but presumably not "thick skinned"? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by JDHibs
Printable View
but presumably not "thick skinned"? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by JDHibs
I think that they said there wasn't a vote on the Rangers issue? Is that right?
Think too many folk are confusing Hibs with a normal business, which its not.Quote:
Originally Posted by neil7908
Normal businesses need to monitor and respond to customer views to survive and compete. Many spend £millions to get it. Hibs doesn't. Hibs just need to put a successful team on the park. Get that right and everything else is a minor distraction. Only exception, where I've seen fan views change Board behaviour was the Sevco affair, where there was real threat of fans voting with their feet.
Fan reps can provide a view, but the Board will ultimately do what it thinks is in Hibs best interests.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
Votes at board meetings are, in my experience, rare. Boards seek to agree a single consensus position- that every member supports - in and out of the meeting. It’s not a democratic process , but one of alignment.
Hilarious stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDHibs
No, there aren't. It's only wimmin who want to subject men to shocking abuse and hate campaigns that tell them their brains are in their cocks. It's not actually true.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDHibs
Car Crash Listening
I have great admiration for Frank & Tracey giving up their time but their position is completely unworkable.
What should happen is a SLO who appears before the board, but doesn't sit on it or is bound by the constraints of being a board member.
That SLO should pick up all the feel good stories they rightfully take great delight in but should also be able to report back on the matters taken to the board and their responses objectively rather that repeating " all is barry" through consensus policies.
The problem is that there is no consensus amongst the support on anything, so on the one hand something is taken to the board and those that raised it are happy their wishes were accommodated. But many others having a whole series of different positions on the issue and are cheesed off at the outcome.
The only real way I can think of agreeing at a consensus of any particular topic is by internet polling where people need to be qualified in some way to obtain the right to vote.
Fans Reps will remain an open sore until the sorry experiment is abandoned.
I don't have the same distrust of the board as many other posters on this thread, but if I wanted to be ultra cynical I might agree that the one thing fans reps have achieved on the board is to divide the focus on Rod Petrie as the devil incarnate.
This btw from someone who would view Rod Petrie's time at Hibs as markedly more positive than negative when examined over the length of his service
Some good points, I was very much in favour of the roles being created, and was one of the "few that could be bothered" to vote both times, (including for Frank on both occasions). But it has failed, I'll accept I was naive to believe it wouldn't, truth is that whilst the "reps" sit on the board they cannot be fan reps. They are entirely co-opted, serving the interests of the board rather than the supporters. It really doesn't matter who does the job, it is an impossible one. I still believe there can be a role for elected supporters in pushing our interests & priorities, but this can only be as genuine Representatives - the currently set up doesn't allow this and needs to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSEJVT
I was 1 director (of 4) in a well known Edinburgh Taxi Company and the only time in 20 years we had a vote was when we received a take over bid.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwheel
In simple terms you can have 20 Directors (2 of which represent "fans") and three shareholders and the 3 will always prevail.
As much as a good job the fans reps do they are powerless and therefore rudderless and pointless.
Surely the 'fans' representatives' are like any elected representative. You don't expect your MP to agree with the views of every one of their constituents or even groups of their constituents. Frank and Tracy stated their cases for becoming members of the board along with a number of others. It was up to the 'fans' to vote for the people that they wanted to represent them within the board.
I would expect my MP to vote in line with their party or personal manifestos. I actually think that might not be a bad idea for the next round of Fan Rep votes if there is any. Make the fans reps write an election address and then vote for the one that most represents your views. That way there is a fair chance that the majority fan view will be represented. At the moment it looks like they are trying to say what all the various fans views are which is pretty pointless. You can't represent them all as they have opposing views you need to gauge what the majority view is and run with that imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan62
I want the role to be outside the board but with access to the board before any board meetings.
Eh, surely that is what they did do? The fans reps all stated their case. They had meetings. People voted. They go with a mandate of sorts from the people that elected them and use their judgement (which they assured people they had) to do the right thing for the fans and the club.Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
I actually believe there is value in having elected non-executive directors on the board. But it is a position that requires a good skill base as well as a love of the club. I don't know either representative personally so I can't comment on their qualifications for the job.
From what I remember they read more likeQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan62
Hibs History
I will be a good Fans Rep because of these various skills etc and
I am going to use social media more and talk to fans at games
Vote Me
I have tried to look on the fishy site for the personal statements but the link bizarrely goes to a page trying to sell Player of the Year tickets. I managed to find Tracey's youtube statement and there is no personal view on anything. I also found one of the unsuccessful candidate's statements and again it was about representing all views.
Listening to Tracey I have no doubt she has done a decent job in following her "Manifesto" The problem is that by representing all views she is almost representing none as she is essentially making an argument against everything she says whilst she says it.
