The generic Hearts thread

[Haymaker]

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

Alright posh lad😁

No me, just know a few!

[TrinityHibs]

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

Wrong again.

In both the cases I mentioned the auditors expressed doubts about the ability of the club to continue as a going concern and outlined the reasons for their doubts. It would have been negligent of them to do any more or any less.

If we must continue this debate (I'd really rather not) you should address my point about the auditors verifying that the money received was neither a loan nor a sale of assets before we go any further.

In Cav I trust

[Eyrie]

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

Speaking as an RI, I'm with Caversham on the responsibilities of the auditor.

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

Auditors use a risk based assessment to decide if something is signed off or not. Unless the auditors believed the donations were the result of illegal operations it would be sufficient to look at Hearts bank AML procedures without diving any deeper plus a generic verbal description from Hearts. The auditors would only need to know the source of the funds if they were suspicious. For example, if money was received in from the donators but a smaller amount was paid back out to them at a later stage - money washing.

The below sums up the approach. I won't bore people any further.

https://www.icaew.com/regulation/pra...ering-guidance

I assume you don't know what an RI does, which calls into question the rest of your comments about audit. AML is a separate issue.

So speaking again as an RI, I'd consider material donations to be worth investigating as part of the work. And if I don't get clear answers regarding the sources then I would have to issue a modified audit report.

[greenginger]

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

I assume you don't know what an RI does, which calls into question the rest of your comments about audit. AML is a separate issue.

So speaking again as an RI, I'd consider material donations to be worth investigating as part of the work. And if I don't get clear answers regarding the sources then I would have to issue a modified audit report.

An RI. ? Religious Instructor ? Revenue Investigator. ? Please explain

[Jack Hackett]

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

An RI. ? Religious Instructor ? Revenue Investigator. ? Please explain

Righteous Individual?

[Eyrie]

RI = Responsible Individual, ie the person responsible for the audit work and whose name appears on the audit report.

Although I do like the alternative suggestions

[Jack Hackett]

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

RI = Responsible Individual, ie the person responsible for the audit work and whose name appears on the audit report.

Although I do like the alternative suggestions

[Hibs4185]

The biggest most famous fan owned club in the world are already trying to alter the FOH constitution so that they can be bought over by a private investor. Seemingly old budgey has had approaches and the Scottish league is seen as an attractive investment nowadays, so they want to change it so FOH can sell up. According to FOH, fan owned clubs can’t raise enough cash without outside investment so they want to be able to sell to the right bidder if they fall behind us, Aberdeen and Dundee Utd with our outside investment.

So much for fan ownership

[green day]

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

The biggest most famous fan owned club in the world are already trying to alter the FOH constitution so that they can be bought over by a private investor. Seemingly old budgey has had approaches and the Scottish league is seen as an attractive investment nowadays, so they want to change it so FOH can sell up. According to FOH, fan owned clubs can’t raise enough cash without outside investment so they want to be able to sell to the right bidder if they fall behind us, Aberdeen and Dundee Utd with our outside investment.

So much for fan ownership

I'm not surprised tbh. The mystery donations have kept them afloat and are no way to run a business.

Lots trumpeted in the press about Motherwell paying off external debt (basically due to player sales) but, similarly to Hearts they may struggle to raise capital.

[Bostonhibby]

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

The biggest most famous fan owned club in the world are already trying to alter the FOH constitution so that they can be bought over by a private investor. Seemingly old budgey has had approaches and the Scottish league is seen as an attractive investment nowadays, so they want to change it so FOH can sell up. According to FOH, fan owned clubs can’t raise enough cash without outside investment so they want to be able to sell to the right bidder if they fall behind us, Aberdeen and Dundee Utd with our outside investment.

So much for fan ownership

So do you think this means they'll be able to find enough money to finish the stand finally?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[007]

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

The biggest most famous fan owned club in the world are already trying to alter the FOH constitution so that they can be bought over by a private investor. Seemingly old budgey has had approaches and the Scottish league is seen as an attractive investment nowadays, so they want to change it so FOH can sell up. According to FOH, fan owned clubs can’t raise enough cash without outside investment so they want to be able to sell to the right bidder if they fall behind us, Aberdeen and Dundee Utd with our outside investment.

