Hsl agm

[matty_f]

I wonder what's next for HSL as an organisation? I've always been supportive of it, contributed and am a member. I like the idea of supporters having a say in the club to some degree, I'm not quite so sure I think full fan ownership (never the stated aim of HSL) is the way forward.

Ultimately, though, I want to see a good Hibs side. Am I *that* bothered if the ownership is out of our hands - no, not if we're run well and successful.

I'm not sitting worried about Foley and the Gordons doing us over, they have absolutely no need to do that, there's nothing in it for them to do it, and at the end of the day, even if they do, we'll cope. Both Rangers and Hearts survived (to different extents) catastrophic ownerships and they are both sitting in much healthier positions than us today. We'd cope.

I'm not sure if there's a Man City, Arsenal, Liverpool, or Newcastle equivalent group of fans not enjoying their teams doing much better now because they're in foreign ownership or have no say in how the club is run. Man U clearly have issues, but ironically, it looks like another billionaire taking a minority holding is going to help to turn them around as well.

I'd be sad if I had to sell my very small shareholding in Hibs if someone decides they want the whole thing lock,stock, and barrel, but I wouldn't ever feel that Hibs was any less of my club, and if they came in and made us better, I'm happy. I don't look at my share certificate every Saturday afternoon, it's the team that I have the emotional connection with, and if I get to see us perform better than we have so far in my lifetime, then I'm all for it.


For all the suspicions over the Gordons when they first came in, they've always acted in the best interests (as they see it) of the football club. We are a much better proposition now than when they came in, it hasn't all been executed perfectly and they've made mistakes, but they've never put us in harm's way and I have no reason to believe they're going to do that in the future, either.

[GloryGlory]

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.

I didn't realise so few members actually voted. Although technically correct that a majority of those who did vote were against the resolutions, in actual fact a very small minority of the total membership supported them. My personal view - and that's all it is - is that given the overwhelming level of abstentions HSL could decide to abstain from voting their shares rather than pursue a path that so few members actively supported.

[GloryGlory]

I wonder what's next for HSL as an organisation? I've always been supportive of it, contributed and am a member. I like the idea of supporters having a say in the club to some degree, I'm not quite so sure I think full fan ownership (never the stated aim of HSL) is the way forward.

Ultimately, though, I want to see a good Hibs side. Am I *that* bothered if the ownership is out of our hands - no, not if we're run well and successful.

I'm not sitting worried about Foley and the Gordons doing us over, they have absolutely no need to do that, there's nothing in it for them to do it, and at the end of the day, even if they do, we'll cope. Both Rangers and Hearts survived (to different extents) catastrophic ownerships and they are both sitting in much healthier positions than us today. We'd cope.

I'm not sure if there's a Man City, Arsenal, Liverpool, or Newcastle equivalent group of fans not enjoying their teams doing much better now because they're in foreign ownership or have no say in how the club is run. Man U clearly have issues, but ironically, it looks like another billionaire taking a minority holding is going to help to turn them around as well.

I'd be sad if I had to sell my very small shareholding in Hibs if someone decides they want the whole thing lock,stock, and barrel, but I wouldn't ever feel that Hibs was any less of my club, and if they came in and made us better, I'm happy. I don't look at my share certificate every Saturday afternoon, it's the team that I have the emotional connection with, and if I get to see us perform better than we have so far in my lifetime, then I'm all for it.


For all the suspicions over the Gordons when they first came in, they've always acted in the best interests (as they see it) of the football club. We are a much better proposition now than when they came in, it hasn't all been executed perfectly and they've made mistakes, but they've never put us in harm's way and I have no reason to believe they're going to do that in the future, either.

In our almost 150 years of history, ownership has always been out of the hands of the supporter base.

[Ringothedog]

I didn't realise so few members actually voted. Although technically correct that a majority of those who did vote were against the resolutions, in actual fact a very small minority of the total membership supported them. My personal view - and that's all it is - is that given the overwhelming level of abstentions HSL could decide to abstain from voting their shares rather than pursue a path that so few members actively supported.
I agree but the ramifications of doing that would be huge.

[El Gubbz]

In our almost 150 years of history, ownership has always been out of the hands of the supporter base.

How many of those 150 years have we sat as mere balance sheet items for foreign companies?

[matty_f]

How many of those 150 years have we sat as mere balance sheet items for foreign companies?

We're not that now and we won't be while the Gordons have ownership.

[El Gubbz]

We're not that now and we won't be while the Gordons have ownership.

Aren’t Bydand sports registered in Delaware, USA?

[Malthibby]

I didn't realise so few members actually voted. Although technically correct that a majority of those who did vote were against the resolutions, in actual fact a very small minority of the total membership supported them. My personal view - and that's all it is - is that given the overwhelming level of abstentions HSL could decide to abstain from voting their shares rather than pursue a path that so few members actively supported.

I assume I would have been eligible to vote, having contributed for 7 years at £18.75 then £20 but I didn’t get an e-mail so couldn’t; checked my membership details and HSL has my current e-mail address.
If I’m not alone it must call into question the vote, surely?
Not doubting the good intentions of those who run HSL, as Hibs fans they’ll want what we all want; I’m just not certain the system should enable such a tiny minority of HSL members to vote for the overwhelming majority if there wasn’t the opportunity for everyone to vote.

[matty_f]

Aren’t Bydand sports registered in Delaware, USA?

Ah well if they are then we are, it's not that bad in that case.

[matty_f]

I assume I would have been eligible to vote, having contributed for 7 years at £18.75 then £20 but I didn’t get an e-mail so couldn’t; checked my membership details and HSL has my current e-mail address.
If I’m not alone it must call into question the vote, surely?
Not doubting the good intentions of those who run HSL, as Hibs fans they’ll want what we all want; I’m just not certain the system should enable such a tiny minority of HSL members to vote for the overwhelming majority if there wasn’t the opportunity for everyone to vote.

If some members haven't been given the opportunity to vote then there's no way the vote can be taken as valid and be considered a mandate to act, especially given the small numbers involved, imho.

[Stairway 2 7]

How many of those 150 years have we sat as mere balance sheet items for foreign companies?

Gordons have much more interest in hibs than Farmer who didn't like football. Its a bit xenophobic to keep banging on about foreigners. They weren't Hibees when they came but I'm sure they are now. We were very fortunate in getting Ron Gordon as our owner, we obviously were with Farmer too

[GreenPJ]

How many of those 150 years have we sat as mere balance sheet items for foreign companies?

I think you are definitely doing the Gordon's a disservice with that comment. Do you honestly think that Hibs for Ron or his family are merely a balance sheet item?

As for the Black Knights they are a Sports and Entertainment consortium - their raison d'etre is to promote and develop a sports group/club to make them more effective financially (profitable) but that only really works if you deliver some form of success so they then share the same objective as fans. Admittedly I don't just want to be a loan club from Bournemouth we need to sign players for Hibs as well as take the advantages of being part of a multi-club model.

[El Gubbz]

I think you are definitely doing the Gordon's a disservice with that comment. Do you honestly think that Hibs for Ron or his family are merely a balance sheet item?

As for the Black Knights they are a Sports and Entertainment consortium - their raison d'etre is to promote and develop a sports group/club to make them more effective financially (profitable) but that only really works if you deliver some form of success so they then share the same objective as fans. Admittedly I don't just want to be a loan club from Bournemouth we need to sign players for Hibs as well as take the advantages of being part of a multi-club model.
Difficult to reply to that comment with the respect it deserves in a thread where lifelong Hibees are being accused of being jambos purely because they’ve done a little bit of due diligence and exercising a little bit of caution.

Based on how things are in 2024 do I think the Gordon’s will do us over? No. Should their other investments go Pete tong while they’re sitting on £20+m of prime real estate in Edinburgh and East Lothian? Then I’ll be worried.

I think those that are in my camp just want to empower the real custodians of the club, its supporters, to block any potential malice should the Gordons require to recoup losses. Bear in mind it was RG that was the succesful business man - not those that inherited his wealth.

[CapitalGreen]

Aren’t Bydand sports registered in Delaware, USA?

It’s probably the “mere balance sheet items” part of your post rather than the “foreign” part that people would dispute about the Gordon’s.

[ancient hibee]

Difficult to reply to that comment with the respect it deserves in a thread where lifelong Hibees are being accused of being jambos purely because they’ve done a little bit of due diligence and exercising a little bit of caution.

Based on how things are in 2024 do I think the Gordon’s will do us over? No. Should their other investments go Pete tong while they’re sitting on £20+m of prime real estate in Edinburgh and East Lothian? Then I’ll be worried.

I think those that are in my camp just want to empower the real custodians of the club, its supporters, to block any potential malice should the Gordons require to recoup losses. Bear in mind it was RG that was the succesful business man - not those that inherited his wealth.

Which of the Gordon businesses in the US do you think might go belly up as distinct from a Scottish football club that has underperformed and suffered under investment in achieving sustained playing success for years.

[Torto7]

Difficult to reply to that comment with the respect it deserves in a thread where lifelong Hibees are being accused of being jambos purely because they’ve done a little bit of due diligence and exercising a little bit of caution.

Based on how things are in 2024 do I think the Gordon’s will do us over? No. Should their other investments go Pete tong while they’re sitting on £20+m of prime real estate in Edinburgh and East Lothian? Then I’ll be worried.

I think those that are in my camp just want to empower the real custodians of the club, its supporters, to block any potential malice should the Gordons require to recoup losses. Bear in mind it was RG that was the succesful business man - not those that inherited his wealth.

:faf::faf: you say you've done your due diligence then post that crap. They are worth billions Hibs and that 'prime real estate' is a tiny little part of that.

I'm sorry but there's been a reek of xenophobia since the moment RG came into the club and some of the same people have continued to beat that drum and flat out lie about them during their period in charge. It's embarrassing quite frankly.

[flash]

Difficult to reply to that comment with the respect it deserves in a thread where lifelong Hibees are being accused of being jambos purely because they’ve done a little bit of due diligence and exercising a little bit of caution.

Based on how things are in 2024 do I think the Gordon’s will do us over? No. Should their other investments go Pete tong while they’re sitting on £20+m of prime real estate in Edinburgh and East Lothian? Then I’ll be worried.

I think those that are in my camp just want to empower the real custodians of the club, its supporters, to block any potential malice should the Gordons require to recoup losses. Bear in mind it was RG that was the succesful business man - not those that inherited his wealth.

"Due diligence" doing some Olympic level heavy lifting here.

[DanishJohn]

:faf::faf: you say you've done your due diligence then post that crap. They are worth billions Hibs and that 'prime real estate' is a tiny little part of that.

I'm sorry but there's been a reek of xenophobia since the moment RG came into the club and some of the same people have continued to beat that drum and flat out lie about them during their period in charge. It's embarrassing quite frankly.

Are you saying the Gordon Family are worth Billions ? That's absolutely a bombshell to me!

I was never aware they were worth that much. That news probably will change a lot of peoples views on this proposed deal.
It makes me think what the urgency is in needing investment in Hibs. Billions already available to invest or lend to Hibs.

Thanks for posting that.

[CropleyWasGod]

Are you saying the Gordon Family are worth Billions ? That's absolutely a bombshell to me!

I was never aware they were worth that much. That news probably will change a lot of peoples views on this proposed deal.
It makes me think what the urgency is in needing investment in Hibs. Billions already available to invest or lend to Hibs.

Thanks for posting that.

The Gordons aren't.

Foley is.

[ancient hibee]

The Gordons aren't.

Foley is.

Think that Ron sold the radio station business for £100 million plus. Presumably significant stock holders in the Washington Bank he founded. Not short.

[Stairway 2 7]

Think that Ron sold the radio station business for £100 million plus. Presumably significant stock holders in the Washington Bank he founded. Not short.

Obviously very wealthy, turning £6 debt into shares show that but Foley is worth billions. The black Knight group also are part owned by the Ryan family who's net worth it £11 billion. They won't be needing to sell us to prop up a budget sheet.

Foley/BK paid $500 million for the franchise fee for Vegas golden knights, Forbes now estimates they are worth $1.3 billion 6 years later. They are big players. I also see Foley said for his New Zealand team he is looking at using an existing stadium in Auckland for 3 years before helping get a new 20,000 seater stadium. I think it shows we're in for the ride for a good few years, hopefully it's a fun one

[brog]

[QUOTE=matty_f;7596735]If some members haven't been given the opportunity to vote then there's no way the vote can be taken as valid and be considered a mandate to act, especially given the small numbers involve.

As I posted earlier Matty I did not get opportunity to vote. HSL contacted me after my initial post on here and said it was because I had unsubscribed in 2019. I hadn't but regardless I had several conversations with HSL after that date, most recently in June 2022 when HSL stated they would ensure I was on the mailing list. I've also actually entered the Pioneers draw a few times this season. I'm extremely loathe to criticise great Hibs supporters who work so hard for our club but I'm not sure their procedures for this vote would stand up to detailed scrutiny.

[hibbydad]

[QUOTE=matty_f;7596735]If some members haven't been given the opportunity to vote then there's no way the vote can be taken as valid and be considered a mandate to act, especially given the small numbers involve.

As I posted earlier Matty I did not get opportunity to vote. HSL contacted me after my initial post on here and said it was because I had unsubscribed in 2019. I hadn't but regardless I had several conversations with HSL after that date, most recently in June 2022 when HSL stated they would ensure I was on the mailing list. I've also actually entered the Pioneers draw a few times this season. I'm extremely loathe to criticise great Hibs supporters who work so hard for our club but I'm not sure their procedures for this vote would stand up to detailed scrutiny.
Well said Brog

[brog]

If some members haven't been given the opportunity to vote then there's no way the vote can be taken as valid and be considered a mandate to act, especially given the small numbers involved, imho.

Matty, I've sent you a pm.

[Ship of Hope]

It is incredible that a 2% turnout and 1.5% voting for a motion can be classed as a majority view of a membership of an organisation. Whilst it may be legal it does not seem like a justifiable mandate for anything. Makes me extremely glad we are not going to be fan owned anytime in the near future.

[DanishJohn]

[QUOTE=matty_f;7596735]If some members haven't been given the opportunity to vote then there's no way the vote can be taken as valid and be considered a mandate to act, especially given the small numbers involve.

As I posted earlier Matty I did not get opportunity to vote. HSL contacted me after my initial post on here and said it was because I had unsubscribed in 2019. I hadn't but regardless I had several conversations with HSL after that date, most recently in June 2022 when HSL stated they would ensure I was on the mailing list. I've also actually entered the Pioneers draw a few times this season. I'm extremely loathe to criticise great Hibs supporters who work so hard for our club but I'm not sure their procedures for this vote would stand up to detailed scrutiny.


yes I agree with you regarding detailed scrutiny. Of course that's got to apply to every persons eligibility to vote.

[DanishJohn]

I've asked this before but I will ask again. Does anyone have a copy of the proposal (circa 2015) from the club to sell shares ?
I've not got a copy but I'm sure it detailed how many shares an individual could purchase .

Could anyone help me out ?

[Hibbyradge]

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:

Unfortunately, I just saw this because I was golfing.

