Undermining of Board

[Mikey]

Here's a question that's probably worth asking, especially in the white hot heat of a very quiet transfer window

There are a number of people on here who have been very anti board (sorry, can't really think of a better description) for as long as I can remember.

Do you feel that your stance on here, and in some cases frequent posts about your perceptions of the board's inadequacies, has actually achieved anything?

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular so don't go thinking that I'm picking on anyone

[The Falcon]

When I take that stance I'm accused of being a "troll" cos I's m new.

So I'll ask "are you a troll?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Here's a question that's probably worth asking, especially in the white hot heat of a very quiet transfer window

There are a number of people on here who have been very anti board (sorry, can't really think of a better description) for as long as I can remember.

Do you feel that your stance on here, and in some cases frequent posts about your perceptions of the board's inadequacies, has actually achieved anything?

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular so don't go thinking that I'm picking on anyone

[Lucius Apuleius]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

When I take that stance I'm accused of being a "troll" cos I's m new.

So I'll ask "are you a troll?

Trolling is making a statement liable to cause anger. Mikey has asked a question without stating his viewpoint. Not trolling in my opinion (that is us old board members sticking together in our wee clique)

[Matty_Jack04]

although i dont consider myself anti board, i dont think it has acheived anything what so ever but what exactly does posting greviances on here acheive anyway? Does rod and the rest read this site? Do they listen to supporter concerns? The only time supporters can air there feelings and feel like there being heard unfortunatly is the terraces and then other fans give them a roasting for not being 'true supporters'

In short no matter what is posted on here acheives nothing down easter road way good or bad.

[khib70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Here's a question that's probably worth asking, especially in the white hot heat of a very quiet transfer window

There are a number of people on here who have been very anti board (sorry, can't really think of a better description) for as long as I can remember.

Do you feel that your stance on here, and in some cases frequent posts about your perceptions of the board's inadequacies, has actually achieved anything?

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular so don't go thinking that I'm picking on anyone

Fair question.

Some of us believe that the Board have neglected the core business of the club, which is playing football, and been obsessively focussed on balancing the books and improving infrastructure. You might not agree, but this is a legitimate stance which people on this board are entitled to take.

Has it achieved anything? The honest answer is "no" - but since that means that the Board have not acted on the concerns of a sizeable section of the support, that's not necessarily a good thing. The question could be turned round. Do those on here who uncritically back the Board at all times feel that they have "achieved anything".

Despite attempts by the above people to imply that those of us who are prepared to question the Board's policies and actions are in some way "undermining" them, or are acting contrary to the interests of the club, what is happening is that paying supporters are questioning what has really been achieved by the Board's current stance. This is surely a healthy thing.

We have for some time been told that we're part of a "family" here. It appears that the Board and their supporters have a very clear idea of which part of the "family" we are. The small, innocent children who should be "seen and not heard"

[Wembley67]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

although i dont consider myself anti board, i dont think it has acheived anything what so ever but what exactly does posting greviances on here acheive anyway? Does rod and the rest read this site? Do they listen to supporter concerns? The only time supporters can air there feelings and feel like there being heard unfortunatly is the terraces and then other fans give them a roasting for not being 'true supporters'

In short no matter what is posted on here acheives nothing down easter road way good or bad.

spot on. Message boards are just a game for us bored people at work.

[Kaiser1962]

Although I disagree with this khib its a good post.

The other side of the coin, as I see it, is that if they failed to balance the books we would not be here. I believe that, by investing in the infrastructure, that we are being given a solid and secure base from which to move forward.

I do believe, although the team is crap, that we are still doing the right thing and the only fly in the ointment is that we are still losing, copyright TQM , around £2m per annum, which is a concern.

Alternatively, as I just posted on another thread, we could have "backed" John Collins and sunk £2m plus wages plus everything else into Steven Naismith for what return?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Fair question.