I think what I am saying is I want a candidate who is willing to be partisan to represent the majority of supporter's view whether they feel that way or not. They would also need to find a way to reasonably gauge what that majority view is. I also want one who will report what views they will take to the board before meetings. i realise it is difficult not to toe the party line after the meeting but I want to know they had a dash on behalf of the majority of supporters and I realise I may well not hold that majority view. Like most boards there will be a couple of key members who essentially decide everything and they most certainly won't be the supporter's reps unless the club is fan owned.
That last paragraph amazes me. In the last 21 seasons since Rod joined the board we have consistently had the 5th highest crowds and therefore player budget in the league yet we have only managed a top 5 finish 4 times. That’s 4 times in 21 seasons we performed in line with our budget. It’s hard to see how anyone could give him pass marks for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSEJVT
Our average league position since he joined the board is 9th.
If you judge him on the building job alone then the stadium and training centre are great but on the field not so much.
Both cup win were amazing, although other clubs have experienced that as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thing is I don't think you can separate the on-field and off-field activitiesQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
One clearly impacts upon the others
If you consider the utter shambles we were when STF & Rod took over, to get to where we are is startling
Outwith the ugly sisters no-one is within a million miles of where we are.
My hope and expectation is that we will now kick on and establish ourselves where we ought to be whilst our competitors struggle with the issues we have faced and overcome.
See HMFC for an illustration!
That the time of their running the club has in large part been painful, there is no doubt, but we are only custodians of the club for the next generations.
Famous Five era not withstanding we have actually won 3 trophies in that time which would compare favourably with most periods in our history
I am comfortable that my children and grandchildren will reap the benefits of what we have sown.
Maybe having a bean counter running the club who understood the benefits of having the infrastructure in place to enable the business to perform will be seen as a good thing in the years to come?
One things for sure when we are dead and gone, maybe even before when STF and Rod Petrie bow out, we will be in a far better place than we were when they came onboard.
If that's not success that I don't know what is?
The problem with football discussions about anything is that its emotive and personalises issues on individuals and once folks minds are made up about an individual they seldom change. I am as guilty as anyone so its not a criticism.
Rational thought and thinking through the issues to arrive at a balanced viewpoint seldom occur. Once I had decided James Collins was pish, that was it.
Rod Petrie could become the next Mother Theresa, but many folk would remember only as the man in charge when we were crap for various periods and who should have spent £150k on LG
I understand that we have built a lot of infrastructure but it did not affect our budget that much. It was always around the 5th biggest in the league. And to only perform in line with that 4 times in 21 years is seriously bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSEJVT
It’s not a case of not spending the money, we did. It was how badly the club was being run that we wasted so much of it. He has a disgraceful record and only if the next ten years are a roaring success does he have a half chance of it looking positive.
His record at the SFA is following a similar path, without the good infrastructure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course it effected our budgetQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
We would have spent rocking on £20m
Of the top of my head £10m came from player sales, £4m still to pay, some of it was forgiven by the bank.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSEJVT
The actual wage budget was always 5th highest yet we rarely were. Maybe if we hadn’t built it then our wage bill could have climbed to 4th highest some years but the evidence shows we would have not spent it well anyway so building was the best thing we could have done with the money while Petrie was there. For that we should be grateful to him.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Big wedge from the car park sale, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
So, devils advocate time, Petrie while building the stadium and HTC also backed the managers with the 5th highest wage bill in Scotland. Who's to blame for signing pish players? Was it the managers or was it Petrie? 3 major trophies in 21 years, two relegations, two championship wins, a number of cup finals, and even bigger number of semi finals. It's never been boring!! I think he has done ok overall and we as a club are now in a position that every other outside the OF would take in a minute. Maybe even der Hun would swap as well. Onwards and upwards
That mistakes were made there is no doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I would say those mistakes involved recruiting the wrong managers who needed replaced far earlier than they should have.
Those managers were to various extents given their head in signing players that their successors then moved on at huge cost.
Not many of the managerial appointments were widely criticised at the outset, indeed most if not all looked visionary.
Its just a shame football isn't played on paper :-)
We are also not alone in the difficulty of regular duff managerial appointments and the subsequent revolving door of player trading that those involve.
Hearts, Rangers & Dundee United immediately spring to mind
Whether by luck or improved process we have seen managerial stability through Stubbs & Lennon which has led to player stability and not accidentally improved performances.
Hopefully it is improved process but it would be greatly ironic if when Lennon moves on it had proved to be luck
It will be painful viewing for all if Leanne's status is transformed from Messiah to pariah after a few iffy managerial appointments.