So much for fan ownership

5 minutes after Budge's loan is repaid and they're trying to move the goalposts.

[Jones28]

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

The biggest most famous fan owned club in the world are already trying to alter the FOH constitution so that they can be bought over by a private investor. Seemingly old budgey has had approaches and the Scottish league is seen as an attractive investment nowadays, so they want to change it so FOH can sell up. According to FOH, fan owned clubs can’t raise enough cash without outside investment so they want to be able to sell to the right bidder if they fall behind us, Aberdeen and Dundee Utd with our outside investment.

So much for fan ownership

So by the charter they wrote does it mean that a private investor cannot own a majority stake or is it all private shares?

[Danderhall Hibs]

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

An RI. ? Religious Instructor ? Revenue Investigator. ? Please explain

Registered Individual.

[Hibs4185]

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

So by the charter they wrote does it mean that a private investor cannot own a majority stake or is it all private shares?

When FOH take charge in April, the constitution comes into force, which requires a 90% agreement to see FOH shares. They are trying to lower it to 75% agreement to make it easier to sell.

FOH money and benefactor money isn’t enough to keep them afloat.

[FilipinoHibs]

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

I assume you don't know what an RI does, which calls into question the rest of your comments about audit. AML is a separate issue.

So speaking again as an RI, I'd consider material donations to be worth investigating as part of the work. And if I don't get clear answers regarding the sources then I would have to issue a modified audit report.

I think that is the point. The club would have given clear answers on the donations without revealing the source of donations . If you suspected they were a loan or from the sale of property then just knowing the names if thr donators would not help you. You would have to investigate the finances if the donators.

[The 90+2]

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

The biggest most famous fan owned club in the world are already trying to alter the FOH constitution so that they can be bought over by a private investor. Seemingly old budgey has had approaches and the Scottish league is seen as an attractive investment nowadays, so they want to change it so FOH can sell up. According to FOH, fan owned clubs can’t raise enough cash without outside investment so they want to be able to sell to the right bidder if they fall behind us, Aberdeen and Dundee Utd with our outside investment.

So much for fan ownership

There’s no danger they will con their fans into doing this.

[FilipinoHibs]

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

Wrong again.

In both the cases I mentioned the auditors expressed doubts about the ability of the club to continue as a going concern and outlined the reasons for their doubts. It would have been negligent of them to do any more or any less.

If we must continue this debate (I'd really rather not) you should address my point about the auditors verifying that the money received was neither a loan nor a sale of assets before we go any further.

No you are wring again. See my last post last post replying to another post on what an auditor would have to dio to be comfortable about the donations .

On the old auditors where is your evidence that raised concerns about the viability of Hearts, That would have been big news but I can't recall anything in the media or on here.

[CapitalGreen]

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

No you are wring again. See my last post last post replying to another post on what an auditor would have to dio to be comfortable about the donations .

On the old auditors where is your evidence that raised concerns about the viability of Hearts, That would have been big news but I can't recall anything in the media or on here.

Do you realise you are trying to tell an auditor what an auditor would do?

[Eyrie]

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

I think that is the point. The club would have given clear answers on the donations without revealing the source of donations . If you suspected they were a loan or from the sale of property then just knowing the names if thr donators would not help you. You would have to investigate the finances if the donators.

If the club doesn't identify the source then I would be unable to issue a clean audit report.

I would normally have this situation where a large donor to a charity wishes to remain anonymous, and I've never had a problem getting the required information for audit purposes.

Anyway, that's enough of explaining auditing. Let's get back on topic and discuss the ongoing problems of our nearest and not so dearest.

[FilipinoHibs]

Final point. Apologies to Cavesham the auditors did raise concerns about Hearts viability when they reported a £36+ million black hole.

Ok back on topic now.

[KingPat4]

I'm confused.