Some of us believe that the Board have neglected the core business of the club, which is playing football, and been obsessively focussed on balancing the books and improving infrastructure. You might not agree, but this is a legitimate stance which people on this board are entitled to take.

Has it achieved anything? The honest answer is "no" - but since that means that the Board have not acted on the concerns of a sizeable section of the support, that's not necessarily a good thing. The question could be turned round. Do those on here who uncritically back the Board at all times feel that they have "achieved anything".

Despite attempts by the above people to imply that those of us who are prepared to question the Board's policies and actions are in some way "undermining" them, or are acting contrary to the interests of the club, what is happening is that paying supporters are questioning what has really been achieved by the Board's current stance. This is surely a healthy thing.

We have for some time been told that we're part of a "family" here. It appears that the Board and their supporters have a very clear idea of which part of the "family" we are. The small, innocent children who should be "seen and not heard"

[Hibbyradge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Fair question.

Some of us believe that the Board have neglected the core business of the club, which is playing football, and been obsessively focussed on balancing the books and improving infrastructure. You might not agree, but this is a legitimate stance which people on this board are entitled to take.

Has it achieved anything? The honest answer is "no" - but since that means that the Board have not acted on the concerns of a sizeable section of the support, that's not necessarily a good thing.

In fact, they have "acted on the concerns of a sizeable section of the support".

Just not yours.

Had they spent all the money on players salaries and transfer fees, those of us who believe that we needed to get ourselves in a stable financial position with the right infrastructure in place first, would be feeling disenfranchised.

[jonty]

Slightly off-topic but I do think that the club read and (in some cases) take to heart what is posted - playing and support staff.
Indirectly several people have emailed the club after encouragement from fellow posters and while not all succesfull at least one (hibs kids?) was.
Several fans forums have also been heard.

But in the grand scheme of things its a very small impact. Most fans voice their opinions at the ground and thats where it's noticed most.

I agree with Wembley67 though

[Matty_Jack04]

back john collins with £2m are you serious?
Theiry gathussi, makalamby, o'brien, brian kerr says to me no danger should he have been backed with serious funds, what he should have been backed on was the player revolt against his training methods and rules on conduct but he showed no reason to be backed by that kind of money in the transfer market as his signings were rotten

[khib70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Although I disagree with this khib its a good post.

The other side of the coin, as I see it, is that if they failed to balance the books we would not be here. I believe that, by investing in the infrastructure, that we are being given a solid and secure base from which to move forward.

I do believe, although the team is crap, that we are still doing the right thing and the only fly in the ointment is that we are still losing, copyright TQM , around £2m per annum, which is a concern.

Alternatively, as I just posted on another thread, we could have "backed" John Collins and sunk £2m plus wages plus everything else into Steven Naismith for what return?

I see where you're coming from. However, we have the "solid and secure base", but as far as the football side is concerned, we are not "moving forward" The quality of the playing squad is as low, IMO, as it's been for years.

I'm not blind to the necessity of balancing the books, and am absolutely not in favour of throwing money around. But we do need to invest in players, with an eye to their future value, rather than simply buying up to a limit defined by what the season ticket purchasers put in.

To use your own analogy. Looking at Naismith's performances for Rangers this season, and accepting for the sake of argument your £2m figure, if we were selling him now we would be looking at twice that figure or more. And we would have had the benefit of a player much better than the ones we have now for a number of years.

It's simplistic to operate on the basis of a zero balance at all times. Debt is acceptable, provided it is serviceable, and both individuals and organisations in all areas of society work on that basis.

On the only occasion we have been seriously close to going out of business, it was financial mismanagement and ill-advised dabbling in non-football invesstments that took us there

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Fair question.

Some of us believe that the Board have neglected the core business of the club, which is playing football, and been obsessively focussed on balancing the books and improving infrastructure. You might not agree, but this is a legitimate stance which people on this board are entitled to take.

