Billionaire to Invest in Hibs

[Judy Murray]

3 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

And there's the issue.

You’re taking this news quite badly. Is everything OK?

[VincentGuerin]

1 hour ago, Judy Murray said:

You’re taking this news quite badly. Is everything OK?

Glib cliched responses and whataboutery aside, there's been absolutely nothing from any of the Hibs fans to address anything I've raised.

You lads are basically just walking into the unknown with a whole host of unanswered questions and nobody seems to have even noticed.

What strikes me as odd about it is that Hibs' hand isn't even being forced here. At the time of the SMG money Hearts were skint. At the time of Vlad we had no other option apart from moving to Murrayfield.

Hibs are doing absolutely fine and yet the support seem happy to be swept along with a story that just doesn't make sense, yet raises some pretty worrying questions.

Up to you, but it wouldn't be me.

In terms of the "taking it badly lol" bantz, I'm not actually concerned. Look at Hearts' and Hibs' recent turnover. There's nothing in this for Hearts to be concerned about. Some Hibbies seem convinced this will elevate them to some kind of new level. That seems very unlikely.

Edited January 31 by VincentGuerin

[Leith Green]

[ICTChris]

1 hour ago, VincentGuerin said:

 

Hibs fans repeatedly bring up SMG and Vlad, but don't seem to have taken on-board the lessons of those eperiences. When you're a mid-sized Scottish football club, be wary of people turning up and offering to throw money around while talking a good game.

 

When Romanov bought Hearts the alarms bells were ringing before he'd even done it - IIRC Dundee Utd and Dunfermline both turned down offers of his investment.  Romanov made his money in financial services during the break up of the Soviet Union, which is a locked in guarantee of criminality.  Sure enough his bank is now known to have been a huge money laundering operation, complete with murders to keep everyone quiet about it.  I don't know if any specific transactions related to Hearts were part of the money laundering but it's certainly possible that he bought Hearts to assist with it.  It's more likely he tried to emulate what Abramovich did and use being a celebrity sports owner to make himself very high profile and provide some level of protection.

It isn't really comparable to someone like Bill Foley, who is a 100% legitimate person and has extensive experience in sports business, as well as a very lucrative businesses in their own right.  He founded and is chairman of a Fortune 500 company.

I don't blame or judge Hearts fans for initially welcoming Romanov - the club was in a tight spot and if they had sold Tynecastle I don't really know what sort of club would exist now.  I do think that some of the people involved in Hearts who, IIRC, welcomed the sale and the new ownership might have raised the issues they surely knew were there.  I guess there was no other option on the table but people like Chris Robinson, Leslie Deans, George Foulkes cannot claim to have been ignorant about it.

[conboyhibs]

49 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Glib cliched responses and whataboutery aside, there's been absolutely nothing from any of the Hibs fans to address anything I've raised.

You lads are basically just walking into the unknown with a whole host of unanswered questions and nobody seems to have even noticed.

What strikes me as odd about it is that Hibs' hand isn't even being forced here. At the time of the SMG money Hearts were skint. At the time of Vlad we had no other option apart from moving to Murrayfield.

Hibs are doing absolutely fine and yet the support seem happy to be swept along with a story that just doesn't make sense, yet raises some pretty worrying questions.

Up to you, but it wouldn't be me.

In terms of the "taking it badly lol" bantz, I'm not actually concerned. Look at Hearts' and Hibs' recent turnover. There's nothing in this for Hearts to be concerned about. Some Hibbies seem convinced this will elevate them to some kind of new level. That seems very unlikely.

Struggling to work out your angle here.

What doesn’t make sense about it? What are the worrying questions? I think their plans have been pretty thoroughly explained by them and people on this thread. Can you genuinely see no positives here?

Not sure why myself and others are humouring you as it’s evident you’ve spent every minute trying to convince yourself that this can only be bad news for Hibs since the news broke. 

Listen, it’s likely that their investment doesn’t live up to many of the more ambitious hopes of many Hibs fans but I think it’s likely to be a more positive outcome than not.

