What's the real problem at Lorient?

[RIP]

It's been 18 months since Foley added this club to his stable.

What can we find out from Lorient fans about the BK involvement there, what was promised (apparently Big Bill was talking about getting them to Europe) and how they feel a year and half later as they start the season in Ligue 2?

Should we be seeing warning signs?

[1875Sean]

Loïc Féry Is the main owner with foley having a minority shareholder, maybe the issues sit with him?

[Forza Fred]

Sounds like we need one of the Hibs Observer crew to jump on a plane at Turnhouse and have a parley vous with them.

[matty_f]

It's been 18 months since Foley added this club to his stable.

What can we find out from Lorient fans about the BK involvement there, what was promised (apparently Big Bill was talking about getting them to Europe) and how they feel a year and half later as they start the season in Ligue 2?

Should we be seeing warning signs?

I’ve tried to find out as much as I can about this for research for the podcast, and it’s hard to find much on it.

Foley wasn’t popular at all with the fans from day one, they felt Lorient are bigger than Bournemouth and so shouldn’t be below them in the group hierarchy.

I think Bournemouth also bought and loaned back a Lorient player, which didn’t go down too well.

But that aside, the owner was left to run the club and make the decisions, much as we’ve seen at Hibs so far - they haven’t been a top side for a while and have, from what I gather been in and around relegation places for a while.

As with Hibs, Foley’s stake is a minority one, at 30% iirc, so he’s beholden to the decisions of the owner, but it looks like relegation has given him a route to full ownership and they’ve put a new team in place to bring Lorient straight back up.

Our eighth place finish last season wasn’t because of Black Knight’s involvement, we did that to ourselves. I think the situation at Lorient is much alike to that.

[tonyrougier123]

I done some due diligence about this club when bk were linked with us, and posted a Bournemouth fans pod link on here where he spoke to a young lorient supporter who talked well and gave insights as to why there was discontent about bill foley’s involvement. Fast forward and they have indeed been relegated after foley or Bournemouth recalling favré who was one of their best performers at the half way point of the season.

During this close season probably the best piece of news was they actually outbid rangers for a defender for roughly €6million😂. They have signed a shed load of free transfers with that being the only fee paid as far my research can tell.

They sold bamo meite to Marseille for €10.5million.

[MelbourneHibees]

Not long after Foley took over they sold their star man Dando Ouattara midway through the 22/23 season to Bournemouth. That's pretty much all I know.

I do wonder if Foley's comments about them making the right decisions now was based on their actions before or after relegation.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Where is there money to be made in football and why do we often see bloated squads? You can understand managers effectively having preferred agents/suppliers but with desperate/naïve owners with a lack of football minded folks on board is there not a danger of being duped and journeymen players with connections swirl around clubs perhaps even earning so folks a “kick back” along the way… ?

[RIP]

Loïc Féry Is the main owner with foley having a minority shareholder, maybe the issues sit with him?

This is what Foley said at the time of their investment. Anyone see parallels? A lot of flattery? Promises of jam today?

Foley certainly can flannel, we can give him that!

“We are excited to announce a strategic partnership and investment in FC Lorient,” said Foley in January.(2023)

“Loic Fery [Lorient’s president and owner] has successfully built a best-in-class football club and will be a great partner as we build BKFC into a leading multi-club football operator.

“I look forward to partnering with Loic and his team to accelerate the success of FC Lorient and BKFC.”

[MelbourneHibees]

This is what Foley said at the time of their investment. Anyone see parallels? A lot of flattery? Promises of jam today?

Foley certainly can flannel, we can give him that!

“We are excited to announce a strategic partnership and investment in FC Lorient,” said Foley in January.(2023)

“Loic Fery [Lorient’s president and owner] has successfully built a best-in-class football club and will be a great partner as we build BKFC into a leading multi-club football operator.

“I look forward to partnering with Loic and his team to accelerate the success of FC Lorient and BKFC.”
Fairly basic words. Not sure what else you'd expect someone to say when investing heavily in a business.

[WestStandWillie]

Foley's a clueless businessman who doesn't understand football.Out of all the teams his cronies are involved with, Bournemouth should be the smallest. They're just a diddy side on steroids. The way his "black knights" treated Lorient is nothing short of shameless. When the gravy train hits the buffers, Bournemouth will go pop.

[easty]

Foley's a clueless businessman who doesn't understand football.Out of all the teams his cronies are involved with, Bournemouth should be the smallest. They're just a diddy side on steroids. The way his "black knights" treated Lorient is nothing short of shameless. When the gravy train hits the buffers, Bournemouth will go pop.

How do you know how they treated Lorient?

[we are hibs]

Foley's a clueless businessman who doesn't understand football.

He will be well suited on the hibs board then.



Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Jones28]

Foley's a clueless businessman who doesn't understand football.Out of all the teams his cronies are involved with, Bournemouth should be the smallest. They're just a diddy side on steroids. The way his "black knights" treated Lorient is nothing short of shameless. When the gravy train hits the buffers, Bournemouth will go pop.

How have they treated Lorient?

Because as far as I can read they have a minority shareholding similar to us and the current owner is still calling the shots.

[SunshineOn1875]

Did nobody bother looking into the article that FC Lorient Majority Owner goes on to state "Féry admitted responsibility for Lorient's relegation and the mistake of abolishing the role of sporting director, which had left coach Régis Le Bris with the added role of player recruitment" it'll be Bill Foley's fault though.

[SunshineOn1875]

Foley's a clueless businessman who doesn't understand football.Out of all the teams his cronies are involved with, Bournemouth should be the smallest. They're just a diddy side on steroids. The way his "black knights" treated Lorient is nothing short of shameless. When the gravy train hits the buffers, Bournemouth will go pop.The signings, changes at Bournemouth and there league position last season, while keeping there best player would suggest otherwise. Btw for what its worth I've watched Bournemouth a few times last season and they play really good football under Iraola a man who was head hunted by Foley.

[flash]

Did nobody bother looking into the article that FC Lorient Majority Owner goes on to state "Féry admitted responsibility for Lorient's relegation and the mistake of abolishing the role of sporting director, which had left coach Régis Le Bris with the added role of player recruitment" it'll be Bill Foley's fault though.

In the interests of balance we are yet to see if they improve under the new structure.

[MrRobot]

In the interests of balance we are yet to see if they improve under the new structure.

But that logic doesn’t allow us to bash Hibs :dunno:

[SHODAN]

https://i.imgur.com/HFdw88c.jpeg

[chrisski33]

Foley's a clueless businessman who doesn't understand football.Out of all the teams his cronies are involved with, Bournemouth should be the smallest. They're just a diddy side on steroids. The way his "black knights" treated Lorient is nothing short of shameless. When the gravy train hits the buffers, Bournemouth will go pop.
Clueless businessman? I expect the amount of money he has made proves otherwise!

[allezsauzee]

I have no insight as to what value Black Knights can add to Hibs or Lorient but I thought last season when they invested in us that it was alarming that Lorient seemed to have dropped like a stone since BK's investment as they were already in a European place at that point. In fairness, they seemed to have made a decent job at Bournemouth so far but when it comes to a conflict between the interests of the two clubs, we should be in no doubt where Bill Foley/BK's priorities will lie. It's obviously not in their interest to fail at Hibs but the value of their investment in Hibs and Lorient is a fraction of what they will feel that Bournemouth is worth while they stay in the EPL so I think BK need to earn our trust before we go all in on their advice and suggestions.

[allezsauzee]

Clueless businessman? I expect the amount of money he has made proves otherwise!Donald Trump should provide enough evidence that wealth does not equal intelligence or integrity.

