Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

[Peevemor]

According to their website, Wonga are extending the sponsorship deal.

Surely they're not planning an article about that!

There is indeed an article. What it doesn't say however is that Hearts employees are currently their best and most frequent customers.

[poolman]

There is indeed an article. What it doesn't say however is that Hearts employees are currently their best and most frequent customers.


http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/football/hearts/hearts-extend-sponsorship-deal-with-wonga-1-2862351


The sponsorship is thought to be worth a seven-figure annual sum to the Tynecastle club.




Aye right

[Peevemor]

http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/football/hearts/hearts-extend-sponsorship-deal-with-wonga-1-2862351


The sponsorship is thought to be worth a seven-figure annual sum to the Tynecastle club.




Aye right

£10,000.00 ?

[southsider]

It's a Wonga loan.....at only 3,422% (per month).

[Bostonhibby]

According to their website, Wonga are extending the sponsorship deal.

Surely they're not planning an article about that!

Bet the deal has a clause terminating it should either parties circumstances change in the future :greengrin.

Common for there to be a clause about changing terms or cancelling if anything occurs which devalues the deal or might harm the reputation of the sponsor but I can't see how that would ever arise for either party here!The FSA have Wonga in their sights, snd the yam didn't have much further to fall beforehand anyway! Ideal bedfellows.

[MrSmith]

Hearts’ commercial director, Vitalijus Vasiliauskas, said: “We’re absolutely delighted that Wonga is continuing to give such strong support to Heart of Midlothian Football Club and Scottish football for the remainder of this and next season.

Behind closed doors ....


Sergey, Sergey, you said to me eet ees wodka, wodka not wonga! Who ees zis wonga!

[Bostonhibby]

Surely they mean seven fingered deal?

[The Green Goblin]

http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/football/hearts/hearts-extend-sponsorship-deal-with-wonga-1-2862351


The sponsorship is thought to be worth a seven-figure annual sum to the Tynecastle club.




Aye right

That isn't all that much when you consider what they are facing right now.

[DaveF]

Has a figure been quoted anywhere to backup this 'thought to be 7 figure deal' or is it more propaganda from comicalbarry :rolleyes:

[Jack Hackett]

That isn't all that much when you consider what they are facing right now.


The eternal optimists (deluded) at the pbs will naturally assume that all of those seven figures will be a 9 though.....they are the BIG club after all

[shagpile]

Someone has come up with a scientific formula to explain all the complex stuff?

The chemical formula for hearts & anything to do with hearts is CH4.

Pure.

[hibeesjoe]

1 year 7 figure deal for a team struggling financially and playing in scotland. Must be total fantasy :hmmm:

[Moulin Yarns]

The chemical formula for hearts & anything to do with hearts is CH4.

Pure.

I smell *******

[s.a.m]

1 year 7 figure deal for a team struggling financially and playing in scotland. Must be total fantasy :hmmm:

....from a company which makes its money out of skinning the needy, desperate and vulnerable.:hmmm:

[Aldo]

Absolutely Nae chance if it being a 7 figure amount for 1 year (1,000,000 plus)

Mair like 7 figures 10,000.50 (seven figures)

Dream in #allisbarry

[Mr White]

more propaganda from comicalbarry :rolleyes:

:greengrin

[Geo_1875]

Someone has come up with a scientific formula to explain all the complex stuff?

I don't think it is complex if you put your mind to it.

http://www.tramwaysbowlingclub.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/_images/sheldon.jpg

Bazinga!!!

[Seveno]

These deals are dependant on performance and TV coverage. So if they win the SPL, they might earn £1m. On current standing ..........:na na:

[Treadstone]

....from a company which makes its money out of skinning the needy, desperate and vulnerable.:hmmm:

Wonga or the Yams?

[Jack Hackett]

Wonga or the Yams?


:greengrin

[Forthview]

If like the Jambores I only had 1 penny I would want it to be the 1 shown. Yum yum.

[The Green Goblin]

I don't think it is complex if you put your mind to it.

http://www.tramwaysbowlingclub.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/_images/sheldon.jpg

Bazinga!!!

