Board Issues

[esquire8 45,142]

15 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

See the whole ‘we need investment’ thing, does that not go against the FFP stuff?

Are Man City not at the point that their owners can’t put more money in, so they are trying to game the system hence the charges?

Is what we need actually proper governance, structure and leadership from an operational board rather than shareholders stepping in to run?

Man City's issue is with the EPLs own FFP rules. SPFL doesn't have FFP rules so we only need to be in line with UEFAs FFP rules which is primarily linked to your turnover/wages ratio. We can have far more investment if we wanted to with no punishment but our board are not spending a penny more.

Giving away sponsorship to the Parks for pennies to the pound probably doesn't help either. The board won't put in anymore and won't invite any further investment by way of more shares as it dilutes their shareholding. 

Best we can hope for is a Chairman who by some miracle hires a top footballing CEO who can run us very effectively that then might encourage new investors to pay way over the odds for current shareholders shares before even putting in a single penny into the club.

[DrLaudrup 5,064]

15 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

See the whole ‘we need investment’ thing, does that not go against the FFP stuff?

Are Man City not at the point that their owners can’t put more money in, so they are trying to game the system hence the charges?

Is what we need actually proper governance, structure and leadership from an operational board rather than shareholders stepping in to run?

I think investment can be done in different ways ie infrastructure investment is not necessarily the same as playing staff. Also I believe it can be offset for a few seasons. So there could be front loading of investment but if we didn’t break even with Champions League money / commercial income and player sales after a few seasons it could become an issue. There seem to be som many grey areas particularly with EPL clubs.

[BlueSuedeSambas 56,374]

Hearts are reportedly about to agree a deal worth 10 million of investment for them to gain and use elements of the Starlizard technology that both USG and Brighton use, with reports that it could ultimately lead to Tony Bloom becoming a minority shareholder in the club. 

If Bloom, who has helped two football clubs grow massively because of his involvement, is willing to introduce his technology to another club, and he’s showing that he’s willing to consider Scotland then why have we not been actively trying to get him on board with us?

We we crying out for additional investment, our recruitment has been a shambles for years, starlizard has proven to be one of the best data driven models around and due to his ownership of Brighton Bloom couldn’t ever become anything more than a minority shareholder in us.

I appreciate that our shareholders have invested millions of pounds of their own money, but at this point they are coming across as so self interested and asleep at the wheel that it’s actively harming the club.

Sick to death of it.

[The Specky Forum Organiser 69,503]

2 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

Hearts are reportedly about to agree a deal worth 10 million of investment for them to gain and use elements of the Starlizard technology that both USG and Brighton use, with reports that it could ultimately lead to Tony Bloom becoming a minority shareholder in the club. 

If Bloom, who has helped two football clubs grow massively because of his involvement, is willing to introduce his technology to another club, and he’s showing that he’s willing to consider Scotland then why have we not been actively trying to get him on board with us?

We we crying out for additional investment, our recruitment has been a shambles for years, starlizard has proven to be one of the best data driven models around and due to his ownership of Brighton Bloom couldn’t ever become anything more than a minority shareholder in us.

I appreciate that our shareholders have invested millions of pounds of their own money, but at this point they are coming across as so self interested and asleep at the wheel that it’s actively harming the club.

Sick to death of it.

Could be huge for Hearts but you'd think they will be something of a feeder club for Brighton and USG and that just wouldn't be accepted here.

[McEwan's Lager 32,046]

1 hour ago, esquire8 said:

Giving away sponsorship to the Parks for pennies to the pound probably doesn't help either. The board won't put in anymore and won't invite any further investment by way of more shares as it dilutes their shareholding. 

Any proof of this? Or is this just made up nonsense.

[RossS1873 2,628]

12 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

Hearts are reportedly about to agree a deal worth 10 million of investment for them to gain and use elements of the Starlizard technology that both USG and Brighton use, with reports that it could ultimately lead to Tony Bloom becoming a minority shareholder in the club. 

If Bloom, who has helped two football clubs grow massively because of his involvement, is willing to introduce his technology to another club, and he’s showing that he’s willing to consider Scotland then why have we not been actively trying to get him on board with us?