I hope York compensated you well for your journey.

[Aaron]

Without reading the whole thread is this the end of the road for the proposed investment now HSL have voted against it?

[matty_f]

I've asked this before but I will ask again. Does anyone have a copy of the proposal (circa 2015) from the club to sell shares ?
I've not got a copy but I'm sure it detailed how many shares an individual could purchase .

Could anyone help me out ?
It was limited but Hibs also had a mechanism for buying more by going through them directly.

[Hibernian Verse]

Without reading the whole thread is this the end of the road for the proposed investment now HSL have voted against it?

No, thank ****

[matty_f]

Without reading the whole thread is this the end of the road for the proposed investment now HSL have voted against it?

No, it's pretty much irrelevant to the proposed investment, I think. BK and the Gordon Family will have secured enough votes to be confident that it'll get voted through tomorrow, thankfully.

[leith lynx]

Without reading the whole thread is this the end of the road for the proposed investment now HSL have voted against it?

No, sorry to disappoint you.

[Hibernian Verse]

No, it's pretty much irrelevant to the proposed investment, I think. BK and the Gordon Family will have secured enough votes to be confident that it'll get voted through tomorrow, thankfully.

What about the men, women and children though? The children!!! the poor children!!!

[DanishJohn]

Unfortunately, I just saw this because I was golfing.

I hope York compensated you well for your journey.

Visit to bike shop. Coffee with my wife on Bishy Road. Does that count as compensation ? :agree:

[Aaron]

Thank you to those who replied letting me know that this is not the end of the road for the investment. Thank **** indeed :thumbsup:

[DanishJohn]

It was limited but Hibs also had a mechanism for buying more by going through them directly.


Yep still would need to see the agreement. Just to check timings etc of the agreements. Were there two proposals ? One for dealing with HSL and another one ?

[Hibbyradge]

Visit to bike shop. Coffee with my wife on Bishy Road. Does that count as compensation ? :agree:

If you enjoyed it, yes. If not, still yes, but nae luck!

[Billy Whizz]

I've asked this before but I will ask again. Does anyone have a copy of the proposal (circa 2015) from the club to sell shares ?
I've not got a copy but I'm sure it detailed how many shares an individual could purchase .

Could anyone help me out ?

Can’t find the Hibs one, but found these 3

https://x.com/HibernianFC/status/587346436578226176?s=20

https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2015/01/hibs-outline-new-share-issue-details/

https://hibsclub.co.uk/2015/02/10/hibernian-fc-share-issue/

[CapitalGreen]

I've asked this before but I will ask again. Does anyone have a copy of the proposal (circa 2015) from the club to sell shares ?
I've not got a copy but I'm sure it detailed how many shares an individual could purchase .

Could anyone help me out ?

https://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?297222-Hibernian-FC-Share-Issue-The-Basics

LD clarified at a later date that anyone wishing to purchase more than the upper limit could contact the club directly to discuss.

[DanishJohn]

Can’t find the Hibs one, but found these 3

https://x.com/HibernianFC/status/587346436578226176?s=20

https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2015/01/hibs-outline-new-share-issue-details/

https://hibsclub.co.uk/2015/02/10/hibernian-fc-share-issue/


Thanks for that Billy, much appreciated. I could be wrong but I just have it in my head that there was a limit on how many an individual could purchase.

[Not In The Know]

Tomorrow


Ta!

[Not In The Know]

I wonder what's next for HSL as an organisation? I've always been supportive of it, contributed and am a member. I like the idea of supporters having a say in the club to some degree, I'm not quite so sure I think full fan ownership (never the stated aim of HSL) is the way forward.

Ultimately, though, I want to see a good Hibs side. Am I *that* bothered if the ownership is out of our hands - no, not if we're run well and successful.

I'm not sitting worried about Foley and the Gordons doing us over, they have absolutely no need to do that, there's nothing in it for them to do it, and at the end of the day, even if they do, we'll cope. Both Rangers and Hearts survived (to different extents) catastrophic ownerships and they are both sitting in much healthier positions than us today. We'd cope.

I'm not sure if there's a Man City, Arsenal, Liverpool, or Newcastle equivalent group of fans not enjoying their teams doing much better now because they're in foreign ownership or have no say in how the club is run. Man U clearly have issues, but ironically, it looks like another billionaire taking a minority holding is going to help to turn them around as well.

I'd be sad if I had to sell my very small shareholding in Hibs if someone decides they want the whole thing lock,stock, and barrel, but I wouldn't ever feel that Hibs was any less of my club, and if they came in and made us better, I'm happy. I don't look at my share certificate every Saturday afternoon, it's the team that I have the emotional connection with, and if I get to see us perform better than we have so far in my lifetime, then I'm all for it.


For all the suspicions over the Gordons when they first came in, they've always acted in the best interests (as they see it) of the football club. We are a much better proposition now than when they came in, it hasn't all been executed perfectly and they've made mistakes, but they've never put us in harm's way and I have no reason to believe they're going to do that in the future, either.


donate all the spare cash to local youth teams...

[CapitalGreen]

Thanks for that Billy, much appreciated. I could be wrong but I just have it in my head that there was a limit on how many an individual could purchase.

Limit was 3.125m shares (£125k) for anyone purchasing via an IFA, anyone wishing to invest more were asked to contact the club for an individual conversation.

[leith lynx]

I wonder what's next for HSL as an organisation? I've always been supportive of it, contributed and am a member. I like the idea of supporters having a say in the club to some degree, I'm not quite so sure I think full fan ownership (never the stated aim of HSL) is the way forward.

Ultimately, though, I want to see a good Hibs side. Am I *that* bothered if the ownership is out of our hands - no, not if we're run well and successful.

I'm not sitting worried about Foley and the Gordons doing us over, they have absolutely no need to do that, there's nothing in it for them to do it, and at the end of the day, even if they do, we'll cope. Both Rangers and Hearts survived (to different extents) catastrophic ownerships and they are both sitting in much healthier positions than us today. We'd cope.

I'm not sure if there's a Man City, Arsenal, Liverpool, or Newcastle equivalent group of fans not enjoying their teams doing much better now because they're in foreign ownership or have no say in how the club is run. Man U clearly have issues, but ironically, it looks like another billionaire taking a minority holding is going to help to turn them around as well.

I'd be sad if I had to sell my very small shareholding in Hibs if someone decides they want the whole thing lock,stock, and barrel, but I wouldn't ever feel that Hibs was any less of my club, and if they came in and made us better, I'm happy. I don't look at my share certificate every Saturday afternoon, it's the team that I have the emotional connection with, and if I get to see us perform better than we have so far in my lifetime, then I'm all for it.


For all the suspicions over the Gordons when they first came in, they've always acted in the best interests (as they see it) of the football club. We are a much better proposition now than when they came in, it hasn't all been executed perfectly and they've made mistakes, but they've never put us in harm's way and I have no reason to believe they're going to do that in the future, either.

Very well put Matty, exactly how I feel about this. Let's (hopefully) enjoy the ride.

[DanishJohn]

Limit was 3.125m shares (£125k) for anyone purchasing via an IFA, anyone wishing to invest more were asked to contact the club for an individual conversation.

Thank you for that.

[chippy]

donate all the spare cash to local youth teams...
Could purchase season tickets for folks who can’t afford it

[degenerated]

If some members haven't been given the opportunity to vote then there's no way the vote can be taken as valid and be considered a mandate to act, especially given the small numbers involved, imho.I certainly know someone who didn't get any form of communication from HSL about this.

[ancient hibee]

Strangely enough I get emails from them when I'm not sure if I ever donated anything-certainly no regular payments.

Wonder if they could give something to Dnipro Kids.

[j'adorehibs]

I certainly know someone who didn't get any form of communication from HSL about this.

i never received anything, seems like communications have been selective?

[Just Alf]

i never received anything, seems like communications have been selective?Guy at work didn't get anything... Hotmail.....
Logged onto the webmail version and found it in spam.... along with a job offer, now too late to accept.

He's no happy :-/

Ps I knew he's looking for something better workwise :-)

[Not In The Know]

I certainly know someone who didn't get any form of communication from HSL about this.

only email I got was "The agm was last night!"

[Irish_Steve]

I just gave up as well

I had difficulty too downloading it, understanding it so I thought I'd check it all out later and then promptly forgot to.

So, I'm a member who didn't vote because I wasn't sure what I was actually supposed to be voting on.

In fairness to HSL, I have received every email they have sent out, if you haven't and claim to be a member of HSL, then the fault is with you and not them.

HSL used the contact details I gave them when I signed up

[Irish_Steve]

only email I got was "The agm was last night!"

I don't think HSL are selective in the emails they send out, you either get them all or none at all

[Eyrie]

I received several emails from HSL about the vote, despite not having contributed for several years, so they did make a reasonable effort using the contact details that they hold.

But I didn't vote because it didn't feel right given that I'm not a current contributor.

[worcesterhibby]

Im a full member and never recieved an email. I have emailed HSL and asked why.

[Lago]

I wonder if I'm alone in wishing tomorrow was done and dusted and the club could move on, hopefully to better times.

[glenberviehibee]

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.

Exactly the same with myself

[jacomo]

I wonder if I'm alone in wishing tomorrow was done and dusted and the club could move on, hopefully to better times.


No you aren’t alone.

HSL seem to say they are voting against because they don’t feel they’ve been engaged with properly and don’t have enough information on what this investment will mean.

Ok, but that’s more a process issue rather than a principled stand against a new investor.

It’s a wee bit ironic that HSL was hobbled by noises off criticising the share issue, and now they are criticising fresh investment.

[K-Zazu]

So for all the dummies on this board (mainly me) is the Foley deal not happening now?

[Pagan Hibernia]

So for all the dummies on this board (mainly me) is the Foley deal not happening now?

It's still happening

[Forza Fred]

I wonder if I'm alone in wishing tomorrow was done and dusted and the club could move on, hopefully to better times.

Nope you certainly ain’t the only one who feels that way.

[Pagan Hibernia]

I wonder if I'm alone in wishing tomorrow was done and dusted and the club could move on, hopefully to better times.

You're not alone.

I'll be happy when this week is done tbh but that's because I also hate derbys

[CentreLine]

No you aren’t alone.

HSL seem to say they are voting against because they don’t feel they’ve been engaged with properly and don’t have enough information on what this investment will mean.

Ok, but that’s more a process issue rather than a principled stand against a new investor.

It’s a wee bit ironic that HSL was hobbled by noises off criticising the share issue, and now they are criticising fresh investment.

That’s not quite right. HSL will vote against because its raison d’etre is to accumulate funds to purchase shares in Hibernian Football Club as and when they become available to buy. The resolutions prevent that happening and or allows for the compulsory purchase of HSL shares along with yours, mine and everyone else’s shares in the club after a single entity holds 80% of the shares in the club. HSL has nowhere to go with this and the club would have known that.
The complete failure of the club to engage with HSL is regrettable and rather insulting but not the reason for its voting against the motions.

[Daniel 1875]

I’ve intentionally stayed out of this thread as much as possible for a number of reasons but feel I need to address the suggestions that there was any kind of ‘selective’ approach to the communications re the recent AGM.

The information about the AGM successfully went to 3649 people. Of the 3649 recipients, 2000 unique users opened the first AGM email.

Of the 3643 recipients of our AGM reminder email, 1845 people opened it. These open rates are around average for our email communications over the last 12 months.

We also posted the details on our website and across our social media in order to try and make sure as many people as possible were encouraged to take part in the voting and attend our meeting last week.

The supporters who have taken part in one off initiatives are included on our mailing list - we intentionally include these fans in our emails to keep them informed with what’s going on.

All votes were checked against our membership system to ensure only full members (anyone who’s paid £225+ at any point) were counted.

As anyone who has emailed us over the last couple of weeks will hopefully attest to, I have personally done what I can to look into the handful of supporters who unfortunately did not receive the information - mainly due to a change of email address or due to unsubscribing from the mailing list (intentionally or otherwise).

I really do hope this helps clarify that we did almost all we could to encourage participation and attendance in the recent AGM.

As ever, if anyone has any specific questions on any of the processes in use please feel free to email us at [email protected].

[CentreLine]

I’ve intentionally stayed out of this thread as much as possible for a number of reasons but feel I need to address the suggestions that there was any kind of ‘selective’ approach to the communications re the recent AGM.

The information about the AGM successfully went to 3649 people. Of the 3649 recipients, 2000 unique users opened the first AGM email.

Of the 3643 recipients of our AGM reminder email, 1845 people opened it. These open rates are around average for our email communications over the last 12 months.

We also posted the details on our website and across our social media in order to try and make sure as many people as possible were encouraged to take part in the voting and attend our meeting last week.

The supporters who have taken part in one off initiatives are included on our mailing list - we intentionally include these fans in our emails to keep them informed with what’s going on.

All votes were checked against our membership system to ensure only full members (anyone who’s paid £225+ at any point) were counted.

As anyone who has emailed us over the last couple of weeks will hopefully attest to, I have personally done what I can to look into the handful of supporters who unfortunately did not receive the information - mainly due to a change of email address or due to unsubscribing from the mailing list (intentionally or otherwise).

I really do hope this helps clarify that we did almost all we could to encourage participation and attendance in the recent AGM.

As ever, if anyone has any specific questions on any of the processes in use please feel free to email us at [email protected].

Thanks Daniel, that looks to be as thorough as any company could be. Thank you and all of the directors for all that you, even handedly, do on our behalf as HSL members.

[marinello59]

I’ve intentionally stayed out of this thread as much as possible for a number of reasons but feel I need to address the suggestions that there was any kind of ‘selective’ approach to the communications re the recent AGM.

The information about the AGM successfully went to 3649 people. Of the 3649 recipients, 2000 unique users opened the first AGM email.

Of the 3643 recipients of our AGM reminder email, 1845 people opened it. These open rates are around average for our email communications over the last 12 months.

We also posted the details on our website and across our social media in order to try and make sure as many people as possible were encouraged to take part in the voting and attend our meeting last week.

The supporters who have taken part in one off initiatives are included on our mailing list - we intentionally include these fans in our emails to keep them informed with what’s going on.

All votes were checked against our membership system to ensure only full members (anyone who’s paid £225+ at any point) were counted.

As anyone who has emailed us over the last couple of weeks will hopefully attest to, I have personally done what I can to look into the handful of supporters who unfortunately did not receive the information - mainly due to a change of email address or due to unsubscribing from the mailing list (intentionally or otherwise).

I really do hope this helps clarify that we did almost all we could to encourage participation and attendance in the recent AGM.

As ever, if anyone has any specific questions on any of the processes in use please feel free to email us at [email protected].

Thanks for that.
You have a thankless task. :greengrin

[Bostonhibby]

I’ve intentionally stayed out of this thread as much as possible for a number of reasons but feel I need to address the suggestions that there was any kind of ‘selective’ approach to the communications re the recent AGM.

The information about the AGM successfully went to 3649 people. Of the 3649 recipients, 2000 unique users opened the first AGM email.

Of the 3643 recipients of our AGM reminder email, 1845 people opened it. These open rates are around average for our email communications over the last 12 months.

