Hearts FC & Brighton fans

[fatbadger]

From today's Scotsman interview with Doug Smith, chairman of Hearts, in which he admits to starting to doubt the wisdom of the proposed move to Murrayfield:

'Smith has ... been following the comments printed on these pages. "I've been reading the letters in The Scotsman and I thought there was a very good one from the supporters of Brighton in Monday's paper warning about how leaving a stadium which has been your home for a long time can rip the heart out of a club," he said.'

Scottish Seagulls (hopefully) making a difference in support of another club under threat.

 

[Jambo Seagull]

Well done Fat badger. I've just received an email from a mate of mine in response to the article:-

"You could go down as the man who kept Hearts
at Tynie.

A friendly against Brighton to celebrate?"

Who knows, eh? Maybe the tide is turning. I'll let you all know if a Fans Utd day is achieved.

 

[Skintagain 1983]

Fat Badger my Lord, Fat Badger......

 

[Mick Beard BHA]

fingers crossed its making a difference eh lads?

 

[On the Left Wing]

 

[Curious Orange]

I'm sure this probably isn't the end of the story. Please keep us informed of further developments, and let us know if further support is required - it'll be a nice distraction from Falmer.

 

[Soton Seagull]

just showed this to the Hearts fan I work with. He is well happy.

 

[Wozza]

 

[Sussex on Leith]

Just bought the Scotsman (which is not something I do without good reason), and it makes great reading (again, not something I associate with the Scotsman).

Fantastic work from Fatbadger and Jambo - great idea and a great letter.

 

[SeagullSimon]

 

[On the Left Wing]

Just for info ... I used to be Chief Investigative Reporter at the Scostman until 1997 when the paper was bought by the Barclay Brothers and their rottweillers Andrew Neil and Martin Clarke. I walked out in protest when they transformed a quality broadsheet in another Daily Mail which hung on Tory coat-tails. Over 60 of us left that year for very similar reasons - many without jobs to go to.
One mate left there (Rab McNeil) who seems to have weathered the storms created by a revolving door of editors since 1997.
So am pleased and somewhat surprised that The Scotsman has refound some of its community spirit.

 

[fatbadger]

great idea and a great letter.

The idea was Scotjem's.

 

[On the Left Wing]

scotjem

 

[Sussex on Leith]

scotjem

Agreed - sorry for my earlier oversight.

 

[Jambo Seagull]

Just for info ... I used to be Chief Investigative Reporter at the Scostman until 1997 when the paper was bought by the Barclay Brothers and their rottweillers Andrew Neil and Martin Clarke. I walked out in protest when they transformed a quality broadsheet in another Daily Mail which hung on Tory coat-tails. Over 60 of us left that year for very similar reasons - many without jobs to go to.
One mate left there (Rab McNeil) who seems to have weathered the storms created by a revolving door of editors since 1997.
So am pleased and somewhat surprised that The Scotsman has refound some of its community spirit.

The Scotsman is a complete rag these days, thanks to Brillo pad man. I have (almost) first hand experience of this. Shame because it was a good newspaper. For an Edinburgh based newspaper they seem to have a complete downer on Hearts in general although to be fair they hate Robinson more than they hate the club. There are way too many Hibbies working there for my liking. Mr McNeil is one of them. Wrote a quite scurrilous piece about the Hearts support
not so long ago.

Give them their due they are getting stuck into Robinson at every opportunity these days.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The letters from Monday's Scotsman:-

Road could be tough if home is not where Hearts are

SPORTS VIEW


SIR, - We are a group of Scottish-based supporters of Brighton and Hove Albion FC looking on, askance, at the goings-on at Heart of Midlothian FC.

During the 1990s, our club’s then board made the decision to sell the Goldstone Ground, the Albion’s home for 95 years, against the wishes of the fans and against the long-term health of the club, but in favour of the financial well-being of the leading shareholders. When the ground went for retail development in 1996, we first ground-shared at Gillingham’s Priestfield Stadium, and then returned to Brighton to our current but temporary home at the Withdean athletics stadium.

