Hibernian Supporters / HSL - Transfer window

[superfurryhibby]

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

The shareholding was reduced due to the owner putting up £1m into the bank account straight away, but I am sure you know that . I and many others pay into HSL to benefit the team. If this stops then so does my donation, this is not about shares it’s about helping Hibs.

The previous owners and the current one should have protected the HSL investment, it was a a poor way of rewarding fans who thought they were investing in order to protect the future of the club. That was the deal when shares were offered and for me, it was a pretty awful stroke to pull.

[Daniel 1875]

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

Well it’s clear there’s two separate and distinct camps when it comes to HSL donors.

surely in this day and age it’s possible for HSL to accommodate both? Even if it just means having two separate accounts, one for contributors to pump money in to help the playing budget which gets sent straight to the club at the end of every month, and another to build cash reserves for those who are passionate about the long term shareholding.

the shares were my concern when I got on board. And it probably still is despite Ron Gordon’s chairmanship. The money going to the team was a bonus.

It should (and hopefully will) be possible to accommodate both camps. We’re working on pulling together a suitable solution for all contributors but it will take a bit of time to get it sorted.

I’d ask everyone to bear with us while this is worked out.

[Stairway 2 7]

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

It should (and hopefully will) be possible to accommodate both camps. We’re working on pulling together a suitable solution for all contributors but it will take a bit of time to get it sorted.

I’d ask everyone to bear with us while this is worked out.

Brilliant great effort. Hopefully it's appreciated by the club if yous manage it

[chippy]

I’m a firm ‘let’s build up a reserve fund to protect our shareholding and perhaps to increase it in the future’.
Regarding the members who wish to donate to the club only, would you be interested in getting something in return for your donation eg. HSL purchase a full season hospitality package for some members to experience on a rota basis ; fund a number of adult season tickets for disadvantaged Hibees. In both circumstances funds go directly to the club?

[Ringothedog]

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

I’m a firm ‘let’s build up a reserve fund to protect our shareholding and perhaps to increase it in the future’.
Regarding the members who wish to donate to the club only, would you be interested in getting something in return for your donation eg. HSL purchase a full season hospitality package for some members to experience on a rota basis ; fund a number of adult season tickets for disadvantaged Hibees. In both circumstances funds go directly to the club?

I have no interest in getting anything in return for my donation other than helping towards a successful team on the park. If that means we donate 500 season tickets to Kicks for Kids or something along those lines all the better. For me it’s all about getting extra money to the club

[DanishJohn]

I have read this thread with interest and very amazed how fans see things differently.

HSl were set up to buy shares in Hibs. The vision was to protect our club for many years to come. To stop cowboys dead in their tracks. To stop some sleazebag getting us as a plaything. Holding shares in the entity is a way the entity might be protected.(This section is talking about the Romanovs of this world)

I place no blame on the previous owners. They gave HSL and the fans a lot of time to buy up shares to at least get a 25.1% (Safeguard) We reached just over 20%. HSL was on way to achieving the safeguard figure. (The balloons at the start who called it a Ponzi scheme didn't help matters)

Perhaps our present owner doesn't like fan ownership. He might take the view a business should be owned by a rich individual. Is fan ownership a form of socialism ? I don't know. What I do know is HSL used to have approx 20 % holding and now after the change in ownership we only own 15.4%. Why ?

What I do know is that men like Bill Shankley, Matt Busby and Alex Ferguson believed in the man in the street. The wee supporter whose club means the world to them.

Why would I just hand my cash over to a rich individual with nothing in return ? Will the individual give me my money back when he sells ?
I like Ralph Lauren Polo shirts and I might purchase one now and again but I wouldn't walk into their store and say right there's the 75 quid for the shirt and oh by the way here's another 100 quid because I just love your brand ! Bizarre.

Off now to get a haircut. individual gives me a right good cut and I willingly pay my £20. I have never once thought about a separate donation to the couple who own the salon.
Why would I ? They would think I was a right soft lad.