:greengrin

[Zondervan]

Absolutely Nae chance if it being a 7 figure amount for 1 year (1,000,000 plus)

Mair like 7 figures 10,000.50 (seven figures)

Dream in #allisbarry

That's Numberwang!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjOZtWZ56lc

[Oscar T Grouch]

A "seven figure sum" ONEQUID, that's seven figures, didnae say numbers :greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

That's Numberwang!



What year is that clip from? It looks suspiciously like a philosophical underpinning for yamathematics, which became popular in some, er, quarters around 2005.

[MrSmith]

Read an article in the daily rubbish a few moments ago in relation to the wonga deal. It would appear that wongo are more than just sponsors. The article alludes to wonga taking over the backing in 2011 when UKIO pulled out and being a very involved party within Hearts. Interesting article reaing in-between the lines.

[hibeesjoe]

Mr Wonga, give hearts some dough. No no no no

[Keith_M]

I don't think it is complex if you put your mind to it.

http://www.tramwaysbowlingclub.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/_images/sheldon.jpg

Bazinga!!!


Slightly off topic but... boy is Penny HOT!!!!!!!!



:greengrin

[HibbyDave]

Just spent the afternoon in the company of a yam belIEVar. Just WOW.:ostrich: all is barry. They have the resources to trade their way out of the situation and "all is BarrY"
He offered me a £1000 bet that hearts would still be trading in 6 months (but would not commit to what version of hearts he meant!).

[Chibs]

Just spent the afternoon in the company of a yam belIEVar. Just WOW.:ostrich: all is barry. They have the resources to trade their way out of the situation and "all is BarrY"
He offered me a £1000 bet that hearts would still be trading in 6 months (but would not commit to what version of hearts he meant!).
You just spent an afternoon in the company of a yam who wanted to bet £1000 on the sote to still be alive in 6 months.
Just a guess but are you a shrink by any chance.
And did your patient have a straitjacket on at the time.

[suavegav]

Back of EEN today. He's basically saying he will sell Hearts at any price. Whoever does buy the Yams, remember it comes with a 25 million debt. Hahahaha.

:flag:

[Bostonhibby]

Just spent the afternoon in the company of a yam belIEVar. Just WOW.:ostrich: all is barry. They have the resources to trade their way out of the situation and "all is BarrY"
He offered me a £1000 bet that hearts would still be trading in 6 months (but would not commit to what version of hearts he meant!).

Was with a normally sensible yam at the weekend, he knows a few who claim to be in the know :blah: his version of the above is that they have enough to get to the end of the season then the reason its all quiet (?!) about what will happen next is there are 2 wealthy edinburgh investors who are putting up £2m each through the FOH and they have been assured that will be enough - one of them is apparently some rich old woman from Corstorphine - maybe theY were licking her windows and saw her pile of cash behind the sofa?

I gave up listening there as £4m didn't seem to hit the spot when adding up the floating charge, the legacy debt, HMRC and of course the ground and other running costs. All still does sound pretty Barry, one positive from the discussion was that he was pretty vocal about Barry and said there were many like him who were not comfortable with Bazzer being their self appointed, or otherwise, mouthpiece!

[Kojock]

Back of EEN today. He's basically saying he will sell Hearts at any price. Whoever does buy the Yams, remember it comes with a 25 million debt. Hahahaha.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/broke-vladimir-romanov-to-sell-hearts-at-any-price-1-2871975

Right I will start the bidding, two conkers and a beano.

[Treadstone]

Back of EEN today. He's basically saying he will sell Hearts at any price. Whoever does buy the Yams, remember it comes with a 25 million debt. Hahahaha.


BBC Scotland has learned Hearts are around £25m in debt, with £15m of that secured by the stadium and now controlled by the administrators of Ukio Bankas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21997929?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

A few questions.

Is that figure correct ? 'Romanov told BBC Scotland' , does this mean they have actually sent someone to do a bit of digging/get an interview ?

'BBC Scotland has learned' is this to replace 'BBC Scotland understands' ? :bye:

[matty_f]

I noticed he said they plan to sell 51% of the shares. Is that significant?

[blackpoolhibs]

I thought the mad one had been relieved of power, and Hearts were not under his control anymore? :confused:

[Gus Fring]

I thought the mad one had been relieved of power, and Hearts were not under his control anymore? :confused:


UBIG are the majority shareholders in Hearts, Romanov is a shareholder in UBIG. It's not his decision to make in his own.

