Hands On Hibs - No Substance. Unhelpful Voice

***CropleyWasGod*** · 21-01-2015 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Lurkio

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Lloyds want out of football. That is why deals have been agreed with Dundee Utd, Aberdeen and Kilmarnock. Based of numbers from those clubs' accounts it looks like the Bank discounted their debt down to 30% which is in line with the £1.872M that Mikey quoted earlier. The other clubs were also servicing their bank debts before the deals were made so Hibs is not unique in paying their bills when they fall due, unlike another city club.

Did you read my post?

Using the accounts figures, my explanation makes much more sense than the bank writing off 70%.

**kano** · 21-01-2015 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by underscore

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

HOH and BuyHibs are not supporters groups.

EH? How does that work out? HOH is a group of Hibernian supporters i can guarantee that.

**SunshineOnLeith** · 21-01-2015 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You can use the accounts, and the club statements.

HOH don't like being directed to actual proof and legal documents. Have you got a badly photoshopped movie poster or inflammatory Twitter account you can post instead, please?

***Brightside*** · 21-01-2015 10:50 AM

That statement from BuyHibs is awful. Very thankfull they got their 15 mins of fame and will have nothing to do with the running of Hibs moving forward.

***BSEJVT*** · 21-01-2015 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Lurkio

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Lloyds want out of football. That is why deals have been agreed with Dundee Utd, Aberdeen and Kilmarnock. Based of numbers from those clubs' accounts it looks like the Bank discounted their debt down to 30% which is in line with the £1.872M that Mikey quoted earlier. The other clubs were also servicing their bank debts before the deals were made so Hibs is not unique in paying their bills when they fall due, unlike another city club.

Even in the unlikely event that you were correct, what's not to like about the deal

The debt has been virtually halved (last years losses took the inter company loan up to £2.5m before the deal plus bank debt of around £7m) and the current shareholders give away half of their assets totalling over £20m in exchange for supporters investing £2.5m into the club.

Those supporters now control a majority shareholding and have the voice so many have wished for.

Why wouldn't you like that?

**jabis** · 21-01-2015 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by kano

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can you answer my questions? Funny that, every Hibs supporter I speak to including at the game on Saturday i've yet to hear anyone back Farmer/Petrie or their new proposals. Sorry, no one has counted how many activists. If you had been brave enough to come to any meetings you would have a better idea. I would guess at over one hundred. That's people prepared to go out and do something, not sit in the house with their cats typing on a laptop. Pat Stanton was never HOH chairman. HOH don't have a chairman, please keep up. Ive no idea how many people are members of BuyHibs you would need to ask them.

I support RP and STF ,so that blows one of your quotes out the water......in fact,every hibs fan I've talked to,including Saturday's game supports it !!

***BSEJVT*** · 21-01-2015 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by kano

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

EH? How does that work out? HOH is a group of Hibernian supporters i can guarantee that.

There is a difference between being a group of supporters which could number as little as 2 not that I am suggesting that) and a supporters group such as HSA or the Shareholders Association, ie, a formal group with a constitution and properly elected officials.

**Andy74** · 21-01-2015 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by kano

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why cant Farmer/Petrie tell us the deal with the bank. They could also include the details of the 5m owed to the 'holding company?' Then no one needs to second guess anything. Or is that too transparent for them?

They have said it is commerically sensitive. A bank would not want details of any settlement, if there was a small one, disclosed.

Overall all you can take all the other detail into account though and take a view as to whether we are being screwed or not though?

What details of the £5m would be important to you? The odd percentage point? Would this be a suitable way to recoup what they have written off and the value of the dilution of the shareholding?

A wee bit of thinking things through would be good,

**~~Lurkio~~** · 21-01-2015 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by BSEJVT

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ever heard of confidentiality agreements?

There is no way the Bank would permit them to divulge such details or you would have a queue from Lands End to John O'Groats of companies and individuals seeking to do the same and telling the Bank you did it for Hibs why not me?

From Dundee Utd's accounts from 2013:

"The negotiated terms included the payment of £1.45M on the entering of the agreement ............The borrowings due to the bank at the date of enering the arrangement were £4.7M"

There was also a contingent liability that the bank would receive a share of transfers received up to Aug 2015. So the bank will have received a share of the Gauld and Roberson transfers in addition to the up front sum.

