Ian Gordon

[zitelli62]

Just Watched the YouTube video of Ron Gordon passing and the thing that struck me was Ian Gordon looking at that horrible bunch of huns disrespecting his father's tribute, yes I know it's all about money but let's do what hearts do and give them as little tickets as we can even if it means giving tickets at a reduced price in that end get them as far away from our club as possible.
Rant over.

[Stuart93]

Just Watched the YouTube video of Ron Gordon passing and the thing that struck me was Ian Gordon looking at that horrible bunch of huns disrespecting his father's tribute, yes I know it's all about money but let's do what hearts do and give them as little tickets as we can even if it means giving tickets at a reduced price in that end get them as far away from our club as possible.
Rant over.

Hearts currently do it cause they can sell the tickets for half the away stand, we’ve not got that demand just now unfortunately. Although I do agree with your sentiments

[MWHIBBIES]

Its no better or worse than them singing about killing Catholics every time they come to Easter road. Hibs made a decision long ago that they will tolerate discrimination for enough money.

[lyonhibs]

Until we can fill the seats you'd take away from the Huns allocation ourselves, they'll be getting a full South stand.

[Pretty Boy]

It's pay to hate.

I think St Mirren cut their allocation at the start of last season without really filling the seats. They have actually reported bigger home support attendance against the 'other 10' with a suggestion some home fans stay away against that pair. Likewise Aberdeen cut their allocation a while back to the same as everyone else rather than the additional section they used to get, again they don't fill the rest of their stadium. Hearts cut their allocation because they have the fans to fill the seats currently.

The rest are aware of what is sung but choose to ignore it because they need the money. When 70% of McDiarmid Park was given over to Rangers fans last week you can see that it's not changing anytime soon. It's a pointless conversation, the clubs aren't interested. I've had the conversation with at least 2 people at Hibs and they speak to you as if you are daft for even suggesting we should take some kind of stand.

[Itsnoteasy]

Just Watched the YouTube video of Ron Gordon passing and the thing that struck me was Ian Gordon looking at that horrible bunch of huns disrespecting his father's tribute, yes I know it's all about money but let's do what hearts do and give them as little tickets as we can even if it means giving tickets at a reduced price in that end get them as far away from our club as possible.
Rant over.

Another one of about 100 threads. Don't give them thousands of tickets. And the same answer every time is we can't afford to and we can't even sell out the home end.

[Hibees1973]

At at time when we are struggling to reach the top 6 and mutiny in the stands after yesterday we need an owner who will step up and weed out people who are not good enough for the club.

Problem is, Ian Gordon was involved in bringing most of these people into key roles at the club. On the surface his family have been generous, however in the last couple of years debts have increased.

We hardly got a peep out of him at the AGM.

Respect to Ron for stumping up the cash to buy the club, but Ian is now our owner by default.

Is he up to the job?

[jeffers]

At at time when we are struggling to reach the top 6 and mutiny in the stands after yesterday we need an owner who will step up and weed out people who are not good enough for the club.

Problem is, Ian Gordon was involved in bringing most of these people into key roles at the club. On the surface his family have been generous, however in the last couple of years debts have increased.

We hardly got a peep out of him at the AGM.

Respect to Ron for stumping up the cash to buy the club, but Ian is now our owner by default.

Is he up to the job?

Who are these people who are not good enough for the club ?

[Smartie]

At at time when we are struggling to reach the top 6 and mutiny in the stands after yesterday we need an owner who will step up and weed out people who are not good enough for the club.

Problem is, Ian Gordon was involved in bringing most of these people into key roles at the club. On the surface his family have been generous, however in the last couple of years debts have increased.

We hardly got a peep out of him at the AGM.

Respect to Ron for stumping up the cash to buy the club, but Ian is now our owner by default.

Is he up to the job?

I thought he was absolutely thrown under the bus by his own dad with the manner of his arrival and the lack of any sort of announcement that he’d be involved, then quietly sneaked in to his recruitment role. As a result, he was up against it with an element of our support from day one.

My take is he’s the rather timid son of a “force of nature” type father, see the tv series “Succession”.