[CapitalGreen]

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

I place no blame on the previous owners. They gave HSL and the fans a lot of time to buy up shares to at least get a 25.1% (Safeguard) We reached just over 20%. HSL was on way to achieving the safeguard figure. (The balloons at the start who called it a Ponzi scheme didn't help matters)

The previous owners continued to sell shares to HSL in the knowledge that they were in negotiations with a third party to sell the club in a deal that would include a dilution of those same shares.

[Rick Rude]

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

I have read this thread with interest and very amazed how fans see things differently.

HSl were set up to buy shares in Hibs. The vision was to protect our club for many years to come. To stop cowboys dead in their tracks. To stop some sleazebag getting us as a plaything. Holding shares in the entity is a way the entity might be protected.(This section is talking about the Romanovs of this world)

I place no blame on the previous owners. They gave HSL and the fans a lot of time to buy up shares to at least get a 25.1% (Safeguard) We reached just over 20%. HSL was on way to achieving the safeguard figure. (The balloons at the start who called it a Ponzi scheme didn't help matters)

Perhaps our present owner doesn't like fan ownership. He might take the view a business should be owned by a rich individual. Is fan ownership a form of socialism ? I don't know. What I do know is HSL used to have approx 20 % holding and now after the change in ownership we only own 15.4%. Why ?

What I do know is that men like Bill Shankley, Matt Busby and Alex Ferguson believed in the man in the street. The wee supporter whose club means the world to them.

Why would I just hand my cash over to a rich individual with nothing in return ? Will the individual give me my money back when he sells ?
I like Ralph Lauren Polo shirts and I might purchase one now and again but I wouldn't walk into their store and say right there's the 75 quid for the shirt and oh by the way here's another 100 quid because I just love your brand ! Bizarre.

Off now to get a haircut. individual gives me a right good cut and I willingly pay my £20. I have never once thought about a separate donation to the couple who own the salon.
Why would I ? They would think I was a right soft lad.

Using that explanation would you buy shares in Ralph Lauren or your local hairdressers knowing they are essentially worthless but just to protect those businesses? Or do you want to protect Hibs for the same reason that fans want to put money in - they ain't just another business.

[superfurryhibby]

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

The previous owners continued to sell shares to HSL in the knowledge that they were in negotiations with a third party to sell the club in a deal that would include a dilution of those same shares.

That was always a disappointing aspect of the sale of the club.

I know that other posters who are more au fait with business finance said at the time that this was common practice. I don't care, football clubs like Hibs aren't a typical commercial enterprise. The dilution of shareholding (which obviously also diluted the stake held by small individual investors, like me) was poor. The monies involved must have represented several hundred thousand pounds worth of fan investment.

Gordon should address this issue. If he did, it would be to his eternal credit and people (like me) would be more than happy to get on board with fan based revenue raising schemes. Until then, nae chance. Give back what you took away Ron, it would be an honourable thing to do.

[RyeSloan]

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

That was always a disappointing aspect of the sale of the club.

I know that other posters who are more au fait with business finance said at the time that this was common practice. I don't care, football clubs like Hibs aren't a typical commercial enterprise. The dilution of shareholding (which obviously also diluted the stake held by small individual investors, like me) was poor. The monies involved must have represented several hundred thousand pounds worth of fan investment.

Gordon should address this issue. If he did, it would be to his eternal credit and people (like me) would be more than happy to get on board with fan based revenue raising schemes. Until then, nae chance. Give back what you took away Ron, it would be an honourable thing to do.

You could look at it another way and say that it was the sellers who agreed to the dilution by essentially agreeing to the takeover on the terms offered.

It was however beneficial to the club as new shares were issued and funds raised.

We need to accept though that Ron is unlikely to want to issue new shares to HSL and dilute his holding nor is he likely to want to issue new shares to HSL and have to put in fresh capital himself at the same rate to maintain his holding percentage.