We also posted the details on our website and across our social media in order to try and make sure as many people as possible were encouraged to take part in the voting and attend our meeting last week.

The supporters who have taken part in one off initiatives are included on our mailing list - we intentionally include these fans in our emails to keep them informed with what’s going on.

All votes were checked against our membership system to ensure only full members (anyone who’s paid £225+ at any point) were counted.

As anyone who has emailed us over the last couple of weeks will hopefully attest to, I have personally done what I can to look into the handful of supporters who unfortunately did not receive the information - mainly due to a change of email address or due to unsubscribing from the mailing list (intentionally or otherwise).

I really do hope this helps clarify that we did almost all we could to encourage participation and attendance in the recent AGM.

As ever, if anyone has any specific questions on any of the processes in use please feel free to email us at [email protected].

Thanks for taking the trouble to do this Daniel, the open rates you refer to are significant and are not much different to those in businesses I've been involved with in the past.

I think it tells us that far, far more members had the opportunity to vote but for whatever reasons chose not to.

My own views of the investment (as an HSL member and long standing independent shareholder) are not in line with how HSL have been instructed to vote by the members who actually did vote but I think it's fair to say that HSL did pretty much what it could do here.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[CapitalGreen]

I’ve intentionally stayed out of this thread as much as possible for a number of reasons but feel I need to address the suggestions that there was any kind of ‘selective’ approach to the communications re the recent AGM.

The information about the AGM successfully went to 3649 people. Of the 3649 recipients, 2000 unique users opened the first AGM email.

Of the 3643 recipients of our AGM reminder email, 1845 people opened it. These open rates are around average for our email communications over the last 12 months.

We also posted the details on our website and across our social media in order to try and make sure as many people as possible were encouraged to take part in the voting and attend our meeting last week.

The supporters who have taken part in one off initiatives are included on our mailing list - we intentionally include these fans in our emails to keep them informed with what’s going on.

All votes were checked against our membership system to ensure only full members (anyone who’s paid £225+ at any point) were counted.

As anyone who has emailed us over the last couple of weeks will hopefully attest to, I have personally done what I can to look into the handful of supporters who unfortunately did not receive the information - mainly due to a change of email address or due to unsubscribing from the mailing list (intentionally or otherwise).

I really do hope this helps clarify that we did almost all we could to encourage participation and attendance in the recent AGM.

As ever, if anyone has any specific questions on any of the processes in use please feel free to email us at [email protected].

Hi Daniel

Can you advise if there was any discussion to include an option in the HSL vote for members to request HSL to abstain on Resolution 5 & 6 at the AGM tonight?

If there was, can you advise why it was decided against?

Thanks

[Daniel 1875]

Hi Daniel

Can you advise if there was any discussion to include an option in the HSL vote for members to request HSL to abstain on Resolution 5 & 6 at the AGM tonight?

If there was, can you advise why it was decided against?

Thanks

Hi CG, there wasn’t a discussion around including the option to abstain from voting as we felt it important to give members exactly the same choices (and wording) as the club to avoid any suggestion that what we were offering members the chance to do was divergent from the resolutions shareholders are being asked to vote on.

[matty_f]

I’ve intentionally stayed out of this thread as much as possible for a number of reasons but feel I need to address the suggestions that there was any kind of ‘selective’ approach to the communications re the recent AGM.

The information about the AGM successfully went to 3649 people. Of the 3649 recipients, 2000 unique users opened the first AGM email.

Of the 3643 recipients of our AGM reminder email, 1845 people opened it. These open rates are around average for our email communications over the last 12 months.

We also posted the details on our website and across our social media in order to try and make sure as many people as possible were encouraged to take part in the voting and attend our meeting last week.

The supporters who have taken part in one off initiatives are included on our mailing list - we intentionally include these fans in our emails to keep them informed with what’s going on.

All votes were checked against our membership system to ensure only full members (anyone who’s paid £225+ at any point) were counted.

As anyone who has emailed us over the last couple of weeks will hopefully attest to, I have personally done what I can to look into the handful of supporters who unfortunately did not receive the information - mainly due to a change of email address or due to unsubscribing from the mailing list (intentionally or otherwise).

I really do hope this helps clarify that we did almost all we could to encourage participation and attendance in the recent AGM.

As ever, if anyone has any specific questions on any of the processes in use please feel free to email us at [email protected].

Thanks for sharing the context, Daniel. :aok:

[CapitalGreen]

Hi CG, there wasn’t a discussion around including the option to abstain from voting as we felt it important to give members exactly the same choices (and wording) as the club to avoid any suggestion that what we were offering members the chance to do was divergent from the resolutions shareholders are being asked to vote on.

That is what has happened though as regular shareholders can abstain in tonight’s vote but there wasn’t the option for the HSL membership to vote to abstain.

Abstaining in tonight’s vote is the only way of showing you are not in favour of revolution 5 & 6 but you don’t want to vote against the investment proceeding.

[Bobby Coombe]

I’ve intentionally stayed out of this thread as much as possible for a number of reasons but feel I need to address the suggestions that there was any kind of ‘selective’ approach to the communications re the recent AGM.

The information about the AGM successfully went to 3649 people. Of the 3649 recipients, 2000 unique users opened the first AGM email.

Of the 3643 recipients of our AGM reminder email, 1845 people opened it. These open rates are around average for our email communications over the last 12 months.

We also posted the details on our website and across our social media in order to try and make sure as many people as possible were encouraged to take part in the voting and attend our meeting last week.

The supporters who have taken part in one off initiatives are included on our mailing list - we intentionally include these fans in our emails to keep them informed with what’s going on.

All votes were checked against our membership system to ensure only full members (anyone who’s paid £225+ at any point) were counted.

As anyone who has emailed us over the last couple of weeks will hopefully attest to, I have personally done what I can to look into the handful of supporters who unfortunately did not receive the information - mainly due to a change of email address or due to unsubscribing from the mailing list (intentionally or otherwise).

I really do hope this helps clarify that we did almost all we could to encourage participation and attendance in the recent AGM.

As ever, if anyone has any specific questions on any of the processes in use please feel free to email us at [email protected].

I think HSL and Daniel in particular have done their very best to communicate with their member shareholders. There will always be some issues over e-mail addresses etc. if people choose not to vote, that’s not down to HSL. As a member of HSL, I have no objection to the proposed investment, but for the club to not even offer HSL the opportunity of pre-emption rights to buy more shares to prevent dilution or to engage in any discussion with the representatives of HSL to explain why not, seems to be pretty high-handed.

[Bostonhibby]

That is what has happened though as regular shareholders can abstain in tonight’s vote but there wasn’t the option for the HSL membership to vote to abstain.

Abstaining in tonight’s vote is the only way of showing you are not in favour of revolution 5 & 6 but you don’t want to vote against the investment proceeding.I see where you are coming from, there's unlikely to be any winners here, but an abstention wouldn't have taken account of any HSL members who actually wanted to vote against the investment for whatever reason and that becomes another stick to beat HSL with.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Daniel 1875]

That is what has happened though as regular shareholders can abstain in tonight’s vote but there wasn’t the option for the HSL membership to vote to abstain.

Abstaining in tonight’s vote is the only way of showing you are not in favour of revolution 5 & 6 but you don’t want to vote against the investment proceeding.

There is no option to abstain on the club’s AGM documentation. You can vote for or against the resolutions.

[nonshinyfinish]

I see where you are coming from, there's unlikely to be any winners here, but an abstention wouldn't have taken account of any HSL members who actually wanted to vote against the investment for whatever reason and that becomes another stick to beat HSL with.

That will always be the case whatever voting options are offered, unless every single member votes the same way.

[Bostonhibby]

That will always be the case whatever voting options are offered, unless every single member votes the same way.Yes, I agree, was just pointing it out.

In the context of this vote there are definitely members who are/were against the investment and will have wanted that view expressed even if, as is likely, it will be a token gesture. If they were even one of the 80 who followed the voting process to the end then it's hard to see how HSL could legally do anything other than vote against as instructed once they had a majority against.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[CapitalGreen]

I see where you are coming from, there's unlikely to be any winners here, but an abstention wouldn't have taken account of any HSL members who actually wanted to vote against the investment for whatever reason and that becomes another stick to beat HSL with.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

I didn’t suggest HSL didn’t allow people to vote against. The HSL vote would have still counted votes against so if that remained the majority, that’s how HSL would vote.

HSL should have allowed its members the same choices as ordinary shareholders have. I will attend the AGM tonight and abstain, as a member of HSL, I didn’t have the option to request HSL vote in the same way.

From what i can gather from on here and discussions with others, there are many like me who don’t want to show support for resolution 5 & 6 but recognise they are conditional resolutions so don’t want to vote against the investment proceeding.

[Bostonhibby]

I didn’t suggest HSL didn’t allow people to vote against. The HSL vote would have still counted votes against so if that remained the majority, that’s how HSL would vote.

HSL should have allowed its members the same choices as ordinary shareholders have. I will attend the AGM tonight and abstain, as a member of HSL, I didn’t have the option to request HSL vote in the same way.

From what i can gather from on here and discussions with others, there are many like me who don’t want to show support for resolution 5 & 6 but recognise they are conditional resolutions so don’t want to vote against the investment proceeding.

I agree you didn't suggest that, apologies if that's how it comes across. For what it's worth, I'm in the same category as you as far as what I felt about the resolution goes. I took the view that the 2 can't or won't be separated here so voted in favour twice.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[CapitalGreen]

There is no option to abstain on the club’s AGM documentation. You can vote for or against the resolutions.

There was no option to abstain on the HSL AGM documentation either but there were still abstentions weren’t there?

[Daniel 1875]

There was no option to abstain on the HSL AGM documentation either but there were still abstentions weren’t there?

There were, which we chose to report as we felt it was fair and gave the members the right to have their views recorded.

We have no idea if Hibs will record abstentions tonight as there is no option on the voting documentation.

[CapitalGreen]

There were, which we chose to report as we felt it was fair and gave the members the right to have their views recorded.

We have no idea if Hibs will record abstentions tonight as there is no option on the voting documentation.

It’s the act of abstaining that’s important. An act I’ll be able to make as an ordinary shareholder tonight but HSL as a fellow shareholder wasn’t allowed to make.

[hibbie02]

I didn’t suggest HSL didn’t allow people to vote against. The HSL vote would have still counted votes against so if that remained the majority, that’s how HSL would vote.

HSL should have allowed its members the same choices as ordinary shareholders have. I will attend the AGM tonight and abstain, as a member of HSL, I didn’t have the option to request HSL vote in the same way.

From what i can gather from on here and discussions with others, there are many like me who don’t want to show support for resolution 5 & 6 but recognise they are conditional resolutions so don’t want to vote against the investment proceeding.

I am not sure many binding votes have abstention as an option, particularly when done by post/email. Generally the vote is taken in the meeting as for or against. If they choose to count those that don't vote in the meeting, they would be abstentions. As a full HSL Member I have no issue with HSL handling of this and I deliberately did not vote as am not against the Foley idea, but I am not happy about the dilution of shares and the impact on HSL.

[marinello59]

I am not sure many binding votes have abstention as an option, particularly when done by post/email. Generally the vote is taken in the meeting as for or against. If they choose to count those that don't vote in the meeting, they would be abstentions. As a full HSL Member I have no issue with HSL handling of this and I deliberately did not vote as am not against the Foley idea, but I am not happy about the dilution of shares and the impact on HSL.

:agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

There is no option to abstain on the club’s AGM documentation. You can vote for or against the resolutions.

You can also abstain. That is always an option, whether or not it is explicit in the documentation.

[green day]

The HSL team have done what they thought was right for their membership - of that there is no doubt.

Regardless of anyones thoughts on the voting system, the numbers of votes casts etc, none of that matters at this point.

They have a valid result which they will take into the AGM later.

We are where we are, and lets just see what emerges later - I am not sure that there is any point in anyone raking over the coals right now.

[Hibernian Verse]

Is Foley or A N Other BKFC representative attending tonight?

[CapitalGreen]

Is Foley or A N Other BKFC representative attending tonight?

You’d hope so, maybe one or both of their proposed additions to the board will be there.

[Hibbyradge]

I am not sure many binding votes have abstention as an option, particularly when done by post/email. Generally the vote is taken in the meeting as for or against. If they choose to count those that don't vote in the meeting, they would be abstentions. As a full HSL Member I have no issue with HSL handling of this and I deliberately did not vote as am not against the Foley idea, but I am not happy about the dilution of shares and the impact on HSL.

There were many, many more abstentions than for or against combined.

Several thousands more.

HSL would have been totally justified if it had decided to abstain tonight rather than vote against on the back of 56/4000 vote

[flash]

The HSL team have done what they thought was right for their membership - of that there is no doubt.

Regardless of anyones thoughts on the voting system, the numbers of votes casts etc, none of that matters at this point.

They have a valid result which they will take into the AGM later.

We are where we are, and lets just see what emerges later - I am not sure that there is any point in anyone raking over the coals right now.
Not sure I agree.

I am a trade unionist and would feel deeply uncomfortable with a "mandate" given to me on a turnout of approximately 2%.

[CapitalGreen]

I am not sure many binding votes have abstention as an option, particularly when done by post/email. Generally the vote is taken in the meeting as for or against. If they choose to count those that don't vote in the meeting, they would be abstentions. As a full HSL Member I have no issue with HSL handling of this and I deliberately did not vote as am not against the Foley idea, but I am not happy about the dilution of shares and the impact on HSL.

I know, it’s the act of abstaining which is important - not whether or not it is tallied. 17.5m votes missing from the final tally wouldn’t go unnoticed however.

Sounds like the HSL abstaining in tonight’s vote would have been the ideal option for you.

[CapitalGreen]

The Hibs club are abstaining on tonight’s vote.

[Corstorphine Hibby]

Is Foley or A N Other BKFC representative attending tonight?

Fat mess McLauchlin has reported on the BBC that Foley won't be there, so that means he probably will turn up.

[green day]

Not sure I agree.

I am a trade unionist and would feel deeply uncomfortable with a "mandate" given to me on a turnout of approximately 2%.

I dont disagree as it happens.

But we are where we are, the result is valid (above the minimum votes required) so they take it along later.

Nothing said here will change that.

[.Sean.]

Is Foley or A N Other BKFC representative attending tonight?
No according to an article on the BBC

What does it say for HSL that only 2% of members could even be bothered to vote btw.

[CropleyWasGod]

You’d hope so, maybe one or both of their proposed additions to the board will be there.

Not sure I agree. It's not their place yet.

Edit. That said, if the vote goes their way, no problem in having a big reveal, with tinsel and disco lights. Choreographed by David Forsyth.

[Hibernian Verse]

No according to an article on the BBC

What does it say for HSL that only 2% of members could even be bothered to vote btw.

Says it's on its way out

[CapitalGreen]

Not sure I agree. It's not their place yet.

Edit. That said, if the vote goes their way, no problem in having a big reveal, with tinsel and disco lights. Choreographed by David Forsyth.

I’m not suggesting they’d be sitting at the top table.