He may or may not be competent, I’ve actually heard many people who have come into contact with him say that he is. But I think he needs to grow into a role - very quickly - that he maybe never anticipated having.

Media training, speaking in public training - big companies often spend fortunes on training people they see talent in to have the full skill set for the role. With us, it’s his ba’ and he chooses who gets to play with it so it may be up to him to work out that this is what he needs rather than having anyone to tell him how to do it.

One thing is for sure - he has a massive opportunity to make his dad proud, by being a success in something they thought they were going to be doing together.

I’d dearly love to see him be a success but I think he needs to work on himself to be up to what is required. It’s not an impossibility though.

[JimBHibees]

At at time when we are struggling to reach the top 6 and mutiny in the stands after yesterday we need an owner who will step up and weed out people who are not good enough for the club.

Problem is, Ian Gordon was involved in bringing most of these people into key roles at the club. On the surface his family have been generous, however in the last couple of years debts have increased.

We hardly got a peep out of him at the AGM.

Respect to Ron for stumping up the cash to buy the club, but Ian is now our owner by default.

Is he up to the job?

Your relentless i will give you that.

[stantonhibby]

Your relentless i will give you that.

Yep....at least he can write his name now.

[007]

At at time when we are struggling to reach the top 6 and mutiny in the stands after yesterday we need an owner who will step up and weed out people who are not good enough for the club.

Problem is, Ian Gordon was involved in bringing most of these people into key roles at the club. On the surface his family have been generous, however in the last couple of years debts have increased.

We hardly got a peep out of him at the AGM.

Respect to Ron for stumping up the cash to buy the club, but Ian is now our owner by default.

Is he up to the job?

Please clarify the debt position you refer to. What was it and what is it now?

[ancient hibee]

At at time when we are struggling to reach the top 6 and mutiny in the stands after yesterday we need an owner who will step up and weed out people who are not good enough for the club.

Problem is, Ian Gordon was involved in bringing most of these people into key roles at the club. On the surface his family have been generous, however in the last couple of years debts have increased.

We hardly got a peep out of him at the AGM.

Respect to Ron for stumping up the cash to buy the club, but Ian is now our owner by default.

Is he up to the job?
In fact of course debts have disappeared as the Gordon’s took shares instead of repayment.

[007]

In fact of course debts have disappeared as the Gordon’s took shares instead of repayment.

If that's the case and there's no debt then it seems like Hibees1973 is telling us lies and is trying to hoodwink other fans.

I imagine the club/Ian Gordon would admit mistakes have been made but their actions have been in the best interests of the club. Questioning decisions made is totally valid but if someone is telling lies about things like the debt then that's disgusting behaviour.

There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation and if so, I expect Hibees1973 will come along and explain it.

[Forza Fred]

At at time when we are struggling to reach the top 6 and mutiny in the stands after yesterday we need an owner who will step up and weed out people who are not good enough for the club.

Problem is, Ian Gordon was involved in bringing most of these people into key roles at the club. On the surface his family have been generous, however in the last couple of years debts have increased.

We hardly got a peep out of him at the AGM.

Respect to Ron for stumping up the cash to buy the club, but Ian is now our owner by default.

Is he up to the job?


You really are on a mission to sow the seeds of division aren’t you.

[Hibees1973]

You really are on a mission to sow the seeds of division aren’t you.
Looking at the threads on the go just now the support is divided on most things already. The playing squad, Montgomery, Kensell, McDermott, the deal with Foley, etc.

[CropleyWasGod]

In fact of course debts have disappeared as the Gordon’s took shares instead of repayment.


If that's the case and there's no debt then it seems like Hibees1973 is telling us lies and is trying to hoodwink other fans.

I imagine the club/Ian Gordon would admit mistakes have been made but their actions have been in the best interests of the club. Questioning decisions made is totally valid but if someone is telling lies about things like the debt then that's disgusting behaviour.

There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation and if so, I expect Hibees1973 will come along and explain it.