Taking that into account I can see why HSL have a problem. One section of their members still see its reason for existing as building (or protecting) its shareholding but it has zero routes to do so. Another section just wants to support the club financially effectively with no strings (or shares!) attached.

You can’t satisfy both at this moment in time.

[superfurryhibby]

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

You could look at it another way and say that it was the sellers who agreed to the dilution by essentially agreeing to the takeover on the terms offered.

It was however beneficial to the club as new shares were issued and funds raised.

We need to accept though that Ron is unlikely to want to issue new shares to HSL and dilute his holding nor is he likely to want to issue new shares to HSL and have to put in fresh capital himself at the same rate to maintain his holding percentage.

Taking that into account I can see why HSL have a problem. One section of their members still see its reason for existing as building (or protecting) its shareholding but it has zero routes to do so. Another section just wants to support the club financially effectively with no strings (or shares!) attached.

You can’t satisfy both at this moment in time.

Of course, the previous owners are also accountable for agreeing. I suppose the need to sell outweighed the inherent unfairness of asking fans to invest and then diluting their stake holding, just like that.

Either way, it's now Gordon in charge and he knows he is effectively dismissing what is essentially free money by refusing to compromise.

[Gerard]

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

Of course, the previous owners are also accountable for agreeing. I suppose the need to sell outweighed the inherent unfairness of asking fans to invest and then diluting their stake holding, just like that.

Either way, it's now Gordon in charge and he knows he is effectively dismissing what is essentially free money by refusing to compromise.

I gave money to HSL to allow HSL to own an important level of shares in the club. The current owner will not allow any shareholder to sell or donate their shares to HSL. Mr Gordon is content with his majority shareholding in the club and will not allow any shares to be issued or transferred. Mr Gordon is happy to accept donations from HSL. I think this situation of giving money and not even allowing share holders to donate shares to HSL or even give to their family or friends is not equitable. I fully support HSL in the decisions that were agree unanimously at the AGM.

[May21/05/16]

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

I gave money to HSL to allow HSL to own an important level of shares in the club. The current owner will not allow any shareholder to sell or donate their shares to HSL. Mr Gordon is content with his majority shareholding in the club and will not allow any shares to be issued or transferred. Mr Gordon is happy to accept donations from HSL. I think this situation of giving money and not even allowing share holders to donate shares to HSL or even give to their family or friends is not equitable. I fully support HSL in the decisions that were agree unanimously at the AGM.

Agree

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

[hibeg]

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

I gave money to HSL to allow HSL to own an important level of shares in the club. The current owner will not allow any shareholder to sell or donate their shares to HSL. Mr Gordon is content with his majority shareholding in the club and will not allow any shares to be issued or transferred. Mr Gordon is happy to accept donations from HSL. I think this situation of giving money and not even allowing share holders to donate shares to HSL or even give to their family or friends is not equitable. I fully support HSL in the decisions that were agree unanimously at the AGM.

Yes, that is where i am as well. I want my monthly donations kept to build up funds at this moment in time

[Bostonhibby]

The primary and secondary objectives of the Association of HSL would appear to enable it to accommodate both aspirations so long as members agree?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

There is a handful of fan owned clubs the rest are just getting on with it. I just can't see our owner issuing anymore shares whilst he's here. The rights and wrongs of that and the previous sale are immaterial to whether he will dilute his shares

But he seems a smart guy and financially savy. I feel were on a sound footing and just need to get the manager right.

No one is saying people shouldn't build up a fund incase he ever changes his mind and issues shares. But there is a market for people like myself that would put some into a players fund. I don't expect anything in return, just as I know the shares I have are pretty much useless.

Just like the thread on volunteering, you can't compare us to hibs with our attitude to another company.

[Scotty Leither]

If you're a regular donator to HSL, don't stop your donations. Hopefully the club have got eyes on this thread and there's some positive movement soon to find a way forward. As stated by Daniel (who performs a thankless task admirably), the owner doesn't want to further dilute his shareholding - QED HSL can't buy any more shares as they're not allowed to, hence the needful change in the Articles of Association.

