|
|
Post by sortitoutwebbbull on Nov 15, 2024 17:11:43 GMT
I'm not sure that this is correct - according to paragraph 4.9 of the A's of A - "Proceedings of Directors"- if any vote on anything is equal then the chairman of the meeting - presumably the chairman? - has a second or casting vote. At board meetings, is the current chairman always the chairman at the meeting? I think he is, otherwise how does any business ever get done? But in the first instance, isn't it about the shareholders who hold the 'other' shares, rather than the Board of Directors? An excellent point - I really don’t know! |
|
|
|
Post by Differentiabull on Nov 15, 2024 17:11:56 GMT
On what basis? Genuinely? There’s a throwaway remark from the good Mr Maguire at the end of a Podcast (no suggestion he’d read the BBU costing never mind spoken to the club) and a comment that the cost shouldn’t be significant. It’s hardly a line by line analysis nor a thumping dissection of the club’s costs. And again. We’re the club lying when they published the £30K figure? Yes or no? I'm not sure why you seem to think this is a crucial point of order. My assumption is that club doesn't want the name change, because if it did then it would have initiated the process by now. Given that's the case, the numbers they quote are unlikely to be an underestimate. Are they 'lying'? I've no idea, but perhaps assuming worse cases. If we are accusing lying though, the original promise at the start was that the name would be changed back though. Either way here, it's largely moot. HUST are going to fund raise towards it, and Keith has pledged (extremely generously) the entirety of the BBU costings already. |
|
|
|
Post by Barney still in B-Block on Nov 15, 2024 17:13:21 GMT
I think HUST should probably be re-named THUS. Thick Hereford United Supporters. Excellent. As an example of playing the man, not the ball. Something you've been known to rail against in the past/when it suits you. Added to which, it's perhaps sometimes forgiveable, to an extent, if the point is either funny or true. Yours, a lazy, cheap shot, is neither. |
|
luke
Junior Member
Posts: 358
|
Post by luke on Nov 15, 2024 17:14:28 GMT
I have no idea why the £30k figure was communicated by the board to HUST - it's impossible to analyse it in detail given the club didn't give any breakdown as to how it was come to (it would have been much more helpful for everyone if there was that detail). I can accept that it their belief that it would be the cost whilst thinking it unlikely to cost that much and I haven't said otherwise. As time has passed and the composition of the board has changed it is also possible that their view might also have changed. Obviously signage is the largest cost BBU gave and perhaps the club was quoted far more for the work than the quote BBU obtained? I'm in no way suggesting that is the case but that would explain all of the difference - it's just impossible for anyone to know.
Of the areas they said would incur costs, I think the BBU costing addresses each in a reasonable amount of detail (e.g. the club only has one trademark, changing it is a fixed cost, so it's hard to argue with) and in far more detail than the board gave (not difficult). One would think that if there was an obvious missing item where the £20k difference comes from that the club would have shared it in advance of the HUST vote this time. It is interesting that the club did not communicate any cost estimate to HUST members this time around - should we take that to mean that the current board does not stand by the previous figure?