[CropleyWasGod]

I’m not suggesting they’d be sitting at the top table.

Me neither. I want to see them on top of it, in sequins.

[hibbie02]

There were many, many more abstentions than for or against combined.

Several thousands more.

HSL would have been totally justified if it had decided to abstain tonight rather than vote against on the back of 56/4000 vote

In most Government By-Elections there are more (thousands) absentions than votes for or against, as people don't vote for whatever reason. People don't analyse the resaons for not voting (abstaining), the results still stand.

I would agree with you that HSL would have been justified in deciding to abstain in the vote tonight, but that is not how things work. Can you imagine the uproar on here? You have to go with the result of the actual vote. If people choose not to vote, for whatever reason, their views cannot be taken into account. The House of Commons would be a fairly empty place if abstention was the result of an election.

[Bostonhibby]

You can also abstain. That is always an option, whether or not it is explicit in the documentation.Indeed, who knows how many of the considerable number of non voters who were members and got the HSL emails consciously abstained as one of 3 options, or had other reasons for just not voting?



Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[hibbie02]

I know, it’s the act of abstaining which is important - not whether or not it is tallied. 17.5m votes missing from the final tally wouldn’t go unnoticed however.

Sounds like the HSL abstaining in tonight’s vote would have been the ideal option for you.

The way the whole thing has been handled by the Americans sits badly with me. I welcome the investment, but the original dilution of the shareholding of HSL and now this, makes me uncomfortable. It shows a healthy disrepect for the fans who voluntarily wanted to put money into the Club but have been shunned. I have nothing but respect for HSL, it is a shame the Club don't seem to have the same.

I have worked with Yanks long enough to know how they operate and am not surprised. It is their way or the highway, even if they genuinely want to make Hibs a success. They are not doing it for the fans.

[CapitalGreen]

In most Government By-Elections there are more (thousands) absentions than votes for or against, as people don't vote for whatever reason. People don't analyse the resaons for not voting (abstaining), the results still stand.

I would agree with you that HSL would have been justified in deciding to abstain in the vote tonight, but that is not how things work. Can you imagine the uproar on here? You have to go with the result of the actual vote. If people choose not to vote, for whatever reason, their views cannot be taken into account. The House of Commons would be a fairly empty place if abstention was the result of an election.

I agree, which is why I am suggesting there should have been an option on the HSL vote for members to request HSL abstains in tonight’s vote.

There was no mechanism for HSL members to request HSL abstains in tonight’s vote like I will be doing, like the Hibs club will be doing and like many other ordinary shareholders will be doing.

[flash]

In most Government By-Elections there are more (thousands) absentions than votes for or against, as people don't vote for whatever reason. People don't analyse the resaons for not voting (abstaining), the results still stand.

I would agree with you that HSL would have been justified in deciding to abstain in the vote tonight, but that is not how things work. Can you imagine the uproar on here? You have to go with the result of the actual vote. If people choose not to vote, for whatever reason, their views cannot be taken into account. The House of Commons would be a fairly empty place if abstention was the result of an election.

To be fair the uproar would be ten times worse if people were being elected on 2% turnouts.

[Hibernian Verse]

I agree, which is why I am suggesting there should have been an option on the HSL vote for members to request HSL abstains in tonight’s vote.

There was no mechanism for HSL members to request HSL abstains in tonight’s vote like I will be doing, like the Hibs club will be doing and like many other ordinary shareholders will be doing.

I'm amazed you've had to repeat yourself 3 times now. It's not difficult to grasp.

[Hibbyradge]

In most Government By-Elections there are more (thousands) absentions than votes for or against, as people don't vote for whatever reason. People don't analyse the resaons for not voting (abstaining), the results still stand.

I would agree with you that HSL would have been justified in deciding to abstain in the vote tonight, but that is not how things work. Can you imagine the uproar on here? You have to go with the result of the actual vote. If people choose not to vote, for whatever reason, their views cannot be taken into account. The House of Commons would be a fairly empty place if abstention was the result of an election.

I understand all of that. My point is that HSL had all the justification it needed to abstain. I mean, 56-34 is hardly a conclusive mandate to scupper a multimillion pound investment.

To turn your point around, can you imagine the uproar on here if the investment is rejected because of 56/4000 people. Not to mention the hilarity elsewhere.

But I realise it's all academic now and I'm just banging my virtual gums so let's see what tonight brings. 🤞

[CapitalGreen]

The way the whole thing has been handled by the Americans sits badly with me. I welcome the investment, but the original dilution of the shareholding of HSL and now this, makes me uncomfortable. It shows a healthy disrepect for the fans who voluntarily wanted to put money into the Club but have been shunned. I have nothing but respect for HSL, it is a shame the Club don't seem to have the same.

I have worked with Yanks long enough to know how they operate and am not surprised. It is their way or the highway, even if they genuinely want to make Hibs a success. They are not doing it for the fans.

Any need for the xenophobia?

The original dilution of HSL in 2019 was by the club/STF - it was them who sold the outstanding shares set aside for HSL to Bydand. HSL was sold down the river by the very people who set it up in the first place.

[nonshinyfinish]

I understand all of that. My point is that HSL had all the justification it needed to abstain. I mean, 56-34 is hardly a conclusive mandate to scupper a multimillion pound investment.

To turn your point around, can you imagine the uproar on here if the investment is rejected because of 56/4000 people. Not to mention the hilarity elsewhere.

But I realise it's all academic now and I'm just banging my virtual gums so let's see what tonight brings. 🤞

I don't think they do have that justification, having said beforehand that they'd allow members to vote and then vote at the Hibs AGM accordingly. If they'd attached some conditions about turnout, abstentions etc beforehand it would be different, but as it stands if they now said they're going to abstain they'd be accused of ignoring the members' vote and doing their own thing.

With hindsight it's easy to say they should have set it up differently (which might well have led to them abstaining), but I imagine they were expecting more people to vote (I certainly was).

[hibbie02]

I agree, which is why I am suggesting there should have been an option on the HSL vote for members to request HSL abstains in tonight’s vote.

There was no mechanism for HSL members to request HSL abstains in tonight’s vote like I will be doing, like the Hibs club will be doing and like many other ordinary shareholders will be doing.

It would have been an interesting exercise. Not sure that is usually an option offered, or even allowed in such votes, but I am not an expert, just a concerned supported. I remember David Rowland, David Duff, Jim Gray and a dodgy hotel group. Sometimes things are too good to be true.

[hibbie02]

Any need for the xenophobia?

The original dilution of HSL in 2019 was by the club/STF - it was them who sold the outstanding shares set aside for HSL to Bydand. HSL was sold down the river by the very people who set it up in the first place.

It's not xenophobic to know how American business works, particularly when you have worked in several American businesses.

[TrinityHFC]

The way the whole thing has been handled by the Americans sits badly with me. I welcome the investment, but the original dilution of the shareholding of HSL and now this, makes me uncomfortable. It shows a healthy disrepect for the fans who voluntarily wanted to put money into the Club but have been shunned. I have nothing but respect for HSL, it is a shame the Club don't seem to have the same.

I have worked with Yanks long enough to know how they operate and am not surprised. It is their way or the highway, even if they genuinely want to make Hibs a success. They are not doing it for the fans.

We are a football team and ordinary shareholders did not buy Hibs shares to make money. As a fan base we didn't really support widespread fan ownership as a model.

Some people think there is some value in having a collective of shareholders who have 25% to block stuff, many don't really care about this.

As an investor or owner looking to grow the business and ultimately make the football team more successful then the percentage of fan ownership won't matter, and why should it? They are investing, growing the overall value for everyone - if that matters to anyone. In fact it is easier to go ahead and do what they need to do without it.

No one is being shunned - shareholders still have their shares. HSL still have the value of the shares they purchased. From what I can see HSL are being treated the same way as every shareholder - they get the same info and the same voting rights.

[hibbie02]

I understand all of that. My point is that HSL had all the justification it needed to abstain. I mean, 56-34 is hardly a conclusive mandate to scupper a multimillion pound investment.

To turn your point around, can you imagine the uproar on here if the investment is rejected because of 56/4000 people. Not to mention the hilarity elsewhere.

But I realise it's all academic now and I'm just banging my virtual gums so let's see what tonight brings. 🤞

All fair points, but the votes were a bit more conclusive than 56-34. Section 5 vote was 59-19 (and 2 abstentions in the room), 74% against. Section 6 was 61-16 (and 3 abstentions in the room), 76% against.

[Stairway 2 7]

It's not xenophobic to know how American business works, particularly when you have worked in several American businesses.

It's completely xenophobic you just can't group people like that nowadays. It's like saying Donald Trump or Fox who run there company like tyrants are the same as Google who have sleep pods and yoga room.

If someone said don't work for Scots/Indians/Mexicans they are lazy, you'd say that's ridiculous to tar everyone the same.

Nothing to do with the conversation but I've seen a bit of xenophobic comments recently with us being bought by "foreigners "

[SickBoy32]

We are a football team and ordinary shareholders did not buy Hibs shares to make money. As a fan base we didn't really support widespread fan ownership as a model.

Some people think there is some value in having a collective of shareholders who have 25% to block stuff, many don't really care about this.

As an investor or owner looking to grow the business and ultimately make the football team more successful then the percentage of fan ownership won't matter, and why should it? They are investing, growing the overall value for everyone - if that matters to anyone. In fact it is easier to go ahead and do what they need to do without it.

No one is being shunned - shareholders still have their shares. HSL still have the value of the shares they purchased. From what I can see HSL are being treated the same way as every shareholder - they get the same info and the same voting rights.

Personally speaking, my primary issue with the deal is the drag along clause. Never mind fans’ shares being diluted tonight, this will lead to all supporter shares disappearing altogether. It’s a brave new world we’re about to enter, let’s hope these financial speculators from across the pond truly know what they’re doing.

On a similar note I read that Motherwell fans groups are against their investment proposal too, due to their shareholding reducing below 50% (never mind the 0% we’re getting!!) - so it’s not just us who have concerns around this.

[chippy]

I’ve asked HSL to run an online poll for guidance ( I’m a member) I’ve had nil response , poor show.
They’ve run online polls of their members before

[Stairway 2 7]

The next decision they make could be what to do with 350k of fans money. It needs to be more conclusive than votes from abuse full. I've said it before but online voting is easy you send the company the voting list and they can simply click on their vote.

The current vote is legal and there was nothing untoward. Hopefully it doesn't cost us this opportunity, I don't think it will

[hibbie02]

It's completely xenophobic you just can't group people like that nowadays. It's like saying Donald Trump or Fox who run there company like tyrants are the same as Google who have sleep pods and yoga room.

If someone said don't work for Scots/Indians/Mexicans they are lazy, you'd say that's ridiculous to tar everyone the same.

Nothing to do with the conversation but I've seen a bit of xenophobic comments recently with us being bought by "foreigners "

Sleep pods and yoga rooms do not make Google a non-tyranical Company....

[GloryGlory]

It's not xenophobic to know how American business works, particularly when you have worked in several American businesses.

It's bordering on xenophobic to make a sweeping generalisation about all American businesses based on the experience of only a few.

[Ringothedog]

Personally speaking, my primary issue with the deal is the drag along clause. Never mind fans’ shares being diluted tonight, this will lead to all supporter shares disappearing altogether. It’s a brave new world we’re about to enter, let’s hope these financial speculators from across the pond truly know what they’re doing.

On a similar note I read that Motherwell fans groups are against their investment proposal too, due to their shareholding reducing below 50% (never mind the 0% we’re getting!!) - so it’s not just us who have concerns around this.
We will not have 0% if the vote goes through tonight. That is a lie!! We may have 0% if the Black Knights do a full takeover in the future but not after tonight

[SickBoy32]

We will not have 0% if the vote goes through tonight. That is a lie!! We may have 0% if the Black Knights do a full takeover in the future but not after tonight

Take it easy chief and maybe re-read my post, certainly no lies.

For clarity, supporters shares will be diluted tonight.

They’ll vanish altogether when 80% of the ‘updated shareholders’ (ie Foley and Gordons) agree to a sale, at an as yet unspecified date in the future.

Let’s just hope it’s worth the gamble 👍

[Greencore]

What time should we get the results?

[CropleyWasGod]

Personally speaking, my primary issue with the deal is the drag along clause. Never mind fans’ shares being diluted tonight, this will lead to all supporter shares disappearing altogether. It’s a brave new world we’re about to enter, let’s hope these financial speculators from across the pond truly know what they’re doing.

On a similar note I read that Motherwell fans groups are against their investment proposal too, due to their shareholding reducing below 50% (never mind the 0% we’re getting!!) - so it’s not just us who have concerns around this.

The word in the clause is "may", isn't it? As I understand it (happy to be proved wrong), it's not "will", ie not compulsory.

A new owner might decide that 80% is enough for them, and that they would be comfortable with some fan involvement.

[SickBoy32]

The word in the clause is "may", isn't it? As I understand it (happy to be proved wrong), it's not "will", ie not compulsory.

A new owner might decide that 80% is enough for them, and that they would be comfortable with some fan involvement.

You may well be correct, in which case I stand corrected.

Semantics though IMO, as in any case tonight’s dilution will bring us sub 25% - so job done in that regard.

[TrinityHFC]

Personally speaking, my primary issue with the deal is the drag along clause. Never mind fans’ shares being diluted tonight, this will lead to all supporter shares disappearing altogether. It’s a brave new world we’re about to enter, let’s hope these financial speculators from across the pond truly know what they’re doing.

On a similar note I read that Motherwell fans groups are against their investment proposal too, due to their shareholding reducing below 50% (never mind the 0% we’re getting!!) - so it’s not just us who have concerns around this.

That is a pretty standard addition to articles. It is also an option, a future buyer doesn’t have to utilise it. And I think we are way, way off any future offer for over 80% of our shares.

[Stairway 2 7]

You may well be correct, in which case I stand corrected.

Semantics though IMO, as in any case tonight’s dilution will bring us sub 25% - so job done in that regard.

If Robb is in with the Gordons we are already bellow 25%. We had the chance to go above 25% but didn't take it.

[OfficialHSL]

That is what has happened though as regular shareholders can abstain in tonight’s vote but there wasn’t the option for the HSL membership to vote to abstain.

Abstaining in tonight’s vote is the only way of showing you are not in favour of revolution 5 & 6 but you don’t want to vote against the investment proceeding.

Capital Green

Like Daniel we have tried to limit our input on here to ensure things are carried out correctly. We feel however that it's important to address any questions of impropriety on our behalf. With this in mind, contrary to what you have said, every eligible Member had an option to abstain.

On your second point can we point out that in the context of a voting process, to abstain means to not vote.

Hibernian Supporters

[7Hero]

If votes go in favour of the club's wishes tonight then minority shareholders will be compulsed to sell them to the owners in future. we will be 0% of fans with shares. that is the club's intent. Ron didn't agree with fan ownership, thought Farmer was bonkers to offer it in the first place.

That is where we are heading and HSL are pretty powerless to stop it going on how the other shareholders are going to vote.

