The Hibernian Thread

[VincentGuerin]

4 minutes ago, Molotov said:

If Hibs and Bournemouth both qualify for the same European competition would there be any issues if the clubs were drawn against each other?

There is a lengthy article on this as it’s a quite common issue given the number of teams working like this.

https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/multi-club-ownership-in-football-a-summer-of-discontent/#:~:text=The rise of multi-club ownership&text=The benefits are clear.,with player transfers and loans.
 

The Price of Football Podcast has covered stuff like this on a few occasions. A good while ago they were talking about how Brexit made it more likely English sides would become keen on taking on a Scottish club, but I can't recall the exact reasons.

As mentioned above, and as covered by various journalists on this matter, the junior clubs in the partnerships should always be asking the question Why?

The benefits to the senior club are obvious. While there are potential benefits for the junior club in best-case scenarios, the risks are clear as day.

[VincentGuerin]

8 hours ago, Chris Partlow said:

There's plenty of clubs worldwide who have formal and informal agreements. A wide range of situations with both good and bad outcomes. No one knows the full extent of what this deal entails yet. Your confident assertions that transfer policy and team selection are being handed over to a guy buying a 30% stake in the club are at best, wild speculation at this stage.

The deal exists because both parties see the benefits of it. This 'fundamental erosion of identity' is nonsense.

He's buying 30% at this stage. And you always have to come back to the question of Why? If Bournemouth aren't going to have considerable sway over transfer policy as discussed and over team selection as suits them, then what's the point for them? A lot of Hibs fans seem to be expecting large benefits for no real cost. That's pie in the sky stuff.

Erosion of identity is a personal viewpoint. People will see it differently. If it were my club, I'd be genuinely dismayed at the idea that we no longer existed primarily for our own ends. And, again, other than to serve Bournemouth's needs, what is the point of this for them?

I think a few Hibs fans are avoiding the obvious issue os asking why here.

[Leith Green]

11 minutes ago, Molotov said:

If Hibs and Bournemouth both qualify for the same European competition would there be any issues if the clubs were drawn against each other?

There is a lengthy article on this as it’s a quite common issue given the number of teams working like this.

https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/multi-club-ownership-in-football-a-summer-of-discontent/#:~:text=The rise of multi-club ownership&text=The benefits are clear.,with player transfers and loans.
 

You do realise that the - rumoured - injection of money to Hibs is via the purchase of a minority stake?

Ultimately the numbers depends if its existing shares being purchased or new shares being issued - but either way, the Gordon family would still have at least 50% more shares than these new investors, and HSL and other small investors would still have almost the same as the new investors.

[VincentGuerin]

2 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

You do realise that the - rumoured - injection of money to Hibs is via the purchase of a minority stake?

Ultimately the numbers depends if its existing shares being purchased or new shares being issued - but either way, the Gordon family would still have at least 50% more shares than these new investors, and HSL and other small investors would still have almost the same as the new investors.

It's completely common for people taking over clubs to begin as minority investors.

Again, the question of why remains. What's in it for Bournemouth's owner to invest here, but have no real say in a way that benefits the primary club?

Hibs will never generate revenue to make that remotely worthwhile.

So, the idea that this remains a light-touch investment with no strings attached is delusional on the level of the Vlad-Sheep.

[Zing.]

21 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

He's buying 30% at this stage. And you always have to come back to the question of Why? If Bournemouth aren't going to have considerable sway over transfer policy as discussed and over team selection as suits them, then what's the point for them? A lot of Hibs fans seem to be expecting large benefits for no real cost. That's pie in the sky stuff.

Erosion of identity is a personal viewpoint. People will see it differently. If it were my club, I'd be genuinely dismayed at the idea that we no longer existed primarily for our own ends. And, again, other than to serve Bournemouth's needs, what is the point of this for them?

I think a few Hibs fans are avoiding the obvious issue is asking why here.