Where's Vlad?

[cocteautwin]

All this talk of auditors has made the conversation a bit dry. Let's get it back on topic.

Anyone know why the donor(s) have put in £10m but then watched HMFC pass on £6.5m to Budge's brother?

[FilipinoHibs]

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

All this talk of auditors has made the conversation a bit dry. Let's get it back on topic.

Anyone know why the donor(s) have put in £10m but then watched HMFC pass on £6.5m to Budge's brother?

Sounds at bit out but maybe you have some inside info but as at 31 March 2019 JB Contractors (Budge's brothers firm) has £1 million in assets of which £0.75 million is outstanding fees for work completed up £350,000 from the previous year. If you are right sounds like some money laundering going on.

[Since452]

They seem pretty confident we'll get dragged into their relegation battle. It isn't 2014 anymore and we don't have Terry Butcher managing us. Bottom of the league and ragdolled by a league one side and they still think they'll catch us. Delusional.

[Jones28]

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

When FOH take charge in April, the constitution comes into force, which requires a 90% agreement to see FOH shares. They are trying to lower it to 75% agreement to make it easier to sell.

FOH money and benefactor money isn’t enough to keep them afloat.

So in short, to keep them at the level they are at (which is bottom of the league) they will definitely need money from outside investment to the tune of 25%?

[green day]

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

So in short, to keep them at the level they are at (which is bottom of the league) they will definitely need money from outside investment to the tune of 25%?

Not necessarily - this is what the FoH letter says; Paragraph 5.3 is quite interesting (for Hearts as well as other fan owned clubs like Well).



Dear Member

We have decided to revisit an important aspect of our future governance arrangements, and we would like your views. We attach a short Q&A with this email, the background to which is set out below.

1. What’s this all about?
Our future governance arrangements contain a restriction on any disposal of the Foundation’s shares in the Club acquired from Bidco. Before such a disposal to a third party can proceed, it must be put to a vote of Foundation members (including Affiliate Members) and sanctioned by a majority of not less than 90% of the votes cast.
The issue is: Is this 90% requirement too high? Should the requirement be reduced to 75%?

2. Why is the board re-opening this topic now?
The review is prompted by two factors. Firstly, feedback at the AGM in December. At that meeting, we were urged to look again at the issue, with views being expressed that 90% was too high. Secondly, awareness of investment trends in Scottish football (see 5.3 below).

We have a window in which to address the topic. At present, if we decide to change the majority requirement, we need a 75% vote in favour at a general meeting of members. However, once the ownership of the Club passes to the Foundation (an event scheduled for April), we would need a 90% vote in favour at a general meeting and the logistics of organising that meeting become more complicated. It therefore makes sense to review the issue over the next few weeks.

3. Was the 90% requirement discussed in the governance consultation?
Yes. The 90% requirement was part of our governance proposals throughout the consultation process which ran from April 2017 to November 2018. At that time, this particular point generated little, if any, comment.
At the end of the consultation period, the members overwhelmingly approved the final proposals. This approval related to the proposals in their totality, and there were no separate votes on any constituent elements of the proposals. The request raised at the AGM is effectively that the 90% requirement should now be considered separately.

4. What are the arguments in favour of a 90% requirement?
[Note: the discussion in 4 and 5 below is framed in terms of the Foundation transferring majority ownership to a new owner. An alternative scenario of the Foundation transferring a minority interest is, however, also possible. The 90% approval requirement would extend to that latter scenario.]

4.1 Transferring majority ownership of the Club to a new owner would undoubtedly be the biggest collective decision the Foundation members would ever take.
We would be deciding who the new owner should be, with all the responsibility that places on us. We would have to decide - are they the right people to own the Club? Will they have the best interests of the Club at heart, and do they have the financial backing to sustain the Club financially?
A decision of this importance should only be taken with the support of a substantial majority of the voting members.