[Iain G]

How do you know how they treated Lorient?

They rebranded them from Leyton Orient to Lorient in a failed moved to get L'Oreal to buy the stadium naming rights, moved them to France which is in Europe even after Brexit-ing, changed their colour from red to orange in a second failed attempt to get sponsorship from Orangina, made them eat croissants for breakfast and then got them all relegated, or something like that 😁

[NAE NOOKIE]

In the end all I care about is what difference the BKs make to Hibs on the pitch. So far I can't see a damned thing. This window should have been the first big chance, but so far we haven't signed a single player either on loan or for a fee that would enthuse the fans. It's obvious to a blind man we need a striker and an influential midfielder at a minimum. The league kicks off in less than a fortnight FFS !!IMO ..... If you aint' part of the solution you are part of the problem.

[Contador]

Honestly still struggling to find any reason or logic behind why Foley wants to own Lorient and Hibs.

Zero family ties, knows little about the history of the clubs, doesn’t live in either city.

I understand the desire to own a Premier League football team, dick slinging at dinner tables etc, but it feels very much like he has some pie in the sky desire to build a pyramid to feed that, and managed to pick up a stake in both Lorient and Hibs on the cheap (us being a measly £6million to a billionaire).

Not saying that prevents us being successful, but when things aren’t going well its going to be very easy to point the finger at the top, and a club that is infrequently united is rarely successful.

[Winston Ingram]

Foley's a clueless businessman who doesn't understand football.Out of all the teams his cronies are involved with, Bournemouth should be the smallest. They're just a diddy side on steroids. The way his "black knights" treated Lorient is nothing short of shameless. When the gravy train hits the buffers, Bournemouth will go pop.

Eh? Bill Foley is far from clueless, and the only thing they seem to have done to Lorient is recall a loan player.

[7Hero]

No sure how anyone can expect any Billionaire to be an expert in running a football club, the trick is to employ people who will run your football club Brilliantly, which will be very very difficult..

Ron wasn't an expert in football and employed Kensell and Gordon, both poor appointments..

The trick here is to have an owner with money who is actually invested in the Club and passionately cares about it, Hearts got this in Budge, and they managed to find a benefactor also a big fan, we have little to no chance of ever having this

[hibsbollah]

Eh? Bill Foley is far from clueless, and the only thing they seem to have done to Lorient is recall a loan player.

I have cut and posted this contribution from another thread. It doesnt of course mean that the same will happen at Hibs. But its been a terrible 18 months for them since Foley invested. Its not the loan recall of Faivre alone that was the problem, it was the timing leaving them toothless in January in the middle of a relegation battle after flogging off all their top assets.

Basically, when Foley came in Lorient were 5th, in the European places. Punching above their weight. Theyd never finished above 7th in their entire history. Aside from one shock cup win theyd never won anything, a breton backwater. So this was the high point of their history in January 2023. He comes in, in the second half of that season they slump to 10th, they sold their best players one after another; Outtara (now a regular on the wing at Bournemouth, surprise surprise) and another class midfielder Le Fee to local rivals Rennes. This is the equivalent of us selling prime Scott Allan to Hearts. Except of course hes better than that, hes now at Roma. Sells another key player Moffi to Nice for 30 million. This is basically gutting out the team. As compensation Bournemouth send a striker called Faivre the other way to Lorient. And buy Benjamin Mendy(yes him) for them, and a failed striker at Marseille called Bamba Dieng. All of the these players would be far better than anything Hibs have got, but they arent as good as the players that have been flogged off. So the following season they get relegated. Less than 18 months after being at the high point of their history as a club!

So no, Lorient fans arent too chuffed with the ‘model’.

[ekhibee]

Honestly still struggling to find any reason or logic behind why Foley wants to own Lorient and Hibs.

Zero family ties, knows little about the history of the clubs, doesn’t live in either city.

I understand the desire to own a Premier League football team, dick slinging at dinner tables etc, but it feels very much like he has some pie in the sky desire to build a pyramid to feed that, and managed to pick up a stake in both Lorient and Hibs on the cheap (us being a measly £6million to a billionaire).

Not saying that prevents us being successful, but when things aren’t going well its going to be very easy to point the finger at the top, and a club that is infrequently united is rarely successful.
Fair enough but you could've said the same about Ron Gordon, he had no ties to Hibs whatsoever before he invested.

[Bishop Hibee]

I’m not too chuffed with the ‘model’ so far either.

[hibsbollah]

Obviously ‘for them’ isn’t the correct wording, Lorient bought those substandard replacements themselves, bournemouth didnt do it for them!

[Contador]

Fair enough but you could've said the same about Ron Gordon, he had no ties to Hibs whatsoever before he invested.

That proves the point more in a way, this period since 2019 has hardly been a resounding success.

[matty_f]

You need to remember that Foley wasn't running Lorient. The transfers and management of the club were signed off by their owner in an almost identical way to how our setup is with them.

Foley wasn't responsible for us finishing eighth last season and unless anything significant changes, he'll not be responsible (or particularly creditable) for any success or failure we see this season.
Of course, that changes if the club start listening to him :wink: as Lorient appear to have done now.

It's reported that Foley will take more control and ownership there and I guess we'll see what that means with how they get on this season and beyond.

Foley's motivation for the purchases has been clear from the start, he wants a number of successful groups in his portfolio, there are countless sponsorship opportunities that come with that plus the income generated by European football, and the competitive edge he thinks that being able to sign players and keep them within the group to develop gives him.

He's not going to personally run these clubs day to day. He'll put the best people he can get who know what they're doing, into roles to run the club.

That's what Ian and Kit Gordon should be doing. Get Ian out of the day to day because he's simply not qualified or experienced enough for it, and get folk who are better than him in.

Any billionaire businessperson with an ego that thinks because they've made money they can run a football club tends to find it difficult. The successful ones hire good people and just oversee it.

[hibsbollah]

You need to remember that Foley wasn't running Lorient. The transfers and management of the club were signed off by their owner in an almost identical way to how our setup is with them.

Foley wasn't responsible for us finishing eighth last season and unless anything significant changes, he'll not be responsible (or particularly creditable) for any success or failure we see this season.
Of course, that changes if the club start listening to him :wink: as Lorient appear to have done now.

It's reported that Foley will take more control and ownership there and I guess we'll see what that means with how they get on this season and beyond.

Foley's motivation for the purchases has been clear from the start, he wants a number of successful groups in his portfolio, there are countless sponsorship opportunities that come with that plus the income generated by European football, and the competitive edge he thinks that being able to sign players and keep them within the group to develop gives him.

He's not going to personally run these clubs day to day. He'll put the best people he can get who know what they're doing, into roles to run the club.

That's what Ian and Kit Gordon should be doing. Get Ian out of the day to day because he's simply not qualified or experienced enough for it, and get folk who are better than him in.

Any billionaire businessperson with an ego that thinks because they've made money they can run a football club tends to find it difficult. The successful ones hire good people and just oversee it.

I think its clear to most fans that have been paying attention that Foley doesnt make transfer decisions in the structure. But under that structure I want to know that the needs of my club on the pitch aren’t subservient to Bournemouths needs. Thats a real concern, and that subservience resulted in losing their main goal threat and was a big contributor to their relegation. I’d also be concerned about the sale of so many quality players so quickly. If the Lorient board were just making maverick risky decisions with transfers, it seems a bit odd that this happened just after he walked through the door (or his investment was announced, technically) in Brittany. They were a model of a small club being successful prior to January 2023.