Has it achieved anything? The honest answer is "no" - but since that means that the Board have not acted on the concerns of a sizeable section of the support, that's not necessarily a good thing. The question could be turned round. Do those on here who uncritically back the Board at all times feel that they have "achieved anything".

Despite attempts by the above people to imply that those of us who are prepared to question the Board's policies and actions are in some way "undermining" them, or are acting contrary to the interests of the club, what is happening is that paying supporters are questioning what has really been achieved by the Board's current stance. This is surely a healthy thing.

We have for some time been told that we're part of a "family" here. It appears that the Board and their supporters have a very clear idea of which part of the "family" we are. The small, innocent children who should be "seen and not heard"

Every time the board speak on teh subject they confirm that the main goal for the Club is to achieve success on the pitch and that everything they do is geared to that.

To those who keep peddling the balance sheet line actually read those type of statements or do they think the Board are lying? Why would the finances and infrastructure be important if it wasn't to bebefit the team long term?

The Board chat went all quiet when we'd bought Riordan, brought in Stokes and Miller and were clear in third place. It was the coming together of the board's policy.

Since then we've signed another 9 players and completed the East stand.

The Board's approcah has not changed but they can't do much about how the players perform. They thought the management wasn't right so they changed it.

The quality of players brough in within the budget is the managers shout. Our budget has brought us guys like Riordan, Stokes, Miller, Zemmama, Benji, Boozy, Sproule, Murphy, Jones, Shiels and Killen so it can be done.

To me the Board thing here is probably just to do with a desire to question authority and sock one to 'the man' more than it is a real review of their performance backed up with any sort of alternative approach that they could have taken.

[Expecting Rain]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

back john collins with £2m are you serious?
Theiry gathussi, makalamby, o'brien, brian kerr says to me no danger should he have been backed with serious funds, what he should have been backed on was the player revolt against his training methods and rules on conduct but he showed no reason to be backed by that kind of money in the transfer market as his signings were rotten

Agree, it isn`t about spending £2m on a player, it is about finding an overall balance to the team and the squad, bringing through youth, looking for players with potential that can improve the team and unfortunately selling them on to keep the club financially sound. It is also being realistic about how long this will take and learning from previous mistakes, the last point is difficult to judge and amend when contractual situations are definitely on the side of the players who at the end of the day play the biggest part in results, especially against teams in a similar if not weaker situation, in this instance i don`t blame the board.

[khib70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Every time the board speak on teh subject they confirm that the main goal for the Club is to achieve success on the pitch and that everything they do is geared to that.

To those who keep peddling the balance sheet line actually read those type of statements or do they think the Board are lying? Why would the finances and infrastructure be important if it wasn't to bebefit the team long term?

The Board chat went all quiet when we'd bought Riordan, brought in Stokes and Miller and were clear in third place. It was the coming together of the board's policy.

Since then we've signed another 9 players and completed the East stand.

The Board's approcah has not changed but they can't do much about how the players perform. They thought the management wasn't right so they changed it.

The quality of players brough in within the budget is the managers shout. Our budget has brought us guys like Riordan, Stokes, Miller, Zemmama, Benji, Boozy, Sproule, Murphy, Jones, Shiels and Killen so it can be done.

To me the Board thing here is probably just to do with a desire to question authority and sock one to 'the man' more than it is a real review of their performance backed up with any sort of alternative approach that they could have taken.

A fairly predictable response.

This is your standard defence of the board and I've seen it often enough. It can be paraphrased as "when good things happen the Board should get the credit and if it goes wrong, it's the manager's fault". The managers being appointed by whom again?

No one is suggesting that the books shouldn't be balanced. What is being suggested is that the reins are too tight. It's possible to invest more in the squad without being financially irresponsible.

It's nice of you to tell those of us who believe this what our motives are. However, we already know, and we don't need you trivialising our genuine concerns as mindless iconoclasm. I've no doubt that the handsomely remunerated Mr Petrie and his colleagues are sincere in their statement that they want the club to succeed on the football front. However, the over-stringent constraints they place on that are counterproductive to the stated aim.