More money to spend on better players which would hopefully then lead to better performances on the park. Foley is quoted as saying he believes he could turn a club in Scotland into a regular third place finisher while not needing a huge investment to do so. Hibs being shite has no benefit to him or to Bournemouth.

[VincentGuerin]

1 minute ago, Zing. said:

More money to spend on better players which would hopefully then lead to better performances on the park. Foley is quoted as saying he believes he could turn a club in Scotland into a regular third place finisher while not needing a huge investment to do so. Hibs being shite has no benefit to him or to Bournemouth.

What's the benefit of Hibs finishing third to him? Why's it worth the investment?

I think you're avoiding the obvious answer (psst, it's Bournemouth's FFP).

[Molotov]

I wish Hibs no ill will. Saints and Hibs fans get on ok with each other given our uneasy relationship with a certain group of supporters!

Spoiler

 

[AndyM]

14 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

It's completely common for people taking over clubs to begin as minority investors.

Again, the question of why remains. What's in it for Bournemouth's owner to invest here, but have no real say in a way that benefits the primary club?

Hibs will never generate revenue to make that remotely worthwhile.

So, the idea that this remains a light-touch investment with no strings attached is delusional on the level of the Vlad-Sheep.

Agreed on point 1. Nobody believes Sir Jim Ratcliffe is going to stay as a minority shareholder at Man United. The same would go for this mob at Hibs. I have felt for a while that after Ron's sad passing that the Gordon family would be amenable to a sale. They handed Hibs half a million to go buy Ellie Youan last summer. I don't see them making an annual donation like that every year. 

These "multi club portfolios" are popular with sports groups but there's no doubt we would be junior partners and that leaves me uncomfortable. Hibs are a traditionally bigger club than Bournemouth. Bigger support, bigger better stadium and based in a cosmopolitan European capital rather than a retirement village for old Tories. However economics dictates we are not despite the history and the fanbase. 

Correct on Point 3. We won't and neither will our other fellow larger diddies the Jambos and the Dons. We are where we are. Generally Top 6 clubs that have zero chance of winning the League but might get lucky in one of the cups once every decade or two.  Turnover is generally between 15 and 20m tops (that won't buy a Premiership strikers left leg) if you are lucky in the draw in Europe and don't run into an Aston Villa.  

As a small shareholder in Hibs I want to see the details of this and the business strategy and plan.  Put me down as a not convinced. 

[Molotov]

Hope they don’t plan on changing your club badge which is a fcuking cracker. 
There are eejits down south with this tattooed on their bodies. Arguably one of the worst club badges I’ve ever seen. 

[Zing.]

9 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

What's the benefit of Hibs finishing third to him? Why's it worth the investment?

I think you're avoiding the obvious answer (psst, it's Bournemouth's FFP).

His main point seemed to surround access to European competition for what he deemed a small investment. More likely to the attract better players that have a greater chance of being good enough to move onto the Premier League.

I personally think you have fully focused on the possible extreme negative in every single part of this deal because you are a Hearts fan. I get it. We heard similar on how bad the Gordon’s were going to be for us when they got involved. 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Zing.

[VincentGuerin]

7 minutes ago, Zing. said:

His main point seemed to surround access to European competition for what he deemed a small investment. More likely to the attract better players that have a greater chance of being good enough to move onto the Premier League.

I personally think you have fully focused on the extreme negative in every single part of this deal because you are a Hearts fan. I get it. We heard similar on how bad the Gordon’s were going to be for us when they got involved. 

Vlad's investment at Hearts was also based around access to European competition. As mentioned by your friend in Hibernian above, that doesn't seem likely to be an annual source of huge revenue. How likely are Hibs to qualify for the Europa League every year? And, it's worth noting that Hearts cleared around £3m profit from Europe last season. Is that really worth it?

Seems far-fetched to me. The obious answer is that you'll benefit Bournemouth's FFP and give them a place to put players as it suits them, and occasionally take players from.