At enormous cost to the club and to the fans, a proposal is now in place for a new stadium, sitting on the deputy prime minister’s desk for his approval. Without his agreement, the Albion’s future looks bleak.

Since 1996, the club has had to fight exceptionally hard and against the odds for survival. As well as financial problems off the pitch, on the pitch the team has had to struggle against the atmosphere of a sports ground not designed for a football club, the capacity of which does not fit the club’s size.

Not only has the club suffered, but so, too, has the city of Brighton and Hove. The profile of the city has been diminished in tandem with the leading sports club’s status, and the economy of the city has been seriously damaged, as many businesses previously reliant on the club and the home and away supporters it attracted into the city have struggled.

Eight years on from the loss of the Goldstone, the Albion, thanks to the help of the local council, a new board and the determination and energy of the fans, is still in business - albeit in a very precarious state as it waits for John Prescott’s decision.

We have no wish to see any other club suffer as we have done, and we call on all supporters of Hearts, and all of the people of Edinburgh, to fight Chris Robinson’s proposal to sell Tynecastle and move the club to Murrayfield.

The potential damage to the club and the city is incalculable, and Brighton’s experience shows that once a club loses its home without a suitable replacement in place, the road back is a long and difficult one.

MARTIN ALDER, JONATHAN AUSTIN, ALASTAIR BAIGENT, MILES BAIGENT, JAMES BISHOP, NIGEL BISHOP, PAUL COLLINS, ANDY COPEMAN, IAN CUTHBERT, JEREMY GARNETT, GAVIN GRAY, INNES LAING, IAIN MANUELL, WILLIAM NEWELL, MARK NIXON, TONY PARSONS, SUE SALMON, JAMES SMALL, GRAHAM TYLER, TOM WHEELER

Sir, - How much longer can Chris Robinson ignore the wishes of the Hearts support? He wants the club to move to Murrayfield, yet produces no detailed plan to support his case. He then makes things worse by trying to put a positive spin on survey results that would scare the living daylights out of the chief executive of any other plc.

If Hearts move to Murrayfield they will still be in debt but have no assets to secure it against. The number of season-ticket holders will collapse, having a significant negative effect on cash-flow and revenues. The move, if it happens, will mean the end of Hearts.

I believe Peter McGrail’s plan is the way forward. It is well thought out and contains a level of detail, including summary financial projections, that Mr Robinson seems loath to provide.

I’d urge all fans to get behind the joint efforts of Mr McGrail, the Supporters’ Trust and the Federation so that we can save Hearts by putting an end to this Murrayfield nonsense and Mr Robinson’s reign as chief executive.

COLIN KAY
Edinburgh

Sir, - I write to correct a mis conception that seems to have been spun by certain parties and apparently believed by Mr Andrew Rosie in his letter to you of 1 March.

My plans for the regeneration of the McLeod Street site do not require the City of Edinburgh to "finance the whole project" - a requirement I agree with Mr Rosie would make it "pie in the sky".

The new sports stadium complex will be funded from private investment attracted by the revenue streams to be derived from the complex’s major retail tenants. These retail tenants will lease the space in order to supply their goods and services to the growing population, of increasing wealth, that has moved into Gorgie/Dalry over the last ten years due to the plethora of private housing development in the area.

The City of Edinburgh Council would only be leasing the school and sharing some usage of the sports facilities being built into the complex, thus reducing its capital cost.

The plan is self-funding as a result, and we have already attracted considerable interest in the project.

There has been much talk by members of the Hearts board about planning issues. There are problems, make no mistake, but they are not by any means insurmountable and they have not been looked at in sufficient depth by the current regime, despite what they claim.

PETER McGRAIL
Slateford House
Edinburgh

Sir, - Chris Robinson must live in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks the Hearts following will settle for the team playing at a nearby rented rugby ground. The club cannot possibly prosper if they sell assets like their worshipped ground. If they have no assets, then they can forget about approaching the banks when the inevitable arises. If the naive Robinson plan goes ahead, it is clear fans will depart the club in their droves. He should get out and go back to selling pies, which, if I may say so, were very tasty.