[OfficialHSL]

There is no option to abstain on the club’s AGM documentation. You can vote for or against the resolutions.

There is Daniel. You don't put a cross in either box.


Hibernian Supporters

[greenginger]

There is Daniel. You don't put a cross in either box.


Hibernian Supporters

When the Club is looking for 75% to pass a motion rather than a simple majority, I think an abstention is the same as a vote against.

[hhibs]

I’ve asked HSL to run an online poll for guidance ( I’m a member) I’ve had nil response , poor show.
They’ve run online polls of their members before


Absolutely, this has turned into a shambles and could have been avoided if members had been able to vote.

I have been increasingly peed off with HSL for quite a while,whilst still contributing,now just completely feed up with it.

[matty_f]

That is a pretty standard addition to articles. It is also an option, a future buyer doesn’t have to utilise it. And I think we are way, way off any future offer for over 80% of our shares.

Was it the case that the clause (for want of knowing the right term) already existed but with a higher threshold than 80%?

[Hibernian Verse]

There is Daniel. You don't put a cross in either box.


Hibernian Supporters

It could be argued that not voting is an abstention then and your overwhelming majority abstained.

[nonshinyfinish]

Was it the case that the clause (for want of knowing the right term) already existed but with a higher threshold than 80%?

Sure I read on here that it's part of the Companies Act with a threshold of 90%. I could have misremembered that (or it could have been wrong in the first place).

[The Spaceman]

It could be argued that not voting is an abstention then and your overwhelming majority abstained.

Absolutely. The vast majority of HSL members therefore, by default, did not put a cross in either box.

Comes across as a bit of a Tory scheme tbh if 2% are dictating the outcome.

[flash]

There is Daniel. You don't put a cross in either box.


Hibernian Supporters

Surely by your own logic then you should be abstaining tonight?

[matty_f]

It could be argued that not voting is an abstention then and your overwhelming majority abstained.

But abstaining from that vote did not give the option to instruct HSL to abstain from the vote tonight, which is the point being made about the options available.

As an HSL member I could vote to instruct HSL to vote yes or no, but had no means of instructing abstention.

Although that reflects the voting options at the AGM tonight, I can abstain by returning a blank vote but HSL cannot do that because they didn't give members the opportunity to vote to instruct it.

Someone smarter than me can say if they should have, shouldn't have, out couldn't have. I don't know, but I do understand the point being made which, on the face of it, seems pretty valid.

[CropleyWasGod]

Was it the case that the clause (for want of knowing the right term) already existed but with a higher threshold than 80%?


Sure I read on here that it's part of the Companies Act with a threshold of 90%. I could have misremembered that (or it could have been wrong in the first place).

90% is the default under the Companies Act.

[Hibernian Verse]

But abstaining from that vote did not give the option to instruct HSL to abstain from the vote tonight, which is the point being made about the options available.

As an HSL member I could vote to instruct HSL to vote yes or no, but had no means of instructing abstention.

Although that reflects the voting options at the AGM tonight, I can abstain by returning a blank vote but HSL cannot do that because they didn't give members the opportunity to vote to instruct it.

Someone smarter than me can say if they should have, shouldn't have, out couldn't have. I don't know, but I do understand the point being made which, on the face of it, seems pretty valid.

I agree with all of that - I think :greengrin you could bamboozle our centre halves with that.

[matty_f]

Surely by your own logic then you should be abstaining tonight?

It's not quite the same same logic - I could have abstained from the HSL vote because I didn't agree with x, y, or z reason - that is different from instructing HSL to abstain on the vote tonight. It would have needed a specific instruction.

[flash]

It's not quite the same same logic - I could have abstained from the HSL vote because I didn't agree with x, y, or z reason - that is different from instructing HSL to abstain on the vote tonight. It would have needed a specific instruction.

Aye fair enough. Whether a 2% turnout constitutes a valid mandate is another matter.

[Hibernian Verse]

It's not quite the same same logic - I could have abstained from the HSL vote because I didn't agree with x, y, or z reason - that is different from instructing HSL to abstain on the vote tonight. It would have needed a specific instruction.

It's all a bit bowling club tbh. If you are correct it's a poorly thought out process which has led to backlash amongst our own and declining memberships.

[easty]

If votes go in favour of the club's wishes tonight then minority shareholders will be compulsed to sell them to the owners in future. we will be 0% of fans with shares. that is the club's intent. Ron didn't agree with fan ownership, thought Farmer was bonkers to offer it in the first place.

That is where we are heading and HSL are pretty powerless to stop it going on how the other shareholders are going to vote.

I agree with Ron. Nae interest in fan ownership. The way this HSL vote has played out certainly hasn't swayed me towards it either.

[OfficialHSL]

No you aren’t alone.

HSL seem to say they are voting against because they don’t feel they’ve been engaged with properly and don’t have enough information on what this investment will mean.

Ok, but that’s more a process issue rather than a principled stand against a new investor.

It’s a wee bit ironic that HSL was hobbled by noises off criticising the share issue, and now they are criticising fresh investment.

Jacomo

Please help us by not attributing comments or voting intentions that we have not made.

Our Members have instructed us to vote against Resolution 5 and 6. The note on our web site we hope clarifies things. As in the past, every time anyone misrepresents us it simply results in more damage to an Organisation that has always tried it's best to support our Club.

Hibernian Supporters

[CapitalGreen]

Capital Green

Like Daniel we have tried to limit our input on here to ensure things are carried out correctly. We feel however that it's important to address any questions of impropriety on our behalf. With this in mind, contrary to what you have said, every eligible Member had an option to abstain.

On your second point can we point out that in the context of a voting process, to abstain means to not vote.

Hibernian Supporters

Just to be clear, I haven’t suggested any impropriety. The vote is legitimate and HSL now have a mandate to take forward to tonight’s vote. My issue is I don’t think the vote was carried out in a way that allowed all members to register how they wanted HSL to act which resulted in HSL’s options as a shareholder being different from those of ordinary shareholders.

It’s not contrary to what I have said because I have never suggested HSL members didn’t have an option to abstain in the HSL vote. Someone abstaining in the HSL vote isn’t the same as a vote in favour of HSL abstaining at the AGM, surely you understand that? Those are two distinct positions.

[The Spaceman]

HSL appear to have misinterpreted the fundamental basics of shareholder voting rights. Clear as mud.

[matty_f]

90% is the default under the Companies Act.

Thanks (and to the shiny fish).

I think I'm trying to get my head around the objections to what's being proposed.

There's a risk that if someone wants the club lock, stock and barrel that were forced to sell our shares if they hit 80%.

That risk exists today but at 90%, so a bit of a bigger risk in the new world but ,I imagine if someone wanted to do it they'd find a way to get the 10% needed. So is the concern merited?

Then the other resolution around waiving the right to get new shares until the next AGM - HSL acts outside of its articles (I think) after being instructed to by members, in the covid season and donated money that was collected to the football club, but not in return for shares. This was an exceptional time and they had a mechanism (put it to the members) to act accordingly.

There is no appetite to do similar this time, I guess, or there may be but I've missed it.

The dilution of everyone's shares bar Bydand and Black Knights (buying new shares) is a concern but could HSL, if offered, raise the money today to maintain the percentage and buy new shares at the volume needed? Is there any practical difference being made here? We already know that the existing shareholding doesn't provide sufficient voting power to block anything so are we on any different position tomorrow than we are today if it goes ahead?

[.Sean.]

Jacomo

Please help us by not attributing comments or voting intentions that we have not made.

Our Members have instructed us to vote against Resolution 5 and 6. The note on our web site we hope clarifies things. As in the past, every time anyone misrepresents us it simply results in more damage to an Organisation that has always tried it's best to support our Club.

Hibernian Supporters
Your members have instructed what, sorry? A whopping 2% of whom could actually be arsed to vote

[CapitalGreen]

Thanks (and to the shiny fish).

I think I'm trying to get my head around the objections to what's being proposed.

There's a risk that if someone wants the club lock, stock and barrel that were forced to sell our shares if they hit 80%.

That risk exists today but at 90%, so a bit of a bigger risk in the new world but ,I imagine if someone wanted to do it they'd find a way to get the 10% needed. So is the concern merited?

Then the other resolution around waiving the right to get new shares until the next AGM - HSL acts outside of its articles (I think) after being instructed to by members, in the covid season and donated money that was collected to the football club, but not in return for shares. This was an exceptional time and they had a mechanism (put it to the members) to act accordingly.

There is no appetite to do similar this time, I guess, or there may be but I've missed it.

The dilution of everyone's shares bar Bydand and Black Knights (buying new shares) is a concern but could HSL, if offered, raise the money today to maintain the percentage and buy new shares at the volume needed? Is there any practical difference being made here? We already know that the existing shareholding doesn't provide sufficient voting power to block anything so are we on any different position tomorrow than we are today if it goes ahead?

HSL would need an additional ~£2.5m on top of what they have banked just to maintain their current % based on the valuation of the club in this investment proposal.

[Lago]

It's not xenophobic to know how American business works, particularly when you have worked in several American businesses.
I have also worked for several American companies also several British companies, I know which rewarded me best in terms of salary, promotion, pension and general working conditions, it wasn’t the British companies.

[matty_f]

Your members have instructed what, sorry? A whopping 2% of whom could actually be arsed to vote

That's not those running HSL's fault, though - they have specific governance around these things and as far as I can tell, that's been applied as best they can

There's a minimum vote required for it to be valid and that's been exceeded, and while it seems low, sure to the fact that a lot AGMs are attended by two men and a dug (and not just HSL) a small threshold is required otherwise nothing would ever get enough votes to get done.

It feels like HSL may need to review the process on lessons learned from this when there's an exceptional circumstances vote required.

I'm not sure how many members voted to give the club money during Covid, for instance, but because it wasn't an emotive issue and folk were supportive, nobody bothered their arse that it may only have been a handful of people instructing HSL on what to do with hundreds of thousands of pounds.

[matty_f]

HSL would need an additional ~£2.5m on top of what they have banked just to maintain their current % based on the valuation of the club in this investment proposal.

Are HSL likely to raise that in the next year?

Even if they didn't have to put the money in immediately and could effectively pay it up, is £2.5m a figure that HSL could reasonably say they'd raise?

[nonshinyfinish]

I think I'm trying to get my head around the objections to what's being proposed.

There's a risk that if someone wants the club lock, stock and barrel that were forced to sell our shares if they hit 80%.

That risk exists today but at 90%, so a bit of a bigger risk in the new world but ,I imagine if someone wanted to do it they'd find a way to get the 10% needed. So is the concern merited?

I can't remember the exact numbers after all the new shares are issued, but I think the key thing is that Bydand + Black Knights will be 80-something %, so the drag along thing is then fully in their control, rather than needing some support from other shareholders. That is presumably why they want to do it.

Whether that makes a functional difference to the current 90% is another question. If Bydand + BK needed a few extra percent to reach 90% for a future sale then you'd imagine they'd get it (from Robb or other shareholders) unless it was an obviously bad sale – an asset stripper or Mercer-type scenario. This is the thing I don't like about it – not having that safety net for a full-on emergency where pretty much everyone agrees that the sale is a bad thing for the club.

[Lago]

I agree with Ron. Nae interest in fan ownership. The way this HSL vote has played out certainly hasn't swayed me towards it either.
Me too, never of interest and it has merely hardened based on the current situation, as our American owners are probably saying it's a cluster f... k, I have the feeling the next vote HSL will be organising will be to wind it up.

[TrinityHFC]

Are HSL likely to raise that in the next year?

Even if they didn't have to put the money in immediately and could effectively pay it up, is £2.5m a figure that HSL could reasonably say they'd raise?

To what end anyway? No point issuing shares and existing holders pay for them to retain their holdings anyway.

Then of course no investment and partnership. It was a pointless vote against. Just a protest against not being able to reach a certain percentage, which was dead anyway.

[Irish_Steve]

Your members have instructed what, sorry? A whopping 2% of whom could actually be arsed to vote

Yep, 2% instructed them to vote a particular way so HSL had to follow those instructions.

It's not HSL's fault that 98% didn't vote

[Leithenhibby]

Your members have instructed what, sorry? A whopping 2% of whom could actually be arsed to vote

Hibs fans eh, lazy barstwards...

Glory Glory

[CapitalGreen]

Yep, 2% instructed them to vote a particular way so HSL had to follow those instructions.

It's not HSL's fault that 98% didn't vote

It is if those people couldn’t vote because their desired option wasn’t included on the voting materials.

[RMQ1967]

Jacomo

Please help us by not attributing comments or voting intentions that we have not made.

Our Members have instructed us to vote against Resolution 5 and 6. The note on our web site we hope clarifies things. As in the past, every time anyone misrepresents us it simply results in more damage to an Organisation that has always tried it's best to support our Club.

Hibernian Supporters

On the similar vein - has anyone been in touch with the BBC and or Brian McLauchlin to clarify that their headline Bill Foley: Hibernian shareholders group to vote against American's £6m investment in club is misleading?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68406904

McLauchlin/BBC should be reporting that the HSL are not voting against the investment but against the restriction on purchasing more shares. The optics of it are bad enough for HSL without inflammatory headlines like this all over the sports pages.

[Brightside]

When the Club is looking for 75% to pass a motion rather than a simple majority, I think an abstention is the same as a vote against.

Yeh - So HSL members Cleary voted to Abstain.

[Stairway 2 7]

On the similar vein - has anyone been in touch with the BBC and or Brian McLauchlin to clarify that their headline Bill Foley: Hibernian shareholders group to vote against American's £6m investment in club is misleading?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68406904

McLauchlin/BBC should be reporting that the HSL are not voting against the investment but against the restriction on purchasing more shares. The optics of it are bad enough for HSL without inflammatory headlines like this all over the sports pages.

The club said clearly if 5 and 6 are voted against them the £6 mil debt and the £6 mil new investment won't happen. Its being disingenuous to say I was only voting on 5 and 6 and not on the overall investment

[Chorley Hibee]

On the similar vein - has anyone been in touch with the BBC and or Brian McLauchlin to clarify that their headline Bill Foley: Hibernian shareholders group to vote against American's £6m investment in club is misleading?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68406904

McLauchlin/BBC should be reporting that the HSL are not voting against the investment but against the restriction on purchasing more shares. The optics of it are bad enough for HSL without inflammatory headlines like this all over the sports pages.

Voting against the resolutions is the same as voting against the investment.

There is no middle ground open for discussion, or a vote.

[Lago]

On the similar vein - has anyone been in touch with the BBC and or Brian McLauchlin to clarify that their headline Bill Foley: Hibernian shareholders group to vote against American's £6m investment in club is misleading?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68406904

McLauchlin/BBC should be reporting that the HSL are not voting against the investment but against the restriction on purchasing more shares. The optics of it are bad enough for HSL without inflammatory headlines like this all over the sports pages.
I suppose for the sake of accuracy the BBC could have said that Hibernian shareholders group are voting against resolution 5 & 6,which will result in no Foley investment in Hibs, the out come is the same the headline rather long winded.