You and others seem to persist in the straw man position that anyone criticising the board is advocating unrestrained and irresponsible spending. We're not. Neither are we indulging in authority bashing. We look at what's on the field and we hold those responsible who are and should be responsible.

[smurf]

Very interesting thread...

The answer is probably no in a yes kind of way.... Is anything ever achieved by posting criticisms on a forum on-line? What's the point of ever raising concerns or questions knowing that it will ultimately make no difference?

But in a way it does make a difference.

I honestly believe that if in 2003 we had as a support responded to the Straiton proposal in a 'Hey that's a smashing idea' way then we would today be out at Straiton.

So the opposition to the proposal did make a difference. And also Sir Tom Farmer at the Easter Road meeting had print outs of folks postings on The Bounce (and i'm sure from here) on him that evening. So whether it makes a difference or not they do pay attention to opinions etc.

Also, is anyone seriously going to suggest that the 'Hands on Hibs' campaign in 1998 made no difference?

Events in 1998 with 'Hands on Hibs' and over Straiton in 2003 are proof that opinion within our ranks expressed directly can and does make a difference.

I also do take issue with the claim that we (i imagine i'm perceived as one of them...) are 'Anti Board'.

I genuinely don't think that i am. They are the board of Hibernian Football Club. And that very board tell us that Hibernian Football Club is 'Our' club. So if it's 'Our' Club and they are 'Our' Board i honestly don't understand the issue with the questioning and criticism that comes with the role?

They don't sit and serve on the board in some charitable role. They are remunerated for what they do. I'm not saying by too much but the facts in the accounts suggest that as a % to Turnover their remuneration is a fairly significant cost to the club.

So when we see the shambles that we are currently on the park i don't see the issue with holding (or attempting to as we actually can't is the fact of the matter) them to account through a medium such as on here.

Because bottom line is that it's our board that are running our club. They have the ultimate responsibility.

Of course they do good things. They have done some great things. I'm not in the 'They've sold off all the family silver' camp. That is a reality. They had to sell them. And they did so very well in getting excellent transfer fees. IMHO Scott Brown was never a £4.4 Million Pound player. Excellent negotiations Mr Rod Petrie.

The Training Centre.

The Stadium.

But we have what i regard as a 'Structural Deficit'. We are losing £2 Million a year. And we have no 'Family Silver' left to sell off. Season Ticket numbers have been dropping for several years.... Average crowds are dropping...

So in the good times did they really put in place a longer term strategy? Because incurring a cost for an empty seat isn't going to work....

Of course i want to see a prudent board. I don't want to see a reckless Marr Brothers kind of board at Hibernian.

But IMHO we have an Accountancy mindset board. Full stop. Someone once told me that a very successful Scottish entrepreneur said something along the lines of "Accountants have no personality... they lift their head only to get their coat on the way out...". And no disrespect but that image is what we get from our board.

Where is the entrepreneurial spirit and vision on our board?

And the irony is that our actual owner is one of the very best. But there is nothing about our owner reflected in the board he has at Hibernian IMHO.

[Cropley10]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Every time the board speak on teh subject they confirm that the main goal for the Club is to achieve success on the pitch and that everything they do is geared to that.

To those who keep peddling the balance sheet line actually read those type of statements or do they think the Board are lying? Why would the finances and infrastructure be important if it wasn't to bebefit the team long term?

The Board chat went all quiet when we'd bought Riordan, brought in Stokes and Miller and were clear in third place. It was the coming together of the board's policy.

Since then we've signed another 9 players and completed the East stand.

The Board's approcah has not changed but they can't do much about how the players perform. They thought the management wasn't right so they changed it.

The quality of players brough in within the budget is the managers shout. Our budget has brought us guys like Riordan, Stokes, Miller, Zemmama, Benji, Boozy, Sproule, Murphy, Jones, Shiels and Killen so it can be done.