IVOR HILL
Danderhall


Today's Article:-

Smith admits to concern about switch

MIKE AITKEN


Key points

• Hearts chairman Smith expresses doubts about Murrayfield move
• Denies move is already a 'done deal'
• Hearts share price rises

Key quote"I am conscious of the need to listen and to have a dialogue with all the different parties...w want to keep the Hearts family together." - Hearts chairman Doug Smith

DOUG Smith, the chairman of Hearts, yesterday expressed reservations about leaving Tynecastle for Murrayfield next season unless "the vast majority" of the club’s supporters and shareholders back the controversial move.

If Hearts currently resemble a family at war over the stadium issue, Smith is prepared to play the role of peacemaker. In an interview which made many common-sense points and sought to strike a conciliatory note in the Murrayfield debate, Smith adopted a much softer tone than any previous comments made by the board in favour of reducing the club’s debts by selling off Tynecastle. Smith, in fact, highlighted the risks of leaving Gorgie when so many Hearts followers were set against Murrayfield and conceded the board had yet to win the argument for hearts and minds.

"There is a lot going on and plenty of dialogue about Murrayfield," he reported. "What I appreciate, as we found at the agm, is we have a 51-49 majority for that move. Now, for such a momentous decision, do you want to go to Murrayfield based on that narrow a majority? A lot of ordinary football supporters that I know from business are saying to me: ‘Doug, I’m worried about Murrayfield’.

"You could argue that Fergus McCann had a similar concept [about the stadium] at Celtic Park which provoked a lot of criticism and opposition at the time. Ten years later and he’s been proven right.

"I am spending a lot of time talking to people and if we go forward with Murrayfield then the issue will have to be decided at an egm. When that happens, then I think it must be something which the vast majority of the shareholders and the fans embrace. Right now, I don’t think we’re at that stage."

He added: "We’ve said we’ll look at Murrayfield, either as an interim or permanent option, and also consider any other viable alternative. There have been one or two suggestions made [about staying at Tynecastle], but none of them have been backed up by financial figures. Peter McGrail has his concept and we hope to have this meeting in about ten days’ time with all the interested parties."

Smith could hardly be accused of overstatement in his response since a series of polls and demonstrations as well as many letters to the columns of this newspaper have confirmed the staunch opposition of supporters against leaving Tynecastle. Moreover, among irate shareholders, the ‘Save Our Hearts’ campaign is attempting to raise sufficient funds to buy out SMG’s 20 per cent stake and by doing so, block any move to Murrayfield.

Whether or not the Supporters’ Trust are successful in that bid to tilt the balance of power against Murrayfield remains to be seen, but Smith understands the strength of feeling among rank-and-file supporters against the switch can’t be ignored.

"I am conscious of the need to listen and to have a dialogue with all the different parties," he said. "We want to keep the Hearts family together. People like Robert McGrail and Les Deans on their own represent around 30 per cent of the shareholding. Then, if you take the vast majority of the independent shareholders, that would take it to over 40 per cent. I look at that grouping as a very significant minority to try and persuade of the merits of moving to Murrayfield.

"I’ve spoken to a tremendous number of people since the agm and told them all that nothing has been ruled out. I’ve also received a lot of fair-minded letters asking sensible things [about the move] like how we’re going to get turnover up if we go to Murrayfield, is it an interim move or is it permanent?

"I’ve also talked to Robert McGrail [the shareholder who offered to buy Tynecastle and lease the ground back to the club] around once a week because he wants clarification on a few things and we’re also trying to set up a meeting about Peter McGrail’s proposal [to redevelop Tynecastle] with the Federation, the Supporters’ Trust, the shareholders and the fans’ forum. Whatever decision is eventually reached, it must be the right one for the club." As well as writing letters, e-mails and conducting one-to-one conversations with many Hearts’ supporters, Smith has also been following the comments printed on these pages. "I’ve been reading the letters in The Scotsman and I thought there was a very good one from the supporters of Brighton in Monday’s paper warning about how leaving a stadium which has been your home for a long time can rip the heart out of a club," he said.