As it’s a minority stake they’ll have, whatever happens, we’ll still be safeguarded by the other stakeholders & the Gordon family who’ve shown nothing other than having the best interests of the club at the forefront of their involvement:

Anyway, I don’t expect anything less than you doubling down on your gloom-ridden cynism because why wouldn’t you? Let’s see how it plays out.

[Judy Murray]

1 hour ago, VincentGuerin said:

Glib cliched responses and whataboutery aside, there's been absolutely nothing from any of the Hibs fans to address anything I've raised.

You lads are basically just walking into the unknown with a whole host of unanswered questions and nobody seems to have even noticed.

What strikes me as odd about it is that Hibs' hand isn't even being forced here. At the time of the SMG money Hearts were skint. At the time of Vlad we had no other option apart from moving to Murrayfield.

Hibs are doing absolutely fine and yet the support seem happy to be swept along with a story that just doesn't make sense, yet raises some pretty worrying questions.

Up to you, but it wouldn't be me.

In terms of the "taking it badly lol" bantz, I'm not actually concerned. Look at Hearts' and Hibs' recent turnover. There's nothing in this for Hearts to be concerned about. Some Hibbies seem convinced this will elevate them to some kind of new level. That seems very unlikely.

Plenty of people have addressed your points but you just dismiss them with meaningless pseudointellectual drivel about “concerns”, “worrying questions” and “unknowns” without actually articulating what we should be concerned about. 

[VincentGuerin]

13 minutes ago, Judy Murray said:

Plenty of people have addressed your points but you just dismiss them with meaningless pseudointellectual drivel about “concerns”, “worrying questions” and “unknowns” without actually articulating what we should be concerned about. 

The concerns were outlined on the Hibs thread a couple of weeks ago. Lots of unanswered questions about the eventual stake to be held, the level of influence and the extent to which Hibs will control their own football operation, Hibs' obligations in terms of taking (and playing) players, Hibs' obligations in terms of providing players, Hibs' ability to get out of this if they decide or discover it's not good for them. The P&B Hibbies (and Hibbies in general) just start going on about YAM FEAR etc, but they're all valid concerns.

So far Foley has basically said, "it's all cool, trust me". And Hibs' fans have said OK. It's a minority stake for now, but do you really believe the Gordons are keen to hang around for years? Why would Foley stop at a small stake if he's serious about this? This level of investment doesn't stack up, as outlined above.

And that's without the discussion about what this means for Hibs' status and identity, which their fans seem remarkably keen to just dismiss. That's why we're getting this parroted line from Hibs fans that "we're all feeder clubs anyway!". It's a false equivelance, and I think it's quite interesting that Hibs fans are so meekly accepting this. Let's be very clear; the other clubs in Scotland are not feeder clubs.

I've outlined all these things before, and Hibs fans have dismissed them without really engaging with them or seeming to actually know the answer to any of the questions. That's your right.

I'm quite sure that were this Hearts and not Hibs entering into this agreement, the P&B Hibbies would be making a lot of the points I'm making. If it were Hearts, my view of it would be exactly the same as it is with Hibs.

Edited January 31 by VincentGuerin

[coprolite]

6 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

The concerns were outlined on the Hibs thread a couple of weeks ago. Lots of unanswered questions about the eventual stake to be held, the level of influence and the extent to which Hibs will control their own football operation, Hibs' obligations in terms of taking (and playing) players, Hibs' obligations in terms of providing players, Hibs' ability to get out of this if they decide or discover it's not good for them. The P&B Hibbies (and Hibbies in general) just start going on about YAM FEAR etc, but they're all valid concerns.

So far Foley has basically said, "it's all cool, trust me". And Hibs' fans have said OK. It's a minority stake for now, but do you really believe the Gordons are keen to hang around for years? Why would Foley stop at a small stake if he's serious about this? This level of investment doesn't stack up, as outlined above.

And that's without the discussion about what this means for Hibs' status and identity, which their fans seem remarkably keen to just dismiss. That's why we're getting this parroted line from Hibs fans that "we're all feeder clubs anyway!". It's a false equivelance, and I think it's quite interesting that Hibs fans are so meekly accepting this. Let's be very clear; the other clubs in Scotland are not feeder clubs.

I've outlined all these things before, and Hibs fans have dismissed them without really engaging with them or seeming to actually know the answer to any of the questions. That's your right.

I'm quite sure that were this Hearts and not Hibs entering into this agreement, the P&B Hibbies would be making a lot of the points I'm making. If it were Hearts, my view of it would be exactly the same as it is with Hibs.

It’s not fair to treat the Hibs fans as a monolithic block.* I’m fairly sure a couple on here have expressed reservations. 
I’m even more sure that a fair few of the dismissive responses you’ve received to your essays on the subject are more a response to being talked down to than an accurate representation of the respondents’ views.
 

*ok, a couple are.

[VincentGuerin]

Just now, coprolite said:

It’s not fair to treat the Hibs fans as a monolithic block.* I’m fairly sure a couple on here have expressed reservations. 
I’m even more sure that a fair few of the dismissive responses you’ve received to your essays on the subject are more a response to being talked down to than an accurate representation of the respondents’ views.
 

*ok, a couple are.

Don't think I've talked down to anyone. Some posters play the ball not the man, I think I've stuck to the issues. I'm sorry you feel otherwise and will endeavour to do better in future.

I don't think pointing out that people are ignoring issues is talking down to people.

[coprolite]

2 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Don't think I've talked down to anyone. Some posters play the ball not the man, I think I've stuck to the issues. I'm sorry you feel otherwise and will endeavour to do better in future.

I don't think pointing out that people are ignoring issues is talking down to people.

I’ve outlined my views on this matter. You’ve chosen to ignore them. That’s your right.

[Tommy Tappin]

5 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

What points are those?

Not sure why you're making this some obtuse game. I just asked you a simple question. I don't see any reason you can't answer it.

 

I see a reason. The reason is that I don't play your game of ignoring other's responses and then produce 16 paragraphs of shite that you expect the rest of us to answer. That's why. If you can't remember my questions then go back and find them, boy. Chop chop!

3 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

 

What's being sold here doesn't make sense when you ask even the most basic questions. I get that it's hard for fans in any group to be the kill-joy who steps out of the general opinion, but there's a lot here to be at least very wary of.

So here you've managed to ignore the three times on this thread that I've used 'cautious' and both @Leith Green and @Judy Murray assertions that they too, are waiting for details before passing judgement. Not blessed with the gift of discernment are you? Or maybe being obtuse, which would be ironic. Or maybe just thick. One of them anyway. 

2 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

And there's the issue.

Here's something for Hibs fans to dissent about, Mercer. We don't forget and we don't forgive. There's nothing Foley can do that's worse than what Wallacesatan attempted.

And if it's very unlikely for Hibs to be elevated to a new level (something I haven't read any Hibs fan on this thread say by the way, you've made it up) then there's nothing for you to be worried about is there? We don't need you to be concerned on our behalf. Jog on. 

[VincentGuerin]

1 minute ago, Tommy Tappin said:

I see a reason. The reason is that I don't play your game of ignoring other's responses and then produce 16 paragraphs of shite that you expect the rest of us to answer. That's why. If you can't remember my questions then go back and find them, boy. Chop chop!

So here you've managed to ignore the three times on this thread that I've used 'cautious' and both @Leith Green and @Judy Murray assertions that they too, are waiting for details before passing judgement. Not blessed with the gift of discernment are you? Or maybe being obtuse, which would be ironic. Or maybe just thick. One of them anyway. 

Here's something for Hibs fans to dissent about, Mercer. We don't forget and we don't forgive. There's nothing Foley can do that's worse than what Wallacesatan attempted.

And if it's very unlikely for Hibs to be elevated to a new level (something I haven't read any Hibs fan on this thread say by the way, you've made it up) then there's nothing for you to be worried about is there? We don't need you to be concerned on our behalf. Jog on. 

I'm not trawling through the board looking for your post from weeks ago. Cheerio.

[Tommy Tappin]

Just now, VincentGuerin said:

I'm not trawling through the board looking for your post from weeks ago. Cheerio.