Again if my understanding is right, the tweak in the Articles will allow HSL to be more flexible with the donations; FWIW I just want my monthly D/D to go towards augmenting the playing squad, and if the club can't see HSL as the free money scheme that it can become then more fool them, to be honest.

Lastly for those citing our chums across the city, their scheme was initially founded on investing in their club, or their club dying - it was as binary as that. The fact that their scheme couldn't have got off the ground without a £28M CVA being expedited first, where the world and their wife got bumped for money seems to have escaped the attention of some on here, and also within our fawning thick as **** media who seem to think they can do no wrong.

Once again, if you contribute at the moment, DON'T STOP YOUR DONATIONS, and if anyone from the club who has the ear of Ron Gordon is reading this thread, pick up the phone to Daniel, will you?

[RyeSloan]

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

I gave money to HSL to allow HSL to own an important level of shares in the club. The current owner will not allow any shareholder to sell or donate their shares to HSL. Mr Gordon is content with his majority shareholding in the club and will not allow any shares to be issued or transferred. Mr Gordon is happy to accept donations from HSL. I think this situation of giving money and not even allowing share holders to donate shares to HSL or even give to their family or friends is not equitable. I fully support HSL in the decisions that were agree unanimously at the AGM.

Can Ron actually stop people from selling / donating their shares to anyone including HSL?!?

[Bostonhibby]

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

If you're a regular donator to HSL, don't stop your donations. Hopefully the club have got eyes on this thread and there's some positive movement soon to find a way forward. As stated by Daniel (who performs a thankless task admirably), the owner doesn't want to further dilute his shareholding - QED HSL can't buy any more shares as they're not allowed to, hence the needful change in the Articles of Association.

Again if my understanding is right, the tweak in the Articles will allow HSL to be more flexible with the donations; FWIW I just want my monthly D/D to go towards augmenting the playing squad, and if the club can't see HSL as the free money scheme that it can become then more fool them, to be honest.

Lastly for those citing our chums across the city, their scheme was initially founded on investing in their club, or their club dying - it was as binary as that. The fact that their scheme couldn't have got off the ground without a £28M CVA being expedited first, where the world and their wife got bumped for money seems to have escaped the attention of some on here, and also within our fawning thick as **** media who seem to think they can do no wrong.

Once again, if you contribute at the moment, DON'T STOP YOUR DONATIONS, and if anyone from the club who has the ear of Ron Gordon is reading this thread, pick up the phone to Daniel, will you?

Nail, hammer, heid

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[BSEJVT]

My understanding is yes he can, be he applies that control selectively.

For example I have been able to reduce my personal shareholding in favour of my grandsons, but iirc and I may be mistaken here and quite happy to be corrected he stopped permitting existing shares to be transferred to HSL.

[Stairway 2 7]

A club fund option needs sorted as soon as possible, I understand this is easier said than done. Every week it isn't the club is losing out money, would have been nice to have it sorted for pre season as I'm sure the fans would fund a decent players wages.

Hearts did start with good numbers because the need to survive. But they have been cash rich for years now. Their fans are now putting 2 million a year into the playing squad and we are putting in nothing. We can say so what, but the fact is every player we both go for they should be able to sign.

[Pagan Hibernia]

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

My understanding is yes he can, be he applies that control selectively.

For example I have been able to reduce my personal shareholding in favour of my grandsons, but iirc and I may be mistaken here and quite happy to be corrected he stopped permitting existing shares to be transferred to HSL.

if that’s the case then I’m even more unhappy about his attitude towards HSL.

[ahibby]

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

I have read this thread with interest and very amazed how fans see things differently.

