The stalls were said by the club to be 'an opportunity for supporters to have a chat and find out more about what the armed forces have to offer.' In other words, potential recruits please step right up.
To say this announcement polarised the Hearts support in two would be an understatement. A glance at both social media and the thread on this subject on the Hearts fans forum, HMFC Kickback, indicated the support either loved or hated Ann's idea.
It is no secret that Hearts has a military heritage. The team of 1914 that chose King and Country over a certain league title success is respectfully remembered every Remembrance Sunday.
Those who were uneasy with Ann's move saw little reason to broaden the military recognition even further.
Yes Hearts had contributed players to the soldier ranks when World War I broke out and yes it is right they should be remembered.
But there is a sense of historical anger that they and many others, be they footballers or not, felt obliged to or even shamed into signing up for active military service in the first place.
Especially as World War I was more about building or preserving an imperial empire - depending of course which side you were on.
There's been a move since the turn of the century to rally (read 'coerce') people into 'backing our boys', 'supporting our troops' and 'recognise the fine job that they do'.
Usually this comes from government and media members - most of whom have never even stepped into a recruiting office to enquire about what life in the forces entails, let alone hold a rifle, launch a bomb from the skies or torpedo a vessel.
One result of such drum-banging was the establishment of the aforementioned Armed Forces Covenant which was first composed in 2000 and adopted in 2007 by the Tony Blair-led government.
"Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices – including the ultimate sacrifice – in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service. In the same way the unique nature of military land operations means that the Army differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the Nation. This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant between the Nation, the Army and each individual soldier; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the Army throughout its history. It has perhaps its greatest manifestation in the annual commemoration of Armistice Day, when the Nation keeps covenant with those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in action."
All well and good. After all, those who serve and put into action the grand schemes and designs of their political leaders do deserve those same leaders to have their backs once they leave active service.
Sadly though, despite both Labour and Tory support for the covenant, neither party when in government has legally enshrined it in law.
The only time either party brings it up is to score cheap political points of the other when the next homeless veteran soldier/pilot/sailor story hits our front pages.
Seldom is anything done to make the covenant legally-binding. After all, the Erskine charity that has been caring for former armed personnel since 1916 would have no reason to exist if the government - red or blue - faced up to its obligations.
So where do Hearts fit into all of this?
While Ann Budge no doubt feels duty-bound to highlight how veterans have found it hard since being demobbed, surely the government should be the ones lobbied on this instead of non-combatant civilians who turn up at every home game at Tynecastle?
And why the recruiting stalls? If this is the beginning of other employers - the NHS, police, fire service etc - setting up stalls to provide advice and offer possible recruitment, then that would be acceptable and rule out special treatment or motive for accommodating one section funded by the public purse.
After all, the government has previous on not treating the emergency services too well either. Another cause for Ann to highlight in public?
One area of concern of the stalls was to what information would be conveyed to those enquiring about life in the forces?
Would a young 16 or 17 year-old be told of the rigorous training procedure? being sent somewhere to carry out a policy that you may or may not agree with? Having to kill someone? Or even risk being killed or maimed for life yourself?
Or were they given the standard enticing codswallop that we see when the forces advertise on the TV? Namely, great adventures, learning to ski, learning to abseil, make great mates for life and visit tropical paradises - all in the name of "being the best".
The above was the gist of the marketing act the forces recruiters who visited my school many moons ago. We were given all the carrots mentioned above as well as, and I quote from one recruiter, the "opportunity to kick some Iraqi butt".
Needless to say my old headmaster had to field a number of complaints from parents the following day.
It is hoped those manning the stalls outside of Tynecastle yesterday were more truthful than the TV adverts (and those who visited my school) about what life is really like in the armed forces. Not only when you're in them but what faces you when you leave.
One argument backing Ann's idea is that the forces should be honoured as "they keep us safe".
Since the end of World War II, armed campaigns taken by the British state has seen our country either be the aggressive party or be part of a group of other aggressive nations.
Examples (from many) being Palestine, Greece, Malaya, Korea, Kenya, Iran, Suez, Aden, Ulster, Iraq (on multiple occasions), Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.
The Falklands War against Argentina is probably the only one that could be classed as a war of defence - a British territory being invaded by another nation that was under a brutal dictatorship. But even then there is a significant grey area as to who are the rightful owners of the South Atlantic islands.
In terms of being kept safe, realistically, the public's first port of call is usually the NHS, the police and the fire service.
Maybe a day in celebration of those services can also be added to the Tynecastle calendar? After all, the emergency services are often said to be needing more nurses, more bobbies on the beat and more firemen to ease their respective burdens.
It would certainly be a more appealing career than being sent off to a foreign land to kill people who you've never had a quarrel with. But they will have an issue with you once you disembark from your landing craft in order to secure an oil or gas pipeline contract for your political leader's mates in the City.
Hearts have already lost good men to military conflict fought on behalf of land and money-grabbing politicians.
We don't need to lose anymore. Be they player or supporter.