Not only have the debts been extinguished by the conversion to shares, but that action has increased our budget by over £5m

[talcy]

Not only have the debts been extinguished by the conversion to shares, but that action has increased our budget by £5.75m

Does that not have the side affect of changing the shareholding in such a way that the Gordon's and Foley can push through absolutely anything they want as even EGMs with their 85% requirement are a mere formality now? Seems a reward for failure to me. Run the club so abysmally that you have to put money in, then write off that money you and you alone are responsible for wasting in a way that completely neuters things like HSL and whoever it was that used to have 10% (which is now diluted of course). But then, reward for failure seems to sum Hibs up since the Gordon's dismantled the football department to embark on a series of totally failed experiments we have been bankrolling as well as supporters. See Kensell's salary for overseeing massive on field failure and increases in debt, which do not disappear due to increases in revenue. Currently, American ownership of Scottish clubs in multiple locations with very different identities and pasts is showing a pretty common theme both in approaches & subsequent sporting outcomes. Apologies for length of moan, but the clear pattern of travel here is an ever changing series of journeymen and potential talents not coming together under an ever changing series of Managers working in an ever changing football department. It is soulless and it is no way to run a club that will build a first team over many seasons that will compete for 3rd/4th place. And don't forget - in Ron's own words - we are to pony up for all this amazing entertainment and success. *cough*

[CropleyWasGod]

Does that not have the side affect of changing the shareholding in such a way that the Gordon's and Foley can push through absolutely anything they want as even EGMs with their 85% requirement are a mere formality now?

Neither of them have the shares to push through EGM motions themselves, which need a 75% majority. They would need each other, which isn't necessarily a formality.

That's no different from the previous situation, where the Gordons would have needed others to support an EGM motion.

[HerbDailly]

Neither of them have the shares to push through EGM motions themselves, which need a 75% majority. They would need each other, which isn't necessarily a formality.

That's no different from the previous situation, where the Gordons would have needed others to support an EGM motion.I hadn't realised this though, it is a material change in that it would take the Gordons, the people they brought in, and no one else.

[Just Alf]

If that's the case and there's no debt then it seems like Hibees1973 is telling us lies and is trying to hoodwink other fans.

I imagine the club/Ian Gordon would admit mistakes have been made but their actions have been in the best interests of the club. Questioning decisions made is totally valid but if someone is telling lies about things like the debt then that's disgusting behaviour.

There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation and if so, I expect Hibees1973 will come along and explain it.Interestingly your post wasn't replied too despite the post immediately after yours getting a reply.

:hmm:

[CropleyWasGod]

I hadn't realised this though, it is a material change in that it would take the Gordons, the people they brought in, and no one else.

The Gordons have 60.4%, so they could pass a Special Resolution with the "others", without the need of the BK.

That hasn't really changed. The Gordons would always have needed "others"

[sleeping giant]

You really are on a mission to sow the seeds of division aren’t you.

:agree:

[talcy]

The Gordons have 60.4%, so they could pass a Special Resolution with the "others", without the need of the BK.

That hasn't really changed. The Gordons would always have needed "others"

Thanks for clarifying the 75% for EGMs. I think it's reasonable to presume that having spent months in negotiations with Foley and specifically choosing someone from the same business and cultural background as themselves with regards to sports franchises, the Gordon's are currently very sure of being in alignment with Foley on any major voting decisions in the short-term (bare minimum). Appreciate that may change over time if working relationships sour or circumstances alter, but both parties went into agreement having thoroughly sounded each other out and so it is clear things have changed for the time being at least. Whether or not both parties end up not seeing eye to eye and trying to pull in different directions down the road and what the effects of that would be, only time will tell I suppose.

[CropleyWasGod]

Thanks for clarifying the 75% for EGMs. I think it's reasonable to presume that having spent months in negotiations with Foley and specifically choosing someone from the same business and cultural background as themselves with regards to sports franchises, the Gordon's are currently very sure of being in alignment with Foley on any major voting decisions in the short-term (bare minimum). Appreciate that may change over time if working relationships sour or circumstances alter, but both parties went into agreement having thoroughly sounded each other out and so it is clear things have changed for the time being at least. Whether or not both parties end up not seeing eye to eye and trying to pull in different directions down the road and what the effects of that would be, only time will tell I suppose.

Agree with all that. :aok: