HSL Donations Poll

[hibbybob]

OfficialHSL - could you please clear some space in your mailbox. Thx.

[May21/05/16]

Its straightforward for me I'm a member and I continue to contribute my monthly donations as I think it's a positive
However if people think it's not positive then dont become a member but I just wish people would not just keep having a pop all the time at the concept I know one of people that runs it and I trust him to do the right thing and he does it as a volunteer

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[1875STEVE]

Are people not misunderstanding here??? or maybe I am??

If you voted 100% of your cash goes to club, thats what happens.

HSl (i think) are saying OVERALL that means 65% of ALL monies taken are going to the club, the other 35% set aside to buy shares.

[BT58]

I was on vaction at time of vote. I got email about it but didnt have my membship number with me to vote. I want all my cash to go to club, if there is a split then i will have to think seriously about wether i want to continue. Perhaps i never really took it in properly when i first started contributing, but i thought all cash was for club to buy new players not shares
B

[wallpaperman]

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

I was on vaction at time of vote. I got email about it but didnt have my membship number with me to vote. I want all my cash to go to club, if there is a split then i will have to think seriously about wether i want to continue. Perhaps i never really took it in properly when i first started contributing, but i thought all cash was for club to buy new players not shares
B

My god, people can find every excuse to have a go.

You were on holiday (the whole period the vote was open?), but that’s HSL’s fault, of course.

If you had access to your phone and email you could easily have accessed your account with a few minutes effort.

[tamig]

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

My god, people can find every excuse to have a go.

You were on holiday (the whole period the vote was open?), but that’s HSL’s fault, of course.

If you had access to your phone and email you could easily have accessed your account with a few minutes effort.

Exactly. Rocket science its not.

[BT58]

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

My god, people can find every excuse to have a go.

You were on holiday (the whole period the vote was open?), but that’s HSL’s fault, of course.

If you had access to your phone and email you could easily have accessed your account with a few minutes effort.

Calm down matey. Im no techy wizard. In fact im a dunce. But i never said it was HSLs fault, but its my cash, and ive donated fir a good few years and will reconsider my donations
B

[wallpaperman]

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

Calm down matey. Im no techy wizard. In fact im a dunce. But i never said it was HSLs fault, but its my cash, and ive donated fir a good few years and will reconsider my donations
B

I’m extremely mellow.

[BT58]

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

Exactly. Rocket science its not.

Well u could only vote if u inputed your membership number. I did say i didnt have it. Is tgat all right by you ??
B

[Rocky]

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

Are people not misunderstanding here??? or maybe I am??

If you voted 100% of your cash goes to club, thats what happens.

HSl (i think) are saying OVERALL that means 65% of ALL monies taken are going to the club, the other 35% set aside to buy shares.

Yes, you're misunderstanding (not without good reason to be fair). HSL's position is that the outcome is roughly the same either way though.

[penihibs]

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

OfficialHSL - could you please clear some space in your mailbox. Thx.

Can anybody explain why they don't reply to members who have been paying monthly for a while and send you email to pay the wrong amount to reach your goal for full membership.
Yet when you pay what you need to, they take 3 times what's due! and say they will sort this out yet do nothing.
I'm lucky I'm in position to take this hit imagine if you weren't charges all round from bank .
Get your house in order maybe this is reason why it's not been more successful.
Please reimburse me £110.00 you requested from my bank or I'm out..

[WestStandMoaner]

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

Think that'll be me done with it. Thought when I voted my money would be going to the cause I opted for. Not split in any way.

I really don't understand how difficult it is to set it up so the money I donate goes 100% to the footballing dept. Surely it's as simple as setting up two different subscription types. One for footballing dept and one for future shares?

I get the guys running it are doing this voluntarily and have other commitments so I'm not going to be too judgemental. Just don't fancy 35% of my donation going towards something that might never happen.

Me too, I'm not done because of the split although I do question the 35 % for future shares that may or may not come available. My problem is I'm putting money into the club and the present owner is like the invisible man. I won't make a knee jerk reaction to his silence but I will not continue with my contribution past the end of November if the silence from the club stays the same. I think he is taking stock and I am prepared to give him time but he must keep the fans onside and complete silence is not the way.

[LeithMike]

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

This is unfortunately a bit of a mess now.

I think future share purchases are just a waste of cash. I’d need to be persuaded that there’s any chunk of private shares in Hibs owned by anyone who isn’t just a fan with the same general aims as the rest of us.

So I have some shares that I bought just to be part of it, get my certificate and an AGM invite. I can now keep one, sell the rest to HSL and get my money back. Paid for by other supporters with the aim of increasing HSL percentage for no real good reason.

This isn’t really a viable mechanism that fans can get behind in any numbers.

Agree with this Andy. I don't think this is the fault of those who have worked tirelessly to make HSL succeed but it really is in limbo now.

1. Not sure of the exact shareholding currently but am I right that its below the level that was required to appoint a director? It's also below the level necessary to offer proper minority shareholder protections.

2. Now that HSL possesses those shares then it needs to stay in existence to manage that shareholding but I don't see what a future purpose is unless it can get the shareholding.

3. I don't think giving money to the club for the football budget for nothing in return is right. Fans would be as well buying strips etc. The AberDNA is definitely a better model and this is something for the club to initiate.

4. Rather than buy shares from existing shareholders, what about seeking those shareholders to assign the voting rights on their shares to HSL so HSL can at least try to control 25% of voting rights?

5. I know the uptake from the fans has generally been poor but the sale of the club without protecting the HSL scheme had been really ill-considered. Why were those shares not ring-fenced for HSL? This was all kept very quiet when the sale to Ron Gordon was announced and has never been answered.

6. I joined HSL to help get a significant part of the club in community ownership as I really don't think football clubs should be at the mercy of wealthy individuals. It was a bonus that this money was going to the football side.

7. In my view HSL have been treated very poorly and I recognise the genuine efforts being made to give it a purpose going forward. It's not something, however, I can continue to invest in without some significant revamp that would restore it's original purpose.







Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[Eyrie]

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

It sounds fine to me. Maybe misunderstood by some.... or me!

People saying I voted 100% for club so not happy their contribution is being split - I don't think it is split. The same with voting for shares.

If you voted 100% either way surely that is what happens. Is that not what they have said this morning.

For example

Hibby 1 - £100 contribution - 100% shares
Hibby 2 - £1000 contributon - 100% club
Hibby 3 - £2000 contribution - 50% each

Pot to HSL = £3100.
Made up of £ 1100 shares, £2000 club.

So HSL say the contributions are split:-
35% shares and 65% club.

So... on this basis, HSL say the split for contibutions is 35% and 65% but Hibbies 1,2 & 3 still pay the way they voted.

They don't understand that though so bump gums....

Or have I got it wrong? ... If so, is my way better lol

Thanks for the explanation which Official HSL have confirmed is correct.

The above is administratively simple, which is understandable for a volunteer run organisation, but it only reflects the split at the time of the vote. That isn't what we were told we were voting on, as it means that every individual's contributions are being split and not allocated 100% in accordance with their vote. I realise that regular votes will be taken which will revise the proportions but that still doesn't address the issue.

I voted for all of my contribution to go to the club and none to be used for shares, making me Hibby 2. If I get a promotion and double my contribution then only £650 will go to the club and £350 will be held to buy shares - not what I want. Conversely if I retire and have to stop my contributions, then the football side only loses £650 and the share purchase pot loses out by £350 - again not what I was told would happen.

[tamig]

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

Well u could only vote if u inputed your membership number. I did say i didnt have it. Is tgat all right by you ??
B

Easy to find it. In the same place where you had to vote. Do you still use an old Nokia? If so, I apologise.

[Gloucester Hibs]

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

Agree with this Andy. I don't think this is the fault of those who have worked tirelessly to make HSL succeed but it really is in limbo now.

1. Not sure of the exact shareholding currently but am I right that its below the level that was required to appoint a director? It's also below the level necessary to offer proper minority shareholder protections.

2. Now that HSL possesses those shares then it needs to stay in existence to manage that shareholding but I don't see what a future purpose is unless it can get the shareholding.

3. I don't think giving money to the club for the football budget for nothing in return is right. Fans would be as well buying strips etc. The AberDNA is definitely a better model and this is something for the club to initiate.

4. Rather than buy shares from existing shareholders, what about seeking those shareholders to assign the voting rights on their shares to HSL so HSL can at least try to control 25% of voting rights?

5. I know the uptake from the fans has generally been poor but the sale of the club without protecting the HSL scheme had been really ill-considered. Why were those shares not ring-fenced for HSL? This was all kept very quiet when the sale to Ron Gordon was announced and has never been answered.

6. I joined HSL to help get a significant part of the club in community ownership as I really don't think football clubs should be at the mercy of wealthy individuals. It was a bonus that this money was going to the football side.

7. In my view HSL have been treated very poorly and I recognise the genuine efforts being made to give it a purpose going forward. It's not something, however, I can continue to invest in without some significant revamp that would restore it's original purpose.







Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Great post and summarises my own thoughts and concerns on HSL too, other than I’ll probably be continuing with donations (albeit reduced ones).

[3pm]

Still backing HSL, 100%.

[penihibs]

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

Still backing HSL, 100%.

Good on you.
Maybe you've not had any problems like some of us.

[BT58]

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

Easy to find it. In the same place where you had to vote. Do you still use an old Nokia? If so, I apologise.

No need to apologise as ive stated, im an auld guy who is not pc literate. So it wasnt easy for me to find
B

[tamig]

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

No need to apologise as ive stated, im an auld guy who is not pc literate. So it wasnt easy for me to find
B

Ok no probs.

[Rocky]

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

Thanks for the explanation which Official HSL have confirmed is correct.

The above is administratively simple, which is understandable for a volunteer run organisation, but it only reflects the split at the time of the vote. That isn't what we were told we were voting on, as it means that every individual's contributions are being split and not allocated 100% in accordance with their vote. I realise that regular votes will be taken which will revise the proportions but that still doesn't address the issue.

I voted for all of my contribution to go to the club and none to be used for shares, making me Hibby 2. If I get a promotion and double my contribution then only £650 will go to the club and £350 will be held to buy shares - not what I want. Conversely if I retire and have to stop my contributions, then the football side only loses £650 and the share purchase pot loses out by £350 - again not what I was told would happen.

Where did they confirm that's correct as I don't think it is. It's one member one vote as I understand it so the split in that example would be £1550 each. I do accept there have been plenty of contradictory posts from HSL though so who knows.

[Rocky]

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

Where did they confirm that's correct as I don't think it is. It's one member one vote as I understand it so the split in that example would be £1550 each. I do accept there have been plenty of contradictory posts from HSL though so who knows.

I see the post where they confirmed it now but I still reckon it's not right if I'm honest.

[Eyrie]

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

I see the post where they confirmed it now but I still reckon it's not right if I'm honest.

I agree it's not right, but Official HSL have confirmed that is what will happen.

[Rocky]

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

I agree it's not right, but Official HSL have confirmed that is what will happen.

I know but they've confirmed both ways several times!

It would be really helpful if HSL could confirm whether it was:

a) one member one vote, votes totalled and percentage split calculated or
b) some kind of calculation where votes were weighted according to monthly donation level / Francks held / whatever

I reckon it's a, MacGruber's analysis is based on some version of b.

There was definitely an HSL post on one of the threads that said it's a) but that a) gives the same outcome as b). Clearly it doesn't in the exaggerated numbers posted in the example we're discussing but in reality it quite possibly does.