Laterz. 

[Wee-Bey]

The devil will be in the details of course and at this moment nobody knows exactly what they are.

I'm cautiously optimistic atm, it's a significant investment for the club (and a pretty insignificant one for someone with Foley's wealth) and an opportunity to kick on both on and off the park.

[MazzyStar]

31 minutes ago, D Angelo Barksdale said:

The devil will be in the details of course and at this moment nobody knows exactly what they are.

I'm cautiously optimistic atm, it's a significant investment for the club (and a pretty insignificant one for someone with Foley's wealth) and an opportunity to kick on both on and off the park.

Aye but look where that money comes from. 

[AJF]

Well that was a lot of reading.

[Chefki Kuqi]

I thought the idea was that he buys part of the club and has an agreement with the Gordons about Hibs' role in the footballing organisation.

Then he can buy players in from outside the organisation, and if they're not ready for Premier League level yet for whatever reason, be that language, ability, fitness or visa issues (As far as I'm aware Scotland is slightly more lenient in this regard? I read it on the internet so possibly BS) they can come to Hibs for a year or two. 

Now that itself doesn't sound 'amazing', but I'd wager that in order to make that experience worthwhile he'll be looking to bolster Hibs' 'permanent' playing staff so that these new folks are coming into something that's worth their time.

It's not the ideal situation at present, but it does sound slightly more promising than what we've been offered up over the last few years. At the very least I expect a positive impact to materialise more quickly than it did with the Gordons. They did many great things for the club in areas they had some expertise, but it was fairly clear that they were learning on the job when it came to the football side. These Black Knight chaps seem to have both a fair bit more experience in that regard and also a structure in place that can help Hibs from the off.

The quality, calibre and number of signings thus far in January has been appealing, albeit we've only seen them in limited amounts. Whether the likes of Luke Amos and Maolida were planned beforehand by McDermott, well who can say, but it's a fair certainty that these Bournemouth players wouldn't be seen up here otherwise.

I think any issue I have with anything that's been said here thus far is that we simply don't know how this will pan out, it's a venture into the unknown. People said the same about the Gordons when they arrived and whilst we've not had much success since then it can't be argued that they didn't have the clubs best interests at heart, even if they made blunders along the way. 

[Girth]

[GreenGray]

11 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

The concerns were outlined on the Hibs thread a couple of weeks ago. Lots of unanswered questions about the eventual stake to be held, the level of influence and the extent to which Hibs will control their own football operation, Hibs' obligations in terms of taking (and playing) players, Hibs' obligations in terms of providing players, Hibs' ability to get out of this if they decide or discover it's not good for them. The P&B Hibbies (and Hibbies in general) just start going on about YAM FEAR etc, but they're all valid concerns.

So far Foley has basically said, "it's all cool, trust me". And Hibs' fans have said OK. It's a minority stake for now, but do you really believe the Gordons are keen to hang around for years? Why would Foley stop at a small stake if he's serious about this? This level of investment doesn't stack up, as outlined above.

And that's without the discussion about what this means for Hibs' status and identity, which their fans seem remarkably keen to just dismiss. That's why we're getting this parroted line from Hibs fans that "we're all feeder clubs anyway!". It's a false equivelance, and I think it's quite interesting that Hibs fans are so meekly accepting this. Let's be very clear; the other clubs in Scotland are not feeder clubs.

I've outlined all these things before, and Hibs fans have dismissed them without really engaging with them or seeming to actually know the answer to any of the questions. That's your right.

I'm quite sure that were this Hearts and not Hibs entering into this agreement, the P&B Hibbies would be making a lot of the points I'm making. If it were Hearts, my view of it would be exactly the same as it is with Hibs.

It is a minority stake. Both the Gordon's and Foley have stated that there is no intention for anything more at this stage or the future. Plus, the SFA rules would block a majority take over, the only reason this has been approved is because it is a minority stake.

You are making up hypothetical situations in your head and trying to tell Hibs fans that they should be concerned about them, seek help.

[GHF-23]

Getting Pet Jeden flashbacks from VinnyG's posting here