Fans Rep Surgery - Sat 15th July at Hibs Club (NOT THIS WEEKEND)

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

16-09-2017, 10:30 AM
oneone73

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

Hahahaha, one has had 30 years of working with computers, then promises the world because he got it wrong in the past, but then passes it all off to Tracey, completely disregarding what he promised when he wanted our votes.

If this was Petrie he'd be getting the same questioning from me.

Although at least Petrie is afforded the courtesy of a namecheck.
16-09-2017, 10:35 AM
lapsedhibee

Quote:

Originally Posted by macca70

No idea what you are getting at or what your question is, put it in format of a sentence rather than just random words.

Ok, my questions are:
(1) Do you think Rangers have been punished sufficiently by being relegated to the bottom division, and that's why it's right to move on?
(2) If it turned out that Rangers hadn't been relegated at all, and were in fact liquidated, would you still say that their relegation was sufficient punishment for their decade or so of systematic cheating?
16-09-2017, 10:56 AM
Beefster

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSmith

To be fair, Tracey did say that both were privy to further legal opinion/documents/advice that led them to their conclusion.

This is one of the [many] issues with supporter reps on the board. Any awkward situations can be batted away with 'we had information that we can't share'.
16-09-2017, 11:23 AM
Peevemor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beefster

This is one of the [many] issues with supporter reps on the board. Any awkward situations can be batted away with 'we had information that we can't share'.

Same for any board member. However, given that the supporters' reps are elected by the fans (or those that can be bothered) we can be sure that, other than their love of Hibs, they don't have a vested interest.
16-09-2017, 11:24 AM
MrSmith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beefster

This is one of the [many] issues with supporter reps on the board. Any awkward situations can be batted away with 'we had information that we can't share'.

I agree and questioned that very statement some posts ago. No response.
16-09-2017, 12:02 PM
blackpoolhibs

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneone73

Although at least Petrie is afforded the courtesy of a namecheck.

Aye, teflon.
16-09-2017, 12:06 PM
ColinNish

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSmith

To be fair, Tracey did say that both were privy to further legal opinion/documents/advice that led them to their conclusion.

Yes but they still voted the way "they" saw fit, not representing the majority fan views because they didn't bother to garner this information properly.
16-09-2017, 12:06 PM
Velma Dinkley

Seeing as the organisations that have apparently sought legal advice haven't explained what this advice was, why they sought it or in fact exactly what the advice was regarding, it's difficult to figure out how it has impacted any decision. At a guess, the legal advice is simply regarding the stripping of titles, which means the SFA, hibs, Aberdeen etc have completely missed the point. A review is needed into the mismanagement of the game in Scotland, which led to titles not being g stripped as per the rules. No legal advice is required to make a decision on such a review.
16-09-2017, 12:18 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cilla Black

Seeing as the organisations that have apparently sought legal advice haven't explained what this advice was, why they sought it or in fact exactly what the advice was regarding, it's difficult to figure out how it has impacted any decision. At a guess, the legal advice is simply regarding the stripping of titles, which means the SFA, hibs, Aberdeen etc have completely missed the point. A review is needed into the mismanagement of the game in Scotland, which led to titles not being g stripped as per the rules. No legal advice is required to make a decision on such a review.

The SPFL published theirs.

https://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-press-release-84/

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
16-09-2017, 12:21 PM
marinello59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cilla Black

Seeing as the organisations that have apparently sought legal advice haven't explained what this advice was, why they sought it or in fact exactly what the advice was regarding, it's difficult to figure out how it has impacted any decision. At a guess, the legal advice is simply regarding the stripping of titles, which means the SFA, hibs, Aberdeen etc have completely missed the point. A review is needed into the mismanagement of the game in Scotland, which led to titles not being g stripped as per the rules. No legal advice is required to make a decision on such a review.

I agree we need a review but most of those questions have been answered in some way though. :confused:
16-09-2017, 12:29 PM
lord bunberry

I must say I'm not buying the line that they came to a decision after considering opinions of fans on social media. The issue was very much n the background and it wasn't being discussed extensively even on here. The thread on here leading up to the statement was only being contributed to by a very low amount of posters.
The reaction after the statement showed a more realistic snapshot of the fans opinions on the subject. The fans reps have got this wrong in imo. Good luck to the 2 of them, but I won't be voting again when the time comes.
16-09-2017, 01:03 PM
Johnny Clash

Quote:

Originally Posted by lord bunberry

I must say I'm not buying the line that they came to a decision after considering opinions of fans on social media. The issue was very much n the background and it wasn't being discussed extensively even on here. The thread on here leading up to the statement was only being contributed to by a very low amount of posters.
The reaction after the statement showed a more realistic snapshot of the fans opinions on the subject. The fans reps have got this wrong in imo. Good luck to the 2 of them, but I won't be voting again when the time comes.

Despite some erratic posts things are at least becoming more clear.

The official Hibs statement refers to a 'unanimous view' being reached.

A few posts back Tracey also accepts that no vote was ever taken on this.
So it sounds like there was a discussion and everyone ended up agreeing to the view that we let the Paris Buns off the hook.

