 but in favour of the investment. If you are against Resolution 5 & 6 then you are against the investment proposition in its current state.

[CentreLine]

Yep - everyone at the AGM knew that. I wish people would stop saying people didn't know what they were voting for - it was clearly explained and debated - they absolutely did :wink:

I do agree with your point about fan ownership and you can begin to see why Ron Gordon wasn't in favour of it. If this vote result had really mattered, Hibs fans would have shafted their own club. You could also argue that if Hibs had really needed their support they'd have engaged more to allay any fears and come to a mutually beneficial agreement (as they must have done with Leslie Robb).

This vote kills the idea of fan ownership for me.

👍🏻 good post.

[Chipper1875]

https://hiberniansupporters.co.uk/hibernian-supporters-agm-update/

[green day]

https://hiberniansupporters.co.uk/hibernian-supporters-agm-update/

80 votes........😂

It's run like a bowling club

[Ringothedog]

12m?

I guess that is the £5m debt for equity swap and the £6m ish for the new shares bought by the BK investment. If it doesn’t go through on Tuesday that’s the approximate figure we are potentially losing out on.

[Chipper1875]

80 votes........😂

It's run like a bowling club

They can’t force people to vote . My mates are HSL and didn’t vote . Also, others who are individual shareholders and aren’t voting either at the AGM on Tuesday or will be going

[Stairway 2 7]

12m?

Yes roughly £6 million in debt turning into shares and a further £6 million for new shares being created.

[Baldy Foghorn]

Yes roughly £6 million in debt turning into shares and a further £6 million for new shares being created.

Cheers

[Baldy Foghorn]

I guess that is the £5m debt for equity swap and the £6m ish for the new shares bought by the BK investment. If it doesn’t go through on Tuesday that’s the approximate figure we are potentially losing out on.

Cheers B

[Brightside]

The club’s Resolution 5 seeks to give the club approval to disapply pre-emption rights following the issuance of new shares – meaning that shareholders who would normally be given the opportunity to purchase shares are being asked to voluntarily give up these rights.

That’s from HSL. They didn’t clearly say it was until the next AGM.

[Callum_62]

Is getting 2% of the apparent membership to vote enough to call it clearly as we are voting against as it's the members wishes?

Crazy low numbers tbh

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[CapitalGreen]

https://hiberniansupporters.co.uk/hibernian-supporters-agm-update/

Thanks to HSL for publishing the voting numbers.

Zero mention that the resolutions were conditional.

Then you have this paragraph:

For the avoidance of doubt, there was no vote on merits or otherwise of the proposed Black Knight investment in the club. Reports which suggest any opinion has been given on the general introduction of finance into the club are inaccurate.

Do HSL understand what conditional resolutions are?

[Ringothedog]

80 votes........😂

It's run like a bowling club

In effect the decision to vote against was made by 1.675% of the membership of 4000 eligible voters

[CentreLine]

80 votes........😂

It's run like a bowling club

It’s run like any small, shareholding, business. If people choose not to engage, the company can only work with what it has. It would be illegal for the directors to otherwise. Guessing is not an option, regardless of the outside noise.

[green day]

They can’t force people to vote . My mates are HSL and didn’t vote . Also, others who are individual shareholders and aren’t voting either at the AGM on Tuesday or will be going

Reason I was laughing is that there really should be a minimum number of members voting for it to be considered relevant.

60 votes against the proposals could see us losing out on the figures noted above.

[CropleyWasGod]

Reason I was laughing is that there really should be a minimum number of members voting for it to be considered relevant.

60 votes against the proposals could see us losing out on the figures noted above.

Don't see why. If people choose not to vote, that's their choice.

If there is any blame to be laid here, you could argue that it should be against those who didn't vote. By their silence, the vote went the way it did.

[Chipper1875]

In effect the decision to vote against was made by 1.675% of the membership of 4000 eligible voters

Are all 4000 full eligible voting members?

[Pagan Hibernia]

80 votes........😂

It's run like a bowling club

If its run like a bowling club then that's entirely the fault of the members who can't be bothered getting involved.

There's people like brog who didn't receive any notifications from HSL about their agm, and that's a very serious problem, but for the probably hundreds who did, and didn't vote, you can't then cry foul over the result.

[green day]

Don't see why. If people choose not to vote, that's their choice.

If there is any blame to be laid here, you could argue that it should be against those who didn't vote. By their silence, the vote went the way it did.

I don't think people actually know what they were really voting for.

What's not in doubt is what was said in public by HSL reps when the investment proposal was first announced.

[Chorley Hibee]

Thanks to HSL for publishing the voting numbers.

Zero mention that the resolutions were conditional.

Then you have this paragraph:


Do HSL understand what conditional resolutions are?

Obviously not given that paragraph.

Ridiculous really.

[CentreLine]

Reason I was laughing is that there really should be a minimum number of members voting for it to be considered relevant.

60 votes against the proposals could see us losing out on the figures noted above.

That’s because it’s one member one vote. The club proposal could be voted through by three people, two of whom are already committed by inference. That’s business and we all have to live with the consequences.
The agreement or otherwise to this investment now essentially lies in the hands of one person. How many thousands of shareholders are there? It makes no difference.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't think people actually know what they were really voting for.

What's not in doubt is what was said in public by HSL reps when the investment proposal was first announced.

That's a common reaction when a vote goes "the wrong way" :cb

[green day]

That's a common reaction when a vote goes "the wrong way" :cb

I know what you are saying, but my gripe is nothing to do with which way it went.
But you really can't deny that "the ordinary punter" might struggle to work out what was contained in the proxy vote form (link half way down the page) or what it meant.

https://hiberniansupporters.co.uk/hibernian-supporters-agm/

[truehibernian]

That's a common reaction when a vote goes "the wrong way" :cb

That’s true CWG but when I asked a question as to whether HSL had seen the full investment proposals a poster confirmed they hadn’t as the club hadn’t engaged them - which for me is very very poor of the Club and a shabby way to treat a shareholder group of supporters.

That said, it seems to me they’ve voted on a subject without seeing the “manifesto” or detail, which in turn makes it an ill informed vote, something that the Club could have avoided and engaged and assisted them with to ensure a more rounded and informed voting choice.

[Stairway 2 7]

There next vote could be where to put £350,000 or perhaps a million if shares are sold. I'd advise them to get an online voting company a company like Choice voting is about £50 for a vote with 4000 people is easy and secure. It'll also be a big decision with lots of emotions. The more votes the better. I'd have also asked for a vote on all resolution even if HSL couldn't sway it but can understand why they didn't.

Hopefully the resolutions pass on Tuesday and HSL can get their lives back for a bit

[brog]

That's certainly not the kind of criticism of HSL I was targeting in my post. I think much of that is fair.

The people questioning the character of those involved, stating HSL have 'done nothing' for Hibs and making claims that border on accusations of dishonesty are well out of line though. Thankfully there hasn't been much, if any, of that on here but it is rife on other platforms.

I agree PB. I posted above about my (continuing) poor communication experiences with HSL. That in no way is intended to denigrate the people running HSL. I know from personal conversations just how much effort and unpaid time these great supporters put in with the objective of helping our club. Unfortunately It's very difficult for a non professional organisation to cope in ain increasingly commercial world. I thank them again but I think there needs to be a rethink about the futureof HSL.

[TheSouthMoroccan]

I’ve just read the whole thread. Clearly a tricky situation for HSL, turkeys don’t normally vote for Christmas, so given their reason for existing, I can understand why they voted against the resolutions. If the majority steakholders are against a fan ownership model then I’m not sure what else HSL can achieve. You only have to read some of the ill thought through comments on this thread to understand why you might not want fans directly running the club, hence I believe why old Budgie still keeps control at the other end of town. I get there may be some potential downsides with the Black Knights deal but the opportunity cost is such that we really have to take the plunge. I hope Mr Robb is of the same opinion.

[truehibernian]

I agree PB. I posted above about my (continuing) poor communication experiences with HSL. That in no way is intended to denigrate the people running HSL. I know from personal conversations just how much effort and unpaid time these great supporters put in with the objective of helping our club. Unfortunately It's very difficult for a non professional organisation to cope in ain increasingly commercial world. I thank them again but I think there needs to be a rethink about the futureof HSL.


I’m in the same boat as you Brog, I invested because I saw the group as a really great opportunity to grow numbers and contributions but was dismayed and disappointed at the lack of communication and creative drive to grow HSL. At the time I’d suggested (here) that I’d be happy for a share of funds to go towards employing a local agency to market the campaign to the much wider fan base, but many wanted all monies going to the club. That’s fair enough, but it seemed adhoc and lacking a real direction of travel. I didn’t have time myself to help or volunteer however if it were to reinvent itself I’m now in a position I can assist. But there needs to be a complete rethink of strategy, branding and marketing and communication to supporters.

[greenginger]

Only 80 votes cast ?

Were the postal votes counted ? Myself and a few mates did postal votes and I’m sure a few people on Hibs.net have indicated they put in a postal vote as well.

By all accounts there was a good turnout last Thursday night as well so how come only 80 votes ?

[TrinityHFC]

Is it right that it's the case that the 'ban' on buying shared would only be valid until the next AGM?

It isn’t a ban on buying shares. It is a resolution allowing shareholders to waive their right to have first option in buying the new shares that are being issued.

As it stands now no one can buy new shares anyway. There’s like £12m value of new shares being issued in this transaction. HSL are essentially saying that shareholders should be buying those first.

I don’t think they have the funds to buy their percentage of those shares next week and I don’t think the reaming shareholders do, or have the appetite to do either.

[TrinityHFC]

Reason I was laughing is that there really should be a minimum number of members voting for it to be considered relevant.

60 votes against the proposals could see us losing out on the figures noted above.

The minimum in the articles is 20.

[matty_f]

It isn’t a ban on buying shares. It is a resolution allowing shareholders to waive their right to have first option in buying the new shares that are being issued.

As it stands now no one can buy new shares anyway. There’s like £12m value of new shares being issued in this transaction. HSL are essentially saying that shareholders should be buying those first.

I don’t think they have the funds to buy their percentage of those shares next week and I don’t think the reaming shareholders do, or have the appetite to do either.

I know, I put it in inverted commas to reflect that it wasn't an actual ban but, as it had been covered already, just used that phrase to save some words.