|
|
|
|
Post by sortitoutwebbbull on Nov 15, 2024 17:25:49 GMT
I have no idea why the £30k figure was communicated by the board to HUST - it's impossible to analyse it in detail given the club didn't give any breakdown as to how it was come to (it would have been much more helpful for everyone if there was that detail). I can accept that it their belief that it would be the cost whilst thinking it unlikely to cost that much and I haven't said otherwise. As time has passed and the composition of the board has changed it is also possible that their view might also have changed. Obviously signage is the largest cost BBU gave and perhaps the club was quoted far more for the work than the quote BBU obtained? I'm in no way suggesting that is the case but that would explain all of the difference - it's just impossible for anyone to know. Of the areas they said would incur costs, I think the BBU costing addresses each in a reasonable amount of detail (e.g. the club only has one trademark, changing it is a fixed cost, so it's hard to argue with) and in far more detail than the board gave (not difficult). One would think that if there was an obvious missing item where the £20k difference comes from that the club would have shared it in advance of the HUST vote this time. It is interesting that the club did not communicate any cost estimate to HUST members this time around - should we take that to mean that the current board does not stand by the previous figure? So are you actually suggesting that last nights vote was cast without any firm/conclusive cost analysis being carried out by anyone - was it all done on guesswork and estimates then? As you suggest amended signage for a start would be massive I would have thought? |
|
|
|
Post by Differentiabull on Nov 15, 2024 17:34:30 GMT
I think HUST should probably be re-named THUS. Thick Hereford United Supporters. Come on, we're better than this. Let's not make this as schismatic as in 2014. |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 15, 2024 17:43:35 GMT
On what basis? Genuinely? There’s a throwaway remark from the good Mr Maguire at the end of a Podcast (no suggestion he’d read the BBU costing never mind spoken to the club) and a comment that the cost shouldn’t be significant. It’s hardly a line by line analysis nor a thumping dissection of the club’s costs. And again. We’re the club lying when they published the £30K figure? Yes or no? I'm not sure why you seem to think this is a crucial point of order. My assumption is that club doesn't want the name change, because if it did then it would have initiated the process by now. Given that's the case, the numbers they quote are unlikely to be an underestimate. Are they 'lying'? I've no idea, but perhaps assuming worse cases. If we are accusing lying though, the original promise at the start was that the name would be changed back though. Either way here, it's largely moot. HUST are going to fund raise towards it, and Keith has pledged (extremely generously) the entirety of the BBU costings already. It’s not moot though. If the true cost is £30K or above, where is the remaining £10k plus going to come from. It may well not impact on the club, but the vote yesterday is based on£10k plus Mr Hall’s remarkably generous offer to match it. I don’t think it’s wrong to ask questions, is it? As far as I can see, none of this is supported by the club. And none of the BBU’s figures have been confirmed (or denied) by the club. But that’s just an assumption again. |
|
|
|
Post by Differentiabull on Nov 15, 2024 17:53:07 GMT
I have no idea why the £30k figure was communicated by the board to HUST - it's impossible to analyse it in detail given the club didn't give any breakdown as to how it was come to (it would have been much more helpful for everyone if there was that detail). I can accept that it their belief that it would be the cost whilst thinking it unlikely to cost that much and I haven't said otherwise. As time has passed and the composition of the board has changed it is also possible that their view might also have changed. Obviously signage is the largest cost BBU gave and perhaps the club was quoted far more for the work than the quote BBU obtained? I'm in no way suggesting that is the case but that would explain all of the difference - it's just impossible for anyone to know. Of the areas they said would incur costs, I think the BBU costing addresses each in a reasonable amount of detail (e.g. the club only has one trademark, changing it is a fixed cost, so it's hard to argue with) and in far more detail than the board gave (not difficult). One would think that if there was an obvious missing item where the £20k difference comes from that the club would have shared it in advance of the HUST vote this time. It is interesting that the club did not communicate any cost estimate to HUST members this time around - should we take that to mean that the current board does not stand by the previous figure? So are you actually suggesting that last nights vote was cast without any firm/conclusive cost analysis being carried out by anyone - was it all done on guesswork and estimates then? As you suggest amended signage for a start would be massive I would have thought? The cost of removing that tattoo of the HFC crest and Jon Hale's face from my left bum cheek hasn't been mentioned either - why haven't the BBU group costed that? What's the sequence of events here? The BBU group have come up with some numbers. The club have chosen not to dispute them. HUST has taken a vote, and the vote was to change the name. In terms of process, that seems reasonable, right? Onus is now on the club. They could ignore the vote entirely. Not sure that's constructive for a 'fan owned' club. They could accept it without question. Maybe. Or they can get some quotes, come up with detailed costings, and then the club, HUST and the BBU group have a sensible discussion about it. Maybe not all the signage needs updating. Maybe HUST will fundraise most of the cost. But let's do the friendly meeting bit, and not do the same thing as last time where people refused to meet other people who were all fans of the football club in Hereford. |