[matty_f]

I think its clear to most fans that have been paying attention that Foley doesnt make transfer decisions in the structure. But under that structure I want to know that the needs of my club on the pitch aren’t subservient to Bournemouths needs. Thats a real concern, and that subservience resulted in losing their main goal threat and was a big contributor to their relegation. I’d also be concerned about the sale of so many quality players so quickly. If the Lorient board were just making maverick risky decisions with transfers, it seems a bit odd that this happened just after he walked through the door (or his investment was announced, technically) in Brittany. They were a model of a small club being successful prior to January 2023.
I agree, but without knowing the detail, it's hard to know to what extent the Black Knight group influenced those decisions - correlation v causation comes into play.

If you looked at where we were when the Black Knights came in in Feb we were looking a decent shout for a top six finish still, we got Marcondes and Moriah-Welsh (plus Bevan, but no point in really including him) from Bournemouth, plus Maolida.

Rather than improving, we went backwards and finished eighth. An outsider would point to us getting Bournemouth players as evidence of their involvement and could conclude that they made us worse. I don't think many of us would go along with that view, however.

As for being subservient to the group, I totally agree with that. Hibs first should always be the position.

How that looks in practice is up for debate though.

If you want to look at the perceived situation with Gordon v Foley, you've got Gordon putting Hibs needs ahead of the group, and a perception that Foley is putting the group's needs ahead of Hibs'.

That might be the case, but if you take a step back - the agreement and plan was to have Hibs included in the multi-club model. Hibs didn't sign up to it to get worse, we signed up to it because of the benefits it brought. There is a bit of give and take with it, but essentially the benefits to Hibs of being in the group are:
- access to wider resources to support with recruitment and other best practice
- access to players that would otherwise be beyond our means
- improved commercial opportunities to increase turnover and in turn improve our chances of getting better players to consistently compete in Europe.

Foley's motives are the group's, but that includes Hibs being better. It's implicit that the needs of the group benefit Hibs. There is no request that Foley should make that worsens Hibs as that does not serve the group. (There may be some argument that Bournemouth want to send a player here that isn't up to it, but with other clubs now in the group at a lower level than Hibs, they're less likely to come here and more likely to go elsewhere, and we have the right to veto those moves anyway, in line with what was agreed from the start.)

It shouldn't be the case that Foley makes a decision that benefits Bournemouth at the expense of the other clubs - again you can look at Lorient as the example and say they bought Lorient's player and replaced him with worse, but was the player being sold regardless? If it wasn't Bournemouth, then could they have gone to another French club competing with Lorient? There's nuance to that situation, I think.

What Gordon and Kensell have done in putting Hibs first here seems admirable on the face of it, but if those decisions stop us realising the broader, longer term benefits that this investment was supposed to bring, can you really say that they've put Hibs first?

[hibsbollah]

I agree, but without knowing the detail, it's hard to know to what extent the Black Knight group influenced those decisions - correlation v causation comes into play.

If you looked at where we were when the Black Knights came in in Feb we were looking a decent shout for a top six finish still, we got Marcondes and Moriah-Welsh (plus Bevan, but no point in really including him) from Bournemouth, plus Maolida.

Rather than improving, we went backwards and finished eighth. An outsider would point to us getting Bournemouth players as evidence of their involvement and could conclude that they made us worse. I don't think many of us would go along with that view, however.

That’s true. No doubt Marcondes and Maolida and Moriah-Welsh in particular were better than what we had. We got a lot better after that St Mirren game in particular and didnt get the points our improvement deserved. Lorient had a higher calibre of player than us to start with.

Edit-just looking at your edit. Yes, nuance is important and not something you get much of from football fans and online forums when times are bad; when relegation happens folk want to find causation. But from a Lorient fans perspective it looks horrendous. Obviously, what you would want to see from the Foley model is the clubs involved be on an upward trajectory on the pitch when finance comes in, that clearly hasnt happened in their case, and in fact its a rapid fall off a cliff in the middle of extremely questionable decisions re transfers. Finding out what actually caused those decisions isn’t straightforward!

[matty_f]

That’s true. No doubt Marcondes and Maolida and Moriah-Welsh in particular were better than what we had. We got a lot better after that St Mirren game in particular and didnt get the points our improvement deserved. Lorient had a higher calibre of player than us to start with.

I'm not close enough to Lorient's situation to know the standard of players etc, but on the face of it, their owner was still running the show in the same way that Gordon was running Hibs, so he also had the capability to refuse any of the transfers in or out of the club if he felt they weren't for the betterment of Lorient.

[hibsbollah]

I'm not close enough to Lorient's situation to know the standard of players etc, but on the face of it, their owner was still running the show in the same way that Gordon was running Hibs, so he also had the capability to refuse any of the transfers in or out of the club if he felt they weren't for the betterment of Lorient.

My knowledge is purely from watching Marseille games, reading French Football News and following ligue 1 a little bit. Theres no doubt almost everything they did transfer-wise made them worse from being the equivalent of a Brighton in England to being relegated, and it was all head-scratching even at the time.

[matty_f]

My knowledge is purely from watching Marseille games, reading French Football News and following ligue 1 a little bit. Theres no doubt almost everything they did transfer-wise made them worse from being the equivalent of a Brighton in England to being relegated, and it was all head-scratching even at the time.

A bit like us since a certain Mr Gordon started running recruitment? :greengrin:

[Jones28]

I'm not close enough to Lorient's situation to know the standard of players etc, but on the face of it, their owner was still running the show in the same way that Gordon was running Hibs, so he also had the capability to refuse any of the transfers in or out of the club if he felt they weren't for the betterment of Lorient.

We were told from the start that BK's were investing in Hibs but the current ownership would retain ultimate control of what goes on at the club: hiring and firing, strategy, etc.

If Foley is chucking his toys out the pram because he thinks we aren't listening to them then tough **** I'm afraid.

Billionaire strops about not getting his way, oh the humanity.

The Lorient stuff is almost like the current owner has paid too much attention to what the BK Group have advised them to do, or otherwise he was trying to suck up to them by flogging their best players off as soon as possible.

The facts of the matter are that Foley has never set foot inside ER, doesn't know the Scottish game, doesn't know the club, it's fans or it's history and sure as **** doesn't know what we as supporters expect.

Appointing SDG was a valid and worthwhile attempt to get someone in the dugout who would be backed almost universally by the support. Appointing Malky MacKay was an attempt - again a perfectly valid one - to try and bring an experienced head in to support and mentor a young coach and replicate the footballing structure that was previously thrown out by Ron Gordon.

What does Foley know about any of this? The more I think about it the more I think "**** you, if you want the divine right to stick an oar in then how about actually getting to ER, meeting some fans and taking some matches before attempting to throw your weight around".

The investment, while it is welcome, doesn't give anyone the right to cause these kinds of issues in public. Board meeting? Different story.

The fact he said it so openly to the press actually makes me think well done to Gordon and Kensall for not being bullied in to accepting their whims. Keeping Montgomery on would have been madness, every man and his dog could see he was a dead man walking pretty much from the St Mirren 0-3 disaster.

[tonyrougier123]

Am I right in saying we aren’t entirely under the black knight banner but a subsidiary group? I’m sure I read that somewhere. Don’t know what that would even mean in terms of pyramid structure.

[matty_f]

We were told from the start that BK's were investing in Hibs but the current ownership would retain ultimate control of what goes on at the club: hiring and firing, strategy, etc.

If Foley is chucking his toys out the pram because he thinks we aren't listening to them then tough **** I'm afraid.

Billionaire strops about not getting his way, oh the humanity.