[OfficialHSL]

80 votes........😂

It's run like a bowling club

Greenday

Are you a Member of HSL ?

HSL

[TrinityHFC]

You are becoming very tiresome. We all get it . You don't like HSL or the people that run it.

Can you answer 3 questions for me ?

Are you a member of HSL
If You are a member, did you ever contact them to offer your services when they asked for volunteers?
With your undoubted skills and vast knowledge, did you ever consider becoming a director of HSL ?

Yes I’m a member. The other questions are irrelevant.

[green day]

The minimum in the articles is 20.

Thanks, that's remarkably low as a percentage.

Anyway, my last comment on this.

Let's see what Tuesday brings.

[greenginger]

Yes I’m a member. The other questions are irrelevant.

Did you attend the meeting or put in a postal vote ( not interested which way )

[weecounty hibby]

I find it very hard to believe that on such an important issue only 80 of the supposed 4000 members bothered to vote. As has been mentioned above there were 60 to 70 in person at the meeting. So only 20 or so who had a chance to vote indirectly did? Seems very very low on both

[ancient hibee]

The club should have had a meeting with HSL to explain what is happening after all they are the second biggest shareholder. I suspect they didn’t because everything is tied up. Very arrogant I think.

[green day]

Greenday

Are you a Member of HSL ?

HSL

Yes

[RMQ1967]

It isn’t a ban on buying shares. It is a resolution allowing shareholders to waive their right to have first option in buying the new shares that are being issued.

As it stands now no one can buy new shares anyway. There’s like £12m value of new shares being issued in this transaction. HSL are essentially saying that shareholders should be buying those first.

I don’t think they have the funds to buy their percentage of those shares next week and I don’t think the reaming shareholders do, or have the appetite to do either.

They wouldn't need to buy the full allocation they were entitled to. They would be allowed to buy up to that percentage if they had the funds - as they don't they could have bought £300K or whatever.

Not sure if this is why you kept banging on about HSL not having £4m previously?

[offshorehibby]

That’s true CWG but when I asked a question as to whether HSL had seen the full investment proposals a poster confirmed they hadn’t as the club hadn’t engaged them - which for me is very very poor of the Club and a shabby way to treat a shareholder group of supporters.

That said, it seems to me they’ve voted on a subject without seeing the “manifesto” or detail, which in turn makes it an ill informed vote, something that the Club could have avoided and engaged and assisted them with to ensure a more rounded and informed voting choice.


I’m in the same boat as you Brog, I invested because I saw the group as a really great opportunity to grow numbers and contributions but was dismayed and disappointed at the lack of communication and creative drive to grow HSL. At the time I’d suggested (here) that I’d be happy for a share of funds to go towards employing a local agency to market the campaign to the much wider fan base, but many wanted all monies going to the club. That’s fair enough, but it seemed adhoc and lacking a real direction of travel. I didn’t have time myself to help or volunteer however if it were to reinvent itself I’m now in a position I can assist. But there needs to be a complete rethink of strategy, branding and marketing and communication to supporters.

Apologies if you think i am getting at you but the AGM is Tuesday where the proposals will hopefully be set out, when did you expect HSL to take their vote.

HSL have been asking for long enough for volunteers to help out in some way. I 100% agree HSL have missed out on taking the organisation forward over the last few years and making it more professional and easier to deal with.

Maybe if more business/professional type had came on board at an early stage it would be entity now.

[OfficialHSL]

If the HSL voting procedures can be proved to be incorrect in any way then hopefully someone with much more clout than me should challenge it.

Golden Bear

You don't need any clout as far as we are concerned. If you or anyone else believes we have not carried out our AGM correctly please drop us an email and we will investigate whatever you believe we have done incorrectly.

HSL

[SaulGoodman]

Find it bizarre that this whole thing could not go ahead because of the opinion of 80 people.

[Keepthefaith]

The minimum in the articles is 20.

That's ridiculously low. How can an organization with 4k members validate a vote with such low numbers participating. I had paid to hsl in the past, does that make me a member and liable to vote? If so I didn't know about it until started to read this thread too late!

[OfficialHSL]

Yes

As you know HSL is your organisation and we as Directors only act in accordance with our Articles. Your comment would suggest that 80 votes means that your Directors have done something wrong. Have I understood you correctly ?


HSL

[Torto7]

I can't imagine Hibs haven't sounded out Mr Robb on his opinion.

This is frankly ridiculous. We all want the best for the club at the end of the day.

[BoomtownHibees]

Find it bizarre that this whole thing could not go ahead because of the opinion of 80 people.

Only 59 voted against. Imagine losing out on this investment due to that

[Pagan Hibernia]

That's ridiculously low. How can an organization with 4k members validate a vote with such low numbers participating. I had paid to hsl in the past, does that make me a member and liable to vote? If so I didn't know about it until started to read this thread too late!

If your previous payments totalled at least £225 then you are a member and have a vote.

[Pagan Hibernia]

Only 59 voted against. Imagine losing out on this investment due to that

You can rest easy. We're not losing out on the investment.

[Golden Bear]

Golden Bear

You don't need any clout as far as we are concerned. If you or anyone else believes we have not carried out our AGM correctly please drop us an email and we will investigate whatever you believe we have done incorrectly.

HSL

I've absolutely no idea to be honest but if the outcome of this vote proves to be a real threat to Foley's intended investment then maybe someone somewhere is exploring all the options that may or not be open.
I've had my say, I can only hope that the planned investment gets the go ahead at the Club's AGM.

[OfficialHSL]

That's ridiculously low. How can an organization with 4k members validate a vote with such low numbers participating. I had paid to hsl in the past, does that make me a member and liable to vote? If so I didn't know about it until started to read this thread too late!

To become a full Member and have an entitlement to vote required payment of £225. We sent an email to all eligible Members to the email address given to us at the time.


HSL

[glenberviehibee]

I'm a HSL member and had no idea the AGM was on and didn't realise there was a vote.
I've since logged into my account to find the information but would have thought I might have got an email informing me to look as I don't log into my HSL account very often and if I did vote it would have been for the investment

[green day]

As you know HSL is your organisation and we as Directors only act in accordance with our Articles. Your comment would suggest that 80 votes means that your Directors have done something wrong. Have I understood you correctly ?


HSL

Wrong? Not the word I would have used.

But as I mentioned above, I don't think many people would have understood what they were being asked to vote on, or the implications.

Secondly, I don't think the voting system really encouraged a large turnout either.

Neither of these may be HSL fault, but the 80 votes cast is still incredibly low.

Definitely my last comment on this.

Thanks

[truehibernian]

Apologies if you think i am getting at you but the AGM is Tuesday where the proposals will hopefully be set out, when did you expect HSL to take their vote.

HSL have been asking for long enough for volunteers to help out in some way. I 100% agree HSL have missed out on taking the organisation forward over the last few years and making it more professional and easier to deal with.

Maybe if more business/professional type had came on board at an early stage it would be entity now.

I don’t think you’re getting at me at all mate and no apology necessary 👍

I think it’s very very disappointing (and lacks class) that the Club (if true) appear to have not engaged with HSL prior to their vote, and whilst the votes appear to be against dilution or giving up shareholding, I’d have been hoping for communications (from HSL) way prior to their vote as to what and how many attempts HSL had/have made to engage Hibs, The Gordon’s and Ben K, seeing as the BK proposal has been public knowledge and in the public domain for months (admittedly not the fine detail of the investment).

[Keepthefaith]

To become a full Member and have an entitlement to vote required payment of £225. We sent an email to all eligible Members to the email address given to us at the time.


HSL

Found in Spam! What's really disappointing is that I donated as a vehicle to improve our wonderful club. IMO those voting against it are seeking to block that. I certainly wish I'd got the email and knew about such an unprofessionally low threshold for the vote to be valid.

[speedy_gonzales]

To become a full Member and have an entitlement to vote required payment of £225. We sent an email to all eligible Members to the email address given to us at the time.


HSL

I paid £18.75 a month from June '20 until April '22 before stopping my GoCardless subscription. I have around 3800 "Franks", am I a member?
I only ask as I never received an email and have checked my spam folders too.

Edit: just checked my historical emails, last email received from HSL was May '22 for the AGM so guessing when my GoCardless sub stopped, my membership was cancelled?!?

[RMQ1967]

Only 59 voted against. Imagine losing out on this investment due to that

Sure but that's how majority voting works the world over - it could have been 41 votes to 40 or 4000 votes to 10 - the majority wins.

[BoomtownHibees]

Sure but that's how majority voting works the world over - it could have been 41 votes to 40 or 4000 votes to 10 - the majority wins.

I get that. Just would hate to think the opinion of such a low volume of voters could have put a stop to such a monumental opportunity

[Lago]

I'm a member of HSL since inception. I didn't get opportunity to vote. I suspect I'm not alone.
You know I find that shocking, I'm not a member but every member who wanted to vote should have been given that opportunity.

[HFC93]

You know I find that shocking, I'm not a member but every member who wanted to vote should have been given that opportunity.

It's an amateur operation. I got an email about voting and I've never been a full member. Clearly haven't been maintaining their mailing list properly.

[Lago]

They can’t force people to vote . My mates are HSL and didn’t vote . Also, others who are individual shareholders and aren’t voting either at the AGM on Tuesday or will be going
Yeah but 80 votes from a 4000 membership, come on, I would say not even run like a bowling club.

[Ringothedog]

Are all 4000 full eligible voting members?

Good question which you would have to ask HSL the amount of eligible members. I was using the figure being given on here. Regardless the resolution was democratically voted for by a small amount of the membership.

[tamig]

I'm a member of HSL since inception. I didn't get opportunity to vote. I suspect I'm not alone.

Every member got this. If you didn’t, I suspect your contact details are out of date or the email ended up in a spam/junk folder. Did you check? Sent on 07/02. With a few follow-ups afterwards. A lot of dirt being thrown at HSL very unfairly here - implied or otherwise.

Hibernian FC Investment Proposals
Dear member,

We suspect by now you will have read about proposed changes at our club. We too have been aware of various stories, and in some case rumours, about what was being planned, however we felt that it would have been inappropriate to comment or indeed speculate on such stories/rumours given that we had no information from the club.

We now have the formal announcements from the club and, irrespective of your own individual viewpoint, the club’s proposals will clearly have an impact on Hibernian Supporters Limited.

One of the most obvious consequences of the various proposals would see our shareholding in the club being diluted for the second time, from its current level of 15.4% to around 7%.