HSl were set up to buy shares in Hibs. The vision was to protect our club for many years to come. To stop cowboys dead in their tracks. To stop some sleazebag getting us as a plaything. Holding shares in the entity is a way the entity might be protected.(This section is talking about the Romanovs of this world)

I place no blame on the previous owners. They gave HSL and the fans a lot of time to buy up shares to at least get a 25.1% (Safeguard) We reached just over 20%. HSL was on way to achieving the safeguard figure. (The balloons at the start who called it a Ponzi scheme didn't help matters)

Perhaps our present owner doesn't like fan ownership. He might take the view a business should be owned by a rich individual. Is fan ownership a form of socialism ? I don't know. What I do know is HSL used to have approx 20 % holding and now after the change in ownership we only own 15.4%. Why ?

What I do know is that men like Bill Shankley, Matt Busby and Alex Ferguson believed in the man in the street. The wee supporter whose club means the world to them.

Why would I just hand my cash over to a rich individual with nothing in return ? Will the individual give me my money back when he sells ?
I like Ralph Lauren Polo shirts and I might purchase one now and again but I wouldn't walk into their store and say right there's the 75 quid for the shirt and oh by the way here's another 100 quid because I just love your brand ! Bizarre.

Off now to get a haircut. individual gives me a right good cut and I willingly pay my £20. I have never once thought about a separate donation to the couple who own the salon.
Why would I ? They would think I was a right soft lad.

I think you are showing some disrespect on two fronts. First of all you are questioning fans decisions to contribute towards the players bill. Suggesting we get nothjng in return. You are wide of the mark. Even fans who do not contribute are rewarded because we have given and renewed contracts that otherwise the club would not have afforded. Secondly you suggest that yhe Gordons might sell us to undesirables? Disrespectful.

[chippy]

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

A club fund option needs sorted as soon as possible, I understand this is easier said than done. Every week it isn't the club is losing out money, would have been nice to have it sorted for pre season as I'm sure the fans would fund a decent players wages.

Hearts did start with good numbers because the need to survive. But they have been cash rich for years now. Their fans are now putting 2 million a year into the playing squad and we are putting in nothing. We can say so what, but the fact is every player we both go for they should be able to sign.

Why not just set up a standing order to Hibernian FC?

[Stairway 2 7]

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

Why not just set up a standing order to Hibernian FC?

A few people would do that as they do with the brilliant kicks for kids ect. But an easy online direct debit club, I'm sure would bring in a significant amount to the playing side. There is loads on just this thread waiting for one to open.

[ahibby]

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

A few people would do that as they do with the brilliant kicks for kids ect. But an easy online direct debit club, I'm sure would bring in a significant amount to the playing side. There is loads on just this thread waiting for one to open.

Would that not be taxable income while donations through HSL are not? Maybe someone knows?

[RyeSloan]

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

My understanding is yes he can, be he applies that control selectively.

For example I have been able to reduce my personal shareholding in favour of my grandsons, but iirc and I may be mistaken here and quite happy to be corrected he stopped permitting existing shares to be transferred to HSL.

Pretty poor show that and surely one to be addressed.

I assume as it’s a limited company the board has some power to agree or not to share transfers / sales.

[BSEJVT]

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

if that’s the case then I’m even more unhappy about his attitude towards HSL.

I would much prefer someone to confirm my recollection re blocking transfers of shares to HSL is accurate before jumping in here, but supposing it is, then it’s not difficult to see why he would do so.

The absence or minimisation of a strong collective “opposition” makes his control of the business more complete and by extension the value of the business greater.

That for many was the whole point of HSL in the first place, to act as a force for good IF AND I REPEAT IF it was ever so required.

For folk like me this felt like our doing our bit to prevent another doomsday Mercer scenario visiting our successors.

I am personally against HSL ever straying from its original mandate, there are plenty other ways of giving money to Hibs such as buying an unused season ticket as I have done for years.

It’s good business sense for RG to do what he has done, but sticks in my craw a bit as Hibs is much more than a business interest to me.

I personally applaud HSL for stopping mindlessly handing over cash to Hibs, as if nothing else it has shown them fulfilling their duty of care to their members and will hopefully bring this issue back out into the open for further debate.