The Lorient stuff is almost like the current owner has paid too much attention to what the BK Group have advised them to do, or otherwise he was trying to suck up to them by flogging their best players off as soon as possible.

The facts of the matter are that Foley has never set foot inside ER, doesn't know the Scottish game, doesn't know the club, it's fans or it's history and sure as **** doesn't know what we as supporters expect.

Appointing SDG was a valid and worthwhile attempt to get someone in the dugout who would be backed almost universally by the support. Appointing Malky MacKay was an attempt - again a perfectly valid one - to try and bring an experienced head in to support and mentor a young coach and replicate the footballing structure that was previously thrown out by Ron Gordon.

What does Foley know about any of this? The more I think about it the more I think "**** you, if you want the divine right to stick an oar in then how about actually getting to ER, meeting some fans and taking some matches before attempting to throw your weight around".

The investment, while it is welcome, doesn't give anyone the right to cause these kinds of issues in public. Board meeting? Different story.

The fact he said it so openly to the press actually makes me think well done to Gordon and Kensall for not being bullied in to accepting their whims. Keeping Montgomery on would have been madness, every man and his dog could see he was a dead man walking pretty much from the St Mirren 0-3 disaster.

He didn't really throw his toys out the pram, it was a fairly mild statement to say that we didn't listen to him and he thought we'd be better if we did.

He's not demanded Gordon listen to him or made any threats etc.

Hibs briefed the press about what the disagreements are, it's clear if you read the piece about it - Foley is described as a ruthless, stop at nothing to get what he wants guy, while Gordon and Kensell put Hibs first, appointed "steeped in Scottish football" Malky Mackay and "unrivalled knowledge of the inners of the club" David Gray.

Foley only said, when asked about the Kelty Hearts defeat, that Hibs hadn't been listening to him and he thought we'd do better if we did.

Given the results of Gordon's decision making so far with the club, I don't think that's a huge leap, in all honesty.

I say that as someone who is impressed with what Malky has had to say since joining, and I'm 100% behind David Gray.

It's almost impossible to be able to say who's right, though - even if Malky and SDG have a great season, there will always be the question as to whether it could have been even better, and we don't know if Foley's recommendation would have worked at all, never mind being hugely successful.

We can only hope we're in a better place this time next year.

[SunshineOn1875]

I'm not close enough to Lorient's situation to know the standard of players etc, but on the face of it, their owner was still running the show in the same way that Gordon was running Hibs, so he also had the capability to refuse any of the transfers in or out of the club if he felt they weren't for the betterment of Lorient.He was, he sacked there Sporting director and told the manager to run everything, how many times in football has that ever worked? Not a lot.

[hibsbollah]

A bit like us since a certain Mr Gordon started running recruitment? :greengrin:I'm losing track as to who we should be giving credit to for the Maolida and Marcondes signings now :greengrinBut yes, similar to our overall recent record of signing players. I've never scouted players, don't know what the skills set is, how to balance intangibles like character, mental health, interaction with teammates, 'game intelligence', performing in big crowds vs physical attributes and technique, stirring the pot, getting those 30+players to gel together, must be quite a job. You'd also think sometimes even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, and yeah, you buy a great player by accident. Just waiting for it (another McGinn) to happen to us.

[Jones28]

He didn't really throw his toys out the pram, it was a fairly mild statement to say that we didn't listen to him and he thought we'd be better if we did.

He's not demanded Gordon listen to him or made any threats etc.

Hibs briefed the press about what the disagreements are, it's clear if you read the piece about it - Foley is described as a ruthless, stop at nothing to get what he wants guy, while Gordon and Kensell put Hibs first, appointed "steeped in Scottish football" Malky Mackay and "unrivalled knowledge of the inners of the club" David Gray.

Foley only said, when asked about the Kelty Hearts defeat, that Hibs hadn't been listening to him and he thought we'd do better if we did.

Given the results of Gordon's decision making so far with the club, I don't think that's a huge leap, in all honesty.

I say that as someone who is impressed with what Malky has had to say since joining, and I'm 100% behind David Gray.

It's almost impossible to be able to say who's right, though - even if Malky and SDG have a great season, there will always be the question as to whether it could have been even better, and we don't know if Foley's recommendation would have worked at all, never mind being hugely successful.

We can only hope we're in a better place this time next year.

A guy like Foley would have known, surely, that by saying what he said it would cause ripples though?

Holding those in charge to account as an investor in a private meeting is one thing, saying what he said to the press, mild or not, is another. He didn't NEED to say what he said, he could have trotted out something along the lines of it being a disappointing result after such a positive start or something like that.

Agree we can only hope, though I'd much rather be hoping for us to be in a better position this time next week!

[MelbourneHibees]

Eh? Bill Foley is far from clueless, and the only thing they seem to have done to Lorient is recall a loan player.

Lorient also sold their star player to Bournemouth in the first few weeks of the deal. No idea if you could say Lorient got what you would call Market Value or not though.

[MelbourneHibees]

Am I right in saying we aren’t entirely under the black knight banner but a subsidiary group? I’m sure I read that somewhere. Don’t know what that would even mean in terms of pyramid structure.

Not sure what that actually means on paper. We aren't fully owned by them like Bournemouth or Auckland. But neither are Lorient (30% I think?). So does that make them a subsidiary too?

[CropleyWasGod]

Am I right in saying we aren’t entirely under the black knight banner but a subsidiary group? I’m sure I read that somewhere. Don’t know what that would even mean in terms of pyramid structure.

We're not a subsidiary. That would need 50.1% share ownership.

We are a subsidiary of Bydand, though.

That's the UK position, and pretty sure it holds for the US as well.

[hibsbollah]

Lorient also sold their star player to Bournemouth in the first few weeks of the deal. No idea if you could say Lorient got what you would call Market Value or not though.27 million euro, he's one of Bournemouth's best players and will go for more than that soon, scored the winner in a ridiculous comeback v Spurs you might remember. He's #11 on the right in this clip if you're interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_L0phzBT5sHe's just one of 4/5 players Lorient had who went at or were valued at that sort of money, so comparing Hibs with Lorient pre-relegation can only tell you so much. But yes, 27 million looks a very good investment.

[matty_f]

27 million euro, he's one of Bournemouth's best players and will go for more than that soon, scored the winner in a ridiculous comeback v Spurs you might remember. He's #11 on the right in this clip if you're interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_L0phzBT5sHe's just one of 4/5 players Lorient had who went at or were valued at that sort of money, so comparing Hibs with Lorient pre-relegation can only tell you so much. But yes, 27 million looks a very good investment.

But doesn't necessarily mean Lorient were short changed. We got market rate for John McGinn and his value rocketed after we sold him because of the market he moved into.

There's also consideration to what the player wanted, what competitors might have wanted to buy him to keep him in France etc.

The price is only aspect of the value of a deal.

[hibsbollah]

But doesn't necessarily mean Lorient were short changed. We got market rate for John McGinn and his value rocketed after we sold him because of the market he moved into.No, it doesn't necessarily mean 'short changed', I agree. And sometimes a player is going to move because he's outgrown his market. But it does look a good deal for Bournemouth all round, and that's why the model is the model.

[jacomo]

You need to remember that Foley wasn't running Lorient. The transfers and management of the club were signed off by their owner in an almost identical way to how our setup is with them.

Foley wasn't responsible for us finishing eighth last season and unless anything significant changes, he'll not be responsible (or particularly creditable) for any success or failure we see this season.
Of course, that changes if the club start listening to him :wink: as Lorient appear to have done now.

It's reported that Foley will take more control and ownership there and I guess we'll see what that means with how they get on this season and beyond.