Clearly there is a lot going on at the moment and this is a complex matter, but the club have now announced the date for their AGM and therefore we must now take the necessary steps to take your voting instructions ahead of the club's meeting taking place at the end of the month.

One of the key principles of Hibernian Supporters has always been to ensure we act in a manner which is consistent with the views of our members. We are an organisation run by members, for our members, and it is with these beliefs in mind that we will seek to consult with as many of you as possible in the next couple of weeks.

We will be asked to vote on these proposals at the AGM on your behalf, and it's important we do this with as much input from our members as possible.

Traditionally it is around this time of the year when we have our own AGM and therefore, we have taken the decision to cover these matters at the Hibernian Supporters AGM which we intend to have on Thursday 22nd February 2024.

The time and venue for this meeting will be confirmed by email tomorrow, along with the agenda and further important details.

While our AGM is the ideal time to discuss these matters, we intend to have a consultation process over the coming weeks to canvass the views of as many of our members as possible.

In the first instance we would encourage members to let us know your thoughts on the matters set to be voted on at the club’s AGM by emailing us at [email protected].

We must stress we have the same information as our fellow shareholders in relation to the proposals and as such will not be able to share any details which were not included in the club’s correspondence this week.

We apologise for these short timescales, but we hope you will appreciate these are not of our making.

Hibernian Supporters directors

[matty_f]

Yeah but 80 votes from a 4000 membership, come on, I would say not even run like a bowling club.

What could they do to encourage more voters, though?

They are saying they emailed all members on the email address given to them, this is the email that was sent:



Hibernian Supporters AGM 2024
Dear member,

Please find below confirmation of the Hibernian Supporters Annual General Meeting, which will take place at the Hibernian Supporters Association at Sunnyside on Thursday 22nd February at 7pm.

In light of the recent investment proposals by the club, and the upcoming Hibernian FC AGM, we invite all members of Hibernian Supporters to share their views on these matters in order to allow us to vote in line with your wishes at the end of the month.

The official Notice of Meeting can be viewed here.

If for any reason you are unable to attend the meeting on 22nd February, but would like to express your views by way of vote, please feel free to nominate a Proxy in your absence.

Details of Proxy arrangements, and the resolutions set to be voted on by members, can be found here and should in the first instance be returned by email to [email protected] more than 48 hours before the meeting.

Please note only full members of Hibernian Supporters will be entitled to attend the AGM and to place a vote.

As ever, your input and attendance on the night would be greatly appreciated.

Our annual accounts for year ending 31st January 2023 can be viewed by clicking here. Our 2024 accounts will be available online in the coming days and made available to all members who request them ahead of our AGM.

If you have any questions, or would like to discuss any of the matters above with us by email, please contact us on [email protected].


This was followed by a reminder on Wed 21st

There was also an email ahead of the AGM which invited voting intentions - I had replied to that one to give my voting intentions (which was acknowledged and confirmed the views would be noted as early as 7th Feb).


It is a low turnout but I'm not sure that's HSL's fault, other than, I suppose having another mechanism to vote but I'm not sure how easy that would be too arrange and test in the short time they had available.

[Chipper1875]

Good question which you would have to ask HSL the amount of eligible members. I was using the figure being given on here. Regardless the resolution was democratically voted for by a small amount of the membership.

Correct

[Chipper1875]

Fair play to HSL for coming on here. The members that feel or indirectly suggest potential administration oversight, have the option to share their evidence.

As my old gran would say … put up or shut up

[Lago]

What could they do to encourage more voters, though?

They are saying they emailed all members on the email address given to them, this is the email that was sent:



This was followed by a reminder on Wed 21st

There was also an email ahead of the AGM which invited voting intentions - I had replied to that one to give my voting intentions (which was acknowledged and confirmed the views would be noted as early as 7th Feb).


It is a low turnout but I'm not sure that's HSL's fault, other than, I suppose having another mechanism to vote but I'm not sure how easy that would be too arrange and test in the short time they had available.
The fact that you ask what they could do to encourage more voters says it all for me, HSL's ship sailed long ago and the lack of direction has resulted in the current situation where fans are now bickering with each other, should the vote on the 27th go against Foley and the Gordon family all hell will break lose in my opinion.

[cabbageandribs1875]

i stopped payments 18 months ago and still received HSL e-mails including the two last week for both the upcoming meeting and the vote result

maybe some haven't updated their e-mail addy :dunno:

[Aldo]

Excuse my ignorance in all this but are HSL voting to block the investment or is this against the dilution and/or the change to future buying of shares in the club?

[Baldy Foghorn]

i stopped payments 18 months ago and still received HSL e-mails including the two last week for both the upcoming meeting and the vote result

maybe some haven't updated their e-mail addy :dunno:

If you paid 225, surely you still remain a member even if you've stopped donations

[Lago]

i stopped payments 18 months ago and still received HSL e-mails including the two last week for both the upcoming meeting and the vote result

maybe some haven't updated their e-mail addy :dunno:
Did you vote :greengrin

[Lago]

If you paid 225, surely you still remain a member even if you've stopped donations
Your question sums up the situation in a way, people aren't aware of what constitutes membership.

[tamig]

I find it very hard to believe that on such an important issue only 80 of the supposed 4000 members bothered to vote. As has been mentioned above there were 60 to 70 in person at the meeting. So only 20 or so who had a chance to vote indirectly did? Seems very very low on both

As others have said, many would have ignored the email or just not been that bothered about voting. I got all the comms but didn’t vote. I suspect I’m in the majority with that. If folk couldn’t be bothered to vote or overlooked it, they have no right to be moaning about it on here or casting any doubt on the validity of the process. The behaviour of some is pretty distasteful.

[Chipper1875]

i stopped payments 18 months ago and still received HSL e-mails including the two last week for both the upcoming meeting and the vote result

maybe some haven't updated their e-mail addy :dunno:

Sadly Admin errors happen… hibs made a boob over keeping share holder register up to date .

[tamig]

If you paid 225, surely you still remain a member even if you've stopped donations

Correct. Once you have reached the 225 threshold you are a full member of HSL. Stopping contributions doesn’t change that.

[Hibbyradge]

Your question sums up the situation in a way, people aren't aware of what constitutes membership.

I've paid £18.75 a month since November 2015 but I have just stopped my direct debit because of all the confusion. Does that mean my membership has stopped?

As an aside, it doesn't seem right that someone who has paid £225 into the scheme has exactly the same voice/power/ votes as someone who has been paying in for years, tbh.

Would it not be fairer if votes were counted using Francks, like share are, instead of one member one vote?

Edit: I haven't read the entire thread so apologies if this has been discussed previously.

[tamig]

Find it bizarre that this whole thing could not go ahead because of the opinion of 80 people.

Thats democracy. Its how it works.

[cabbageandribs1875]

If you paid 225, surely you still remain a member even if you've stopped donations


i'm not quite sure i actually paid the full £225, positive i had only maybe paid around £170 ishy :hmmm:


Did you vote :greengrin


nope, but i would have went to the meeting for more information if i intended voting, i've saw a lot of the ignorant comments against both HSL members and the likes of Jim Adie(on fb/twatter) who knows maybe in a couple of decades fans will look back and wish HSL HAD of stopped it going through, either way whether it was 4000/40000/ or just 60 took part in a vote then so be it, the vitriol shown against HSL and a democratic vote has been quite sad.


boohoo HSL tried to kill our club, that's how it will go

[cabbageandribs1875]

Sadly Admin errors happen… hibs made a boob over keeping share holder register up to date .


well that's not a surprise is it :greengrin

[Chipper1875]

well that's not a surprise is it :greengrin

Hahahah true

[matty_f]

I've paid £18.75 a month since November 2015 but I have just stopped my direct debit because of all the confusion. Does that mean my membership has stopped?

As an aside, it doesn't seem right that someone who has paid £225 into the scheme has exactly the same voice/power/ votes as someone who has been paying in for years, tbh.

Would it not be fairer if votes were counted using Francks, like share are, instead of one member one vote?

Edit: I haven't read the entire thread so apologies if this has been discussed previously.

Once you're a member, you remain a member indefinitely. It's always been one member, one vote - principle being that each voice is as important as the next

[TrinityHFC]

I've paid £18.75 a month since November 2015 but I have just stopped my direct debit because of all the confusion. Does that mean my membership has stopped?

As an aside, it doesn't seem right that someone who has paid £225 into the scheme has exactly the same voice/power/ votes as someone who has been paying in for years, tbh.

Would it not be fairer if votes were counted using Francks, like share are, instead of one member one vote?

Edit: I haven't read the entire thread so apologies if this has been discussed previously.

Aye I get it but it is also a bit contradictory. HSL would like more shares in Hibs to be able to block stuff but it is one member one vote in their own system.

[Chipper1875]

Aye I get it but it is also a bit contradictory. HSL would like more shares in Hibs to be able to block stuff but it is one member one vote in their own system.

I’m
Shocked you are having a pop at HSL. It was made clear when it was launched, this is how it worked . You paid your money on this basis. Now you cry on social media .

Give it a rest please. You are coming over as a Poundland Warren Buffet

[brog]

Every member got this. If you didn’t, I suspect your contact details are out of date or the email ended up in a spam/junk folder. Did you check? Sent on 07/02. With a few follow-ups afterwards. A lot of dirt being thrown at HSL very unfairly here - implied or otherwise.

Hibernian FC Investment Proposals
Dear member,

We suspect by now you will have read about proposed changes at our club. We too have been aware of various stories, and in some case rumours, about what was being planned, however we felt that it would have been inappropriate to comment or indeed speculate on such stories/rumours given that we had no information from the club.

We now have the formal announcements from the club and, irrespective of your own individual viewpoint, the club’s proposals will clearly have an impact on Hibernian Supporters Limited.

One of the most obvious consequences of the various proposals would see our shareholding in the club being diluted for the second time, from its current level of 15.4% to around 7%.

Clearly there is a lot going on at the moment and this is a complex matter, but the club have now announced the date for their AGM and therefore we must now take the necessary steps to take your voting instructions ahead of the club's meeting taking place at the end of the month.

One of the key principles of Hibernian Supporters has always been to ensure we act in a manner which is consistent with the views of our members. We are an organisation run by members, for our members, and it is with these beliefs in mind that we will seek to consult with as many of you as possible in the next couple of weeks.