4.2 A meeting to consider a proposed transfer would be organised so as to maximise the voter turnout. Early voting (electronically or by mail) would be possible, as well as voting at the meeting in person or by proxy. A good turnout of members would reduce the risk of a small unrepresentative group of dissident members being able to block the sale. See 5.1 below.

5. What are the arguments against a 90% requirement?
5.1 A 90% majority requirement increases the risk of a small and unrepresentative minority being able to block a sale which might be supported by a large majority of members. Depending on the overall size of the Foundation membership at the time and the proportion of that membership which participates in the vote, the fate of the Club could be decided by a small number of people. This risk would be reduced if the majority requirement was 75%.

5.2 Football regulation has mechanisms to protect clubs against unscrupulous or untrustworthy individuals acquiring ownership. A prospective owner or director must be a fit and proper person, and financial regulations are designed to stop clubs careering into financial turmoil. It is an exaggeration, therefore, to say that a supermajority is required to provide this protection.

[Note: Having said this, it has been suggested at times that the regulatory protections are insufficient in practice, in that prospective owners are not effectively vetted by the football authorities, while financial regulations are subject to numerous caveats and are not strictly enforced. The shortcomings were highlighted by Bury FC, which was expelled from the English Football League in 2019 as a direct result of poor ownership and longstanding financial problems.]

5.3 The Scottish football scene has changed in the past 12-18 months. There has been an increase in external investment into our clubs. A lot of this investment has come from overseas, particularly the US. Scottish clubs are currently seen as viable assets to attract long-term investment. The Scottish Premiership is a very competitive league and the pressure on owners to maintain investment and keep pace with their rivals is intense. If a need for unplanned capital expenditure arises at a club, the fan ownership model is generally not regarded as well-suited to deliver funding.
Approaches to the Club by potential investors have already been made (through Bidco). If this current climate in Scottish football continues, it is possible that such approaches might start to arrive with even greater frequency.
Against that background, it is arguable that a 75% majority requirement would be more appropriate and more in keeping with normal business practice. It provides greater flexibility and room for manoeuvre, while nevertheless still requiring a substantial majority in favour of a sale.

6. How will the views of members on this issue be sought?
We are going to conduct an online survey of our members over a one-week period. Members will be asked to indicate which majority requirement – 90% or 75% - they favour. There is also space in the survey to tell us about any comments, questions or concerns you may have. We will anonymise the identities of respondents.

[cocteautwin]

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

Sounds at bit out but maybe you have some inside info but as at 31 March 2019 JB Contractors (Budge's brothers firm) has £1 million in assets of which £0.75 million is outstanding fees for work completed up £350,000 from the previous year. If you are right sounds like some money laundering going on.

£6.5m is the figure spent on connected party services (with JB Contracts) during the construction to date of the stand. I'm so sad I counted back to make sure.

Probably just incompetent planning of the construction of the stand. Although if I had put in £10m and watched £6m+ disappear to the family of a board member, I'd certainly be questioning the whole thing. Unless the donor and the donee belonged to the same family . . . . . . . .

[Jones28]

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

Not necessarily - this is what the FoH letter says; Paragraph 5.3 is quite interesting (for Hearts as well as other fan owned clubs like Well).



Dear Member

We have decided to revisit an important aspect of our future governance arrangements, and we would like your views. We attach a short Q&A with this email, the background to which is set out below.

1. What’s this all about?
Our future governance arrangements contain a restriction on any disposal of the Foundation’s shares in the Club acquired from Bidco. Before such a disposal to a third party can proceed, it must be put to a vote of Foundation members (including Affiliate Members) and sanctioned by a majority of not less than 90% of the votes cast.
The issue is: Is this 90% requirement too high? Should the requirement be reduced to 75%?

2. Why is the board re-opening this topic now?
The review is prompted by two factors. Firstly, feedback at the AGM in December. At that meeting, we were urged to look again at the issue, with views being expressed that 90% was too high. Secondly, awareness of investment trends in Scottish football (see 5.3 below).