What folk do with their money is up to them so I would never say to them don’t stop just giving money to Hibs, but there may be a more effective way to do so whilst securing the future of the club.

That route used to exist, presently doesn’t and if we hand over all the cash we used for nothing in return then there is no impetus for RG to look at this again.

I would encourage folk to keep contributing to HSL until this is resolved without conditioning them to give away their only bargaining tool, the fact that it’s shares for cash or no contributions handed over.

Once that discussion has ended then by all means go with your heart rather than your head, but please don’t hamstrung HSL

If I am wrong re share transfers to HSL the situation is less concerning but still one we should look to prevent by having a fund available to ensure no further dilution of a shareholding built up by the long toil of thousands of our fellow supporters.

I feel so strongly about this that if an opportunity to acquire further shares to take HSL to 25.1% became available I would contribute anew towards making this and only this happen.

I am 60 this year and have seen periods of great football and trophy success, I have also gone to ER on the night the Mercer takeover plan was announced thinking I had lost my beloved Hibs.

The saving of Hibs at that time was worth any success / good football seen since times infinity.

My duty and that of many others who lived through that period is to try and see that never happens again and that is why RG’s treatment of HSL was and is a huge concern to me.

As I say I know why he did it, in itself there is nothing sinister in it, but it doesn’t mean I have to like it.

Sorry for long long post

GGTTH

[LeithMike]

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

I would much prefer someone to confirm my recollection re blocking transfers of shares to HSL is accurate before jumping in here, but supposing it is, then it’s not difficult to see why he would do so.

The absence or minimisation of a strong collective “opposition” makes his control of the business more complete and by extension the value of the business greater.

That for many was the whole point of HSL in the first place, to act as a force for good IF AND I REPEAT IF it was ever so required.

For folk like me this felt like our doing our bit to prevent another doomsday Mercer scenario visiting our successors.

I am personally against HSL ever straying from its original mandate, there are plenty other ways of giving money to Hibs such as buying an unused season ticket as I have done for years.

It’s good business sense for RG to do what he has done, but sticks in my craw a bit as Hibs is much more than a business interest to me.

I personally applaud HSL for stopping mindlessly handing over cash to Hibs, as if nothing else it has shown them fulfilling their duty of care to their members and will hopefully bring this issue back out into the open for further debate.

What folk do with their money is up to them so I would never say to them don’t stop just giving money to Hibs, but there may be a more effective way to do so whilst securing the future of the club.

That route used to exist, presently doesn’t and if we hand over all the cash we used for nothing in return then there is no impetus for RG to look at this again.

I would encourage folk to keep contributing to HSL until this is resolved without conditioning them to give away their only bargaining tool, the fact that it’s shares for cash or no contributions handed over.

Once that discussion has ended then by all means go with your heart rather than your head, but please don’t hamstrung HSL

If I am wrong re share transfers to HSL the situation is less concerning but still one we should look to prevent by having a fund available to ensure no further dilution of a shareholding built up by the long toil of thousands of our fellow supporters.

I feel so strongly about this that if an opportunity to acquire further shares to take HSL to 25.1% became available I would contribute anew towards making this and only this happen.

I am 60 this year and have seen periods of great football and trophy success, I have also gone to ER on the night the Mercer takeover plan was announced thinking I had lost my beloved Hibs.

The saving of Hibs at that time was worth any success / good football seen since times infinity.

My duty and that of many others who lived through that period is to try and see that never happens again and that is why RG’s treatment of HSL was and is a huge concern to me.

As I say I know why he did it, in itself there is nothing sinister in it, but it doesn’t mean I have to like it.

Sorry for long long post

GGTTH

Great post and your passion for safeguarding the future of the club comes across. I am in complete agreement with you.



Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[chippy]

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

Great post and your passion for safeguarding the future of the club comes across. I am in complete agreement with you.



Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

I agree with both of you