We will be asked to vote on these proposals at the AGM on your behalf, and it's important we do this with as much input from our members as possible.

Traditionally it is around this time of the year when we have our own AGM and therefore, we have taken the decision to cover these matters at the Hibernian Supporters AGM which we intend to have on Thursday 22nd February 2024.

The time and venue for this meeting will be confirmed by email tomorrow, along with the agenda and further important details.

While our AGM is the ideal time to discuss these matters, we intend to have a consultation process over the coming weeks to canvass the views of as many of our members as possible.

In the first instance we would encourage members to let us know your thoughts on the matters set to be voted on at the club’s AGM by emailing us at [email protected].

We must stress we have the same information as our fellow shareholders in relation to the proposals and as such will not be able to share any details which were not included in the club’s correspondence this week.

We apologise for these short timescales, but we hope you will appreciate these are not of our making.

Hibernian Supporters directors

I didn't receive it, HSL agree and have now contacted me. I'll keep our dialogue private for now but it appears to be an error on part of HSL.

[matty_f]

I’m
Shocked you are having a pop at HSL. It was made clear when it was launched, this is how it worked . You paid your money on this basis. Now you cry on social media .

Give it a rest please. You are coming over as a Poundland Warren Buffet

They're not really having a go at HSL on that at all. What's with going after individuals on this? You've done it with Brightside and Trinity already, it adds nothing to the discussion.

[Chipper1875]

They're not really having a go at HSL on that at all. What's with going after individuals on this? You've done it with Brightside and Trinity already, it adds nothing to the discussion.

He is constantly criticising HSL, it’s tiresome and unwarranted. And brightside constantly tells people what to do.

[matty_f]

He is constantly criticising HSL, it’s tiresome and unwarranted.

I don't think they have been, they've just highlighted issues in a matter of fact way, I don't think they've said anything unreasonable or particularly critical of HSL?

[Chipper1875]

I don't think they have been, they've just highlighted issues in a matter of fact way, I don't think they've said anything unreasonable or particularly critical of HSL?

That’s fine if you feel that. I feel differently.

[Pagan Hibernia]

The fact that you ask what they could do to encourage more voters says it all for me, HSL's ship sailed long ago and the lack of direction has resulted in the current situation where fans are now bickering with each other, should the vote on the 27th go against Foley and the Gordon family all hell will break lose in my opinion.

Probably but if the vote fails at the AGM (and it wont) it will be because Leslie Robb has voted against it. I bet he won't be the one getting it in the neck though will he. HSL will, as usual.

[greenlex]

I’m
Shocked you are having a pop at HSL. It was made clear when it was launched, this is how it worked . You paid your money on this basis. Now you cry on social media .

Give it a rest please. You are coming over as a Poundland Warren Buffet


He is constantly criticising HSL, it’s tiresome and unwarranted. And bright side constantly tells people what to do.
:confused::rolleyes:

[Chipper1875]

:confused::rolleyes:

I recall you slagging me off when l said weeks ago Megwa will go back to Airdrie.

So not sure why you feel the need to highlight my posts

[truehibernian]

Wondering if HSL can answer this query if they’re still online?

Now that HSL have become the focus of recent debate, and the profile of HSL is being questioned (good or bad), regardless of the AGM vote next week are you going to reflect and refocus efforts to reinvigorate the group and/or realign strategy and ultimately what and where you see it growing ?

For example, if the BK investment is approved, which I think it’s going to be, will you look at ways to create a funding platform that many supporters would buy into to augment the Foley investment? I am not too bothered about being a shareholder in Hibs, but would definitely contribute to a funding stream that’s creative and all encompassing, offer better incentives more regularly to those contributing, and has realistic targets to achieve. Are you going to rebrand yourselves and try and take advantage of the increased attention the group are getting (to clarify things, improve communication, explore growing the membership, create a channel for open discussion and promotion etc)?

[coldingham hibs]

I haven’t read this thread fully but from what HSL appear to be saying is the club have refused to divulge any information on the proposal. If the club cannot entertain the second largest shareholder then they have no excuse if the proposal is rejected, although I would imagine they already have Leslie Robb’s shares in the bag. If HSL had more information that they could have passed on to the membership then the outcome may have been different. Its the clubs fault for dismissing HSL & the membership. Pretty disgusting really.

[greenlex]

I recall you slagging me off when l said weeks ago Megwa will go back to Airdrie.

So not sure why you feel the need to highlight my posts

You recall incorrectly if that’s the case. I’ve known for weeks that that was more than likely to happen all depending on how Cadden progressed.
What I’m not sure about is why your first sentence has to do with the later or anything for that matter.

I’ve highlighted you calling someone out for telling folk what they should do after minutes before you had literally told someone what to do. That is a fact.

[SaulGoodman]

Thats democracy. Its how it works.

Thanks that’s cleared it up for me. Don’t find it bizarre any more.

[tamig]

Wondering if HSL can answer this query if they’re still online?

Now that HSL have become the focus of recent debate, and the profile of HSL is being questioned (good or bad), regardless of the AGM vote next week are you going to reflect and refocus efforts to reinvigorate the group and/or realign strategy and ultimately what and where you see it growing ?

For example, if the BK investment is approved, which I think it’s going to be, will you look at ways to create a funding platform that many supporters would buy into to augment the Foley investment? I am not too bothered about being a shareholder in Hibs, but would definitely contribute to a funding stream that’s creative and all encompassing, offer better incentives more regularly to those contributing, and has realistic targets to achieve. Are you going to rebrand yourselves and try and take advantage of the increased attention the group are getting (to clarify things, improve communication, explore growing the membership, create a channel for open discussion and promotion etc)?
I’m not sure if it was you who mentioned earlier in the thread that you couldn’t help out with HSL previously but do now have the capacity to do so. They are always open to extra support so why don’t you send an email/PM on here and get the ball rolling? I’m sure we’ll hear more on future plans after the AGM and whatever decisions come out from that.

[Chipper1875]

You recall incorrectly if that’s the case. I’ve known for weeks that that was more than likely to happen all depending on how Cadden progressed.
What I’m not sure about is why your first sentence has to do with the later or anything for that matter.

I’ve highlighted you calling someone out for telling folk what they should do after minutes before you had literally told someone what to do. That is a fact.

Check your posts … football manager etc what you called me

[tamig]

Thanks that’s cleared it up for me. Don’t find it bizarre any more.

👍 happy to help.

[matty_f]

I haven’t read this thread fully but from what HSL appear to be saying is the club have refused to divulge any information on the proposal. If the club cannot entertain the second largest shareholder then they have no excuse if the proposal is rejected, although I would imagine they already have Leslie Robb’s shares in the bag. If HSL had more information that they could have passed on to the membership then the outcome may have been different. Its the clubs fault for dismissing HSL & the membership. Pretty disgusting really.

I have to say that I found Hibs lack of engagement with HSL baffling and pretty disrespectful.

How hard would it have been to have sat down with at least one director of HSL to talk through the proposals, explain the thinking behind the resolutions, listen to potential objections and give reassurances?

Hibs' engagement could have given HSL the relevant info needed to properly position the pros and cons of the resolutions to their voters and maybe even get them onside with it.

It's basic communication, and it does feel that HSL have been treated with contempt in this matter, which given the money they've put into the club over the years is pretty poor.

[Hibbyradge]

I haven’t read this thread fully but from what HSL appear to be saying is the club have refused to divulge any information on the proposal. If the club cannot entertain the second largest shareholder then they have no excuse if the proposal is rejected, although I would imagine they already have Leslie Robb’s shares in the bag. If HSL had more information that they could have passed on to the membership then the outcome may have been different. Its the clubs fault for dismissing HSL & the membership. Pretty disgusting really.

Is anyone unclear about what the club is trying to do?

I don't know how much money Foley and BK intend investing but that would be confidential under any circumstances.

I received information about Tuesday's meeting and an invitation to cast my vote by proxy, which I have done.

I can't think of anything more that I need to know.

[DanishJohn]

Why are people saying that its undemocratic, or how can only 50 people have the ability to stop the motion going through.
I would say 50 people are a hell of a lot more people than the 2 people who could vote to get it through.

Democracy democracy democracy ! We live in a country where governments are voted in on piss poor voter turnouts. Yep, to govern us not to run a football club .

And before anyone says the vast majority of Hibs fans want it to go through , that's just pure conjecture. No evidence to back it up .

Finally the vast majority of Hibs fans don't own Hibs. The 50 who voted against it, do

[tamig]

I haven’t read this thread fully but from what HSL appear to be saying is the club have refused to divulge any information on the proposal. If the club cannot entertain the second largest shareholder then they have no excuse if the proposal is rejected, although I would imagine they already have Leslie Robb’s shares in the bag. If HSL had more information that they could have passed on to the membership then the outcome may have been different. Its the clubs fault for dismissing HSL & the membership. Pretty disgusting really.
The club have pretty much dismissed HSL since day 1 of the new ownership. Banning future share trading was the start of it. That’s no criticism of RG and his family - but it was a hammer blow to the main goals of HSL.

[truehibernian]

I’m not sure if it was you who mentioned earlier in the thread that you couldn’t help out with HSL previously but do now have the capacity to do so. They are always open to extra support so why don’t you send an email/PM on here and get the ball rolling? I’m sure we’ll hear more on future plans after the AGM and whatever decisions come out from that.

Yep, I’d be very willing to help and support - but it would be good to hear if there’s any plans post next week and future planning for growth. If they are able to on here then more would be like me and be interested to hear more whether that be privately or at future meetings of the group.

[truehibernian]

I have to say that I found Hibs lack of engagement with HSL baffling and pretty disrespectful.

How hard would it have been to have sat down with at least one director of HSL to talk through the proposals, explain the thinking behind the resolutions, listen to potential objections and give reassurances?

Hibs' engagement could have given HSL the relevant info needed to properly position the pros and cons of the resolutions to their voters and maybe even get them onside with it.

It's basic communication, and it does feel that HSL have been treated with contempt in this matter, which given the money they've put into the club over the years is pretty poor.

Good post Matty and one I totally agree with. Incredible disrespect shown by the Club.

[Chipper1875]

The club have pretty much dismissed HSL since day 1 of the new ownership. Banning future share trading was the start of it. That’s no criticism of RG and his family - but it was a hammer blow to the main goals of HSL.