|
|
|
Post by Differentiabull on Nov 15, 2024 17:59:01 GMT
I'm not sure why you seem to think this is a crucial point of order. My assumption is that club doesn't want the name change, because if it did then it would have initiated the process by now. Given that's the case, the numbers they quote are unlikely to be an underestimate. Are they 'lying'? I've no idea, but perhaps assuming worse cases. If we are accusing lying though, the original promise at the start was that the name would be changed back though. Either way here, it's largely moot. HUST are going to fund raise towards it, and Keith has pledged (extremely generously) the entirety of the BBU costings already. It’s not moot though. If the true cost is £30K or above, where is the remaining £10k plus going to come from. It may well not impact on the club, but the vote yesterday is based on£10k plus Mr Hall’s remarkably generous offer to match it. I don’t think it’s wrong to ask questions, is it? As far as I can see, none of this is supported by the club. And none of the BBU’s figures have been confirmed (or denied) by the club. But that’s just an assumption again. Right, yes, and if that's the case we need that detail. At the moment the BBU figures have an appearance of greater analysis than the 'about 30k' from the club, so I assume - until I see evidence to the contrary - the fundraising is covered by HUST. What I humbly suggest we don't need is framing of the discussion where instead of 'how much does it cost' we go with 'are you accusing the club of lying?' The fanbase civil war last time wasn't pleasant, certainly drove some people away for good, and is something I hope we can try and avoid here. |
|
|
|
Post by Gresty on Nov 15, 2024 18:07:01 GMT
It’s not moot though. If the true cost is £30K or above, where is the remaining £10k plus going to come from. It may well not impact on the club, but the vote yesterday is based on£10k plus Mr Hall’s remarkably generous offer to match it. I don’t think it’s wrong to ask questions, is it? As far as I can see, none of this is supported by the club. And none of the BBU’s figures have been confirmed (or denied) by the club. But that’s just an assumption again. Right, yes, and if that's the case we need that detail. At the moment the BBU figures have an appearance of greater analysis than the 'about 30k' from the club, so I assume - until I see evidence to the contrary - the fundraising is covered by HUST. What I humbly suggest we don't need is framing of the discussion where instead of 'how much does it cost' we go with 'are you accusing the club of lying?' The fanbase civil war last time wasn't pleasant, certainly drove some people away for good, and is something I hope we can try and avoid here. Spot on and very well put. Thankyou. |
|
|
|
Post by White Lightning on Nov 15, 2024 18:12:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 15, 2024 18:45:24 GMT
It’s not moot though. If the true cost is £30K or above, where is the remaining £10k plus going to come from. It may well not impact on the club, but the vote yesterday is based on£10k plus Mr Hall’s remarkably generous offer to match it. I don’t think it’s wrong to ask questions, is it? As far as I can see, none of this is supported by the club. And none of the BBU’s figures have been confirmed (or denied) by the club. But that’s just an assumption again. Right, yes, and if that's the case we need that detail. At the moment the BBU figures have an appearance of greater analysis than the 'about 30k' from the club, so I assume - until I see evidence to the contrary - the fundraising is covered by HUST. What I humbly suggest we don't need is framing of the discussion where instead of 'how much does it cost' we go with 'are you accusing the club of lying?' The fanbase civil war last time wasn't pleasant, certainly drove some people away for good, and is something I hope we can try and avoid here. The discussion was “framed” that way from the outset by BBU. The whole premise was that the original HUST vote was influenced by the £30k figure which was being challenged by BBU on the basis of…well, nothing really. I only used the word lying to try and get Luke to answer a question he was studiously ignoring. Given Stig’s post on X, it looks like the £30k is an underestimate. I repeat. The club had already been through a branding exercise in 2015 so would know how much the true costs are. |
|
|
|
Post by ST Andrew on Nov 15, 2024 18:59:22 GMT
I have been informed by a shareholder that they understand HFC Board meetings are somewhat two tired. HUST Board members who are on the HFC Board do not attend or are not invited to the whole meeting. Perhaps HUST could confirm this?