To me the Board thing here is probably just to do with a desire to question authority and sock one to 'the man' more than it is a real review of their performance backed up with any sort of alternative approach that they could have taken.

I have to say Andy that your comments would resonate a lot more IF you at least sometime prepared to accept that the Club make mistakes.

I mean - Fred Goodwin did a helluva lot for RBS - and in the good times I doubt there was a dissenting voice at the Bank. I'm not saying that there's any parallel with Hibs, but sometimes, things are not always as they seem.

[Cropley10]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Very interesting thread...

The answer is probably no in a yes kind of way.... Is anything ever achieved by posting criticisms on a forum on-line? What's the point of ever raising concerns or questions knowing that it will ultimately make no difference?

But in a way it does make a difference.

I honestly believe that if in 2003 we had as a support responded to the Straiton proposal in a 'Hey that's a smashing idea' way then we would today be out at Straiton.

So the opposition to the proposal did make a difference. And also Sir Tom Farmer at the Easter Road meeting had print outs of folks postings on The Bounce (and i'm sure from here) on him that evening. So whether it makes a difference or not they do pay attention to opinions etc.

Also, is anyone seriously going to suggest that the 'Hands on Hibs' campaign in 1998 made no difference?

Events in 1998 with 'Hands on Hibs' and over Straiton in 2003 are proof that opinion within our ranks expressed directly can and does make a difference.

I also do take issue with the claim that we (i imagine i'm perceived as one of them...) are 'Anti Board'.

I genuinely don't think that i am. They are the board of Hibernian Football Club. And that very board tell us that Hibernian Football Club is 'Our' club. So if it's 'Our' Club and they are 'Our' Board i honestly don't understand the issue with the questioning and criticism that comes with the role?

They don't sit and serve on the board in some charitable role. They are remunerated for what they do. I'm not saying by too much but the facts in the accounts suggest that as a % to Turnover their remuneration is a fairly significant cost to the club.

So when we see the shambles that we are currently on the park i don't see the issue with holding (or attempting to as we actually can't is the fact of the matter) them to account through a medium such as on here.

Because bottom line is that it's our board that are running our club. They have the ultimate responsibility.

Of course they do good things. They have done some great things. I'm not in the 'They've sold off all the family silver' camp. That is a reality. They had to sell them. And they did so very well in getting excellent transfer fees. IMHO Scott Brown was never a £4.4 Million Pound player. Excellent negotiations Mr Rod Petrie.

The Training Centre.

The Stadium.

But we have what i regard as a 'Structural Deficit'. We are losing £2 Million a year. And we have no 'Family Silver' left to sell off. Season Ticket numbers have been dropping for several years.... Average crowds are dropping...

So in the good times did they really put in place a longer term strategy? Because incurring a cost for an empty seat isn't going to work....

Of course i want to see a prudent board. I don't want to see a reckless Marr Brothers kind of board at Hibernian.

But IMHO we have an Accountancy mindset board. Full stop. Someone once told me that a very successful Scottish entrepreneur said something along the lines of "Accountants have no personality... they lift their head only to get their coat on the way out...". And no disrespect but that image is what we get from our board.

Where is the entrepreneurial spirit and vision on our board?

And the irony is that our actual owner is one of the very best. But there is nothing about our owner reflected in the board he has at Hibernian IMHO.

Some excellent points in their Smurf that I find myself agreeing with.

The main one is this, if you dare to speak out against the Board, you are somehow anti-Hibs.

[ahibby]

I think it is too early to ask this question. I am sure that all the negative comments will eventually wear the board down by 2020

[smurf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Some excellent points in their Smurf that I find myself agreeing with.

The main one is this, if you dare to speak out against the Board, you are somehow anti-Hibs.

Yip. And that if you speak out against. Or question or give criticism that's as the OP title says 'Undermining of Board'.

As a support i'd suggest that is a very dangerous road to go down....

[Cropley10]

Why do you ask the question Mikey?