I personally think it’s improved structure at the club. The manager no longer has to run everything down at east Mains.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSEJVT
Leeann Dempster managed to make Mark McGee, Craig Brown and Stuart McCall all look like good managers while she was at Motherwell. The minute they left they went back to being failures.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the one thing the The Rangers debate shows is that folk had / have unrealistic expectations of what the fans reps can actually deliver. Its the job of the directors of any company to do what's right for the business and that includes them, if I read the situation correctly it was the opinion of the board based on ( according to them ) legal advice that any attempt to pursue this matter would be a waste of not only time, but more importantly, money with absolutely no prospect of a successful outcome.
I presume it wouldn't have taken the presence of fans reps at board meetings about this subject for the club to be aware that it was the opinion of the fans that Rangers 2012 be stripped of any honours they claim to be owners of prior to 2012 or at the very least honours won during the EBT period and that the SFA needed taken to task for what they allowed to happen, with robust structures put in place to ensure such a situation never arises again.
Now, from my POV that didn't mean Hibs couldn't have released a strong statement making it clear that in the clubs opinion removal of these honours if it was legally possible to do so was what we wanted and that its also the clubs opinion that the SFA and SPFL need to recognise that a situation where they are apparently powerless to strip a club of honours they claim to have won in competitions owned and administered by both bodies is ridiculous ..... I find it unfathomable that as the governing bodies of Scottish football they are apparently legally powerless to strip a participant in a competition they own and run of a win if it is subsequently found they did so while breaking the rules. Lance Armstrong can only dream that the SFA / SPFL ran professional cycling.
This once again brings us back to fan ownership of Hibs. What appears to be happening here is folk saying that if the club was run by the fans the fan run board would have been happy to piss away £50,000 or whatever in the fruitless pursuit of an action the clubs legal advisors had already told them was 'bound to fail' ...... If that's how Hibs would be run by 'the fans' then I for one hope it never happens.
That's not bending over to take it up the ass from The Rangers or the SFA ....... Its protecting the interests of the club in the real world where no matter how unpalatable or unfair something clearly is wasting the clubs human resources and money on it with absolutely no prospect of changing it would only be detrimental to the clubs finances and ability to compete on the park.
Celtic are the main movers and shakers in this situation and are held up as the poster boy for pursuit of the Rangers and the SFA, including by a few folk on here.
For all their hot air can anybody tell me how much of their mega wealth they have committed to a legal challenge against either SEVCO or the SFA / SPFL so far? My bet is not a bloody penny because they have had the same legal advice as Hibs.
In this case it wouldn't have mattered a rats ass if the two reps had the casting vote on the Hibs board, they would still have had no choice but to listen to the legal advice they were given, any other action would have laid them open to accusations of negligence as club directors ... so IMO the flack they are taking over this is not only totally unfair, its totally unjustified.
What I want to hear is what the SFA and SPFL are putting in place NOW to ensure that this situation never arises again and that measures are taken to ensure that they can legally remove honours where appropriate and stop a club ( by court action if necessary ) from claiming them, either in its club literature or by putting 5 bloody silly stars on their shirt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE
The man's fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
Happy to take the credit when everything's good, disappears when the going gets tough. He even had the audacity to fine Riordan for speaking out about the state of the pitch.
Poisonous and looks after HIMSELF.
And dinnae get me started on his waterworks during the DVD.
As long as he's daeing his thing, board members are puppets.
The stripping of titles wasn't the issue. An investigation needed to take place to reveal the extent of the cheating, how it was allowed to happen, why it went unpunished and who was responsible for what. Then anyone responsible for wrongdoing could have been taken to task and Scottish football would have been in a position to progress.
Exactly. If they had a full investigation and at the end of it said because of decisions made earlier we can’t now strip titles then that’s fair enough. We still could have had full transparency and put proper checks and balances in to prevent it happening again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilla Black
Frank said in the interview that nothing would have been achieved? How about knowing the truth and improving governance of the game?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He also said he started off wanting Rangers punished but didn't know why? I replayed it a few times to make sure. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Is Leeann Dempster acting like "a puppet" to you? Does she give the impression that she is a yes woman? She could walk into another job tomorrow based on what she has achieved at Hibs and Motherwell and IMO there's no doubt she would if she thought she was just a front for Petrie.Quote:
Originally Posted by WestStandWillie
Petrie's failing was always that he couldn't bring himself to see the correlation between success on the pitch and a successful 'business' .... bricks and mortar are tangible assets, as is the value a player has in the transfer market. Paying for the right player or appointing the right manager are based on gut feeling, instinct and knowledge of the game, not to mention the ability to face up to the fact that when you do so you are always to an extent taking a risk, things that are clearly not Petrie's strengths.
What you are suggesting is that Petrie's failings as a chairman are down to the fact that he doesn't care about the club and I think that's far from the truth. I watched the 30 minutes after the cup final recently and listened to the Sportsound after match coverage. Petrie spoke of the fans during one of these programmes and his voice broke when he was talking about us then .... IMO his emotion on the DVD was genuine.