Foley's motivation for the purchases has been clear from the start, he wants a number of successful groups in his portfolio, there are countless sponsorship opportunities that come with that plus the income generated by European football, and the competitive edge he thinks that being able to sign players and keep them within the group to develop gives him.

He's not going to personally run these clubs day to day. He'll put the best people he can get who know what they're doing, into roles to run the club.

That's what Ian and Kit Gordon should be doing. Get Ian out of the day to day because he's simply not qualified or experienced enough for it, and get folk who are better than him in.

Any billionaire businessperson with an ego that thinks because they've made money they can run a football club tends to find it difficult. The successful ones hire good people and just oversee it.


This ‘club portfolio’ model is very fashionable to the billionaires who first discovered soccer within the past decade, but I’m yet to be convinced it offers any true benefits to the clubs themselves.

Where’s the evidence that it works and is the right model for us?

[matty_f]

This ‘club portfolio’ model is very fashionable to the billionaires who first discovered soccer within the past decade, but I’m yet to be convinced it offers any true benefits to the clubs themselves.

Where’s the evidence that it works and is the right model for us?

There isn't any evidence that it is the right model for us, the whole multi-club model is still very. much in its infancy worldwide, with some executing it better than others from what I gather.

It's the model Ian and Kit Gordon have signed up for, though, so we need to hope it works out.

Certainly Foley is on record as saying that he sees the model as being the thing that gives his clubs a competitive advantage over others that might be able to spend more than he can.

[jacomo]

There isn't any evidence that it is the right model for us, the whole multi-club model is still very. much in its infancy worldwide, with some executing it better than others from what I gather.

It's the model Ian and Kit Gordon have signed up for, though, so we need to hope it works out.

Certainly Foley is on record as saying that he sees the model as being the thing that gives his clubs a competitive advantage over others that might be able to spend more than he can.


Sure, but what is Foley basing that on?

Chelsea have, in effect, been pursuing a multi club policy for 20 years, did it make a huge amount of difference?

Great players like de Bruyne and Salah slipped through their fingers, they have stockpiled huge amounts of talented young players then ignored them. Other than loading the dice further in favour of the billionaires dabbling in our national game, I’m struggling to see the benefit.

[matty_f]

Sure, but what is Foley basing that on?

Chelsea have, in effect, been pursuing a multi club policy for 20 years, did it make a huge amount of difference?

Great players like de Bruyne and Salah slipped through their fingers, they have stockpiled huge amounts of talented young players then ignored them. Other than loading the dice further in favour of the billionaires dabbling in our national game, I’m struggling to see the benefit.

I'm not close enough to what teams do it and who doesn't, I didn't realise Chelsea had other clubs working in a group with them. I know the City group so but have some varying degrees of success with it but again, other than Man City and Melbourne (I think), I'm not sure who else is in their group.


I do think it that there are a lot of things that need to align for it to work, there needs to be, for example, a willingness from each club to participate - to get the benefits they need to act as part of the group.

When you have clubs acting out of step, you don't have a multi club model, just a collection of clubs doubt their own thing.

[jacomo]

I'm not close enough to what teams do it and who doesn't, I didn't realise Chelsea had other clubs working in a group with them. I know the City group so but have some varying degrees of success with it but again, other than Man City and Melbourne (I think), I'm not sure who else is in their group.


I do think it that there are a lot of things that need to align for it to work, there needs to be, for example, a willingness from each club to participate - to get the benefits they need to act as part of the group.

When you have clubs acting out of step, you don't have a multi club model, just a collection of clubs doubt their own thing.


Well we now have a dissenting share holder who says he’s not being listened to, and if we do as he says we will get better results.

If we invest more in the right players, and manage them the right way, we should get better results.

But overall this seems concerning.

[matty_f]

Well we now have a dissenting share holder who says he’s not being listened to, and if we do as he says we will get better results.

If we invest more in the right players, and manage them the right way, we should get better results.

But overall this seems concerning.

From the outside looking in, the Gordons have bright Foley in to help (Foley's own words) with a view to both sides benefiting through the multi club model.

Kensell's words at the AGM to pitch the investment for the approval of the shareholders echoed the benefits that Hibs would get as part of a multi club model.

This is, like it or not, what they signed us up to and what the shareholders voted overwhelmingly in favour of.

What we now appear to have is a situation where Hibs don't fancy being part of that set up any more, having banked the £6m and it looks like - given the lack of investment from Black Knight in the last share issue and the lack of higher level players arriving this summer, is that Foley's also of a mind to not consider us part of the group of we're not playing ball.

Foley's words again spoke to the model not working if all the clubs in the group go in their own direction.

My guess is we will never really know what being part of the group looks like and this investment will fall by the wayside like the however many other great ideas the club have had since the Gordons took over.

It's a very depressing thought.

[judas]

When I awoke this morning, I had a banging sore head. I then missed by bus arriving late at work to problems I wasn’t expecting?!

Foley?!?!

[Iain G]

From the outside looking in, the Gordons have bright Foley in to help (Foley's own words) with a view to both sides benefiting through the multi club model.

Kensell's words at the AGM to pitch the investment for the approval of the shareholders echoed the benefits that Hibs would get as part of a multi club model.

This is, like it or not, what they signed us up to and what the shareholders voted overwhelmingly in favour of.

What we now appear to have is a situation where Hibs don't fancy being part of that set up any more, having banked the £6m and it looks like - given the lack of investment from Black Knight in the last share issue and the lack of higher level players arriving this summer, is that Foley's also of a mind to not consider us part of the group of we're not playing ball.

Foley's words again spoke to the model not working if all the clubs in the group go in their own direction.

My guess is we will never really know what being part of the group looks like and this investment will fall by the wayside like the however many other great ideas the club have had since the Gordons took over.

It's a very depressing thought.

You think so Matty? Am hoping it's just teething problems as both sides settle into the deal, even if there is a feeling neither side read the small print! I guess time will tell but I hope the benefits of being part of the group play out and relationships improve as Malky gets more into his role.

Priority has clearly been head coach and reducing squad size and initial key player recruitment.

[matty_f]

You think so Matty? Am hoping it's just teething problems as both sides settle into the deal, even if there is a feeling neither side read the small print! I guess time will tell but I hope the benefits of being part of the group play out and relationships improve as Malky gets more into his role.

Priority has clearly been head coach and reducing squad size and initial key player recruitment.
I do think so.

From what I've read, I don't think Foley and the Black Knight FC guys are especially minded to waste time in doing what they want to do, and while it might be teething problems I can't see how Hibs going against their advice fits into their plans.

I think if things were good, we'd have seen players in through the relationship, and Foley joining in with the recent share issue.

As neither have happened, I think it's evident that something is wrong.

[uwxm07]

https://i.imgur.com/HFdw88c.jpeg

“ Would you be interested in a “Timeshare in Majorca with winter Tanning facilities ?”

[hibsbollah]

I do think so.

From what I've read, I don't think Foley and the Black Knight FC guys are especially minded to waste time in doing what they want to do, and while it might be teething problems I can't see how Hibs going against their advice fits into their plans.

I think if things were good, we'd have seen players in through the relationship, and Foley joining in with the recent share issue.

As neither have happened, I think it's evident that something is wrong.

Is the Bournemouth connection going the same way as The Greenest Club in Britain, The Charleston Battery Hookup and the Brighton thing? Maybe our leaders just have a problem with following through…

[The Rebel]

Is the Bournemouth connection going the same way as The Greenest Club in Britain, The Charleston Battery Hookup and the Brighton thing? Maybe our leaders just have a problem with following through…

I followed through this morning. Not all it’s cracked up to be 😐

[GreenCastle]

Is the Bournemouth connection going the same way as The Greenest Club in Britain, The Charleston Battery Hookup and the Brighton thing? Maybe our leaders just have a problem with following through…

You would hope they provide an update and clarification in near future.