This looks like another attempt to placate the fans, they come up every few weeks. If they wanted Hearts to be in fans control that badly then they would have done it by now. They just keep dangling the carrot so they keep spending money and keeping them afloat.

[Thecat23]

I've gave up myself with the whole will they won't they go bust. If they were I honestly think they would have done by now. I think they will get new owners and pay wages to the likes of St. Mirren, Motherwell etc.. The team will be a young one and will prob be very average at best. We will no doubt still struggle to beat them as Hibs have a now built in fear in my eyes not to attack them just hope we don't lose. Nothing will change apart from we will be on a more level playing field. Either that or this thread will still be going strong in 5 years time with the will they won't they???

[Gus Fring]

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/broke-vladimir-romanov-to-sell-hearts-at-any-price-1-2871975

Right I will start the bidding, two conkers and a beano.

Barry Anderson lifting all those quotes from the BBC without so much as a credit.

[#FromTheCapital]

I've gave up myself with the whole will they won't they go bust. If they were I honestly think they would have done by now. I think they will get new owners and pay wages to the likes of St. Mirren, Motherwell etc.. The team will be a young one and will prob be very average at best. We will no doubt still struggle to beat them as Hibs have a now built in fear in my eyes not to attack them just hope we don't lose. Nothing will change apart from we will be on a more level playing field. Either that or this thread will still be going strong in 5 years time with the will they won't they???

Fair comment, finding it hard to disagree with any of that. Whilst it will be good to see them on a level playing field for the first time in my life, it won't exactly be the punishment many of us were hoping for.

One thing I do think is a certainty to happen though is that they will lose the PBS. Even ignoring the whole security issue with UB, the 'stadium' is an absolute disgrace and in the not too distant future it will fail to meet safety standards and criteria. Although I don't think their fans will even be too bothered by this anymore as long as they're still alive

[Peevemor]

UBIG are the majority shareholders in Hearts, Romanov is a shareholder in UBIG. It's not his decision to make in his own.

This looks like another attempt to placate the fans, they come up every few weeks. If they wanted Hearts to be in fans control that badly then they would have done it by now. They just keep dangling the carrot so they keep spending money and keeping them afloat.

UBIG can't sell the stadium to anyone unless they repay UKIO at least the £6m+ (?) which is secured against it.

[Treadstone]

Barry Anderson lifting all those quotes from the BBC without so much as a credit.

Noticed that too. Screams inferiority complex. No pun intended.

[Just Alf]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21997929?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

A few questions.

Is that (£15M) figure correct ? 'Romanov told BBC Scotland' , does this mean they have actually sent someone to do a bit of digging/get an interview ?

'BBC Scotland has learned' is this to replace 'BBC Scotland understands' ? :bye:

could be... it was something like "£6.9M + an unspecified floating charge + additional costs" (not sure on the exact wording).... but this looks like they're now totting up the loan interest against the PBS...... making it even more impossible to save from a Yam perspective.

[truehibernian]

Slightly off topic but... boy is Penny HOT!!!!!!!!



:greengrin

Agreed, but Rachel from Countdown top trumps Penny.

[CentreLine]

UBIG are the majority shareholders in Hearts, Romanov is a shareholder in UBIG. It's not his decision to make in his own.

This looks like another attempt to placate the fans, they come up every few weeks. If they wanted Hearts to be in fans control that badly then they would have done it by now. They just keep dangling the carrot so they keep spending money and keeping them afloat.



Hearts will finish this season in the Scottish Premier League's bottom six

"I don't care about the price," said Romanov. "It will be up to the administration of the club to calculate the share price.

Interesting phrase here? It looks to me like he is acknowledging that the club will go in to administration. No? :dunno:

[MrSmith]

Hearts will finish this season in the Scottish Premier League's bottom six

"I don't care about the price," said Romanov. "It will be up to the administration of the club to calculate the share price.

Interesting phrase here? It looks to me like he is acknowledging that the club will go in to administration. No? :dunno:

I thought exactly the same thing! However, now administration talk is out in the open and appears to be a foregone conclusion, what are the SPL/SFA going to do about it?