Petrie is many things, but a fraud he is not .... as for fining Riordan for his pitch statement, if DR had been moaning about it but was told by the club to keep it 'in house' what exactly was Petrie supposed to do?
I must admit I was surprised by how ill prepared they were for the interview given they knew the questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
He kept repeating the ‘those who bothered to turn up line’ when talking about the meetings but there was only one I could have attended and that was the working together meeting. Unfortunately I was down south that week. The meeting in the Hibs Club was a closed meeting for members only and the surgeries he talked about were, I think, in the Hibs club on match days (members only) and anyway matchdays for me are with my 11 year old son and I’m not going to drag him to a meeting about football governance.
I was disappointed I could not attend the working together meeting.
I now fully accept the decision even though I disagree with it and think it reflects badly on the club.
I’m more interested in the clubs position on FFP going forward now but they refuse to engage on that subject as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What an utterly clueless post on so many levelsQuote:
Originally Posted by WestStandWillie
Exactly what credit has he taken
Leanne is the public face of Hibs and as Chairman he is trotted out when he needs to be as he represents the majority shareholders interests
Rod Petrie could have earned many more times what he has with Hibs with no aggravation, he wasn't someone no-mark, he was a well respected and connected accountant and Chief Executive of an Investment Bank.
He was originally put into run the club by STF and stayed around because he grew attached to the club.
In exactly what way is he poisonous, because he wont turn round and drop his drawers to some of the half wit ideas that have crossed his and Leanne's desk.
He then conducts himself with a bit dignity on the clubs behalf, unlike some of those purveyors of idiocy
His job, like the boards isn't to be popular it is to make hard decisions to take the club forward whilst retaining financial control.
It gets on my goat that because folk either individually or as a group make decisions that folk don't like that they are called puppets or worse.
It wont bother them one iota and makes the name callers look childish and boorish.
Its not all been sweetness and light but I have absolutely no doubt that post Duff & Gray everything the various boards of Hibs has done has been within the financial constraints they set themselves in the best interests of the club
I wouldn't swap where we are now for any club in Scotland, including Celtic & The Rangers as I wouldn't want their baggage and prefer our quiet dignity.
Agree entirely with thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I never felt there was anything to be gained by dwelling on the issues of the past, but we need to ensure that they are understood and not repeated in future.
Good post this, and lots of points well made.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSEJVT
GGTTH
I wonder if the roles that Tracy and Frank have were rebranded as 'Fan Elected Directors' it might give a more accurate representation of what they do, and give everyone more realistic expectations on what they can achieve.
It's impossible to represent the support effectively, we all have different opinions and are engaged with the club at different levels, so right away they're fighting a losing battle to live up to the title.
I think the principle behind having two supporter elected directors on the board is good, with a lot of merit and the podcast did a good job of highlighting some of the good work both reps do.
In its current state though, there's too big a disparity between what people think they should be doing, and what they can do.
There's probably a successful and effective way to have these roles in place, and I'd say it's worth persevering with rather than dismissing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestStandWillie
None of which constitutes the word “fraud”. All rather childish and pathetic, from behind an anonymous username.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BSEJVT
:top marksTerrific post
Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
I posted similar earlier..........there is nothing wrong with having ‘fans elected directors’ as you say, and I think it gives the opportunity for at least some fan representation on the board....as well as adding to the resources the club has to interact with the punters, but ‘fans’ would have to understand that a particular view they may hold, may not be shared by the elected board member.........in much the same way we elect MPs on their general beliefs, but they do not necessarily agree with ‘everything’ we believe.
The ballot box can then change them if that is the wish.
But I’m not sure that would be acceptable to a fair few fans.
I fully expect that when this cycle of the ‘fan rep’ cycle comes to an end, their will be some kind of ‘restructuring exercise ‘ announced by the board and it will be discontinued in its current form.
And No, it won’t be due to any individuals who currently hold the roles, who both do their very best for the club they support........just an ‘experiment’ that will have run. It’s time.
They are as Matty rightly pointed out 'fan elected' directors. Before the concept was agreed and initiated, all board members and most staff at the club were huge Hibbies.
This has been the case since 1875 and that model is replicated across the football world. Who other than a supporter would give up so much of their free time for so little thanks?
One thing I have noticed on this, and the podcast thread, is that there has been no input from the fans reps themselves.
If I was misquoted, or came across the wrong way, I would be clarifying any points that have been brought up.
Both were hugely active on here prior to elections but not as involved afterwards.
This is no critism of them as people, I dont know them at all, but more an observation of the role they have put themselves forward for.In terms of ticket allocation and rangers debacle, they did not come over well at all.As I have said previously, a fans rep cannot be on the board , no matter their best intentions, as their hands are tied with what they can report back.
Deal wae it.Quote:
Originally Posted by McD