[RMQ1967]

The club said clearly if 5 and 6 are voted against them the £6 mil debt and the £6 mil new investment won't happen. Its being disingenuous to say I was only voting on 5 and 6 and not on the overall investment

Don't agree at all. There were other resolutions that HSL didn't vote on - I'm not a HFC shareholder so I don't know the details of those but I think one is to do with approving the issue of new shares and investment of Bill Foley/BK.

[CapitalGreen]

Yeh - So HSL members Cleary voted to Abstain.

No they didn’t. Abstaining in the HSL vote wasn’t voting for HSL to abstain. Abstentions aren’t counted as a vote towards an option. The only way HSL members could have voted for HSL to abstain is if it had been offered as a choice on the HSL ballot.

[CapitalGreen]

Don't agree at all. There were other resolutions that HSL didn't vote on - I'm not a HFC shareholder so I don't know the details of those but I think one is to do with approving the issue of new shares and investment of Bill Foley/BK.

Resolutions 5 & 6 were conditional resolutions. You can’t vote against them and also be in favour of the investment as the investment as proposed is conditional on resolution 5 & 6 passing.

[CropleyWasGod]

Don't agree at all. There were other resolutions that HSL didn't vote on - I'm not a HFC shareholder so I don't know the details of those but I think one is to do with approving the issue of new shares and investment of Bill Foley/BK.

The other 4 resolutions are Ordinary, ie require a 50% vote. HSL have no influence on them, as Bydand's vote alone will pass them.

That's why there was no HSL vote on them.

[Ringothedog]

Don't agree at all. There were other resolutions that HSL didn't vote on - I'm not a HFC shareholder so I don't know the details of those but I think one is to do with approving the issue of new shares and investment of Bill Foley/BK.

For resolution 4-Authorising the allotment of new shares
If not passed neither the loan conversion or BKFE shall proceed

SPECIAL RESOLUTIONS

Resolution 5- to authorise the directors to disapply pre-emption rights
If not passed neither the loan conversion or BKFE shall proceed

Resolution 6- to adopt new articles of association
If not passed neither the loan conversion or BKFE shall proceed

[TrinityHFC]

Resolutions 5 & 6 were conditional resolutions. You can’t vote against them and also be in favour of the investment as the investment as proposed is conditional on resolution 5 & 6 passing.

The investment doesn’t work if you are offering those shares to existing holders instead so it was a vote against investment.

[hibbydad]

The investment doesn’t work if you are offering those shares to existing holders instead so it was a vote against investment.
You are right Trinity that was not really properly explained

[CentreLine]

Me too, never of interest and it has merely hardened based on the current situation, as our American owners are probably saying it's a cluster f... k, I have the feeling the next vote HSL will be organising will be to wind it up.

100% agree that fan ownership has little merit. However, I am fully behind the principal of a fan group holding enough shares to prevent a Mercer style takeover being cited through. Until it’s no longer an option I intend to support HSL in that endeavour.
I sincerely hope it is always there, in some way shape or form, as a rallying point if ever the wheels come off

[OfficialHSL]

The other 4 resolutions are Ordinary, ie require a 50% vote. HSL have no influence on them, as Bydand's vote alone will pass them.

That's why there was no HSL vote on them.

Thank you Cropley for explaining that to everyone.


Hibernian Supporters

[Ray_]

100% agree that fan ownership has little merit. However, I am fully behind the principal of a fan group holding enough shares to prevent a Mercer style takeover being cited through. Until it’s no longer an option I intend to support HSL in that endeavour.
I sincerely hope it is always there, in some way shape or form, as a rallying point if ever the wheels come off

HSL won’t gather much support, if they are seen as an entity trying to prevent major investment into the club, as is the case here. This is from someone who had spent years donating to HSL, until this undignified shambles occurred, how many again was it who voted for this? 🤨

[OfficialHSL]

100% agree that fan ownership has little merit. However, I am fully behind the principal of a fan group holding enough shares to prevent a Mercer style takeover being cited through. Until it’s no longer an option I intend to support HSL in that endeavour.
I sincerely hope it is always there, in some way shape or form, as a rallying point if ever the wheels come off

Centerline

As you and others will know, our stated objective from day one was to acquire a 25.1% stake in the Club.


Hibernian Supporters

[overdrive]

HSL won’t gather much support, if they are seen as an entity trying to prevent major investment into the club, as is the case here. This is from someone who had spent years donating to HSL, until this undignified shambles occurred, how many again was it who voted for this? 🤨

How many again was it who didn't vote at all?

[OfficialHSL]

HSL won’t gather much support, if they are seen as an entity trying to prevent major investment into the club, as is the case here. This is from someone who had spent years donating to HSL, until this undignified shambles occurred, how many again was it who voted for this? 🤨

Ray

Can we once again point out that we have not taken any instruction from our Members to vote against Resolution 4 as the principal shareholder alone will pass this.

We also ensured that all Members present at our AGM were aware of the conditionality of Resolution 5 and 6. The rest is democracy in action. HSL's Articles were drafted by the Club and their Solicitors back in 2015 and since then no once has asked that they be changed in relation to a quorum. Some Organisations don't have a minimum vote requirement some do but usually set this low to avoid disenfranchise of those who choose to vote.

As Directors we are required to adhere to the Rules of our Organisation.

Hibernian Supporters

[Pagan Hibernia]

Ray

Can we once again point out that we have not taken any instruction from our Members to vote against Resolution 4 as the principal shareholder alone will pass this.

We also ensured that all Members present at our AGM were aware of the conditionality of Resolution 5 and 6. The rest is democracy in action. HSL's Articles were drafted by the Club and their Solicitors back in 2015 and since then no once has asked that they be changed in relation to a quorum. Some Organisations don't have a minimum vote requirement some do but usually set this low to avoid disenfranchise of those who choose to vote.

As Directors we are required to adhere to the Rules of our Organisation.

Hibernian Supporters

Your efforts are appreciated by plenty, despite what you might read online.

[RMQ1967]

The other 4 resolutions are Ordinary, ie require a 50% vote. HSL have no influence on them, as Bydand's vote alone will pass them.

That's why there was no HSL vote on them.

Sure but the point is - if HSL were genuinely opposed to the the BKIG investment they could have voted against all of the resolutions - fruitless as it may have been.

HSL were pretty certain that they wouldn't influence the eventual outcome of resolutions 5 & 6 either, however the votes went ahead, lets face it, in protest (and I'm sure one or two stated that) at not being able to purchase more shares - not because they didn't agree with new investment.

[jacomo]

Jacomo

Please help us by not attributing comments or voting intentions that we have not made.

Our Members have instructed us to vote against Resolution 5 and 6. The note on our web site we hope clarifies things. As in the past, every time anyone misrepresents us it simply results in more damage to an Organisation that has always tried it's best to support our Club.

Hibernian Supporters


Er ok, apologies if I’ve misrepresented you.

I’ve contributed to HSL and sorry you didn’t get the seat on the board, but we are where we are and I think voting against this investment is a mistake.

[Ray_]

How many again was it who didn't vote at all?

By the looks of it, more then 3,900, a lot of whom were never given the opportunity.

[overdrive]

By the looks of it, more then 3,900, a lot of whom were never given the opportunity.

Not according to the stats HSL posted further up the thread

[grunt]

Full explanation here.
By the looks of it, more then 3,900, a lot of whom were never given the opportunity.


I’ve intentionally stayed out of this thread as much as possible for a number of reasons but feel I need to address the suggestions that there was any kind of ‘selective’ approach to the communications re the recent AGM.

The information about the AGM successfully went to 3649 people. Of the 3649 recipients, 2000 unique users opened the first AGM email.

Of the 3643 recipients of our AGM reminder email, 1845 people opened it. These open rates are around average for our email communications over the last 12 months.

We also posted the details on our website and across our social media in order to try and make sure as many people as possible were encouraged to take part in the voting and attend our meeting last week.

The supporters who have taken part in one off initiatives are included on our mailing list - we intentionally include these fans in our emails to keep them informed with what’s going on.

All votes were checked against our membership system to ensure only full members (anyone who’s paid £225+ at any point) were counted.

As anyone who has emailed us over the last couple of weeks will hopefully attest to, I have personally done what I can to look into the handful of supporters who unfortunately did not receive the information - mainly due to a change of email address or due to unsubscribing from the mailing list (intentionally or otherwise).

I really do hope this helps clarify that we did almost all we could to encourage participation and attendance in the recent AGM.

As ever, if anyone has any specific questions on any of the processes in use please feel free to email us at [email protected].

[CapitalGreen]

Not according to the stats HSL posted further up the thread

Members who wanted HSL to abstain in tonight’s vote weren’t given the opportunity to vote for that.

[Ray_]

Ray

Can we once again point out that we have not taken any instruction from our Members to vote against Resolution 4 as the principal shareholder alone will pass this.

We also ensured that all Members present at our AGM were aware of the conditionality of Resolution 5 and 6. The rest is democracy in action. HSL's Articles were drafted by the Club and their Solicitors back in 2015 and since then no once has asked that they be changed in relation to a quorum. Some Organisations don't have a minimum vote requirement some do but usually set this low to avoid disenfranchise of those who choose to vote.

As Directors we are required to adhere to the Rules of our Organisation.

Hibernian Supporters

I would imagine there are many members of HSL who couldn't possibly be at the AGM, and by the tiny proportion that actually there to vote, then clearly there is/was a problem with communication, which makes it not quite as democratic as stated. There has been massive changes since 2015 & I have no idea what is happening to the money that I have been donating, along with many more I assume, so a good start would be to see how the new club structure fits in with HSL and what options are open to HSL, if the long term aim is to safeguard the club. We seem to be stuck in limbo, with little direction to the membership and certainly nothing there that will encourage fresh donations, in the contrary, I would imagine, membership and donations will be in decline and this won't help.

[AL-Qaholik]

The not-even-thinly-veiled arrogance pouring out of this HSL "official" poster is very telling.

This is toys out the pram move and nothing more.

A shower of petulant children.


Hibernian Supporter.

[DanishJohn]

I am at a loss on how people here, are talking about democracy and belittling HSL's voting intension.
The record will show that 56 people voted against this resolution.

56 people is 55 people more, than 1 person voting for it.

So between the Gordon family's 1 vote and William Leslie Robb's 1 vote adds up to 2 votes.
2 individuals can negate 56 individuals, where is the democracy in that.

[RMQ1967]

The not-even-thinly-veiled arrogance pouring out of this HSL "official" poster is very telling.

This is toys out the pram move and nothing more.

A shower of petulant children.


Hibernian Supporter.

I think that's a pretty unfair assessment - stating the facts succinctly isn't really arrogance.

Not sure why you think any toys are out the pram - the vote wasn't decided by a bunch of petulant anything - it was done after reasoned debate by decent fellow fans. Didn't go the way I wanted either but insulting people in that way doesn't help.

[Callum_62]

I am at a loss on how people here, are talking about democracy and belittling HSL's voting intension.
The record will show that 56 people voted against this resolution.

56 people is 55 people more, than 1 person voting for it.

So between the Gordon family's 1 vote and William Leslie Robb's 1 vote adds up to 2 votes.
2 individuals can negate 56 individuals, where is the democracy in that.Its pounds not people

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Caversham Green]

I am at a loss on how people here, are talking about democracy and belittling HSL's voting intension.
The record will show that 56 people voted against this resolution.

56 people is 55 people more, than 1 person voting for it.

So between the Gordon family's 1 vote and William Leslie Robb's 1 vote adds up to 2 votes.
2 individuals can negate 56 individuals, where is the democracy in that.

HSL should be democratic - 1 member 1 vote.

The Hibernian Football Club Ltd is not democratic and doesn't claim to be.

[Smartie]

I am at a loss on how people here, are talking about democracy and belittling HSL's voting intension.
The record will show that 56 people voted against this resolution.

56 people is 55 people more, than 1 person voting for it.

So between the Gordon family's 1 vote and William Leslie Robb's 1 vote adds up to 2 votes.
2 individuals can negate 56 individuals, where is the democracy in that.

Hibs aren’t a democracy.

[marinello59]

The not-even-thinly-veiled arrogance pouring out of this HSL "official" poster is very telling.

This is toys out the pram move and nothing more.

A shower of petulant children.


Hibernian Supporter.

That’s really unfair on the HSL guys. I sense no arrogance, petulance or childishness. They’ve done a pretty good job of explaining how the decision on which way to vote was reached according to the rules of their organisation. Some of us may disagree with their decision but they really don’t deserve the insults.

[scott18752000]

The fact that it’s a legal requirement to give notice of an AGM and HSL members have not been notified because they have opted out of the mailing list is worrying. AGM notifications must be sent to every member of a company regardless of if they’ve unsubscribed to a mailing list if the company has contact details for them.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/13/chapter/3/crossheading/notice-of-meetings/enacted?view=plain

See Section 310 (1) (a)

[TheSouthMoroccan]

I’ve said this already but if ever you needed proof of why fan ownership is not a great idea, here it is. And that is absolutely no disrespect to those running HSL, it feels to me that they have done everything by the book. But 80 odd votes potentially impacting on something so important is just plain mental. Unfortunately not everybody understands the technicalities and from a lack of understanding, comes negativity and bickering. Hence why you can’t have committees running businesses, and if you do, the risks of failure can greatly be magnified.

[Pagan Hibernia]

Members who wanted HSL to abstain in tonight’s vote weren’t given the opportunity to vote for that.

Im sure thousands would have stirred themselves to vote had that option been there.

[marinello59]

Im sure thousands would have stirred themselves to vote had that option been there.

It may have clashed with their non-attendance at their local Apathy Society's AGM. :greengrin

[HoboHarry]

It may have clashed with their non-attendance at their local Apathy Society's AGM. :greengrin
Who gives a s***e?









:greengrin

[Ray_]

A quote from Football Scotland

"The resolution was passed without any significant opposition, despite Hibernian Supporters Limited stating their intention to vote against the proposal. The club's second-largest shareholder were unhappy that their 15 per cent share in the club would take a significant drop as a result of Foley's arrival, with the group also stating they had "received little context or explanation around any of the proposals and have, in the main, relied on media reports to stay engaged with the progress." However, HSL decided to abstain which allowed the resolution to go through without any hiccups."

[CropleyWasGod]

A quote from Football Scotland

"The resolution was passed without any significant opposition, despite Hibernian Supporters Limited stating their intention to vote against the proposal. The club's second-largest shareholder were unhappy that their 15 per cent share in the club would take a significant drop as a result of Foley's arrival, with the group also stating they had "received little context or explanation around any of the proposals and have, in the main, relied on media reports to stay engaged with the progress." However, HSL decided to abstain which allowed the resolution to go through without any hiccups."

Is that correct?

[overdrive]

Is that correct?

I would highly doubt it.

Even if they did they won’t have had any impact on the result. Leslie Robb looked very chummy with Ian Gordon at the end.

[McD]

I am at a loss on how people here, are talking about democracy and belittling HSL's voting intension.
The record will show that 56 people voted against this resolution.

56 people is 55 people more, than 1 person voting for it.