I'm focusing on the negatives purely because any mention of them seems to be missing from the Hibs discussion of this (Andym excepted). The supposed benefits are well-known, but, I think exaggerated.

When Vlad came to Hearts we didn't ask the right questions. The difference is that we had little choice. We were moving to Murrayfield and likely oblivion.

Hibs are in a good position just now. Likely to qualify for Europe for a second season running, a modern stadium, growing revenue. It seems you're giving up a lot here without really being interested in questioning the motivations of the guy turning you into a feeder club. You're not asking the right questions.

There are huge red flags here.

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by VincentGuerin

[AndyM]

7 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Vlad's investment at Hearts was also based around access to European competition. As mentioned by your friend in Hibernian above, that doesn't seem likely to be an annual source of huge revenue. How likely are Hibs to qualify for the Europa League every year? And, it's worth noting that Hearts cleared around £3m profit from Europe last season. Is that really worth it?

Seems far-fetched to me. The obious answer is that you'll benefit Bournemouth's FFP and give them a place to put players as it suits them, and occasionally take players from.

I'm focusing on the negatives purely because any mention of them seems to be missing from the Hibs discussion of this (Andym excepted). The supposed benefits are well-known, but, I think exaggerated.

When Vlad came to Hearts we didn't ask the right questions. The difference is that we had little choice. We were moving to Murrayfield and likely oblivion.

Hibs are in a good position just now. Likely to qualify for Europe for a second season running, a modern stadium, growing revenue. It seems you're giving up a lot here without really being interested in questioning the motivations of the guy turning you into a feeder club. You're not asking the right questions.

There are huge red flags here.

 

Re Vlad: you guys were so desperate to be shot of  Chris Robinson and his plan to move to Murrayfield and sell Tynecastle to wipe out the debt that it was natural to jump on board with Vlad.

The parallels from that situation aren't there at Hibs. The Gordon family have been responsible owners. There is no debt. They can point to the revenue growth since taking over from Sir Tom.  Sponsorship levels have grown as have the number of strategic partners at the club. We can see new function suites which are busy  and the club is making good money on match days and on some non match days.

I don't want Hibs to be an afterthought. The fact is that Bournemouth will always be likely candidates to end up back in the English Championship. If that situation arises as is likely, where does that leave us? Would the new owners punt everything on getting Bournemouth back to the promised land and where does that leave Hibs?  

 

[JamesM82]

18 hours ago, Tommy Tappin said:

Huge number of updated filings made by Hibs to companies house today, presumably ahead of the Foley investment being green lit on Thursday. 

Looking at Companies House, I'm not sure the filings yesterday (12 December) are directly related to Foley. All the documents are revisions to "Confirmation Statements" from 2016 to 2022. I think I read recently that Hibs had noticed some discrepancies in their share register and would have to correct them. Presumably this is them updating the public record having made those corrections.

I asked someone who should know about these things and he says these corrections are a necessary "tidying up" ahead of the Foley investment, so there is perhaps an indirect connection. 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC005323/filing-history

Edited December 13, 2023 by JamesM82

[JamesM82]

12 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

It certainly damaged the club's reputation.

This is different, however. This is an undeniable change in Hibernian's role as a club. You now exist for the benefit of another club.

That's simply undeniable. You're third choice in a chain.

I'd imagine away from the bravado of the online world there will be Hibs fans horrified when the reality sets in.

I'm sure that Girona fans are "horrified" at being somewhere beneath Man City in their chain. They're top of La Liga and just scudded Barca 4-2. I'm also sure that Union SG fans are "horrified" at being somewhere beneath Brighton in Tony Bloom's priorities. They're top of the Belgian league and are playing Liverpool tomorrow night.

Of course, there are also examples of "feeder" clubs doing badly (e.g. Troyes got relegated last year), but it's hardly a death sentence. I've never been a big fan of multi-club ownership, but the reality is that it's here to stay and FIFA / UEFA aren't going to get rid of it. Why should we be the luddites? 