We we crying out for additional investment, our recruitment has been a shambles for years, starlizard has proven to be one of the best data driven models around and due to his ownership of Brighton Bloom couldn’t ever become anything more than a minority shareholder in us.

I appreciate that our shareholders have invested millions of pounds of their own money, but at this point they are coming across as so self interested and asleep at the wheel that it’s actively harming the club.

Sick to death of it.

Probably similar in the way that the Bournemouth owners own a small stake in Hibs but seem to have alot of influence in their boardroom. And tbf, remember when we had a Premier League owner with a small but significant stake in us? Remie Streete and Shane Ferguson anyone?

[graeme_4 37,462]

1 hour ago, esquire8 said:

Man City's issue is with the EPLs own FFP rules. SPFL doesn't have FFP rules so we only need to be in line with UEFAs FFP rules which is primarily linked to your turnover/wages ratio. We can have far more investment if we wanted to with no punishment but our board are not spending a penny more.

Giving away sponsorship to the Parks for pennies to the pound probably doesn't help either. The board won't put in anymore and won't invite any further investment by way of more shares as it dilutes their shareholding. 

Best we can hope for is a Chairman who by some miracle hires a top footballing CEO who can run us very effectively that then might encourage new investors to pay way over the odds for current shareholders shares before even putting in a single penny into the club.

Do Parks get sponsorship for pennies? Much do they pay, and what’s the market rate?

[BlueSuedeSambas 56,374]

25 minutes ago, The Specky Forum Organiser said:

Could be huge for Hearts but you'd think they will be something of a feeder club for Brighton and USG and that just wouldn't be accepted here.

I don’t think that would be the case tbh. There were a few loans early on, but only one player - Undav - has permanently moved from USG to Brighton since Bloom bought them in 2018.

Bloom is only a minor shareholder at USG now because they’ve utilised his technology to become successful independently of what he’s done at Brighton rather than just becoming a glorified feeder club, and I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t look at the potential of a Scottish club to do the same thing.

Even if we did become a “feeder” club, I suspect it would be players being sold on to top five leagues rather than directly to Brighton and USG, and isn’t that the player trading model that people constantly talk about us doing anyway?

 

[BlueSuedeSambas 56,374]

9 minutes ago, RossS1873 said:

Probably similar in the way that the Bournemouth owners own a small stake in Hibs but seem to have alot of influence in their boardroom. And tbf, remember when we had a Premier League owner with a small but significant stake in us? Remie Streete and Shane Ferguson anyone?

Comparing Mike Ashley and Tony Bloom is utterly ridiculous.

[BlueKnight87 17,855]

10 hours ago, The Beast said:

I genuinely believe this board and in particular the Parks don't want serious investment.

 

Serious investors would would want shareholding in the club. That would require the parks and other current shareholders to either dilute thier shares or sell up completely. 

Guessing the parks won't do either. 

It leaves us in a shit position. They seem to think they can still run this club successfully all evidence to the contrary. 

King can mouth off but unless he can get a majority of the shareholders on side he's not going to be able to force himself back onto the board.

[The Specky Forum Organiser 69,503]

8 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

I don’t think that would be the case tbh. There were a few loans early on, but only one player - Undav - has permanently moved from USG to Brighton since Bloom bought them in 2018.

Bloom is only a minor shareholder at USG now because they’ve utilised his technology to become successful independently of what he’s done at Brighton rather than just becoming a glorified feeder club, and I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t look at the potential of a Scottish club to do the same thing.

Even if we did become a “feeder” club, I suspect it would be players being sold on to top five leagues rather than directly to Brighton and USG, and isn’t that the player trading model that people constantly talk about us doing anyway?

 

Need to wait and see how it pans out but I just cant see our fans accepting being part of a multi club system or whatever you want to call it. Either formally or informally. 

I'd be very surprised if Hearts didn't become a place where those clubs, particularly Brighton sent their players to develop.

[DrLaudrup 5,064]

15 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

Comparing Mike Ashley and Tony Bloom is utterly ridiculous.

Ashley has history as someone who buys struggling businesses and asset strips them. I don’t think it’s in any way similar to Bloom. 

[KingKirk 26,466]

10 minutes ago, BlueKnight87 said:

Serious investors would would want shareholding in the club. That would require the parks and other current shareholders to either dilute thier shares or sell up completely. 