So between the Gordon family's 1 vote and William Leslie Robb's 1 vote adds up to 2 votes.
2 individuals can negate 56 individuals, where is the democracy in that.



Do you understand how shares work?

[matty_f]

That’s really unfair on the HSL guys. I sense no arrogance, petulance or childishness. They’ve done a pretty good job of explaining how the decision on which way to vote was reached according to the rules of their organisation. Some of us may disagree with their decision but they really don’t deserve the insults.

100% agree

[Gerard]

100% agree

Good points.👍

[TrinityHFC]

I am at a loss on how people here, are talking about democracy and belittling HSL's voting intension.
The record will show that 56 people voted against this resolution.

56 people is 55 people more, than 1 person voting for it.

So between the Gordon family's 1 vote and William Leslie Robb's 1 vote adds up to 2 votes.
2 individuals can negate 56 individuals, where is the democracy in that.

The 55 people didn’t have a vote at the Hibs AGM, just the HSL one.

You could argue that those 55 people were disproportionately able to influence a large percentage of the vote compared with say 55 direct shareholders.

[truehibernian]

So why did they abstain then ?? Any statement from HSL ? Not to provoke an argument but keen to know why they never entered their against vote if the media is to be believed??

[Daniel 1875]

Is that correct?

No that is not correct.

[truehibernian]

No that is not correct.

Why did HSL not enter their vote Daniel ? Was the BBC correct in saying that ?

[Daniel 1875]

Why did HSL not enter their vote Daniel ? Was the BBC correct in saying that ?

HSL didn’t vote tonight. The vote was sent by proxy on Sunday.

Regardless, time to move on in the interests of the club I think.

[truehibernian]

HSL didn’t vote tonight. The vote was sent by proxy on Sunday.

Regardless, time to move on in the interests of the club I think.

Certainly not wanting to provoke Daniel, wasn’t my intention - so you sent the “against” vote early ? BBC implied you’d abstained - just wanted clarity around it.

[IberianHibernian]

I`ve not had time to read the thread about today`s AGM ( have only seen press conference ) but after reading so much here this week about " only 56 out of 80 out of 4000 " for HSL members I wonder if it`s possible to know what % of HFC club shareholders were able to vote and did vote - number of shareholders even if they only owned a few shares . In my own case I was able to vote online with HSL but my son and I couldn`t vote with HFC because our voting papers arrived too late . Am fully aware number of shareholders makes little difference commercially and legally especially after today`s votes .

[CropleyWasGod]

I`ve not had time to read the thread about today`s AGM ( have only seen press conference ) but after reading so much here this week about " only 56 out of 80 out of 4000 " for HSL members I wonder if it`s possible to know what % of HFC club shareholders were able to vote and did vote - number of shareholders even if they only owned a few shares . In my own case I was able to vote online with HSL but my son and I couldn`t vote with HFC because our voting papers arrived too late . Am fully aware number of shareholders makes little difference commercially and legally especially after today`s votes .

We won't know for maybe a day or so. The voting process was manual, by paper and pen, and it will take a while to validate and count the votes.

[Ray_]

No that is not correct.

I'm kinda disappointed with that. 2% of the 4,000 members voted, with around 1.7% of the membership voting against the investment. As we can see, this investment is very popular with the support, with some having reservations [the longer it went on, those with reservations, seemed to reduce], but it's kinda scary that so few numbers could have had a negative influence in Hibs future.

I fully support all the hard work that has gone into HSL and indeed, financially contributed since about the beginning, but with Tom Farmer's sale, the goalposts have changed significantly. To buy something, there has to be a willing seller and so far, under the Gordon's leadership, they haven't given the slightest hint that they were willing to follow Mr Farmer's desire for fans ownership and things have drifted since then. With the investment going on at Hibs, it could be that without a significant backer, HSL would never be in a position to buy the club and infrastructure, outright.

If HSL are not going to be able to purchase shares in the near or medium future, this may be the time to rebrand, set out different objectives, communicate those objectives widely, even if it's just looking to have a reserve fund, should dark days ever fall upon our club again. Otherwise, especially after how unpopular this has been, things are more likely to just drift away [along with the donations].

[TrinityHFC]

I`ve not had time to read the thread about today`s AGM ( have only seen press conference ) but after reading so much here this week about " only 56 out of 80 out of 4000 " for HSL members I wonder if it`s possible to know what % of HFC club shareholders were able to vote and did vote - number of shareholders even if they only owned a few shares . In my own case I was able to vote online with HSL but my son and I couldn`t vote with HFC because our voting papers arrived too late . Am fully aware number of shareholders makes little difference commercially and legally especially after today`s votes .

Would say at least 92% of the share register will have voted, by shareholding.

The Gordons, HSL and Robb reach that on their own. The AGM was also packed with individual shareholders who will all have voted in addition to emailed proxys.

[Radium]

HSL didn’t vote tonight. The vote was sent by proxy on Sunday.

Regardless, time to move on in the interests of the club I think.

Daniel,

There has been lots of accusations flying around over the past few days but can I place my thanks to you and the directors to this thread.

All emails received, speedy replies to questions and what I thought was a well organised AGM.

You are all volunteers but have provided a lot of detail over recent days which have demonstrated the professional way in which you have handled everything.

I do think that the club should have spent time with you, even if full details couldn’t be shared but that simply didn’t happen.

There will no doubt be meetings going forward and hopefully there is enough interest from members to look at the future.

… Persevere


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Forza Fred]

Quo Vadis HSL?

[Radium]

Quo Vadis HSL?

At the AGM the directors were clear that it is for members to decide.

My thoughts would be that they are the third largest Shareholder and should not rush to divest the funds they hold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ray_]

At the AGM the directors were clear that it is for members to decide.

My thoughts would be that they are the third largest Shareholder and should not rush to divest the funds they hold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is all very well the AGM taking place, but with the greatest respect to Hibs Supporters Association, Sunnyside was never going to accommodate 4,000 HSL members, so it was known that a huge majority of the membership wouldn't be there. It is not too much a gamble to assume that a fair chunk of the membership live a fair distance from Easter Road and the Sunnyside club.

Daniel is right, we need to move on from here, but that includes at reviewing the purpose of HSL, people have rightly stood up for the people who have done the hard yards to make HSL the success it has been and the contributions it has made to our club, in various forms.

Given that shares seem, at best, unlikely, at this current time, I would be happy to continue to contribute to a war chest, as I mentioned earlier, should things go badly wrong. I would also equally be happy to carry on and contribute to anything that would benefit different strands of Hibs, be it youth, women, developing support through tickets for those struggling or kids, or a mixture of both priorities.

The HSL shares in the club has gone down, but has the monetary value of those shares? If shares grow in value due to something like the land value going up, then fair do's, HSL, or anyone else for that matter, deserve those shares to remain. But if the value in shares grow because of someone else's contribution, to the benefit of the club, to me [a total layman in those things], the natural thing would be for number of shares to drop, to match the contribution.

America obviously has a different culture to the UK and some people are not happy about the way certain decisions have been done, but for me, I've not seen anything that has been for personal gain from the Gordon's [totally unlike the Glaziers at Man U] & a large infrastructure investment in a very specialised industry, looks to be a long way off from trying to make a kill in prime estate, so it difficult to see a motive other than grow the business. Whatever the reason, our previous owner's priority in the sale of the club, clearly wasn't to further fan ownership, [either that or he was duped], so we are where we are and rather than bitterness, the best way for HSL now, as I see it, is not to stagnate and decline, to find a different route and keep the good work going.

[Bobby Coombe]

Daniel,

There has been lots of accusations flying around over the past few days but can I place my thanks to you and the directors to this thread.

All emails received, speedy replies to questions and what I thought was a well organised AGM.

You are all volunteers but have provided a lot of detail over recent days which have demonstrated the professional way in which you have handled everything.

I do think that the club should have spent time with you, even if full details couldn’t be shared but that simply didn’t happen.

There will no doubt be meetings going forward and hopefully there is enough interest from members to look at the future.

… Persevere


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree 100% with this. Daniel and HSL have acted well in all of this. Daniel is right that now it is time to move on, trusting that the new shareholder will take Hibs to a higher level.

[CapitalGreen]

Agree 100% with this. Daniel and HSL have acted well in all of this. Daniel is right that now it is time to move on, trusting that the new shareholder will take Hibs to a higher level.

I don’t think it is necessarily time to move on. I think it’s time to start thinking about a decision around what to do with the funds HSL holds. Hopefully HSL will be able to put that in front of the membership soon.

[Leithenhibby]

Agree 100% with this. Daniel and HSL have acted well in all of this. Daniel is right that now it is time to move on, trusting that the new shareholder will take Hibs to a higher level.

I couldn't agree more, Bobby...:aok:

Glory Glory

[TrinityHFC]

The fact that it’s a legal requirement to give notice of an AGM and HSL members have not been notified because they have opted out of the mailing list is worrying. AGM notifications must be sent to every member of a company regardless of if they’ve unsubscribed to a mailing list if the company has contact details for them.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/13/chapter/3/crossheading/notice-of-meetings/enacted?view=plain

See Section 310 (1) (a)

Members aren’t shareholders of HSL though.

I think the set up and the documentation is a bit confusing on that sort of thing. It all needed looked over by the type of lawyer Hibs had on stage yesterday to tidy it all up.

Anyway, it doesn’t hugely matter now.

[Leithenhibby]

Members aren’t shareholders of HSL though.

I think the set up and the documentation is a bit confusing on that sort of thing. It all needed looked over by the type of lawyer Hibs had on stage yesterday to tidy it all up.

Anyway, it doesn’t hugely matter now.


Remember it was Hibernian FC that set up HSL...:agree:

[basehibby]

A quote from the "my account" page on HSL website: "Your donation is used to support the Football Department and keep improving things on the park."

It has become apparent from recent events that this is no longer the case and I have stopped my regular donations as a result.
I understand that disputes over the ability of HSL to purchase further shares - and the dilution of the value of existing shares due to inward investment - are at the root of this impasse.
However, the action taken to vote AGAINST substantial inward investment had the potential to harm the club and was in direct contravention of HSL's statement quoted above - under which a great many fans including myself have donated substantial funds.

Something has gone horribly wrong here.

It seems to me that, under the current ownership at least, it will no longer be possible to buy shares. So - WHAT ABOUT IMPROVING THINGS ON THE PARK???

HSL currently holds approx 300K in trust on behalf of its members. When are these funds going to be used to help fulfil the above promise?

[hibbydad]

A quote from the "my account" page on HSL website: "Your donation is used to support the Football Department and keep improving things on the park."

It has become apparent from recent events that this is no longer the case and I have stopped my regular donations as a result.
I understand that disputes over the ability of HSL to purchase further shares - and the dilution of the value of existing shares due to inward investment - are at the root of this impasse.
However, the action taken to vote AGAINST substantial inward investment had the potential to harm the club and was in direct contravention of HSL's statement quoted above - under which a great many fans including myself have donated substantial funds.

Something has gone horribly wrong here.

It seems to me that, under the current ownership at least, it will no longer be possible to buy shares. So - WHAT ABOUT IMPROVING THINGS ON THE PARK???

HSL currently holds approx 300K in trust on behalf of its members. When are these funds going to be used to help fulfil the above promise?
I have stopped mine too for the same reason as you basehibby

[MagicSwirlingShip]

A quote from the "my account" page on HSL website: "Your donation is used to support the Football Department and keep improving things on the park."

It has become apparent from recent events that this is no longer the case and I have stopped my regular donations as a result.
I understand that disputes over the ability of HSL to purchase further shares - and the dilution of the value of existing shares due to inward investment - are at the root of this impasse.
However, the action taken to vote AGAINST substantial inward investment had the potential to harm the club and was in direct contravention of HSL's statement quoted above - under which a great many fans including myself have donated substantial funds.

Something has gone horribly wrong here.

It seems to me that, under the current ownership at least, it will no longer be possible to buy shares. So - WHAT ABOUT IMPROVING THINGS ON THE PARK???

HSL currently holds approx 300K in trust on behalf of its members. When are these funds going to be used to help fulfil the above promise?

Yup. Lots of initiatives I’ve seen mentioned on this thread.

HSL imo need to get on the PR campaign after this, get a presence on match day in each stand - talk to fans over an extended period, get feedback on what has happened over the last few weeks, and set its stall out to talk through any issues with the fanbase.

Once that period is complete, setup a system where HSL members can be polled for opinion on how to proceed with the distribution of accrued funds. The current system clearly isn’t meeting the needs of members and the wider fanbase.

[Pagan Hibernia]

Yup. Lots of initiatives I’ve seen mentioned on this thread.

HSL imo need to get on the PR campaign after this, get a presence on match day in each stand - talk to fans over an extended period, get feedback on what has happened over the last few weeks, and set its stall out to talk through any issues with the fanbase.

Once that period is complete, setup a system where HSL members can be polled for opinion on how to proceed with the distribution of accrued funds. The current system clearly isn’t meeting the needs of members and the wider fanbase.

There's nothing in your post that I disagree with, I think that's probably the way to go, but I wouldn't be surprised if those involved with the running if HSL had absolutely no desire to put themselves out there in that position on matchdays after some of the horrible abuse, slurs and slander chucked their way in recent days.

[Daniel 1875]

A quote from the "my account" page on HSL website: "Your donation is used to support the Football Department and keep improving things on the park."

It has become apparent from recent events that this is no longer the case and I have stopped my regular donations as a result.
I understand that disputes over the ability of HSL to purchase further shares - and the dilution of the value of existing shares due to inward investment - are at the root of this impasse.
However, the action taken to vote AGAINST substantial inward investment had the potential to harm the club and was in direct contravention of HSL's statement quoted above - under which a great many fans including myself have donated substantial funds.

Something has gone horribly wrong here.

It seems to me that, under the current ownership at least, it will no longer be possible to buy shares. So - WHAT ABOUT IMPROVING THINGS ON THE PARK???

HSL currently holds approx 300K in trust on behalf of its members. When are these funds going to be used to help fulfil the above promise?

That statement on the My Account page is an oversight which was only brought to our attention yesterday. We don’t have direct access to edit that and it was passed to the web developer as soon as it was raised.

There’s been no other mention of money going to Hibs anywhere else across the website for some time and we have been clear for a while now that’s not been happening.

As for what’s next, there will be the chance for members to share their views with us in the coming weeks/months.

I think it’s right to give the events of the last few weeks, and last night, time to settle before we jump to any new found direction or objectives. Whatever that looks like going forward will be up to the members.

[OfficialHSL]

Is that correct?

No.

On a cold wet Tuesday night with limited time available HSL Members chose to debate and discuss Proposal 5 and 6. Members decided not to spend time on a Proposal 4 as that had already been passed and would run the risk of limiting time for the Special Resolutions. You will also have noted that other Shareholders were given the benefit of a 45 minute presentation followed by a Q & A session in relation to Proposal 4 last night to allow them to make an informed decision in relation to the Proposal. Members did not have that information available to them.


Hibernian Supporters

[matty_f]

No.