As l posted earlier, at the first meeting with fans Ron made it clear he didn’t want hibs fans owning shares. But he wanted their money. Bydand have been pretty clear and consistent with their treatment of HSL .

[tamig]

As l posted earlier, at the first meeting with fans Ron made it clear he didn’t want hibs fans owning shares. But he wanted their money. Bydand have been pretty clear and consistent with their treatment of HSL .

And I think thats clear evidence that there is no dependency on the HSL/small private shareholders impacting the result of this week’s vote.

[cabbageandribs1875]

I have to say that I found Hibs lack of engagement with HSL baffling and pretty disrespectful.

How hard would it have been to have sat down with at least one director of HSL to talk through the proposals, explain the thinking behind the resolutions, listen to potential objections and give reassurances?

Hibs' engagement could have given HSL the relevant info needed to properly position the pros and cons of the resolutions to their voters and maybe even get them onside with it.

It's basic communication, and it does feel that HSL have been treated with contempt in this matter, which given the money they've put into the club over the years is pretty poor.


agree with this


ALL of it

[Dmas]

The club have pretty much dismissed HSL since day 1 of the new ownership. Banning future share trading was the start of it. That’s no criticism of RG and his family - but it was a hammer blow to the main goals of HSL.

this to me makes it worse that the HSL chairman asked members to vote on what the resolutions would mean to HSL going forward, theres no way HSL improve shareholding no matter the result at AGM and hasn't been for a long time, they've taken votes to try and protect a current holding not in the best interests of the club imo, I think HSL have handled this pretty poorly and I'll be far more weary of any fan led groups going forward

[Chipper1875]

And I think thats clear evidence that there is no dependency on the HSL/small private shareholders impacting the result of this week’s vote.

Yes, very much feels that way .

[tamig]

this to me makes it worse that the HSL chairman asked members to vote on what the resolutions would mean to HSL going forward, theres no way HSL improve shareholding no matter the result at AGM and hasn't been for a long time, they've taken votes to try and protect a current holding not in the best interests of the club imo, I think HSL have handled this pretty poorly and I'll be far more weary of any fan led groups going forward
There are more than a few HSL members who are very passionate about the shareholding - and the main objective of buying enough shares to stop a future Mercer scenario. I agree the goalposts were moved when RG took over but HSL were/are still the second biggest shareholder in the club. Its only right that HSL members were asked to vote on something directly impacting on those ambitions.

[flash]

80 votes, of which I was one incidentally.

HSL should be abstaining. That is no sort of mandate whatsoever.

[weecounty hibby]

As others have said, many would have ignored the email or just not been that bothered about voting. I got all the comms but didn’t vote. I suspect I’m in the majority with that. If folk couldn’t be bothered to vote or overlooked it, they have no right to be moaning about it on here or casting any doubt on the validity of the process. The behaviour of some is pretty distasteful.

I'm not disputing the validity. What I am questioning is the right of 60 people to potentially block significant investment in the club. Way more than HSl would ever be able to contribute. If the limit for a binding vote to take place was genuinely only 20 out of 4000 members that is a very low number. I'm also not trying to belittle or miscall anyone who worked hard to get HSL up and running. I just think that they have called this very wrong

[CentreLine]

That's ridiculously low. How can an organization with 4k members validate a vote with such low numbers participating. I had paid to hsl in the past, does that make me a member and liable to vote? If so I didn't know about it until started to read this thread too late!

It could be asked of any company but to keep it relevant do we know what a quorum is for Hibernian FC? Does it change after the coming takeover?

[Dmas]

There are more than a few HSL members who are very passionate about the shareholding - and the main objective of buying enough shares to stop a future Mercer scenario. I agree the goalposts were moved when RG took over but HSL were/are still the second biggest shareholder in the club. Its only right that HSL members were asked to vote on something directly impacting on those ambitions.

the direct impact on that ambition was STF selling to RG, the door was closed and bolted on HSL from that day on, the resolutions for HSL where also changed, theres a debt for equity swap and a £6m investment coming neither can be matched by HSL, its unfortunate the shareholding takes a hit and I understand the disappointment I've contributed from day 1 also , but whats more important? a 15% stake in what we have or a 7% stake in something exciting? we're hibs supporters the best for the club is what we should be voting on

[May21/05/216]

I'm a full member and voted to accept the foley investment reason I voted that way was I watched the chairman's interview on sky

I then cancelled my donations I know the people running hsl do a good well meaning job but I'm afraid Hsl getting 25% ain't going happen

So from me it becomes a matter of trust and that's where I trust the gordon family

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

[green day]

I'm not disputing the validity. What I am questioning is the right of 60 people to potentially block significant investment in the club. Way more than HSl would ever be able to contribute. If the limit for a binding vote to take place was genuinely only 20 out of 4000 members that is a very low number. I'm also not trying to belittle or miscall anyone who worked hard to get HSL up and running. I just think that they have called this very wrong

Where I am too.

HSL have done a great job in trying circumstances.

I suspect that this will all be moot come Tuesday.

[tamig]

the direct impact on that ambition was STF selling to RG, the door was closed and bolted on HSL from that day on, the resolutions for HSL where also changed, theres a debt for equity swap and a £6m investment coming neither can be matched by HSL, its unfortunate the shareholding takes a hit and I understand the disappointment I've contributed from day 1 also , but whats more important? a 15% stake in what we have or a 7% stake in something exciting? we're hibs supporters the best for the club is what we should be voting on

I agree. But HSL would still be voting at the AGM. If the views of the members weren’t sought in advance, how would/could they have voted?

[Dmas]

I agree. But HSL would still be voting at the AGM. If the views of the members weren’t sought in advance, how would/could they have voted?

I'm not disagreeing with members being asked, I'm disagreeing with how it was presented to them

[Ringothedog]

I agree. But HSL would still be voting at the AGM. If the views of the members weren’t sought in advance, how would/could they have voted?

They would abstain

[Stairway 2 7]

They would abstain

Notice hibs club are going to abstain, not sure how many shares they have though

[TheSouthMoroccan]

Rightly or wrongly, the Gordon’s have been clear from the off, they don’t want or support a fan ownership model. That is their prerogative given that they stumped up the cash when they bought the club and it’s in no way a criticism of HSL, it’s just their preferred way of working. If I won the Euro lottery thing next week and bought the Gordon’s out, I certainly wouldn’t want any sort of fan onwnership group being able to influence big picture commercial decisions. Why ? Exhibit A your honour. HSL (who by the way have done nothing wrong) have a membership of 4000 but apparently only 80 odd folk voted on something as massive as the Black Knights investment opportunity. God knows what stuff will be said on here if Mr Robb’s vote goes the other way. It will be mayhem on here and it will kinda proves the Gordon’s original view, the whole fan ownership thing is a minefield at the best of times, and is probably best avoided. Other opinions are available 😉

[Pagan Hibernia]

Rightly or wrongly, the Gordon’s have been clear from the off, they don’t want or support a fan ownership model. That is their prerogative given that they stumped up the cash when they bought the club and it’s in no way a criticism of HSL, it’s just their preferred way of working. If I won the Euro lottery thing next week and bought the Gordon’s out, I certainly wouldn’t want any sort of fan onwnership group being able to influence big picture commercial decisions. Why ? Exhibit A your hoonour. HSL (who by the way have done nothing wrong) have a membership of 4000 but apparently only 80 odd folk voted on something as massive as the Black Knights investment opportunity. God knows what stuff will be said on here if Mr Robb’s vote goes the other way. It will be mayhem on here and it will kinda proves the Gordon’s original view, the whole fan ownership thing is s minefield at the best of times, and is probably best avoided. Other opinions are available 😉

Agree with this mostly.

It's absolutely the Gordons prerogative to want nothing to do with fans owning the club, but whether they like it or not, for another few hours at least, a third of the club doesn't belong to them and those other shareholders, including HSL will have their say. And they should have their say. Its a decision that affects them as both shareholders and fans.

[joe breezy]

Basing a point of view on 80 votes out of a membership of 4000 is Putin style democracy.
They should have made it easier to vote - text message email or whatever.

Surely more people would have voted with a simple method.

3920 abstentions should count as an abstention.

[tamig]

They would abstain

Being a members organisation, I’m sure that would create division. Only the members can decide.

[tamig]

Basing a point of view on 80 votes out of a membership of 4000 is Putin style democracy.
They should have made it easier to vote - text message email or whatever.

Surely more people would have voted with a simple method.

3920 abstentions should count as an abstention.

Is that how general elections work in this country as well?

[Hibees1973]

Being a members organisation, I’m sure that would create division. Only the members can decide.

Thought there is a clear division already.

[Ringothedog]

Being a members organisation, I’m sure that would create division. Only the members can decide.

A bit like now you mean?

[Ringothedog]

Notice hibs club are going to abstain, not sure how many shares they have though

They have 5000

[Stairway 2 7]

They have 5000

Cheers

[Radium]

Yep, I’d be very willing to help and support - but it would be good to hear if there’s any plans post next week and future planning for growth. If they are able to on here then more would be like me and be interested to hear more whether that be privately or at future meetings of the group.

On the night the directors were really open to what the members want and were talking about a meeting in the near future.

They also mentioned about looking for new people getting involved and said just to speak to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marinello59]

I have to say that I found Hibs lack of engagement with HSL baffling and pretty disrespectful.

How hard would it have been to have sat down with at least one director of HSL to talk through the proposals, explain the thinking behind the resolutions, listen to potential objections and give reassurances?

Hibs' engagement could have given HSL the relevant info needed to properly position the pros and cons of the resolutions to their voters and maybe even get them onside with it.

It's basic communication, and it does feel that HSL have been treated with contempt in this matter, which given the money they've put into the club over the years is pretty poor.

Saved me a lot of typing. Agree with all of that.

[chippy]

Saved me a lot of typing. Agree with all of that.

That’s fair comment but I think HSL could still do a poll among its members ( I am one) to see what the view among the membership is. They’ve emailed us but not offered a poll. Could still be done tonight or tomorrow.

I’ve emailed HSL asking for them to do a poll of members to see if they support the position agreed at the AGM

[basehibby]

Did HSL members agree to those gifts of funds prior to them happening? Also in the event of HSL wrapping you mentioned all funds would go to another organisation (possibly HCF) - again was that ever agreed by HSL members?