Lots of speculation and concern from fans about what is exactly going on - not good for anyone and uncertainty around the club.

[Caversham Green]

I do think so.

From what I've read, I don't think Foley and the Black Knight FC guys are especially minded to waste time in doing what they want to do, and while it might be teething problems I can't see how Hibs going against their advice fits into their plans.

I think if things were good, we'd have seen players in through the relationship, and Foley joining in with the recent share issue.

As neither have happened, I think it's evident that something is wrong.

Regardless of their other interests they are directors of the club and are duty bound to act in the club's best interests. I can't see how withholding players because the other directors disagreed with them about other matters is fulfilling that duty. Nor was making public the fact that there were disagreements about those other matters - we can see on here the discontent it has raised within an already restless support, not to mention the pressure the subsequent fallout has evidently put on the two most important people at the club. The failure to take part in the latest share issue was a choice for Black Knights but if they have advised against participation that too is a failure of their duties.

If they can't act in the best interest of Hibs as a single entity they need to resign.

[matty_f]

Is the Bournemouth connection going the same way as The Greenest Club in Britain, The Charleston Battery Hookup and the Brighton thing? Maybe our leaders just have a problem with following through…

I posted a list of things that we've started and not followed through with these guys running the club. It would be an incredible act of folly to alienate a guy with the will and the means to genuinely push the club be consistently better than we have been in most of our lifetimes.

Hopefully though it's a lot of angst over not a lot, and they can all get round the table and agree a way forward that suits the club in the short, medium, and long term.

The problem with Foley saying what he did and then the club briefing what they did about Malky and SDG, is that neither side gives us the full picture and we're left filling in the blanks.

Can you imagine the difference in mood around the place if, instead of leaking that Foley wanted his own men in place of Malky and SDG, they briefed that like every boardroom there were some disagreements but everyone's focused on making this work for Hibs and looking forward to bringing success to Easter Rd.

Foley was out of order with his remarks, but to bite back as Hibs have is just infantile and unnecessary to try and make some point that they're right and Foley is wrong.

[matty_f]

Regardless of their other interests they are directors of the club and are duty bound to act in the club's best interests. I can't see how withholding players because the other directors disagreed with them about other matters is fulfilling that duty. Nor was making public the fact that there were disagreements about those other matters - we can see on here the discontent it has raised within an already restless support, not to mention the pressure the subsequent fallout has evidently put on the two most important people at the club. The failure to take part in the latest share issue was a choice for Black Knights but if they have advised against participation that too is a failure of their duties.

If they can't act in the best interest of Hibs as a single entity they need to resign.
I don't think participation in the last share issue falls under their director duties at all, player moves perhaps but then they might suggest that is the decision that Gordon took in deciding that he didn't want the help and it's him that's being negligent

Again, Foley only said we hadn't listened and we'd do better if we did, and that he thought we'd listen now.

Hibs briefed about Malky and SDG.

[DC_Hibs]

I
Foley was out of order with his remarks, but to bite back as Hibs have is just infantile and unnecessary to try and make some point that they're right and Foley is wrong.

I haven’t seen a Hibs response to Foley’s comments. Can you give details please as I’m keen to take a look. Thanks

[Caversham Green]

I don't think participation in the last share issue falls under their director duties at all, player moves perhaps but then they might suggest that is the decision that Gordon took in deciding that he didn't want the help and it's him that's being negligent

Again, Foley only said we hadn't listened and we'd do better if we did, and that he thought we'd listen now.

Hibs briefed about Malky and SDG.

The share issue participation doesn't fall under their duties but if they have advised Black Knights against participation (which strikes me as more likely than not) that is acting directly against the best interests of HFC.

We're both speculating on why no players are coming in, I'm simply saying that if the block is on the BK side then those two directors are failing in their duty to the club. Likewise if the block is the result of IG being in a huff then the onus is on him, but the difference is that he represents the majority shareholder so he can decide what is the club's best interest.

The statement by Bill Foley was IMO bone-headed at best, malicious at worst and should not have been made public - let's remember it was after a single admittedly embarrassing result (which followed two very good ones). There is undoubtedly perceived pressure on Malky and SDG as a result which the club have at least tried to address.

[matty_f]

I haven’t seen a Hibs response to Foley’s comments. Can you give details please as I’m keen to take a look. Thanks

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/revealed-hibs-decisions-that-prompted-ruthless-billionaire-backers-incendiary-intervention-4712133

The source isn't named but i have it on good authority that this has been driven by Hibs' side, and I think that is glaringly obvious what picture it's trying to paint: Hibs good, Foley bad.

This part particularly is worded in such a way that very few of us as fans would find hard to find issue with their decision:
But the Hibs board stood firm in their belief that, after years of chopping and changing, they needed a sporting director steeped in Scottish football. And a manager with unrivalled inside knowledge of the club. Foley was informed that the immediate - and pressing - requirements of Hibs would be prioritised over any other concerns.

[jeffers]

I don't think participation in the last share issue falls under their director duties at all, player moves perhaps but then they might suggest that is the decision that Gordon took in deciding that he didn't want the help and it's him that's being negligent Again, Foley only said we hadn't listened and we'd do better if we did, and that he thought we'd listen now. Hibs briefed about Malky and SDG.If Hibs did indeed brief the press I wonder what their thinking behind that was, to get the support behind them as we all wanted SDG and MM appointed (clearly not the case) ?

[matty_f]

The share issue participation doesn't fall under their duties but if they have advised Black Knights against participation (which strikes me as more likely than not) that is acting directly against the best interests of HFC.

We're both speculating on why no players are coming in, I'm simply saying that if the block is on the BK side then those two directors are failing in their duty to the club. Likewise if the block is the result of IG being in a huff then the onus is on him, but the difference is that he represents the majority shareholder so he can decide what is the club's best interest.

The statement by Bill Foley was IMO bone-headed at best, malicious at worst and should not have been made public - let's remember it was after a single admittedly embarrassing result (which followed two very good ones). There is undoubtedly perceived pressure on Malky and SDG as a result which the club have at least tried to address.

The question was asked of him after a bad result, he hasn't instigated that conversation but I have no argument with the view that he was out of order, I've said so myself consistently.

Again, though, any complaints about pressure put on Malky and SDG should be aimed at whoever it was that decided briefing the press that those were the decisions in question was a good idea.

[Seafield Scott]

Regardless of their other interests they are directors of the club and are duty bound to act in the club's best interests. I can't see how withholding players because the other directors disagreed with them about other matters is fulfilling that duty. Nor was making public the fact that there were disagreements about those other matters - we can see on here the discontent it has raised within an already restless support, not to mention the pressure the subsequent fallout has evidently put on the two most important people at the club. The failure to take part in the latest share issue was a choice for Black Knights but if they have advised against participation that too is a failure of their duties.

If they can't act in the best interest of Hibs as a single entity they need to resign.