Smith also rubbished the notion that a move to Murrayfield was already a done deal. Although he has no influential shareholding of his own, the chairman’s comments do appear more open-minded about what happens next than chief executive Chris Robinson’s pro-Murrayfield stance.

"Someone said to me that the outcome was a fait accompli," the chairman added. "I replied that it couldn’t be because we still had to have a dialogue with the SRU, the SPL and all the other interested parties. I also said that any shareholding change [between now and an egm] could veto Murrayfield.

"Others have asked me why we don’t just delay the whole process for a year and take more time to evaluate the options on an independent basis to give the decision more credibility. But if you wait for a year, someone will want you to wait for another and another.

"The big question mark posed by the anti-Murrayfield groupings is what happens if the team doesn’t play well in a stadium without atmosphere? What will be the impact on the club? I appreciate those arguments. On the other hand, what I would say in reply is how viable are Hearts if we stay at Tynecastle?"

Share price rises again but buyers' intentions unclear

THE Hearts share price continued to make a recovery yesterday with the value jumping a further 7½p.

It represents the biggest increase over a day since the price started to climb from a low of 17½p last month.

However, the hike did not come on the back of high market demand. Although almost 40,000 shares changed hands, six-figure shareholdings have been traded on six different occasions over the past month, without having as big an impact on the share price as seen yesterday.

It is not known who is buying up Hearts shares, or the intention behind the purchases, although it is now clear that any speculators who saw the stock as undervalued will have made a tidy sum over the past few weeks.

The improved share price could also have an impact on the attempt by the Hearts Supporters Trust and the Federation of Hearts Supporters’ Clubs to buy SMG’s stake in the club.

It was reported yesterday that one unnamed shareholder has pledged £30,000 to the campaign, although this represents a drop in the ocean when set against the £2m-£3m required.

 

[On the Left Wing]

The Scotsman is a complete rag these days, thanks to Brillo pad man. I have (almost) first hand experience of this. Shame because it was a good newspaper. For an Edinburgh based newspaper they seem to have a complete downer on Hearts in general although to be fair they hate Robinson more than they hate the club. There are way too many Hibbies working there for my liking. Mr McNeil is one of them. Wrote a quite scurrilous piece about the Hearts support
not so long ago.

Give them their due they are getting stuck into Robinson at every opportunity these days.

Rab McNeil is an unashamed Hibee ... but he was with the crew who were supporting National Falmer Day at Berwick until he and his mates - like Scotjem - were stranded at Edinburgh Waverley because of an signal failure! He's a good guy and a lot of what he writes is tongue in cheek!

 

[fatbadger]

Of course, the fact that SMG, the Glasgow-based media group, are involved in the Hearts fiasco has nothing at all to do with The Scotsman's criticisms. Oh no. Never. That just couldn't be the case. The Scottish media being all parochial? Surely not. etc etc

But no, being serious, it is important that The Scotsman keeps up the pressure on Hearts' board.

 

[On the Left Wing]

Tynecastle is a grand ground .... something of the same vintage of the Goldstone .... cummon the Jambos!!!!

 

[Jambo Seagull]

Of course, the fact that SMG, the Glasgow-based media group, are involved in the Hearts fiasco has nothing at all to do with The Scotsman's criticisms. Oh no. Never. That just couldn't be the case. The Scottish media being all parochial? Surely not. etc etc

But no, being serious, it is important that The Scotsman keeps up the pressure on Hearts' board.

SMG until very recently owned the Herald but sold it about a year ago. Ever since SMG got involved the Scotsman have had it in for HMFC. At least now they are reflecting the views of the vast majority of Hearts fans who make up a considerable portion of their readership. This makes a welcome change.