|
|
|
|
Post by psychedelictony on Nov 15, 2024 19:22:10 GMT
Whatever the costs of the name change are, we will say between 10-30k - whatever - nobody's gonna spend anything off the back of a few hundred people voting.
Give out a ballot sheet to home fans on Boxing Day. At least get a reasonable number of votes in. Then you can talk percentages.
|
|
|
|
Post by bringbackelmo on Nov 15, 2024 19:25:11 GMT
I think HUST should probably be re-named THUS. Thick Hereford United Supporters. It is like trying to knit fog. First week Apprentice level business plan and obfuscation. CB, your posts are increasingly embarrassing. The BBU analysis is decent, I've seen it. Obviously there is a degree of guesswork and the true figure is probably somewhere in between the BBU estimate and the clubs. At least the BBU estimate has some degree of detail. For someone that claims not to be bothered either way you've spent a large part of your day arguing about it. There's also a lot of concern that this issue will be "divisive" from people that are being just that. No-one seems to have the guts, and I include Stig in that, to be honest about what they and/or the investors want: to keep their plaything as 'FC'. The reasons for that are patently obvious, we'll finally have it spelt out that the 'fan-owned' nature of the club was spurious bullshit to take and retain control. |
|
|
|
Post by White Lightning on Nov 15, 2024 19:28:06 GMT
Whatever the costs of the name change are, we will say between 10-30k - whatever - nobody's gonna spend anything off the back of a few hundred people voting. Give out a ballot sheet to home fans on Boxing Day. At least get a reasonable number of votes in. Then you can talk percentages. There is no way they are going to make that mistake again after the chaos that ensued when they tried that exact method for an away kit vote. |
|
|
|
Post by sortitoutwebbbull on Nov 15, 2024 19:30:10 GMT
It is like trying to knit fog. First week Apprentice level business plan and obfuscation. CB, your posts are increasingly embarrassing. The BBU analysis is decent, I've seen it. Obviously there is a degree of guesswork and the true figure is probably somewhere in between the BBU estimate and the clubs. At least the BBU estimate has some degree of detail. For someone that claims not to be bothered either way you've spent a large part of your day arguing about it. There's also a lot of concern that this issue will be "divisive" from people that are being just that. No-one seems to have the guts, and I include Stig in that, to be honest about what they and/or the investors want: to keep their plaything as 'FC'. The reasons for that are patently obvious, we'll finally have it spelt out that the 'fan-owned' nature of the club was spurious bullshit to take and retain control. Have you ever read the A's of A? |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 15, 2024 19:31:02 GMT
BBE
Bloody hell.
Have you read what Stig has written? I’m sorry that you think that my posting is embarrassing. But , to be fair, given your post above, you would know. That’s an absolute shocker. Have a word with yourself.
The addition of the “United” is cosmetic. Stig sets out far more succinctly than I do why t would be time consuming and expensive. Your post is one of the most divisive tin hatted posts I’ve seen on the subject. And that took some doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by White Lightning on Nov 15, 2024 19:33:09 GMT
Imagine trying to explain all this to your wife?
Assuming like mine their interest starts and ends with them asking if we won when you get in, although often they don't need to.
|
|
|
|
Post by psychedelictony on Nov 15, 2024 19:33:34 GMT
I've now read the chairman's piece and I 100% agree with him.
Although I would go further and say it is pointless. This isn't actually gonna achieve anything. Nothing. Just a waste of time and money.
|
|