I understand your frustration at the current situation but I think questioning their Directors Duty of Care might be slightly premature & off the mark. Yes they have to operate in good faith & in the best interests of the club & shareholders but to argue, therefore, they have to loan/buy us players is stretching the argument somewhat.
The comments made about the owners not listening & acting on their advice ( the implied issue regarding the SD & Mgr appointed), whilst it maybe argued were slightly unprofessional & crass, I don’t have a particular issue with. The multi-millionaires and billionaires I have ever dealt with have the same traits - black is black, I don’t care if comments grate and if I say something then I expect it to be done. They haven’t become very wealthy by suffering fools.
They are not duty bound to participate in all share issues - there may be an agreement with Bydand that that can’t buy anymore shares in the club for all we know

[matty_f]

If Hibs did indeed brief the press I wonder what their thinking behind that was, to get the support behind them as we all wanted SDG and MM appointed (clearly not the case) ?

I don't think it's necessarily that they thought those were universally popular appointments, though they by and large were, and given the start we'd made prior to Kelty, everyone was on board with them - it's more the point that they positioned it that they put the club first and Foley's interests second.

How many Hibs fans would find issue with that approach in principle?

[jeffers]

I don't think it's necessarily that they thought those were universally popular appointments, though they by and large were, and given the start we'd made prior to Kelty, everyone was on board with them - it's more the point that they positioned it that they put the club first and Foley's interests second. How many Hibs fans would find issue with that approach in principle?I agree that the support want our majority shareholders putting the club first over the BK Group. While it’s not exactly helpful to SDG and MM for it to come out in public that they weren’t Foley’s choice, I doubt it will particularly bother them. Airing our issues in public isn’t exactly engendering a great working relationship between the club and Foley though. I appreciate he started it, but tit for tat helps no one.

It interests me that if he put forward a candidate for manager why they didn’t even get interviewed for the position, especially when we had two reps from the BK Group on the interview panel.

[Caversham Green]

I understand your frustration at the current situation but I think questioning their Directors Duty of Care might be slightly premature & off the mark. Yes they have to operate in good faith & in the best interests of the club & shareholders but to argue, therefore, they have to loan/buy us players is stretching the argument somewhat.
The comments made about the owners not listening & acting on their advice ( the implied issue regarding the SD & Mgr appointed), whilst it maybe argued were slightly unprofessional & crass, I don’t have a particular issue with. The multi-millionaires and billionaires I have ever dealt with have the same traits - black is black, I don’t care if comments grate and if I say something then I expect it to be done. They haven’t become very wealthy by suffering fools.
They are not duty bound to participate in all share issues - there may be an agreement with Bydand that that can’t buy anymore shares in the club for all we know

I'm not saying they *have* to loan/buy players I'm saying that if they're blocking the transfer of players that would otherwise have been coming then they're failing in their duties to the club - it was speculation in response to a comment made by Matty_f.

My point about the "not listening" comment is that it exposed a rift in the boardroom that should not have been made public and that exposure was to the detriment of the club.

I agree they were not duty bound to participate, but what I said there was that *if* they have advised against it (again, speculation, but I would suggest it's more likely than an agreement not to participate) then they were failing in their duties.

PS I hate using asterisks for emphasis - can we get bolding and underlining back please?

[Caversham Green]

The question was asked of him after a bad result, he hasn't instigated that conversation but I have no argument with the view that he was out of order, I've said so myself consistently.

Again, though, any complaints about pressure put on Malky and SDG should be aimed at whoever it was that decided briefing the press that those were the decisions in question was a good idea.

I do agree that the statement by Hibs was ill thought out, probably for the reasons that Jeffers suggests, but it was only made on the back of Foley's comments and pretty much confirmed what many were assuming in any case.

On both sides non-statements like "we are working tirelessly to improve the situation" would have been the wise thing to do IMHO.

[matty_f]

I do agree that the statement by Hibs was ill thought out, probably for the reasons that Jeffers suggests, but it was only made on the back of Foley's comments and pretty much confirmed what many were assuming in any case.

On both sides non-statements like "we are working tirelessly to improve the situation" would have been the wise thing to do IMHO.

Agreed. Put it to bed rather than fuel the fire. Neither party comes out of it looking good.

[The Modfather]

I do agree that the statement by Hibs was ill thought out, probably for the reasons that Jeffers suggests, but it was only made on the back of Foley's comments and pretty much confirmed what many were assuming in any case.

On both sides non-statements like "we are working tirelessly to improve the situation" would have been the wise thing to do IMHO.

It’s also PR by Hibs though. I can imagine Foley wanted his own manager and sporting director so it’s not inaccurate what Hibs briefed. I’d be surprised if that’s the extent of Foley’s comments though. Particularly in the context of all the other noise, Ian Gordon not stepping back, a review that mainly resulted in a reshuffling of those already at the club, the lack of transparency on what’s happening with the infrastructure projects etc etc.

Foley shouldn’t have said anything publicly. Now that he has, and if this doesn’t lead to anything changing behind closed doors in the short - mid term then I hope he follows it up and puts some meat on the bones as to the specifics of the mistakes we are continuing to make as a club.

Foley may well be the party in the wrong. However I think it’s just as likely he’s a fresh pair of eyes bluntly calling out what is wrong as Hibs with a willingness to fix it versus those running the club that don’t understand how we’ve got to where we are, far less a willingness to fix it and potentially bruise a few egos.

[Mikey_1875]

.

Again, though, any complaints about pressure put on Malky and SDG should be aimed at whoever it was that decided briefing the press that those were the decisions in question was a good idea.

Do you think that if Foleys’ comments were left open to guessing that there would be no pressure on SDG and Malky? I don’t think it would have made much of a difference. The comments from Foley brought negativity and anger to the fan base, that will translate into an increase in pressure regardless for Gray and Malky. Especially when signings are thin on the ground and we have had our first hiccup in their reign.

I’m actually of the opinion that reassured backing from guys that they will see nearly every day will be a comfort to them rather than them speculating over what Foley meant, or perhaps even knowing what Foley thought about their appointments from the start. Gray almost alluded to it when asked about Foleys comments at the Watford game. “The club believe I am the right man to take it forward”

[matty_f]

Do you think that if Foleys’ comments were left open to guessing that there would be no pressure on SDG and Malky? I don’t think it would have made much of a difference. The comments from Foley brought negativity and anger to the fan base, that will translate into an increase in pressure regardless for Gray and Malky. Especially when signings are thin on the ground and we have had our first hiccup in their reign.

I’m actually of the opinion that reassured backing from guys that they will see nearly every day will be a comfort to them rather than them speculating over what Foley meant, or perhaps even knowing what Foley thought about their appointments from the start. Gray almost alluded to it when asked about Foleys comments at the Watford game. “The club believe I am the right man to take it forward”

I think it could have been avoided by not giving the detail on it - there was no need to bring Gray and Malky into it at all. Just say that there's a winnings on both sides to work in the best interests of the Chubb and we look forward to a bright future together or some other speel that kills it dead.

[Donegal Hibby]

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/hibs-boss-gray-weighs-into-foley-not-listening-row-with-defence-of-final-say-for-gordon-family-4718779

[matty_f]

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/hibs-boss-gray-weighs-into-foley-not-listening-row-with-defence-of-final-say-for-gordon-family-4718779

I think Gray had handled this superbly, and it's a shame he's had to deal with it at all.

[Caversham Green]

It’s also PR by Hibs though. I can imagine Foley wanted his own manager and sporting director so it’s not inaccurate what Hibs briefed. I’d be surprised if that’s the extent of Foley’s comments though. Particularly in the context of all the other noise, Ian Gordon not stepping back, a review that mainly resulted in a reshuffling of those already at the club, the lack of transparency on what’s happening with the infrastructure projects etc etc.

Foley shouldn’t have said anything publicly. Now that he has, and if this doesn’t lead to anything changing behind closed doors in the short - mid term then I hope he follows it up and puts some meat on the bones as to the specifics of the mistakes we are continuing to make as a club.