I'd like to add that there will always be a number of people who behave quite disingenuously in their support of the Board, or their ire against anyone who questions their actions or motives.

Hibs doing badly on the pitch suits some people - they can't deny the success we have had in repairing the balance sheet and building some first-class facilities, but our record in recent Derbies and throughout 2010 will always give some people a reason to claim there is no need to panic, the Board are doing a great job, we don't need to change the manager, we shouldn't play our Youth players, nor recall them from loan, and that all our signings will eventually come good.

[aob4green]

On the basis that I'll be making a concerted effort to balance my own domestic books this year, I won't be renewing, me, my sons and my Dad's season tickets if the same drivel is continually getting served up on the park without the board making any moves to back the manager and invest in the team.

This has gone on far too long now, selling the best players and attempting to replace them with underachieving journeymen.

Prior to the season starting we sell a 23 goal striker who sits on the bench (again) and on the first day of the January window we sell arguably the best defender we have. The first few weeks in January provide us with some of our most important games of the season (derby, start of a possible cup run) and we make no move to improve a badly faltering team. Before anyone asks, no I don't know for sure we haven't tried, but what I am sure of is that if you offer a player better terms than he could potentially get elsewhere, he'll likely sign, the fans will feel a renewed sense of optimism, and we'd probably double the gate of 6000 for our cup game, wherby paying the first couple of months wages already!

Fans will only be attracted to games when the product on the park improves considerably, and the team is crying out for some investment in quality. To all who show blind loyalty to our board, we may yet have the best infrastructure in the first division or SPL2 (or whatever it might be called) if they continue to get unquestioned support.

[Baldy Foghorn]

Im anti Board. Think they do not genuinely have any real ambition to be a top footballing side.....

Run purely as a business, with great set of accounts......Product on park is poor and has been for a while..... What exactly do the Board have in mind to plug the 2m losses per year, as not many players command a high sell on value, and gates are already beginning to dwindle....???

[Baldy Foghorn]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Here's a question that's probably worth asking, especially in the white hot heat of a very quiet transfer window

There are a number of people on here who have been very anti board (sorry, can't really think of a better description) for as long as I can remember.

Do you feel that your stance on here, and in some cases frequent posts about your perceptions of the board's inadequacies, has actually achieved anything?

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular so don't go thinking that I'm picking on anyone

People posting pre conceived perceptions on here about the Board IMO will not make one iota of difference. I for one do not believe that the Board takes any real notice of what is being written, unless it was to prove slanderous. The views of the common supporter are rarely taken into cognisance.

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Here's a question that's probably worth asking, especially in the white hot heat of a very quiet transfer window

There are a number of people on here who have been very anti board (sorry, can't really think of a better description) for as long as I can remember.

Do you feel that your stance on here, and in some cases frequent posts about your perceptions of the board's inadequacies, has actually achieved anything?

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular so don't go thinking that I'm picking on anyone

I don't consider myself as someone who criticises them for everything but I'd turn that around and say that, in terms of the product on the park, constantly backing the Board hasn't achieved anything and may have actually harmed the product on the park more than any criticism. Our Board get an incredibly easy time considering the players sold, amounts taken in, contrasting investment in the team and how mince we are.

[Baldy Foghorn]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't consider myself as someone who criticises them for everything but I'd turn that around and say that, in terms of the product on the park, constantly backing the Board hasn't achieved anything and may have actually harmed the product on the park more than any criticism. Our Board get an incredibly easy time considering the players sold, amounts taken in, contrasting investment in the team and how mince we are.

Agree with this statement.

[GreenCastle]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Very interesting thread...

The answer is probably no in a yes kind of way.... Is anything ever achieved by posting criticisms on a forum on-line? What's the point of ever raising concerns or questions knowing that it will ultimately make no difference?

But in a way it does make a difference.

I honestly believe that if in 2003 we had as a support responded to the Straiton proposal in a 'Hey that's a smashing idea' way then we would today be out at Straiton.