I am all in favour of having elected supporters reps on the board. However, I do think they've got it wrong with this issue and compounded the error of judgment by not communicating their reasons for all the directors reaching the 'unanimous view'.

The lack of communication they now accept was wrong.

So hopefully we'll soon see an explanation - perhaps after discussions with supports have been held today?
16-09-2017, 01:10 PM
Tornadoes70

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The SPFL published theirs.

https://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-press-release-84/

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

First time I've seen this article. Its as I feared that any chance of retrospective action especially now we're fully informed of the issues as they stand is highly unlikely nay virtually impossible due to the inneffective actions taken at that time when the titles should have been stripped due to the ineligible registrations. There's no point having a review as Hibernian have pointed out. Once Rod becomes President we can but hope he can execute change from within.

:flag:
16-09-2017, 01:11 PM
lord bunberry

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Clash

Despite some erratic posts things are at least becoming more clear.

The official Hibs statement refers to a 'unanimous view' being reached.

A few posts back Tracey also accepts that no vote was ever taken on this.
So it sounds like there was a discussion and everyone ended up agreeing to the view that we let the Paris Buns off the hook.

I am all in favour of having elected supporters reps on the board. However, I do think they've got it wrong with this issue and compounded the error of judgment by not communicating their reasons for all the directors reaching the 'unanimous view'.

The lack of communication they now accept was wrong.

So hopefully we'll soon see an explanation - perhaps after discussions with supports have been held today?

I won't be holding my breathe on that one tbh. The wagons have been circled and they'll ride out the storm.
16-09-2017, 01:49 PM
ColinNish

Quote:

Originally Posted by lord bunberry

I won't be holding my breathe on that one tbh. The wagons have been circled and they'll ride out the storm.

Yip. Totally agree.
Will be interesting if anyone on here speaks to either of the reps today and posts up anything that was said.
16-09-2017, 02:47 PM
A Hi-Bee

Surgery?

There wis me thinking that a surgery was something to do with doctor's, no doctor is going to find a cure for what ails the SFA or the ones who stay silent effectively supporting the stance taken by the blazers.
16-09-2017, 06:07 PM
ColinNish

So, did anyone speak to the reps today at the game?
16-09-2017, 06:14 PM
Skol

Quote:

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Ok, my questions are:
(1) Do you think Rangers have been punished sufficiently by being relegated to the bottom division, and that's why it's right to move on?
(2) If it turned out that Rangers hadn't been relegated at all, and were in fact liquidated, would you still say that their relegation was sufficient punishment for their decade or so of systematic cheating?

1 - They were not relegated
2 - doesnt make sense, if they hadnt been relegated how can relegation be a punishment ?

Personally I am happy with what happened way back when
16-09-2017, 06:23 PM
lapsedhibee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skol

1 - They were not relegated
2 - doesnt make sense, if they hadnt been relegated how can relegation be a punishment ?

Personally I am happy with what happened way back when

The liquidation of the old huns was a consequence of their overspending.
So far there have been no consequences for the old huns of their systematic cheating (just a relatively small fine on the new huns).
16-09-2017, 06:35 PM
Nakedmanoncrack

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColinNish

So, did anyone speak to the reps today at the game?

Waste of time as they are clearly sticking to a line, and offering nothing new face to face.
16-09-2017, 06:38 PM
Skol

Quote:

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

The liquidation of the old huns was a consequence of their overspending.
So far there have been no consequences for the old huns of their systematic cheating (just a relatively small fine on the new huns).

They no longer exist, whats the point of consequences ?
16-09-2017, 06:40 PM
lapsedhibee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skol

They no longer exist, whats the point of consequences ?

Setting the record straight. As opposed to bent.
16-09-2017, 06:41 PM
Skol

Quote:

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Setting the record straight. As opposed to bent.

We all know what happened.....
16-09-2017, 06:44 PM
lapsedhibee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skol

We all know what happened.....

That's fine then. Shouldn't be any objection to altering the record books.
16-09-2017, 06:45 PM
BoomtownHibees

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skol

We all know what happened.....

How can we ensure it won't happen again if there's not an investigation in to how it was allowed to happen previously?
17-09-2017, 10:31 AM
Baldy Foghorn

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

Hahahaha, one has had 30 years of working with computers, then promises the world because he got it wrong in the past, but then passes it all off to Tracey, completely disregarding what he promised when he wanted our votes.

If this was Petrie he'd be getting the same questioning from me.

Personal crusade, for some reason you seem to dislike Frank, bet you wouldn't say it to his face though:aok:
17-09-2017, 10:40 AM
blackpoolhibs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baldy Foghorn

Personal crusade, for some reason you seem to dislike Frank, bet you wouldn't say it to his face though:aok:

Why wouldnt say it to his face? :confused:
17-09-2017, 10:45 AM
Baldy Foghorn

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

Why wouldnt say it to his face? :confused:

You have had the opportunity no?
17-09-2017, 10:46 AM
blackpoolhibs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baldy Foghorn

You have had the opportunity no?

Have i, when would that have been? :confused:
17-09-2017, 10:47 AM
Baldy Foghorn

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

Have i, when would that have been? :confused:

Brondby?

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page