Foley may well be the party in the wrong. However I think it’s just as likely he’s a fresh pair of eyes bluntly calling out what is wrong as Hibs with a willingness to fix it versus those running the club that don’t understand how we’ve got to where we are, far less a willingness to fix it and potentially bruise a few egos.

I don't disagree - in fact if IG is acting the way that's been suggested on various thread I hope Foley is constantly calling him out for it. It's the washing of dirty linen in public that's pissing me off - disagreements in boardrooms happen all the time, but that's where they should stay. Likewise, someone telling a poster on here exactly what was said, if true, is very bad practice.

[Donegal Hibby]

I think Gray had handled this superbly, and it's a shame he's had to deal with it at all.

I haven't exactly been in the Foley camp on this one though I do believe Foley and Hibs should have handled this situation alot better than they have , all credit to Gray .

He has indeed handled this very well .

[Mikey_1875]

I think it could have been avoided by not giving the detail on it - there was no need to bring Gray and Malky into it at all. Just say that there's a winnings on both sides to work in the best interests of the Chubb and we look forward to a bright future together or some other speel that kills it dead.

Except that wouldn’t kill it dead, at all. We would still have countless pages dissecting Foleys comments and anger over why the investment isn’t going the way most fans envisioned. The pressure increases regardless.

His comments have caused trouble at a time where we have a management team weeks into the job. If he had our best interests at heart he bites his tongue and backs the club. The fallout from this week is all on him.

[Seafield Scott]

I'm not saying they *have* to loan/buy players I'm saying that if they're blocking the transfer of players that would otherwise have been coming then they're failing in their duties to the club - it was speculation in response to a comment made by Matty_f.

My point about the "not listening" comment is that it exposed a rift in the boardroom that should not have been made public and that exposure was to the detriment of the club.

I agree they were not duty bound to participate, but what I said there was that *if* they have advised against it (again, speculation, but I would suggest it's more likely than an agreement not to participate) then they were failing in their duties.

PS I hate using asterisks for emphasis - can we get bolding and underlining back please?
I agree if BK are blocking any potential players coming here then it would be extremely self defeating on their part. If anything it might be MM & SDG are more likely to resist having “up & coming talent “ foisted upon them if they don’t think they would be a good fit.
Like it or not I believe we have, intentionally or not, signed up to be a feeder club for the pyramid (ergo Bournemouth). The EPL & CL are the cash cows and they want domestic teams around Europe participating in European competitions. The model is simplistic but difficult to coordinate across countries. With it we lose autonomy, control and influence as seen at L’Orient apparently shipping, chipping & changing out the best talent for money.
They have fired the first shot across the bow to set expectations of board. They only have 22%-23% of the shares but negotiated 40% boardroom presence- they will expect to be listened to. If the board aren’t careful we will become their plaything. BK are currently limited by the SFA rules on the maximum % they can own our club but they’ll be happy to play the long game until the rules change or the board starts to comply. To counter one of Marty-f’s earlier suppositions I believe BK will be here for the long term.

This is my take on things - might be complete Tom Kite & it wouldn’t be the first time!!

[One Day Soon]

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/revealed-hibs-decisions-that-prompted-ruthless-billionaire-backers-incendiary-intervention-4712133

The source isn't named but i have it on good authority that this has been driven by Hibs' side, and I think that is glaringly obvious what picture it's trying to paint: Hibs good, Foley bad.

This part particularly is worded in such a way that very few of us as fans would find hard to find issue with their decision:
But the Hibs board stood firm in their belief that, after years of chopping and changing, they needed a sporting director steeped in Scottish football. And a manager with unrivalled inside knowledge of the club. Foley was informed that the immediate - and pressing - requirements of Hibs would be prioritised over any other concerns.

My cynicism about Gordon and Kensell is now such that one man's briefed "...needed a sporting director steeped in Scottish football. And a manager with unrivalled inside knowledge of the club." is another man's "never been a sporting director but is good mates with the Chairman and let's find a cheaper and controllable manager who won't rock the boat.

[TrinityHFC]

A lot of conclusions being reached here on very little…

[One Day Soon]

A lot of conclusions being reached here on very little…

And also a fair bit of Mary Poppins-like assertions of everything is fine with very little to base it on...

[Caversham Green]

I agree if BK are blocking any potential players coming here then it would be extremely self defeating on their part. If anything it might be MM & SDG are more likely to resist having “up & coming talent “ foisted upon them if they don’t think they would be a good fit.
Like it or not I believe we have, intentionally or not, signed up to be a feeder club for the pyramid (ergo Bournemouth). The EPL & CL are the cash cows and they want domestic teams around Europe participating in European competitions. The model is simplistic but difficult to coordinate across countries. With it we lose autonomy, control and influence as seen at L’Orient apparently shipping, chipping & changing out the best talent for money.
They have fired the first shot across the bow to set expectations of board. They only have 22%-23% of the shares but negotiated 40% boardroom presence- they will expect to be listened to. If the board aren’t careful we will become their plaything. BK are currently limited by the SFA rules on the maximum % they can own our club but they’ll be happy to play the long game until the rules change or the board starts to comply. To counter one of Marty-f’s earlier suppositions I believe BK will be here for the long term.

This is my take on things - might be complete Tom Kite & it wouldn’t be the first time!!

There are 11 Directors on the board according to the website and only two associated with Black Knights, so their representation there is lower than their shareholding. They also can't acquire any more shares unless the Gordons agree to it so for the time being they are very much in the minority. In an ideal world the rest of the board would listen to them when their suggestions are suitable for the club and resist the suggestions that are not, but it's debatable that that's what is happening. I sincerely hope that MM and SDG are able to resist players being foisted upon them.

Right now I'm unimpressed with both sides of the rift and the direction they're taking the club in and I wouldn't be overly upset if either one of them pissed off. I'm hoping it is just teething troubles and the differences can be settled quietly for the good of Hibernian FC.

[Greenworld]

I think Gray had handled this superbly, and it's a shame he's had to deal with it at all.Indeed it's a Disgrace that he is the one replying to this.
Gordon and Kensell or even Mm should be the ones speaking .
I think David should take the fifth of asked about boardroom things the standard above pay level reply would be wise from him .

Sent from my SM-S928B using Tapatalk

[marinello59]

Indeed it's a Disgrace that he is the one replying to this.
Gordon and Kensell or even Mm should be the ones speaking .
I think David should take the fifth of asked about boardroom things the standard above pay level reply would be wise from him .

Sent from my SM-S928B using Tapatalk

:agree:
Kensell was happy to take the spotlight when he felt things were going well. He seems to be in hiding just now.

[matty_f]

There are 11 Directors on the board according to the website and only two associated with Black Knights, so their representation there is lower than their shareholding. They also can't acquire any more shares unless the Gordons agree to it so for the time being they are very much in the minority. In an ideal world the rest of the board would listen to them when their suggestions are suitable for the club and resist the suggestions that are not, but it's debatable that that's what is happening. I sincerely hope that MM and SDG are able to resist players being foisted upon them.

Right now I'm unimpressed with both sides of the rift and the direction they're taking the club in and I wouldn't be overly upset if either one of them pissed off. I'm hoping it is just teething troubles and the differences can be settled quietly for the good of Hibernian FC.
:agree:

[RIP]

I'm not concerned about any of this.

I'm more concerned with the fact that in the last two games, we have conceded three avoidable goals.

If David Gray can't fix that, and quick, then Malky and the Hibs Board are going to look very silly indeed.

Notwithstanding the interventions of BK into Lorient, that club appear to have imploded. It goes to show that not all change is for the better.