So the opposition to the proposal did make a difference. And also Sir Tom Farmer at the Easter Road meeting had print outs of folks postings on The Bounce (and i'm sure from here) on him that evening. So whether it makes a difference or not they do pay attention to opinions etc.

Also, is anyone seriously going to suggest that the 'Hands on Hibs' campaign in 1998 made no difference?

Events in 1998 with 'Hands on Hibs' and over Straiton in 2003 are proof that opinion within our ranks expressed directly can and does make a difference.

I also do take issue with the claim that we (i imagine i'm perceived as one of them...) are 'Anti Board'.

I genuinely don't think that i am. They are the board of Hibernian Football Club. And that very board tell us that Hibernian Football Club is 'Our' club. So if it's 'Our' Club and they are 'Our' Board i honestly don't understand the issue with the questioning and criticism that comes with the role?

They don't sit and serve on the board in some charitable role. They are remunerated for what they do. I'm not saying by too much but the facts in the accounts suggest that as a % to Turnover their remuneration is a fairly significant cost to the club.

So when we see the shambles that we are currently on the park i don't see the issue with holding (or attempting to as we actually can't is the fact of the matter) them to account through a medium such as on here.

Because bottom line is that it's our board that are running our club. They have the ultimate responsibility.

Of course they do good things. They have done some great things. I'm not in the 'They've sold off all the family silver' camp. That is a reality. They had to sell them. And they did so very well in getting excellent transfer fees. IMHO Scott Brown was never a £4.4 Million Pound player. Excellent negotiations Mr Rod Petrie.

The Training Centre.

The Stadium.

But we have what i regard as a 'Structural Deficit'. We are losing £2 Million a year. And we have no 'Family Silver' left to sell off. Season Ticket numbers have been dropping for several years.... Average crowds are dropping...

So in the good times did they really put in place a longer term strategy? Because incurring a cost for an empty seat isn't going to work....

Of course i want to see a prudent board. I don't want to see a reckless Marr Brothers kind of board at Hibernian.

But IMHO we have an Accountancy mindset board. Full stop. Someone once told me that a very successful Scottish entrepreneur said something along the lines of "Accountants have no personality... they lift their head only to get their coat on the way out...". And no disrespect but that image is what we get from our board.

Where is the entrepreneurial spirit and vision on our board?

And the irony is that our actual owner is one of the very best. But there is nothing about our owner reflected in the board he has at Hibernian IMHO.

Good post - think that answers the original post very well.

I do believe to reply to the first post - the posts about the board have raised awareness to others - maybe got them thinking that there is more going on here rather than the players/manager that turn up at ER every Saturday.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Some excellent points in their Smurf that I find myself agreeing with.

The main one is this, if you dare to speak out against the Board, you are somehow anti-Hibs.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yip. And that if you speak out against. Or question or give criticism that's as the OP title says 'Undermining of Board'.

As a support i'd suggest that is a very dangerous road to go down....

The board are there to be criticised, and they should be when it's appropriate to do so. There is absolutely nothing wrong with challenging things, in fact the opposite is true - if nobody challenged it then you'd rarely see progression.

However, my take on Mikey's post, is that the undermining of the board is more the posting of hearsay and things that are probably not that true (or if they are, they're not backed up by any evidence).

Things like saying Hibs are terrible for selling their players as soon as someone is in for them - the facts are that we resisted bids for Jones, Murphy, Brown, Boozy (who we let go for nothing, rather than cashing in on him, because the manager needed him), Fletcher...

Or saying we never do business early, when just last January we announced the signing of Smith about a minute after the window opened.

Or that the board won't let the manager bring in quality players, when we've signed Murray, Szamotulski (sp), Riordan, Miller, Rosa, Johannsen, Brown (goalie), Bamba, and so on.

Or a number of other things that can be countered when evidence is produced (Petrie won't sign Yogi because he poured a glass of wine over his head...)

