Ric

No harm in giving them the chance.

Why not give some detail? So far you have joined the forum to claim that (a) Lawell is paying everyone off in order to gain support for reconstruction, that (b) Doncaster is putting pressure on the clubs to gain support for reconstruction, and (c) the vote will definitely be made next week and that it will be for reconstruction because of unspecified "things going on". Now, indulge me, as you have no record of posting to this forum so we have no way to judge your input and as you have seen fit to join in an already entrenched and lengthy thread with an opinion that seems utterly convinced of certain things why don't you provide some basis for these claims? Failing to do so may result in many simply suggesting you are swinging the lead.

I'll very confidently suggest this account won't post on this site after the proposal is voted down.

So where is successful businesswoman Ann Budge's successful business proposal for a successful league reconstruction?

I see successful businesswoman Ann Budge's successful business proposal for reconstruction has itself been reconstructed into 14 leaks to journos over the weekend, 10 today and 10 tomorrow.

I'm not going to lie, I never expected Reggie Perrin to be the thing that brings fans from all sides together but I absolutely could not be happier for that to be the case.

> Posting Reggie Perrin references = showing your age. > Others (rightfully) green dotting such references = showing our age.

You weren't being directly challenged. The first post was asking a clarification on a post you made, and as far as I am aware it was in isolation - not a reply, and the second was putting forward a premise that, as you have the statistics available to you where I don't, you could simply have provided that information without sounding so exasperated.

We already rely on TV sponsorship and regularly move games to suit that. I would wager the reason Hamilton versus St Mirren isn't moved from 3pm is nothing to do with any fan outcry but hat Sky is unwilling to broadcast it.

I absolutely am, sorry for the confusion. W3 GOTY is a good game and by all accounts a great story and has hours of gameplay. I dislike RPGs and 3PP games which puts the mockers on it but for £0.49 I'd have been tempted. As for the £10 credit, not knocking it, just highlighting the small print.

It would be interesting to know if the number of games covered is similar to other leagues. The per match basis may be a great statistic until you find out it's based on 2 games per week while the English Premier (not a like for like, of course) is getting every single game covered.

They do have competition though. BT and SKY both bid for the rights. The problem is our game (barring the OF borefests) is viewed as being an unsellable product outside of this country and, as I said already, our finances are set up in a way that requires a TV sponsorship deal. We both agree that we have a weak bargaining hand because of that.

We both agree Setanta folding caused all sorts of problems, that's not the issue I'm raising. I'm saying it's just a nonsense idea that somehow Sky is punishing us for choosing that route a decade ago.

Nonsense, and there is absolutely no basis in fact to support the claim.

The "we don't get a good deal because we chose Setanta one time" is a daft argument. The reason we don't get a good deal is that Sky don't rate our product and think they can low ball us, and our league is funded in such a way we are reliant on a deal being made so Doncaster (or whoever) has limited bargaining power.

They have been. What successful businesswoman Ann Budge is doing now is trying to manipulate the league structure for a short enough period so it allows them back into the top division but not so long as to dilute any payments to her club once that goal has been achieved. Me? I've always favoured a larger league, but then I refuse to countenance one purely on the basis of benefiting one club while negatively affecting many others.

That's from the vision and the aims on the website. Now perhaps they have been paraphrased for succinctness but it's still pretty clear. In terms of cash "not sitting there to be used", can you imagine other clubs without such a slush fund at hand showing much sympathy for the "we're going bust" scenario? No, you really can't.

So the argument here is that others should somehow pull out all the stops to ensure Hearts don't go bankrupt but the sugar daddy (a successful businessdaddy?) money is to be ring fenced for better times? Seems somewhat insulting to other clubs imo.

https://www.foundationofhearts.org/our-vision/ "To ensure that the future of Heart of Midlothian Football Club remains secure for all time." 'Ensuring the future / remaining secure' must include supporting it financially. https://www.foundationofhearts.org/our-aims/ "Following this historic event, the Foundation’s aim is to continue to provide financial backing to the club by asking members to support the club ‘ever more’ through pledging for life." 'Continuing to provide financial backing to the club', literally couldn't be clearer.

Are you saying she isn't a successful businesswoman? Anyway, feel free to address the points I raised.

So there are two points here. First off, both the mission and the aims clearly state they will support the club financially. I appreciate there may need to be a vote in regards to transferring funds but I'm sure if the choice was let the club go bankrupt or provide that funding there would be only one option taken. Secondly, it just highlights the pathetic case that successful businesswoman Ann Budge is trying to put forward. She can fund the club, FoH can fund the club, but successful businesswoman Ann Budge would rather threaten the small businesses (clearly not as successfully run as successful businesswoman Ann Budge's successful businesses) with having to got to court to get money owed to them.

Except it is, as is stated on it's website. "To ensure that the future of Heart of Midlothian Football Club remains secure for all time." Does that not extend to supporting it financially?

I was talking about now, as I agree with you. At the start of this process, if handled correctly successful businesswoman Ann Budge could have pulled off a blinder. Instead, she made as much of a mess of the end of the season discussions as she did trying to retain her club's top tier presence. The throwing of the toys out of their pram by some Hearts posters (and while I appreciate single club forums like JKB are a toxic pit of stupidity) have eroded much of the sympathy they could have had here, while successful businesswoman Ann Budge's comments in public about how badly treated they have been have had the same effect in the public domain.

Successful businesswoman Ann Budge can't be much of a successful businesswoman if she can't successfully run her business because of relegation. It's not like relegation wasn't a possibility at the start of the season, and hadn't been looking a strong possibility for weeks. I'm sure many clubs will have considerable sympathy for one of the largest and richest clubs in the land, with all the benefits that brings, claiming poverty in some way to offset that club's utter failure on the pitch. Said it already, she just needs to claim racism and misogyny for the "full house" of reasons not to reconstruct the league.