I've only donated small amounts to HSL so its probably none of my business, I'd just be interested in the process that took place for those decisions.

I'd still rather see an HSL transfer kitty. But it sounds like I'm in the minority on that.

That's exactly what I want to see happen to my money - regardless of share purchases or the lack thereof I want every penny I donate to go towards strengthening the football team - and if that aint going to happen then I will be stopping my regular donations.

Update - I've now cancelled my regular donation to HSL.
I'm attaching an image showing a statement that appears at the top of my HSL account page. I quote "Your donation is used to support the Football Department and keep improving things on the park."
From what I can gather the above is no longer an accurate reflection of reality - but this was ALWAYS my primary motivation for donating to HSL with fan ownership coming a distant second. I've donated over £750 over the years and am satisfied that most of these funds will have found their way into the coffers of the club either through purchase of shares or through COVID era donations.
It seems to me though that HSL have now lost sight of this fundamental and vital objective - focusing attention on share purchase to the extent that HSL are now actually voting AGAINST large scale inward investment that will contribute massively to "improving things on the park". This is the polar opposite of what I want to see happening and so, I have now ceased donations and will find other ways to support the club.
I would also suggest that HSL remove the above statement from their web page as it no longer appears to be accurate.

27724

[Dmas]

That's exactly what I want to see happen to my money - regardless of share purchases or the lack thereof I want every penny I donate to go towards strengthening the football team - and if that aint going to happen then I will be stopping my regular donations.

Wasn’t that also put to a vote before it was agreed to hold the funds back? it’s not going to be something that can please every member all of the time

[matty_f]

How long has it been since HSL have been able to buy shares?

[tamig]

How long has it been since HSL have been able to buy shares?

Since 2019 when RG bought STF out.

Edit - or when they were unable to buy more shares I meant.

[Lago]

i'm not quite sure i actually paid the full £225, positive i had only maybe paid around £170 ishy :hmmm:




nope, but i would have went to the meeting for more information if i intended voting, i've saw a lot of the ignorant comments against both HSL members and the likes of Jim Adie(on fb/twatter) who knows maybe in a couple of decades fans will look back and wish HSL HAD of stopped it going through, either way whether it was 4000/40000/ or just 60 took part in a vote then so be it, the vitriol shown against HSL and a democratic vote has been quite sad.


boohoo HSL tried to kill our club, that's how it will go
Or on flip side if it gets blocked fans will be asking why aren't we as well financed as Hearts, Aberdeen or even maybe Motherwell if they secured American backing.

[Hibbyradge]

That’s fair comment but I think HSL could still do a poll among its members ( I am one) to see what the view among the membership is. They’ve emailed us but not offered a poll. Could still be done tonight or tomorrow.

I’ve emailed HSL asking for them to do a poll of members to see if they support the position agreed at the AGM

Good idea.

[truehibernian]

Or on flip side if it gets blocked fans will be asking why aren't we as well financed as Hearts, Aberdeen or even maybe Motherwell if they secured American backing.

It’s not going to get blocked, I’m certain of that.

[Lago]

It’s not going to get blocked, I’m certain of that.
Well I sincerely hope your right.

[Greenwich_Hibby]

If anyone can provide evidence of a successful fan ownership model in modern day football, I'd be willing to consider the argument. Hearts isn't as they are bank rolled by a sugar daddy.

[Pagan Hibernia]

If anyone can provide evidence of a successful fan ownership model in modern day football, I'd be willing to consider the argument. Hearts isn't as they are bank rolled by a sugar daddy.

Well there isn't really an argument on that as Hibs are never going fan owned any time soon (nor was that really an ambition with HSL).

But since you asked it's a decent question. There are certainly examples. Depends really on your definition of success. AFC Wimbledon, owned by the Dons Trust, starting from scratch when their club was murdered, climbing four or five divisions to reach the football league again, not only that but building their own brand new stadium a stones throw from their old Plough Lane home. I don't think that could be described as anything other than a success story.

[truehibernian]

Well I sincerely hope your right.

I’m only putting two and two together from what I heard recently. My friend (Hibs supporter) had a very recent professional working encounter with a current Hibs director (who in turn is an active director in a company LR is a an active director) and he was enthused by the Foley investment plan. There was absolutely no hint it wasn’t going ahead, rather, there’s a real excitement around it. I also posted a month or so ago saying that the proposal had been fully outlined and was going to be approved by the authorities (after what I heard directly from someone high up) so I’ve absolutely no reason to think it’s not going ahead 👍

[Hibees1973]

It is highly significant that organisations such as HSL and the Hibs Club do not appear to support the Foley deal.

I know who I would rather trust between the people at HSL/Hibs Club v Kensell & The Gordons.

Know some guys on here are frothing about this Foley investment and fantastic players coming to Hibs. I think it's too good to be true, which means it probably isn't and may not end well.

But at the end of the day money talks, not what it best for Hibs.

[truehibernian]

It is highly significant that organisations such as HSL and the Hibs Club do not appear to support the Foley deal.

I know who I would rather trust between the people at HSL/Hibs Club v Kensell & The Gordons.

Know some guys on here are frothing about this Foley investment and fantastic players coming to Hibs. I think it's too good to be true, which means it probably isn't and may not end well.

But at the end of the day money talks, not what it best for Hibs.

The great thing is everyone is absolutely entitled to their opinion and having it aired. I’m not “frothing” but I know some of the detailed investment plans and they are absolutely forward thinking, exciting, and all inclusive - every part of the club will see investment. The plan for HTC alone is brilliant.

[Stairway 2 7]

It is highly significant that organisations such as HSL and the Hibs Club do not appear to support the Foley deal.

I know who I would rather trust between the people at HSL/Hibs Club v Kensell & The Gordons.

Know some guys on here are frothing about this Foley investment and fantastic players coming to Hibs. I think it's too good to be true, which means it probably isn't and may not end well.

But at the end of the day money talks, not what it best for Hibs.

Hibs club are abstaining as there isn't time to get an agm and votes sorted, the are not against the deal. Its only HSL that has voted against.

For what it's worth I think fantastic players have already came in. God knows how we'd have done post break without Moriah-Welsh, Marcondes and Maolida alone.

[eaststandJJ]

Does anyone know if Foley and the Black Knights are offering investment year on year ( say £6m p/a) for here on in or a one off investment for one year only?

[Pagan Hibernia]

Does anyone know if Foley and the Black Knights are offering investment year on year ( say £6m p/a) for here on in or a one off investment for one year only?

No one knows

[A Hi-Bee]

Does anyone know if Foley and the Black Knights are offering investment year on year ( say £6m p/a) for here on in or a one off investment for one year only?

It was said that the 6million, was an initial investment. Initial means existing or occurring at the beginning.

GGTTH
:flag::flag::flag::flag::flag::flag:

[Hibbyradge]

It is highly significant that organisations such as HSL and the Hibs Club do not appear to support the Foley deal.

I know who I would rather trust between the people at HSL/Hibs Club v Kensell & The Gordons.

Know some guys on here are frothing about this Foley investment and fantastic players coming to Hibs. I think it's too good to be true, which means it probably isn't and may not end well.

But at the end of the day money talks, not what it best for Hibs.

I've got more shares than the Hibs club.

Is it highly significant that I voted in favour of the resolutions?

Ignoring that, you know that HSL isn't opposed to the investment, don't you?

[Ringothedog]

It is highly significant that organisations such as HSL and the Hibs Club do not appear to support the Foley deal.

I know who I would rather trust between the people at HSL/Hibs Club v Kensell & The Gordons.

Know some guys on here are frothing about this Foley investment and fantastic players coming to Hibs. I think it's too good to be true, which means it probably isn't and may not end well.

But at the end of the day money talks, not what it best for Hibs.

HSL are the only major shareholder so far who are voting against the proposal. The Hibs club who hold less shares than me are abstaining and I have a very very small shareholding. I am not “frothing” at the potential investment but will be disappointed if it does not go ahead. I really believe this is a fantastic opportunity to get the club moving forward and will give us the best chance for future success. The status quo is just not an option imo.

[CentreLine]

The great thing is everyone is absolutely entitled to their opinion and having it aired. I’m not “frothing” but I know some of the detailed investment plans and they are absolutely forward thinking, exciting, and all inclusive - every part of the club will see investment. The plan for HTC alone is brilliant.

This is what I was excited to hear about at the club AGM. I genuinely hope we will leave that meeting fully enthused but more importantly, fully informed.

On a personal note, I want to leave reassured about a business model that does not threaten the future of the club. I want to hear how regularly finance will come in and that it not based on interminable, unmanageable loans. The “we owe it to ourselves” scenario has already been tried elsewhere with almost catastrophic consequences for the club involved. I would also like not to leave the AGM feeling alienated as a supporter. None of us should feel like we are simply cash cow customers imho.

[Bostonhibby]

HSL are the only major shareholder so far who are voting against the proposal. The Hibs club who hold less shares than me are abstaining and I have a very very small shareholding. I am not “frothing” at the potential investment but will be disappointed if it does not go ahead. I really believe this is a fantastic opportunity to get the club moving forward and will give us the best chance for future success. The status quo is just not an option imo.I'm in a very similar place to you on this now, I might have been frothier if I'd felt the new incoming ownership arrangement tried a bit harder not to alienate existing shareholders who might have had different, more emotional reasons for owning their shares.

I'll live with it, with a wee bit more scepticism than the deal perhaps deserves.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Lago]

Is that how general elections work in this country as well?
Well at least you can get a postal vote fairly easily

[hibbydad]

I've got more shares than the Hibs club.

Is it highly significant that I voted in favour of the resolutions?

Ignoring that, you know that HSL isn't opposed to the investment, don't you?
No the problem is that if these two motions fail the deal is off Like you I have more shares than the Hibs club but am prepared to accept dilution for the greater benefit of the club. I attended the HSL meeting and voted in favour of the resolutions. The thing that really strikes me is that it easy to be negative about things but theb HSL board have no alternative strategy which would galvanise the club finances the way this package does. I will be cancelling my direct debit to HSL this week.

[Lago]

I’m only putting two and two together from what I heard recently. My friend (Hibs supporter) had a very recent professional working encounter with a current Hibs director (who in turn is an active director in a company LR is a an active director) and he was enthused by the Foley investment plan. There was absolutely no hint it wasn’t going ahead, rather, there’s a real excitement around it. I also posted a month or so ago saying that the proposal had been fully outlined and was going to be approved by the authorities (after what I heard directly from someone high up) so I’ve absolutely no reason to think it’s not going ahead 👍
Thanks for that, appreciated.