Guessing the parks won't do either. 

It leaves us in a shit position. They seem to think they can still run this club successfully all evidence to the contrary. 

King can mouth off but unless he can get a majority of the shareholders on side he's not going to be able to force himself back onto the board.

They could still run us easily tbf. It's more a case of what do the current board see as success v the supports vision for success and that's where there is massive disconnect. 

If this nonsense happened right after 55 the fans would've been alot more understanding imo. Them across the road are sitting on 3IAR and we've decided nows the ideal time to start costing cutting it just doesn't make sense to me. 

 

[RossS1873 2,628]

19 minutes ago, The Specky Forum Organiser said:

Need to wait and see how it pans out but I just cant see our fans accepting being part of a multi club system or whatever you want to call it. Either formally or informally. 

I'd be very surprised if Hearts didn't become a place where those clubs, particularly Brighton sent their players to develop.

Finally getting Red Bull Rangers? Or BlueCo who own Chelsea (probably the only club run worse than us in world football) and Strasbourg. We've already got the round blue badge to fit into the City group . Being part of some conglomerates portfolio as much as it would maybe give us consistency and stability, would just make us into some modern football plaything and lose our credibility. They'd never deal with our support, or vice versa like you say

[The Specky Forum Organiser 69,503]

11 minutes ago, KingKirk said:

They could still run us easily tbf. It's more a case of what do the current board see as success v the supports vision for success and that's where there is massive disconnect. 

If this nonsense happened right after 55 the fans would've been alot more understanding imo. Them across the road are sitting on 3IAR and we've decided nows the ideal time to start costing cutting it just doesn't make sense to me. 

 

Because we have no choice. 

[Colin Traive 23,830]

46 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

I don’t think that would be the case tbh. There were a few loans early on, but only one player - Undav - has permanently moved from USG to Brighton since Bloom bought them in 2018.

Bloom is only a minor shareholder at USG now because they’ve utilised his technology to become successful independently of what he’s done at Brighton rather than just becoming a glorified feeder club, and I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t look at the potential of a Scottish club to do the same thing.

Even if we did become a “feeder” club, I suspect it would be players being sold on to top five leagues rather than directly to Brighton and USG, and isn’t that the player trading model that people constantly talk about us doing anyway?

 

Not that long ago Brighton were the epitome of bang average, going nowhere, English League mediocrity like a Coventry, QPR, Tranmere etc

They are now established in the top tier and have a win away to Ajax under their belt as part of their European adventures.

They took in £140m in transfers fees summer of ‘23 and have spent nearly £200m in the window just closed.

Even allowing for grossly inflated English prices, that club has been transformed.

If there was a chance of that stardust to be sprinkled up here, we should have been front of the queue.

 

 

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,571]

1 hour ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

I don’t think that would be the case tbh. There were a few loans early on, but only one player - Undav - has permanently moved from USG to Brighton since Bloom bought them in 2018.

Bloom is only a minor shareholder at USG now because they’ve utilised his technology to become successful independently of what he’s done at Brighton rather than just becoming a glorified feeder club, and I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t look at the potential of a Scottish club to do the same thing.

Even if we did become a “feeder” club, I suspect it would be players being sold on to top five leagues rather than directly to Brighton and USG, and isn’t that the player trading model that people constantly talk about us doing anyway?

 

Maybe he's only interested in working at clubs where winning trophies isn't the be all and end all, if his tech etc is that good then surely he'd be doing it at bigger clubs than Brighton and USG

Maybe he's only keen on clubs where he'll have time to work on a system and develop it at a club, whereas we'd be chasing him out of govan the first time a player misplaces a pass lol

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,571]

48 minutes ago, DrLaudrup said:

Ashley has history as someone who buys struggling businesses and asset strips them. I don’t think it’s in any way similar to Bloom. 

Apart from Newcastle, their fans can say what they like but pre ashley they were in a fuck yonyof debt and their club was horrendously run

He might have been a dick at the end but he made them way more attractive to outside investment 

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,571]

10 minutes ago, Colin Traive said:

Not that long ago Brighton were the epitome of bang average, going nowhere, English League mediocrity like a Coventry, QPR, Tranmere etc

They are now established in the top tier and have a win away to Ajax under their belt as part of their European adventures.