On a cold wet Tuesday night with limited time available HSL Members chose to debate and discuss Proposal 5 and 6. Members decided not to spend time on a Proposal 4 as that had already been passed and would run the risk of limiting time for the Special Resolutions. You will also have noted that other Shareholders were given the benefit of a 45 minute presentation followed by a Q & A session in relation to Proposal 4 last night to allow them to make an informed decision in relation to the Proposal. Members did not have that information available to them.


Hibernian Supporters

Were you able to feed back to Hibs that it would have helped to have had more information in advance and better engagement? It does feel like you’ve been hung out to dry a bit with neither the time nor the full information to properly brief the members. That’s not a criticism of HSL, i think you guys have been clear about the constraints under which you had to act.

Would having earlier sight of the presentation changed anything for you?

[OfficialHSL]

Were you able to feed back to Hibs that it would have helped to have had more information in advance and better engagement? It does feel like you’ve been hung out to dry a bit with neither the time nor the full information to properly brief the members. That’s not a criticism of HSL, i think you guys have been clear about the constraints under which you had to act.

Would having earlier sight of the presentation changed anything for you?

Matty

We tried everything to engage with the Club but got nowhere.

Don't know, only the Members could tell you that.

Hibernian Supporters

[TrinityHFC]

No.

On a cold wet Tuesday night with limited time available HSL Members chose to debate and discuss Proposal 5 and 6. Members decided not to spend time on a Proposal 4 as that had already been passed and would run the risk of limiting time for the Special Resolutions. You will also have noted that other Shareholders were given the benefit of a 45 minute presentation followed by a Q & A session in relation to Proposal 4 last night to allow them to make an informed decision in relation to the Proposal. Members did not have that information available to them.


Hibernian Supporters

All shareholders, including HSL had the same information and the opportunity to hear the presentation last night. It is the HSL arrangements which meant you had to take a vote before deciding how to then vote at the Hibs AGM.

It is surely a bit of a moot point as HSL members were voting it seems on a point of principle around not being able to buy new shares before being offered to the investors. I don't think anything that was discussed at the Hibs AGM would have changed that.

How did HSL vote on resolution 4?

[GreenPJ]

I think first and foremost Kensall and Hibs should reach out to HSL to have some clear the air talks and agree on how best they move forward together. Whilst the shareholding of HSL is now diluted they do represent a few thousand members and also have proceeds (and a shareholding still) that they (and the members) need to determine how its positioned going forward.

Once HSL have a better understanding of how Hibs will look to engage with them going forward that can then help derive what the objectives are.

I personally still see a place for HSL and the well intentioned people who run it but bridges need to be built between HSL, the Club and the broader supporter base to hopefully make HSL attractive to more people rather than less once revised objectives have been set.

[Nakedmanoncrack]

I have stopped mine too for the same reason as you basehibby

I'm a multiple fully paid up member of HSL, and fully support the decision take at the HSL AGM.

Giving anything more would be idiotic in my opinion though, why would anyone want to donate to billionaires? The situation is entirely different from when HSL was accruing a stake in thr club.

[Hibernian Verse]

Matty

We tried everything to engage with the Club but got nowhere.

Don't know, only the Members could tell you that.

Hibernian Supporters

Was that before or after Jim Adie went on Sky Sports and slated the club & deal?

[matty_f]

Matty

We tried everything to engage with the Club but got nowhere.

Don't know, only the Members could tell you that.

Hibernian Supporters

I know HSL tried to engage, again I’m not criticising HSL for this - i was asking if you had the chance to say to Hibs after the event that a bit more engagement might have helped avoid some of the flak that came your way?

[matty_f]

All shareholders, including HSL had the same information and the opportunity to hear the presentation last night. It is the HSL arrangements which meant you had to take a vote before deciding how to then vote at the Hibs AGM.

It is surely a bit of a moot point as HSL members were voting it seems on a point of principle around not being able to buy new shares before being offered to the investors. I don't think anything that was discussed at the Hibs AGM would have changed that.

How did HSL vote on resolution 4?

You don’t think Leslie Robb had the detail in advance? Given how integral he was to getting the vote through and how confident the club were that it would pass, it’s clear that it’s not a case of all shareholders being treated equal and therefore HSL shouldn’t have had special treatment - clearly there was no problem in briefing another shareholder in advance.

[OfficialHSL]

100% agree that fan ownership has little merit. However, I am fully behind the principal of a fan group holding enough shares to prevent a Mercer style takeover being cited through. Until it’s no longer an option I intend to support HSL in that endeavour.
I sincerely hope it is always there, in some way shape or form, as a rallying point if ever the wheels come off

We trust you are aware that majority ownership was never an option or indeed our stated objective. Our aim which has been stated over and over again was to achieve 25.1 %

Hibernian Supporters

[Ray_]

Matty

We tried everything to engage with the Club but got nowhere.

Don't know, only the Members could tell you that.

Hibernian Supporters

Do you think the Hibs board's reluctance to engage may be to do with the prime function of HSL, to purchase shares, as this doesn't seem to be part of the Gordon's remit, unless accompanied by large investment and other attractions offered in the multi-club strategy?

Going forward, once reflection is done and HSL's goals are maybe adjusted to reflect the ownerships stance, not to release shares, hopefully the relationship between the football club board and HSL won't be so unaccommodating.

[ancient hibee]

I’m not a member of HSL but on the figures given the majority of members were correctly emailed and chose to do nothing.Don’t see how the officials can be blamed for members inertia.

[matty_f]

Do you think the Hibs board's reluctance to engage may be to do with the prime function of HSL, to purchase shares, as this doesn't seem to be part of the Gordon's remit, unless accompanied by large investment and other attractions offered in the multi-club strategy?

Going forward, once reflection is done and HSL's goals are maybe adjusted to reflect the ownerships stance, not to release shares, hopefully the relationship between the football club board and HSL won't be so unaccommodating.
I think Hibs are just pretty dismissive of HSL in general. I know they weren’t under any obligation to engage with HSL early on this, but they must have known the impact and, by extension, the flak that was likely to come their way with this, and actually an early conversation would have let everyone get on the front foot on the messaging.


So instead of the press reporting that HSL were against the investment and painting it as fans not wanting investment, the club and HSL could have explained the position and shown some collaboration, which would have changed the message and taken some unnecessary heat away from HSL while still showing supporters as being supportive of the investment, despite the vote.

Or members might have voted for the resolution if there was more context and how powerful a message would that have been?

[overdrive]

You don’t think Leslie Robb had the detail in advance? Given how integral he was to getting the vote through and how confident the club were that it would pass, it’s clear that it’s not a case of all shareholders being treated equal and therefore HSL shouldn’t have had special treatment - clearly there was no problem in briefing another shareholder in advance.

I noticed that as soon as Malcolm McPherson said it was time to collect in the ballot slips, the guy from the law firm that had been advising the club was straight over to Leslie Robb. I'm not sure if that was just so they had his slip for the ease of counting but they seemed to be chatting as if they knew one another. I would say it was very clear that LR had been briefed beforehand

[TrinityHFC]

You don’t think Leslie Robb had the detail in advance? Given how integral he was to getting the vote through and how confident the club were that it would pass, it’s clear that it’s not a case of all shareholders being treated equal and therefore HSL shouldn’t have had special treatment - clearly there was no problem in briefing another shareholder in advance.

Leslie Robb will have had the notice of AGM at the same time as everyone else. Whether Hibs spoke to him or not is up to them. He is an active contributor and collaborator on a number of projects including the foundation and the women's team so I'm pretty sure they all knew where they stood.

What I'm saying is HSL had all the info that any shareholder needed.

HSL are also a collective and as far as I can see no mandate is given to their board and the board haven't given a particular view to their members on how to vote. Who would Hibs have spoken to and to what end?

In any case, the reality which has been pointed out long before now is that the path HSL had still chosen to walk down had been closed a long time ago and I'm not sure it was worth Hibs engaging much on this one when the further reality was that the path was being pretty much completely dismantled.

[ancient hibee]

I noticed that as soon as Malcolm McPherson said it was time to collect in the ballot slips, the guy from the law firm that had been advising the club was straight over to Leslie Robb. I'm not sure if that was just so they had his slip for the ease of counting but they seemed to be chatting as if they knew one another. I would say it was very clear that LR had been briefed beforehand

Leslie Robb is one of the most well connected people in Edinburgh.Any lawyer worth a toss would be all over him.

[ancient hibee]

I
Leslie Robb will have had the notice of AGM at the same time as everyone else. Whether Hibs spoke to him or not is up to them. He is an active contributor and collaborator on a number of projects including the foundation and the women's team so I'm pretty sure they all knew where they stood.

What I'm saying is HSL had all the info that any shareholder needed.

HSL are also a collective and as far as I can see no mandate is given to their board and the board haven't given a particular view to their members on how to vote. Who would Hibs have spoken to and to what end?

In any case, the reality which has been pointed out long before now is that the path HSL had still chosen to walk down had been closed a long time ago and I'm not sure it was worth Hibs engaging much on this one when the further reality was that the path was being pretty much completely dismantled.

Hibs had no need to speak to them but it still would have been better if they had.

[superfurryhibby]

Leslie Robb will have had the notice of AGM at the same time as everyone else. Whether Hibs spoke to him or not is up to them. He is an active contributor and collaborator on a number of projects including the foundation and the women's team so I'm pretty sure they all knew where they stood.

What I'm saying is HSL had all the info that any shareholder needed.

HSL are also a collective and as far as I can see no mandate is given to their board and the board haven't given a particular view to their members on how to vote. Who would Hibs have spoken to and to what end?

In any case, the reality which has been pointed out long before now is that the path HSL had still chosen to walk down had been closed a long time ago and I'm not sure it was worth Hibs engaging much on this one when the further reality was that the path was being pretty much completely dismantled.

HSL were the second largest shareholder in the club. I'll take a wild stab at this and suggest the club could have engaged with the Directorship of HSL. To the end of being transparent and involving a major stakeholder in some form of discussion about the future of the club? Maybe this would have helped secure HSL support for the BK buy in?

This organisation have made substantial donations to Hibs, more than half a million pounds given , with assets of close to 1 million pounds being held by them.

The articles of association make their authority to represent their members fairly clear. https://hiberniansupporters.co.uk/app/uploads/2022/07/Hibernian-Supporters-Limited-Articles-of-Association.pdf



Why speak to Leslie Robb and not HSL?

[Jones28]

At the end of all this I do feel sorry for the guys at HSL and wish things could have been different, but 2 major changes in ownership since 2019 were bound to create hurdles for a fan ownership vehicle.

I stopped contributing a while ago for financial reasons but never really felt the desire to restart my donations as the club was not entertaining HSL. I think it was quite telling that "control" was being emphasised in the evening news article on Kit Gordon last night, hence their reluctance to entertain HSL.

Thanks for your efforts over the last few months and years, especially Daniel who has always made an effort to answer questions as professionally as possible.

[Pagan Hibernia]

HSL were the second largest shareholder in the club. I'll take a wild stab at this and suggest the club could have engaged with the Directorship of HSL. To the end of being transparent and involving a major stakeholder in some form of discussion about the future of the club? Maybe this would have helped secure HSL support for the BK buy in?

This organisation have made substantial donations to Hibs, more than half a million pounds given , with assets of close to 1 million pounds being held by them.

The articles of association make their authority to represent their members fairly clear. https://hiberniansupporters.co.uk/app/uploads/2022/07/Hibernian-Supporters-Limited-Articles-of-Association.pdf



Why speak to Leslie Robb and not HSL?

Contempt for what HSL stood for at worst and zero respect at best. Even when HSL members were contributing tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds during the early days of covid when the club was suffering (for nothing in return), there wasn't a whole lot of acknowledgement or appreciation coming the other way.

With this deal they knew they didn't need HSL's vote, only Robbs. Hence they didn't bother with them.

[Pagan Hibernia]

At the end of all this I do feel sorry for the guys at HSL and wish things could have been different, but 2 major changes in ownership since 2019 were bound to create hurdles for a fan ownership vehicle.

I stopped contributing a while ago for financial reasons but never really felt the desire to restart my donations as the club was not entertaining HSL. I think it was quite telling that "control" was being emphasised in the evening news article on Kit Gordon last night, hence their reluctance to entertain HSL.

Thanks for your efforts over the last few months and years, especially Daniel who has always made an effort to answer questions as professionally as possible.

I agree with every word of this.

I too stopped donating because of financial problems in my own life and the fact that shares were no longer on the table. I saw no point at all in giving free money to an already wealthy family.

[OfficialHSL]

All shareholders, including HSL had the same information and the opportunity to hear the presentation last night. It is the HSL arrangements which meant you had to take a vote before deciding how to then vote at the Hibs AGM.

It is surely a bit of a moot point as HSL members were voting it seems on a point of principle around not being able to buy new shares before being offered to the investors. I don't think anything that was discussed at the Hibs AGM would have changed that.

How did HSL vote on resolution 4?

Trinity

That is not correct. Shareholders present last night had much more information at their disposal before making an informed choice. Neither the Directors or Members of HSL had that information. You are clearly a friend or associate of Lesley Robb and that's fine. Can I once again ask you and others who are simply choosing to compromise and undermine an Organisation that has tried so hard to help the Club. Hard working volunteers who have had illegitimate and illinformed comments directed to them is very disappointing and uncalled form. We have no idea what motivated you to make the voting choices that you made in the same way that you have no idea what motivated our Members to make the choices they made. This whole matter is closed now, let's all just try and respect each other and move on.

Hibernian Supporters

[MagicSwirlingShip]

There's nothing in your post that I disagree with, I think that's probably the way to go, but I wouldn't be surprised if those involved with the running if HSL had absolutely no desire to put themselves out there in that position on matchdays after some of the horrible abuse, slurs and slander chucked their way in recent days.

You would hope that people could move on now the investment has been confirmed

[OfficialHSL]

I agree with every word of this.

I too stopped donating because of financial problems in my own life and the fact that shares were no longer on the table. I saw no point at all in giving free money to an already wealthy family.

Both your points are understood well. HSL was never set up as a "cash bucket" for the Club. None of the current Directors or any of the previous Directors would have become involved had that been the case. Our Articles are clear and our objectives are clear. Following our AGM in 2022 our Members instructed us to stop handing over donations to the Club which many will recall was a short term arrangement to help the Club through the Pandemic. This was also clearly communicated to all Members at the time to ensure that everyone was clear on this point.


Hibernian Supporters

[superfurryhibby]

Trinity

That is not correct. Shareholders present last night had much more information at their disposal before making an informed choice. Neither the Directors or Members of HSL had that information. You are clearly a friend or associate of Lesley Robb and that's fine. Can I once again ask you and others who are simply choosing to compromise and undermine an Organisation that has tried so hard to help the Club. Hard working volunteers who have had illegitimate and illinformed comments directed to them is very disappointing and uncalled form. We have no idea what motivated you to make the voting choices that you made in the same way that you have no idea what motivated our Members to make the choices they made. This whole matter is closed now, let's all just try and respect each other and move on.

Hibernian Supporters

Well said, I'm sure the vast majority of Hibs fans appreciate the efforts of HSL . I have every respect for the guys that gave their time and energy to the cause.