[Hibbyradge]

No the problem is that if these two motions fail the deal is off Like you I have more shares than the Hibs club but am prepared to accept dilution for the greater benefit of the club. I attended the HSL meeting and voted in favour of the resolutions. The thing that really strikes me is that it easy to be negative about things but theb HSL board have no alternative strategy which would galvanise the club finances the way this package does. I will be cancelling my direct debit to HSL this week.

I agree with you.

I understand the ramifications of the HSL decision. I was merely pointing out that the reason for the opposition to 5&6 wasn't because they don't trust the Gordon family or Foley and BKs investment as the poster was trying to suggest.

[Forza Fred]

I can understand that the members are peed off with having donated, and as they probably see it, have been cast aside without much (any) consultation.

However, if their block of votes results in the motion being defeated, and the investment falls over as a result, then they will have probably ensured many years of mediocrity and mid to lower league positions for the club.

Hardly a victory to celebrate.

It would be unlikely if anyone returned with a fistful of dollars any time in the future.

[DanishJohn]

I can understand that the members are peed off with having donated, and as they probably see it, have been cast aside without much (any) consultation.

However, if their block of votes results in the motion being defeated, and the investment falls over as a result, then they will have probably ensured many years of mediocrity and mid to lower league positions for the club.

Hardly a victory to celebrate.

It would be unlikely if anyone returned with a fistful of dollars any time in the future.

Para 2 --Who will ensure many years of mediocrity? HSL ? There's been many many years of mediocrity long before HSL came along. You cannot lay the blame on mediocrity on HSL. Football is littered with clubs frittering away £millions and getting nowhere. One thing that does seem to take you away from mediocrity is a good manager and a good chairman and board of directors. Think about the amount of managers we have had in the last couple of years and think about the people who appointed them. These failures have resulted in catastrophic losses for the club. Again, what's that got to do with HSL ?

Para 3 -- Where are you reading about HSL celebrating about any motion being blocked ?

Para 4 -- Again just conjecture on your part. If teams like Dundee and Motherwell can attract investment potential then I'm sure a bigger club like Hibs could.

Just like you Fred I want to see the Hibees flourishing. At what price though ?

[Forza Fred]

Para 2 --Who will ensure many years of mediocrity? HSL ? There's been many many years of mediocrity long before HSL came along. You cannot lay the blame on mediocrity on HSL. Football is littered with clubs frittering away £millions and getting nowhere. One thing that does seem to take you away from mediocrity is a good manager and a good chairman and board of directors. Think about the amount of managers we have had in the last couple of years and think about the people who appointed them. These failures have resulted in catastrophic losses for the club. Again, what's that got to do with HSL ?

Not laying blame for past/current mediocrity.
Foley’s investment gives us a chance to break that cycle, maybe.
Remove that chance though, and it’s more of the same.

Para 3 -- Where are you reading about HSL celebrating about any motion being blocked

Nowhere…I was making the point that it WASN’T a victory that would be worthy of celebration. Appears you agree with me.

Para 4 -- Again just conjecture on your part. If teams like Dundee and Motherwell can attract investment potential then I'm sure a bigger club like Hibs could.

Yes, obviously…but if I was an investor and knew that such an offer had been voted down before then I wouldn’t want to suffer the same fate and would look elsewhere.

Just like you Fred I want to see the Hibees flourishing. At what price though ?

Can’t see us flourishing in any way if the Foley proposal doesn’t go through.

Each to their own though.

[nonshinyfinish]

If the numbers are correct, Gordons, with 67%,cannot rely on HSL 15%. They must therefore rely on the 8% held by individual supporters (unlikely) or the 10% owned by Mr Robb. (Very likely).


I believe they will but sadly not all 8% will be able to vote for many reasons so the whole 8% would not be available to the club.

Individual shareholders (i.e., everyone except the Gordons, HSL and Robb) don't have 8%, they have 7.4%. That's why the Gordons (67.2%) + individual shareholders (7.4%) isn't enough to reach 75%, even if every single one voted (and voted in favour), which as you say, obviously they won't.

Repeating myself, but the only possible route to 75% is the Gordons + one (or both) of HSL or Robb. There's no situation where the individual shareholders can swing it either way.

For clarity the exact numbers of shares held are, from a total of 125m:

Bydand 84,031,875
HSL 19,264,675
Robb 12,500,000
leaving all others with 9,203,450 in total

(https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC005323/filing-history)

[DanishJohn]

Can’t see us flourishing in any way if the Foley proposal doesn’t go through.

Each to their own though.


Fred, I'm not savvy re the mechanics behind the posting. Have you added to my original post before replying ?
Cheers.

[Hibbyradge]

Individual shareholders (i.e., everyone except the Gordons, HSL and Robb) don't have 8%, they have 7.4%. That's why the Gordons (67.2%) + individual shareholders (7.4%) isn't enough to reach 75%, even if every single one voted (and voted in favour), which as you say, obviously they won't.

Repeating myself, but the only possible route to 75% is the Gordons + one (or both) of HSL or Robb. There's no situation where the individual shareholders can swing it either way.

For clarity the exact numbers of shares held are, from a total of 125m:

Bydand 84,031,875
HSL 19,264,675
Robb 12,500,000
leaving all others with 9,203,450 in total

(https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC005323/filing-history)

Which must lead us to the conclusion that compensation has been agreed with Robb.

What would £12.5m shares be worth in a deal like this?

I voted for the resolutions, just in case. 😃

[Forza Fred]

Fred, I'm not savvy re the mechanics behind the posting. Have you added to my original post before replying ?
Cheers.

Yea

Somehow managed to bugger that up..but responses came in your original post..except for the last para which somehow escaped my numptiness.

[nonshinyfinish]

Which must lead us to the conclusion that compensation has been agreed with Robb.

That's far from the only conclusion. It's entirely possible that he's on board with their plans and therefore will vote for it without wanting anything in return. I haven't seen any suggestion that his shares are part of the deal – the stuff in the AGM statement was all about creating new shares, some for the Gordons' debt for equity swap and some for Foley's stake.

Either way I find it hard to believe the Gordons and Foley would have gone this far just hoping that one of HSL or Robb would back them. They surely know how he's planning to vote.


What would £12.5m shares be worth in a deal like this?

Using the measure of the Gordons getting 85m shares in exchange for writing off a £5.75m loan, 12.5m shares would be about £850k (having presumably paid £500k for them originally , since it was 4p per share in the 2015 share issue).

[DanishJohn]

Which must lead us to the conclusion that compensation has been agreed with Robb.

What would £12.5m shares be worth in a deal like this?

I voted for the resolutions, just in case. 😃
Listen Radge

I am going to be in York lunchtime today. Might be a great chance to discuss over a beer what you mean by compensation ! :wink:

[Ringothedog]

Individual shareholders (i.e., everyone except the Gordons, HSL and Robb) don't have 8%, they have 7.4%. That's why the Gordons (67.2%) + individual shareholders (7.4%) isn't enough to reach 75%, even if every single one voted (and voted in favour), which as you say, obviously they won't.

Repeating myself, but the only possible route to 75% is the Gordons + one (or both) of HSL or Robb. There's no situation where the individual shareholders can swing it either way.

For clarity the exact numbers of shares held are, from a total of 125m:

Bydand 84,031,875
HSL 19,264,675
Robb 12,500,000
leaving all others with 9,203,450 in total

(https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC005323/filing-history)

Is the 75% based on the amount of votes actually cast? Or is it based on 75% of shares allocated? If it’s based on votes cast every time someone abstains makes it a bit easier to go through

[CapitalGreen]

Is the 75% based on the amount of votes actually cast? Or is it based on 75% of shares allocated? If it’s based on votes cast every time someone abstains makes it a bit easier to go through

Votes cast.

[Hibernian Verse]

Jim and his pals should do the right thing and abstain tomorrow to save face.

[Stairway 2 7]

Hopefully it would ease some minds if someone like Robb who is an astute businessman and a real hibby is willing to massively cut his percentage for what he sees as a deal furthering Hibs.

[Ray_]

Votes cast.

I believe 80 people within HSL voted to reject the cash injection. I had being paying HSL for years and would have never voted this way, it those figures are correct, it would be interesting to know how many members HSL have and as most would believe, that it has far more members than that, to me, it would be clear that there was something wrong with the voting system that was put in place.

[marinello59]

Jim and his pals should do the right thing and abstain tomorrow to save face.

Why? They’ve followed proper procedure and should record that vote. If the club had engaged properly with HSL things may have been different.
If it doesn’t go through it will because another individual has decided he doesn’t want it. I can’t see thet happening.

[Stairway 2 7]

Jim and his pals should do the right thing and abstain tomorrow to save face.

If they had said before that if the vote was say under 5% of members they would abstain maybe. But there is no way they can now they had a legal AGM and must follow that result

[nonshinyfinish]

Is the 75% based on the amount of votes actually cast? Or is it based on 75% of shares allocated? If it’s based on votes cast every time someone abstains makes it a bit easier to go through

Fair point, that does give a couple more relevant scenarios:

- HSL abstain: the Gordons' shares alone account for >75% of votes cast, even if every single individual shareholder votes.

- Robb abstains: the Gordons' shares account for 74.7% of votes cast (if every other shareholder votes), so they'd need a small fraction of individual shareholders to vote in favour or abstain to tip them over 75%.

Realistically in the second scenario they'd surely have >75% as there's no chance that everyone will vote (and obviously many will vote in favour).

(In the case where HSL and Robb both vote against, I don't think it's arithmetically possible for the Gordons to reach 75% with any combination of abstentions/votes in favour from individual shareholders.)

[Not In The Know]

Whats the timeline here??



Hibs AGM tonight?

[overdrive]

Why? They’ve followed proper procedure and should record that vote. If the club had engaged properly with HSL things may have been different.
If it doesn’t go through it will because another individual has decided he doesn’t want it. I can’t see thet happening.

Yep. It would be a bigger issue if they ignored the vote and abstained. I wonder if the folk saying things like "that's way too small a number of people voting for this to be allowed" would be saying the same thing if the vote had gone the other way.