Properly directed criticism is healthy and should be encouraged, IMHO. Criticising the board certainly doesn't make you anti-Hibs, IMHO.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A fairly predictable response.

This is your standard defence of the board and I've seen it often enough. It can be paraphrased as "when good things happen the Board should get the credit and if it goes wrong, it's the manager's fault". The managers being appointed by whom again?

No one is suggesting that the books shouldn't be balanced. What is being suggested is that the reins are too tight. It's possible to invest more in the squad without being financially irresponsible.

It's nice of you to tell those of us who believe this what our motives are. However, we already know, and we don't need you trivialising our genuine concerns as mindless iconoclasm. I've no doubt that the handsomely remunerated Mr Petrie and his colleagues are sincere in their statement that they want the club to succeed on the football front. However, the over-stringent constraints they place on that are counterproductive to the stated aim.

You and others seem to persist in the straw man position that anyone criticising the board is advocating unrestrained and irresponsible spending. We're not. Neither are we indulging in authority bashing. We look at what's on the field and we hold those responsible who are and should be responsible.

Of course it's a predictable response, i'm not going to change my mind every two minutes.

The Board have been on the same path now for some time and therees an equally predicatable bout of board bashing appears every time we don't feel things on the park are right.

As a post above points out most of the comments aren't even accurate but they have been accepted as some sort of fact because they are trotted out enough like not backing managers and not doing business early etc etc.

In all my days here i've still not seen an acceptable counter position on what we should be doing, with full reference to the accounts. I'd be happy to see some of the criticism turned into some proper answers.

Plus, don't make too many assumptions about why I'm backing the board just now, it's just because I've questioned, I've looked at it and I can see what they are doing is trhe best they can do at this time.

In the past I've been threatened with legal action by both Sir Tom and Rod Petrie for questioning certain things. Times change though and whilst there are still things from that time I have an issue with I'm happy that our current position on the park isn't due to the Board not doing everything they can.

[Argylehibby]

[QUOTE=Matty_Jack04;2687914] Does rod and the rest read this site? Do they listen to supporter concerns? The only time supporters can air there feelings and feel like there being heard unfortunatly is the terraces and then other fans give them a roasting for not being 'true supporters'

In short no matter what is posted on here acheives nothing down easter road way good or bad.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't say Rod reads the site but others on the Board and management of the club do. While they wouldnt, for example, sack a manager just because a number of people on here and other MB's say they should, they are not so daft that they ignore what is posted completely. We are after all the customers and no business ignores customers completely.

[Bad Martini]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The board are there to be criticised, and they should be when it's appropriate to do so. There is absolutely nothing wrong with challenging things, in fact the opposite is true - if nobody challenged it then you'd rarely see progression.

However, my take on Mikey's post, is that the undermining of the board is more the posting of hearsay and things that are probably not that true (or if they are, they're not backed up by any evidence).

Things like saying Hibs are terrible for selling their players as soon as someone is in for them - the facts are that we resisted bids for Jones, Murphy, Brown, Boozy (who we let go for nothing, rather than cashing in on him, because the manager needed him), Fletcher...

Or saying we never do business early, when just last January we announced the signing of Smith about a minute after the window opened.

Or that the board won't let the manager bring in quality players, when we've signed Murray, Szamotulski (sp), Riordan, Miller, Rosa, Johannsen, Brown (goalie), Bamba, and so on.

Or a number of other things that can be countered when evidence is produced (Petrie won't sign Yogi because he poured a glass of wine over his head...)

Properly directed criticism is healthy and should be encouraged, IMHO. Criticising the board certainly doesn't make you anti-Hibs, IMHO.

Pesky common sense

Doon wi the board

I actually agree with everything in yer post mate.

I do think the board are culpable indirectly for the managerial woes we've had. And we've had some ***** luck and now have some journeymen. Put that together and you get mediocre Hibs.

Simples!!!