Edited December 13, 2023 by JamesM82

[VincentGuerin]

8 minutes ago, JamesM82 said:

I'm sure that Girona fans are "horrified" at being somewhere beneath Man City in their chain. They're top of La Liga and just scudded Barca 4-2. I'm also sure that Union SG fans are "horrified" at being somewhere beneath Brighton in Tony Bloom's priorities. They're top of the Belgian league and are playing Liverpool tomorrow night.

Of course, there are also examples of "feeder" clubs doing badly (e.g. Troyes got relegated last year), but it's hardly a death sentence. I've never been a big fan of multi-club ownership, but the reality is that it's here to stay and FIFA / UEFA aren't going to get rid of it. Why should we be the luddites? 

You've missed my point. People will always see this differently, it just depends how you see the world. f**k me, Newcastle fans have got on board with the fucking Saudi government, so football fans will always do the necessary mental gymnastics.

But even if Hearts were successful, it wouldn't be worth it to me. The club would be diminished.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

1 hour ago, VincentGuerin said:

A lot of Hibs fans seem to be expecting large benefits for no real cost. That's pie in the sky stuff.

Yet, you're taking the complete opposite view, expecting large negatives for no real benefits. The reality is likely to be in the middle of these.

 

[JamesM82]

2 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

You've missed my point. People will always see this differently, it just depends how you see the world. f**k me, Newcastle fans have got on board with the fucking Saudi government, so football fans will always do the necessary mental gymnastics.

But even if Hearts were successful, it wouldn't be worth it to me. The club would be diminished.

It depends on the details, doesn't it? I could see your point if Hibs just become a de facto Bournemouth reserve team, whose primary purpose is developing younger players for them. But I don't think that's what they have in mind.

[JamesM82]

2 hours ago, Molotov said:

If Hibs and Bournemouth both qualify for the same European competition would there be any issues if the clubs were drawn against each other?

There is a lengthy article on this as it’s a quite common issue given the number of teams working like this.

https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/multi-club-ownership-in-football-a-summer-of-discontent/#:~:text=The rise of multi-club ownership&text=The benefits are clear.,with player transfers and loans.
 

It depends on how much the management and control of the two clubs are integrated. UEFA set some rules in place after Red Bull started buying multiple clubs. They changed their structures after those rules were brought in, so UEFA allowed RB Leipzig and  RB Salzburg to play in the same group (which I think Celtic were also in).

[Tommy Tappin]

2 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

It's completely common for people taking over clubs to begin as minority investors.

Again, the question of why remains. What's in it for Bournemouth's owner to invest here, but have no real say in a way that benefits the primary club?

Hibs will never generate revenue to make that remotely worthwhile.

So, the idea that this remains a light-touch investment with no strings attached is delusional on the level of the Vlad-Sheep.

I would challenge the point in bold. 

Ron was a firm believer that Hibs revenue was grossly beneath potential. This is Hibs preparing for the next generation/evolution of football commerciality.

Could easily go tits up, could be a raging success. Likelihood is it'll be a rollercoaster that lands somewhere in-between.

Either way it'll be better than the monotony of our current existence. 

[Sortmeout]

4 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

I've not said that at all. People engage with football in different ways and people have different views about all kinds of things. Do you just think the same as all Killie fans on all issues?

For what it's worth, I don't believe that all the Hibbies on here are cool with it, but I doubt any will stick their head above the parapet to say so.

Had a look at the hibs.net thread on it, and there are cautioning voices there, and I've seen some on Twitter. No support is ever going to have one view on this type of thing.

How would you view it if Killie were taken on as a feeder club?

There’s nothing wrong with having a different opinion but you were on here making statements as if it was factual - Hibs will be made to do this, Hibs won’t be allowed to do that. That’s not giving your opinion that’s just making stuff up.