I don't understand why Hibs haven't engaged better with all shareholders beforehand. By saying they will explain the plans in detail at the AGM - the same AGM we are being asked to vote on them anyone not at the meeting and voting by proxy don't have the full picture. At the end of they day, if they have Robb's vote in the bag as most people suspect they do, they have nothing to lose telling us in more detail beforehand. I've emailed the club asking some questions on the proposed articles of association and I haven't received a response. They've also refused to meet with the club's second largest shareholder (HSL).

I'd be amazed if Leslie Robb hasn't been briefed on all of this - obviously we have no way of knowing whether that's the case or not unless the club or he tells us. I think Gordons view the smaller fan shareholders (along with HSL) with a degree of contempt.

[overdrive]

Whats the timeline here??



Hibs AGM tonight?

Tomorrow

[MelbourneHibees]

Robb is clearly involved in this and will be backing the motion. There's 0 chance Hibs would be going ahead with this if his vote wasn't secured.

[matty_f]

Jim and his pals should do the right thing and abstain tomorrow to save face.

I don't think they can or should abstain. Jim and the guys at HSL aren't the baddies here, they've simply followed their process and are directed by the members who voted. They can't unilaterally decide to take another course of action now.

I know the outcome hasn't been popular, but I don't think that's down to the guys running HSL at all, unless they've been unclear when explaining the situation to the voters, however from what I can gather from this thread, I don't think that's necessarily been the case?

[Hibernian Verse]

Why? They’ve followed proper procedure and should record that vote. If the club had engaged properly with HSL things may have been different.
If it doesn’t go through it will because another individual has decided he doesn’t want it. I can’t see thet happening.

For example, to try and arrest the seemingly rapid decline of membership since their vote?

I understand that it is their procedure to allow 80 members to decide on behalf of 4000 odd and is unlikely to make a difference tomorrow anyway.

[overdrive]

Robb is clearly involved in this and will be backing the motion. There's 0 chance Hibs would be going ahead with this if his vote wasn't secured.

Almost definitely he will have been. As you say, there's no way they'd be going ahead if they hadn't secured either HSL or Robb's vote and we know they haven't attempted to secure HSL' vote and indeed HSL are voting against it. Also, the stuff with finding the errors in the share register to do with him is no coincidence. Finally, he seems to be "in with" the Hibs Board and the Gordons as he's involved in the property LLP with them.

Purely speculation on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him join the Board at some point.

[overdrive]

For example, to try and arrest the seemingly rapid decline of membership since their vote?

I understand that it is their procedure to allow 80 members to decide on behalf of 4000 odd and is unlikely to make a difference tomorrow anyway.

Not worth the risk of the legal ramifications of doing that.

[Hibernian Verse]

Not worth the risk of the legal ramifications of doing that.

Fair enough, didn't realise that could be the case.

[Hibeesdaft16]

For example, to try and arrest the seemingly rapid decline of membership since their vote?

I understand that it is their procedure to allow 80 members to decide on behalf of 4000 odd and is unlikely to make a difference tomorrow anyway.


And how would the majority of the members, of whom voted against the proposal take that?

[Hibernian Verse]

And how would the majority of the members, of whom voted against the proposal take that?

I guess that would depend on their understanding of the ramifications of declining membership that has come from all of this.

[Hibeesdaft16]

I guess that would depend on their understanding of the ramifications of declining membership that has come from all of this.

If they done so the members who didn't want this to go ahead, of which is the majority of the HSL then they would even more members cancelling their memberships.

[Hibernian Verse]

If they done so the members who didn't want this to go ahead, of which is the majority of the HSL then they would even more members cancelling their memberships.

It's not the majority of HSL though, it was 56 people out of 80 - out of 4000. Unless I have picked that up wrong which is entirely possible.

[RMQ1967]

Almost definitely he will have been. As you say, there's no way they'd be going ahead if they hadn't secured either HSL or Robb's vote and we know they haven't attempted to secure HSL' vote and indeed HSL are voting against it. Also, the stuff with finding the errors in the share register to do with him is no coincidence. Finally, he seems to be "in with" the Hibs Board and the Gordons as he's involved in the property LLP with them.

Purely speculation on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him join the Board at some point.

Yes LB must have been a willing participant in the change from the nominee shareholdings to having them under his own name.

No way he'd agree to that if he wasn't supportive of the proposals.

[RMQ1967]

It's not the majority of HSL though, it was 56 people out of 80 - out of 4000. Unless I have picked that up wrong which is entirely possible.

Remember that only full members were entitled to vote (those who had contributed £225 or more - I think).

I've no idea what percentage of the 4000 are full vs other types.

[Radium]

For example, to try and arrest the seemingly rapid decline of membership since their vote?

I understand that it is their procedure to allow 80 members to decide on behalf of 4000 odd and is unlikely to make a difference tomorrow anyway.

When the nominee of Bydand and Leslie Robb cast their votes tomorrow night the deal will go through.

At that point Bydand and BK will have 85% of the club shares and anyone else who hold shares no longer matter. That will include HSL so the number of people contributing will become irrelevant. No other shares are available and the board will stop any transfers to HSL.

In the coming months HSL members will need to rethink their future options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[matty_f]

Remember that only full members were entitled to vote (those who had contributed £225 or more - I think).

I've no idea what percentage of the 4000 are full vs other types.

You would think the majority of those that are paying in would be full members by now - a year at £18.75 gets you membership, I don't think HSL have done many recruitment drives over the years so most of those paying in will have been doing so from early on, I reckon.

[weecounty hibby]

If they done so the members who didn't want this to go ahead, of which is the majority of the HSL then they would even more members cancelling their memberships.

You're making things up now which isn't helpful. The vast majority of hsl didn't vote. Only 80 out of 400 voted and 50 odd voted against

[Victor]

My own experience is that the HSL voting process was not easy to complete and was not clear for those unfamiliar with company voting procedures. Because I use iOS I had to download the form and convert it into Word to make it accessible. Even then filling in the form was difficult because the parameters wouldn’t allow me to type onto the lines. Combine this with the fact that we were voting on resolutions that were written in business gobbledygook I couldn’t be sure if I was for or against the resolutions. It was also not clear if I had to elect a proxy or if the Chairman would act on our behalf. As I couldn’t commit the time to the procedure I admit I gave up. I think a simpler solution would have been to ask members if they were for or against the BK investment and the procedural changes required to permit the investment. I know that company rules may not allow this, but it would have been more straightforward.

[Ringothedog]

If they done so the members who didn't want this to go ahead, of which is the majority of the HSL then they would even more members cancelling their memberships.

60 of 4000 is not a majority. I am all for the Black Knights investment but would not expect HSL to change their stance regardless of how many voted. What I will say is that this investment has been very divisive between our fans where a small minority are very vocal. I really don’t see a way back for HSL if this goes through and I can see a lot of monthly contributions including mine stopping.

[RMQ1967]

I don't think they can or should abstain. Jim and the guys at HSL aren't the baddies here, they've simply followed their process and are directed by the members who voted. They can't unilaterally decide to take another course of action now.

I know the outcome hasn't been popular, but I don't think that's down to the guys running HSL at all, unless they've been unclear when explaining the situation to the voters, however from what I can gather from this thread, I don't think that's necessarily been the case?

The only reservations I have is that it's clear that some members were not informed of the AGM and indeed have not been receiving HSL communications in general over a number of years. I had been contributing since 2015 and had never had an email apart from when I initially contributed - it's only when I had my knuckles rapped (rightly so) for comments I made about Jim's Sky interview did I start to dig into how to get a vote & then started to browse the website & so on. Lots of good stuff on there but the a bit annoying that I've never known about the draw for the table at Pioneers of any of the other good stuff.

Anyway, for sure there will be people who might have attended the AGM that have missed out - there's a fair few on here are saying they're in that category. If I didn't read Hibs.net I wouldn't have known about it either.

Also, the directors were very clear in their explanation and on the rationale as to why they were voting in the way they were - however, you do have to wonder, if their position had been, well it's not really in the best interests of HSL but we're going to vote FOR the resolutions as it's in the best interests of Hibernian FC, would the vote have turned out differently?

[RMQ1967]

You would think the majority of those that are paying in would be full members by now - a year at £18.75 gets you membership, I don't think HSL have done many recruitment drives over the years so most of those paying in will have been doing so from early on, I reckon.

I don't know - I suppose it would be easy enough to get an idea of membership for the last couple of years by looking at the accounts & dividing the income by £18.75. Wouldn't be very accurate but would give an idea. Any accounting types interested in a little project :)

[overdrive]

I don't know - I suppose it would be easy enough to get an idea of membership for the last couple of years by looking at the accounts & dividing the income by £18.75. Wouldn't be very accurate but would give an idea. Any accounting types interested in a little project :)

That wouldn't tell you very much as you don't need to pay £18.75. There's four suggested monthly DDs on the main page and in the 'My Account' page there's a large list of DD amounts you can pick from as little as £7.73. That's before one-off payments. Plus you don't need to be actively contributing to be a member.

[CapitalGreen]

Jim and his pals should do the right thing and abstain tomorrow to save face.

I don’t think HSL should abstain, the vote has been taken and HSL need to vote at the AGM in line with that.

I think it’s wrong that members weren’t given the option to vote for HSL to abstain on the resolutions. It’s not possible to vote against the resolutions but in favour of the investment. HSL abstaining would have shown the membership were not in favour of the resolutions but would not vote against the investment.

[Ronniekirk]

My own experience is that the HSL voting process was not easy to complete and was not clear for those unfamiliar with company voting procedures. Because I use iOS I had to download the form and convert it into Word to make it accessible. Even then filling in the form was difficult because the parameters wouldn’t allow me to type onto the lines. Combine this with the fact that we were voting on resolutions that were written in business gobbledygook I couldn’t be sure if I was for or against the resolutions. It was also not clear if I had to elect a proxy or if the Chairman would act on our behalf. As I couldn’t commit the time to the procedure I admit I gave up. I think a simpler solution would have been to ask members if they were for or against the BK investment and the procedural changes required to permit the investment. I know that company rules may not allow this, but it would have been more straightforward.
I just gave up as well

[Victor]

I just gave up as well

Glad I wasn’t the only one!

[Pagan Hibernia]

I guess that would depend on their understanding of the ramifications of declining membership that has come from all of this.

When the deal goes through HSL are effectively done as a relevant organisation. A declining membership will have next to no ramifications at all.