[MSK]

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

I know but they've confirmed both ways several times!

It would be really helpful if HSL could confirm whether it was:

a) one member one vote, votes totalled and percentage split calculated or
b) some kind of calculation where votes were weighted according to monthly donation level / Francks held / whatever

I reckon it's a, MacGruber's analysis is based on some version of b.

There was definitely an HSL post on one of the threads that said it's a) but that a) gives the same outcome as b). Clearly it doesn't in the exaggerated numbers posted in the example we're discussing but in reality it quite possibly does.

I initially didn't understand the recent email but I edited my post earlier in the thread after reading a previous email, how I understand it is for example, if 65% donate £20,000 per month that goes to the playing budget (100% of my donation) & if 35% donate £6000 per month for the purchase of shares should they become available.

For some reason I read it as 65% of my donation goes to the playing budget & 35% of it goes towards the purchase of shares, which I would have been against.

[Rocky]

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

I initially didn't understand the recent email but I edited my post earlier in the thread after reading a previous email, how I understand it is for example, if 65% donate £20,000 per month that goes to the playing budget (100% of my donation) & if 35% donate £6000 per month for the purchase of shares should they become available.

For some reason I read it as 65% of my donation goes to the playing budget & 35% of it goes towards the purchase of shares, which I would have been against.

I really don't think that's right but perhaps if HSL can categorically reply to confirm whether it's a or b that would help. I think they're probably right and it makes little odds either way, it's just frustrating not being able to get a straight answer.

And I don't think you're looking at it quite right. If you look at it the way you're looking at it you need to bear in mind that the converse is true too. I.e. someone who voted for shares is actually contributing 65% of their donation to the club. I do think it balances out and everyone's wishes are being more or less honoured but there's just more noise around this than there needs to be due to the lack of clarity.

[jacomo]

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

I really don't think that's right but perhaps if HSL can categorically reply to confirm whether it's a or b that would help. I think they're probably right and it makes little odds either way, it's just frustrating not being able to get a straight answer.

And I don't think you're looking at it quite right. If you look at it the way you're looking at it you need to bear in mind that the converse is true too. I.e. someone who voted for shares is actually contributing 65% of their donation to the club. I do think it balances out and everyone's wishes are being more or less honoured but there's just more noise around this than there needs to be due to the lack of clarity.

I think it probably balances out. If they’ve not weighted the results it might not be exact but I doubt it’s more than +5 / -5 from that figure. So if you want your contribution to go towards the playing budget, it probably is.

I do think HSL has been orphaned by the club though, trying to find a way forward on its own. A share fund is a bit pointless given there are no shares to buy right now.

[Purple & Green]

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

I really don't think that's right but perhaps if HSL can categorically reply to confirm whether it's a or b that would help. I think they're probably right and it makes little odds either way, it's just frustrating not being able to get a straight answer.

And I don't think you're looking at it quite right. If you look at it the way you're looking at it you need to bear in mind that the converse is true too. I.e. someone who voted for shares is actually contributing 65% of their donation to the club. I do think it balances out and everyone's wishes are being more or less honoured but there's just more noise around this than there needs to be due to the lack of clarity.

I don’t remember if they ever clarified if all members had a vote, or whether it was just current contributing members and part members. If 500 full members had a vote and no longer contributed it would affect the figures. To my mind, ALL MEMBERS should have been able to vote, but I think this goes back to the pig in a poke the club off loaded onto HSL.

[Bangkok Hibby]

Simpler to realise where we are. Probably not going to "regularly" get more shares, so forget it and put every penny to the playing budget, advertise it widely and get many more on board...I move.

[Beefster]

Given the constant debate about HSL every time they do something, the sooner the club sets up some type of subscription scheme, similar to Aberdeen’s, the better. Personally, I think the fact that they haven’t so far is one of the most damning failures of Dempster’s reign. Hopefully, Gordon’s on it.