In Aberdeen's case they have a similar contingent liability if the club sells Pittodrie at a sum higher than an agreed figure.

It is entirely possible that Hibs will also have a similar contingent liability, but we may not see that information until the next accounts are published.

**kano** · 21-01-2015 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You can use the accounts, and the club statements.

Im aware of that. Still no finer details in either of them though. Dempster said at the recent meeting with HOH and HSL "No details of the deal with the bank or the holding company will be shown" #NorthKorea

**Andy74** · 21-01-2015 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Lurkio

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Lloyds want out of football. That is why deals have been agreed with Dundee Utd, Aberdeen and Kilmarnock. Based of numbers from those clubs' accounts it looks like the Bank discounted their debt down to 30% which is in line with the £1.872M that Mikey quoted earlier. The other clubs were also servicing their bank debts before the deals were made so Hibs is not unique in paying their bills when they fall due, unlike another city club.

Sorry, but none of that is likely in our situation, and I know all about banks! It doesn't tally with the statements or the figures either.

Would still be a good deal mind you but I don't believe it was the case.

***CropleyWasGod*** · 21-01-2015 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by kano

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Im aware of that. Still no finer details in either of them though. Dempster said at the recent meeting with HOH and HSL "No details of the deal with the bank or the holding company will be shown" #NorthKorea

What finer details would you want?

**kano** · 21-01-2015 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by BSEJVT

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There is a difference between being a group of supporters which could number as little as 2 not that I am suggesting that) and a supporters group such as HSA or the Shareholders Association, ie, a formal group with a constitution and properly elected officials.

Sound mate, ill give you a shout when we swap the hoodies for blazers and you can let us know if we're a supporters group.

**~~Lurkio~~** · 21-01-2015 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by BSEJVT

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Even in the unlikely event that you were correct, what's not to like about the deal

The debt has been virtually halved (last years losses took the inter company loan up to £2.5m before the deal plus bank debt of around £7m) and the current shareholders give away half of their assets totalling over £20m in exchange for supporters investing £2.5m into the club.

Those supporters now control a majority shareholding and have the voice so many have wished for.

Why wouldn't you like that?

As I said in my original post, the rest of the deal is fine. The club has reduced its debt which is fantastic, but if I am correct in my assertions, then the Board is being disingenious to suggest that the holding company has written off £4.5M (in real money) and taken new shares in return, when all they have done is add the settlement figure to the previous £3M owed to the holding company.

**The Falcon** · 21-01-2015 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by kano

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Im aware of that. Still no finer details in either of them though. Dempster said at the recent meeting with HOH and HSL "No details of the deal with the bank or the holding company will be shown" #NorthKorea

Why don't HoH or BuyHibs just buy the club outright?

***BSEJVT*** · 21-01-2015 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Lurkio

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

From Dundee Utd's accounts from 2013:

"The negotiated terms included the payment of £1.45M on the entering of the agreement ............The borrowings due to the bank at the date of enering the arrangement were £4.7M"

There was also a contingent liability that the bank would receive a share of transfers received up to Aug 2015. So the bank will have received a share of the Gauld and Roberson transfers in addition to the up front sum.

In Aberdeen's case they have a similar contingent liability if the club sells Pittodrie at a sum higher than an agreed figure.

It is entirely possible that Hibs will also have a similar contingent liability, but we may not see that information until the next accounts are published.

No two deals are the same so its irrelevant

Look at the comparative financial positions of the respective owners of the 3 clubs and tell me that STF wasn't good for our borrowings and there was some doubt the others were.

Our borrowings came from capital projects like rebuilding ER & East Mains, their's came from loss upon loss on the playing side.

There is a world of difference between the respective positions.

**kano** · 21-01-2015 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What finer details would you want?

Them all.

***CropleyWasGod*** · 21-01-2015 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Lurkio

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As I said in my original post, the rest of the deal is fine. The club has reduced its debt which is fantastic, but if I am correct in my assertions, then the Board is being disingenious to suggest that the holding company has written off £4.5M (in real money) and taken new shares in return, when all they have done is add the settlement figure to the previous £3M owed to the holding company.

I'll post this again, since you seem to have missed it:-

The bank debt would have been about £6.25m in December (taking the July figures, less about £65k for repayments since then). Adding the holding company debt at July of £2.75 gives us £9m. Halving that, which is what they're telling us they did, gives the £4.5m conversion from loans to shares.