They took in £140m in transfers fees summer of ‘23 and have spent nearly £200m in the window just closed.

Even allowing for grossly inflated English prices, that club has been transformed.

If there was a chance of that stardust to be sprinkled up here, we should have been front of the queue.

 

 

They still are going nowhere though, they'll likely never win a cup and top half of the epl is magical for them

We demand success at every turn, its a completely different scenario

[Roy Hobbs 2,910]

5 minutes ago, Jimfanciesthedude said:

Apart from Newcastle, their fans can say what they like but pre ashley they were in a fuck yonyof debt and their club was horrendously run

He might have been a dick at the end but he made them way more attractive to outside investment 

Location and potential is what makes English teams attractive to outside investment. Man city were a shambles before they were taken over. 

[The Specky Forum Organiser 69,503]

14 minutes ago, Jimfanciesthedude said:

Apart from Newcastle, their fans can say what they like but pre ashley they were in a fuck yonyof debt and their club was horrendously run

He might have been a dick at the end but he made them way more attractive to outside investment 

'At the end'  

[BlueSuedeSambas 56,374]

23 minutes ago, Jimfanciesthedude said:

They still are going nowhere though, they'll likely never win a cup and top half of the epl is magical for them

We demand success at every turn, its a completely different scenario

I don’t see why we couldn’t implement that sort of data driven recruitment strategy and still be successful.

We outspend every club in this league,  prior to this season that included celtic, so we are always going to have a chance at success purely because of the league we play in and the financial resources we have in comparison to everybody else. The main reason we haven’t been successful in recent years is because our recruitment is wasteful, scattergun and completely directionless. 

USG implemented it, in a league which is more comparable to ours, and while spending similar money to what we have on players over the past couple of years, have managed to muscle in on the likes of Anderlecht and Brugge to become an established force at the top end of Belgium and they are playing in Europe every season now. 

You can’t just copy and paste any system and expect it to work, nobody is daft enough to think that, but he owns a PL team, he’s helped USG grow, taking an powerhouse and implementing a version of something which has been successful at two clubs who work in completely different markets and levels and seeing if it can be implemented in a way that returns success in terms of trophies as well as financially in the transfer market would surely be the next logical step, and would surely be more interesting than pumping it into Hearts.

[The Specky Forum Organiser 69,503]

1 minute ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

I don’t see why we couldn’t implement that sort of data driven recruitment strategy and still be successful.

We outspend every club in this league,  prior to this season that included celtic, so we are always going to have a chance at success purely because of the league we play in and the financial resources we have in comparison to everybody else.

USG implemented it, in a league which is more comparable to ours, and while spending similar money to what we have on players over the past couple of years, have managed to muscle in on the likes of Anderlecht and Brugge to become an established force at the top end of Belgium and they are playing in Europe every season now. 

You can’t just copy and paste any system and expect it to work, nobody is daft enough to think that, but he owns a PL team, he’s helped USG grow, taking an powerhouse and implementing a version of something which has been successful at two clubs who work in completely markets and levels and seeing if it can be implemented in a way that returns success in terms of trophies as well as financially in the transfer market would surely be the next logical step, and would surely be more interesting than pumping it into Hearts.

King has been openly trying to sell his shares for years and Bloom hasn't shown any interest so I don't think that's what he's looking to do at all.

[DrLaudrup 5,064]

21 minutes ago, Jimfanciesthedude said:

They still are going nowhere though, they'll likely never win a cup and top half of the epl is magical for them

We demand success at every turn, its a completely different scenario

It’s a case of monetising what you have. They have tiny fan base, but wads of TV money. EPL consistency and perhaps and occasional cup run in Europe or domestically is fine for them. We have the opposite. A global fan base but low key income and investment. Success is a must for us. We are vastly more marketable than Brighton but our boards haven’t done it for years. 

[BlueSuedeSambas 56,374]

It’s all hypothetical but I think there’s a massive difference between a guy becoming a minority shareholder in the club in return for us gaining access to a recruitment system which is widely considered as being one of the best in the world, and us just becoming another faceless club that are part of a portfolio in the way that any club owned by red bull, or the city group are.