We have a window in which to address the topic. At present, if we decide to change the majority requirement, we need a 75% vote in favour at a general meeting of members. However, once the ownership of the Club passes to the Foundation (an event scheduled for April), we would need a 90% vote in favour at a general meeting and the logistics of organising that meeting become more complicated. It therefore makes sense to review the issue over the next few weeks.

3. Was the 90% requirement discussed in the governance consultation?
Yes. The 90% requirement was part of our governance proposals throughout the consultation process which ran from April 2017 to November 2018. At that time, this particular point generated little, if any, comment.
At the end of the consultation period, the members overwhelmingly approved the final proposals. This approval related to the proposals in their totality, and there were no separate votes on any constituent elements of the proposals. The request raised at the AGM is effectively that the 90% requirement should now be considered separately.

4. What are the arguments in favour of a 90% requirement?
[Note: the discussion in 4 and 5 below is framed in terms of the Foundation transferring majority ownership to a new owner. An alternative scenario of the Foundation transferring a minority interest is, however, also possible. The 90% approval requirement would extend to that latter scenario.]

4.1 Transferring majority ownership of the Club to a new owner would undoubtedly be the biggest collective decision the Foundation members would ever take.
We would be deciding who the new owner should be, with all the responsibility that places on us. We would have to decide - are they the right people to own the Club? Will they have the best interests of the Club at heart, and do they have the financial backing to sustain the Club financially?
A decision of this importance should only be taken with the support of a substantial majority of the voting members.

4.2 A meeting to consider a proposed transfer would be organised so as to maximise the voter turnout. Early voting (electronically or by mail) would be possible, as well as voting at the meeting in person or by proxy. A good turnout of members would reduce the risk of a small unrepresentative group of dissident members being able to block the sale. See 5.1 below.

5. What are the arguments against a 90% requirement?
5.1 A 90% majority requirement increases the risk of a small and unrepresentative minority being able to block a sale which might be supported by a large majority of members. Depending on the overall size of the Foundation membership at the time and the proportion of that membership which participates in the vote, the fate of the Club could be decided by a small number of people. This risk would be reduced if the majority requirement was 75%.

5.2 Football regulation has mechanisms to protect clubs against unscrupulous or untrustworthy individuals acquiring ownership. A prospective owner or director must be a fit and proper person, and financial regulations are designed to stop clubs careering into financial turmoil. It is an exaggeration, therefore, to say that a supermajority is required to provide this protection.

[Note: Having said this, it has been suggested at times that the regulatory protections are insufficient in practice, in that prospective owners are not effectively vetted by the football authorities, while financial regulations are subject to numerous caveats and are not strictly enforced. The shortcomings were highlighted by Bury FC, which was expelled from the English Football League in 2019 as a direct result of poor ownership and longstanding financial problems.]

5.3 The Scottish football scene has changed in the past 12-18 months. There has been an increase in external investment into our clubs. A lot of this investment has come from overseas, particularly the US. Scottish clubs are currently seen as viable assets to attract long-term investment. The Scottish Premiership is a very competitive league and the pressure on owners to maintain investment and keep pace with their rivals is intense. If a need for unplanned capital expenditure arises at a club, the fan ownership model is generally not regarded as well-suited to deliver funding.
Approaches to the Club by potential investors have already been made (through Bidco). If this current climate in Scottish football continues, it is possible that such approaches might start to arrive with even greater frequency.
Against that background, it is arguable that a 75% majority requirement would be more appropriate and more in keeping with normal business practice. It provides greater flexibility and room for manoeuvre, while nevertheless still requiring a substantial majority in favour of a sale.

6. How will the views of members on this issue be sought?
We are going to conduct an online survey of our members over a one-week period. Members will be asked to indicate which majority requirement – 90% or 75% - they favour. There is also space in the survey to tell us about any comments, questions or concerns you may have. We will anonymise the identities of respondents.

Very interesting, and even more so to hear they’ve already had approaches from various potential investors.

[Waxy]

They havent played on a level playing field for decades.The day will come when they’ll have no choice.

[Cataplana]

If they can't make their mind up about their constitution, what use will they be at picking the team?