In that scenario, the bank has written off almost nothing, and the Holding Company £4.5m.

**kano** · 21-01-2015 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by The Falcon

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why don't HoH or BuyHibs just buy the club outright?

HOH do not want to buy the club, wear blazers or a seat on the board. Please keep up.

**Andy74** · 21-01-2015 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Lurkio

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As I said in my original post, the rest of the deal is fine. The club has reduced its debt which is fantastic, but if I am correct in my assertions, then the Board is being disingenious to suggest that the holding company has written off £4.5M (in real money) and taken new shares in return, when all they have done is add the settlement figure to the previous £3M owed to the holding company.

Thast's fine, but the likelihood is that you are not right in your suggestion - nothing at all from any of the statements points to it. Using other clubs doesn't help, the situations and arrangements are not the same.

The holding company ended up with a real debt of £9.5 million or so, the bank received all or most of its money.

If they paid a loeer sum to the bank there would have been no need to show the higher figure and then swap it for equity.

**SunshineOnLeith** · 21-01-2015 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by kano

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

HOH do not want to buy the club, wear blazers or a seat on the board. Please keep up.

You're cute, you mischievous wee scamp.

*ruffles kano's hair*

**Andy74** · 21-01-2015 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by kano

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

HOH do not want to buy the club, wear blazers or a seat on the board. Please keep up.

Who would you like to own the club?

**~~Lurkio~~** · 21-01-2015 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'll post this again, since you seem to have missed it:-

The bank debt would have been about £6.25m in December (taking the July figures, less about £65k for repayments since then). Adding the holding company debt at July of £2.75 gives us £9m. Halving that, which is what they're telling us they did, gives the £4.5m conversion from loans to shares.

In that scenario, the bank has written off almost nothing, and the Holding Company £4.5m.

I would agree with you if the club paid off the full amount to the Bank. I don't believe they did, so we may have to agree to disagree on that one.

The original debt to the holding company was actually £3M, not £2.75M. From the accounts there was a £250K "Parent company loan" in addition to the £2.75M in "Amounts due to parent company"

**kano** · 21-01-2015 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Andy74

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They have said it is commerically sensitive. A bank would not want details of any settlement, if there was a small one, disclosed.

Overall all you can take all the other detail into account though and take a view as to whether we are being screwed or not though?

What details of the £5m would be important to you? The odd percentage point? Would this be a suitable way to recoup what they have written off and the value of the dilution of the shareholding?

A wee bit of thinking things through would be good,

How about all the details? Thinking things through is great as is transparency. Especially when you're asking supporters to stump up an extra £200 a year on top of Premier League season ticket prices for watching Hibs play Alloa and Cowdenbeath.

***Brightside*** · 21-01-2015 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by kano

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How about all the details? Thinking things through is great as is transparency. Especially when you're asking supporters to stump up an extra £200 a year on top of Premier League season ticket prices for watching Hibs play Alloa and Cowdenbeath.

Dont pay it than.

**~~Peevemor~~** · 21-01-2015 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by kano

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How about all the details? Thinking things through is great as is transparency. Especially when you're asking supporters to stump up an extra £200 a year on top of Premier League season ticket prices for watching Hibs play Alloa and Cowdenbeath.

I'm not sure you know what that means.

**kano** · 21-01-2015 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Andy74

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Who would you like to own the club?

Did you not read the full thread? HOH statement makes it clear.

**Andy74** · 21-01-2015 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by kano

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How about all the details? Thinking things through is great as is transparency. Especially when you're asking supporters to stump up an extra £200 a year on top of Premier League season ticket prices for watching Hibs play Alloa and Cowdenbeath.

The point I am making is, what details would make a difference here?

The evidence is that our debt was around £9.5 million - you can see and check that.

Our debt is now £5 million and payable to the holding compnay. No one has security over our assets anymore.

£4.5 million is effectively being written off and the current owners are making available new shares that would half the value of their shareholdings and half the influence they have.

So, what would be in the detail of the £5m that would trouble you - do you reckon the interest rate might be 100 % and payable next year?

You lot keep looking for the next little thing that might be a con even though there is a pile of evidence that you are wrong. There is no leeway or angle left here for anyone not to be doing something that isn't in the best interest of the club and its fans.