[CropleyWasGod]

Hearts will finish this season in the Scottish Premier League's bottom six

"I don't care about the price," said Romanov. "It will be up to the administration of the club to calculate the share price.

Interesting phrase here? It looks to me like he is acknowledging that the club will go in to administration. No? :dunno:

No. He has no power at the PBS. I read it as the "current administration", ie the Board and executives.

An administrator would not be calculating the share price.


I thought exactly the same thing! However, now administration talk is out in the open and appears to be a foregone conclusion, what are the SPL/SFA going to do about it?

They can't do anything until it happens.

I disagree that "administration talk is out in the open ". It's only being discussed on here, the true home of the facts. :greengrin

[Thecat23]

Fair comment, finding it hard to disagree with any of that. Whilst it will be good to see them on a level playing field for the first time in my life, it won't exactly be the punishment many of us were hoping for.

One thing I do think is a certainty to happen though is that they will lose the PBS. Even ignoring the whole security issue with UB, the 'stadium' is an absolute disgrace and in the not too distant future it will fail to meet safety standards and criteria. Although I don't think their fans will even be too bothered by this anymore as long as they're still alive

I hope they do lose the ground but that won't shock me either if the manage to keep hold of that as well mate.

[Hibee87]

As far as I can see this is pretty much a non story at the moment. Vlad has had them up for sale for a while now, and apart from acknowledging he is potless (we already knew) and that he will sell to the FOH (or whoever) for what he can get, it still doesnt answer any of the questions that would effect the hearts. I.e what happens to the stadium, what happenes to the debt, and what is happening to UBIG? all the story about selling to FOH is irrelevant until we/they know about the debt and stadium.......which I guess we will have a cleared picture in a week or 2 once the 'proper' administrator is appointed at Ukio and he/they release any findings on HMFC and/or UBIG.

[#FromTheCapital]

I hope they do lose the ground but that won't shock me either if the manage to keep hold of that as well mate.


Yes its possible that they'll somehow keep hold of it, but in the long term I think they will need to move. There's going to come a time when the Asbestos Arena won't meet safety standards or SPL criteria (assuming their still in the top flight :wink:), in fact i'm amazed that someone has deemed it to be safe in its current state. Hearts will then be forced to upgrade it or get rid of it. Barring a miracle they're not going to have enough cash to upgrade so moving will be their only option. Surely any new owners will need to consider this before they take over.

[Thecat23]

Yes its possible that they'll somehow keep hold of it, but in the long term I think they will need to move. There's going to come a time when the Asbestos Arena won't meet safety standards or SPL criteria (assuming their still in the top flight :wink:), in fact i'm amazed that someone has deemed it to be safe in its current state. Hearts will then be forced to upgrade it or get rid of it. Barring a miracle they're not going to have enough cash to upgrade so moving will be their only option. Surely any new owners will need to consider this before they take over.

I bet the council will jump in with a "Joint venture" and bail them out. If that did happen i'd expect our board to be getting in touch and asking for the same amount of money for us to invest in our team.

[gegs70]

Did he not sell some shares in the club to raise funds to keep them going? If the ground is held against the debt surely they will seel each asset seperately. The club and ground that is?

[hibees 7062]

I bet the council will jump in with a "Joint venture" and bail them out. If that did happen i'd expect our board to be getting in touch and asking for the same amount of money for us to invest in our team.

:agree: You can put yer mortgage on that

[CropleyWasGod]

Did he not sell some shares in the club to raise funds to keep them going? If the ground is held against the debt surely they will seel each asset seperately. The club and ground that is?

He doesn't own any shares. UBIG are the major shareholder.

Selling existing shares in the club would not raise any funds for the club. The new share issue, however, did...... in theory. :greengrin


:agree: You can put yer mortgage on that

So glad you're not my IFA :greengrin

[southsider]

I bet the council will jump in with a "Joint venture" and bail them out. If that did happen i'd expect our board to be getting in touch and asking for the same amount of money for us to invest in our team.

Will they risk wasting good money on a new stadium for the yams ? Already millions wasted on the trams.

[MrSmith]

Will they risk wasting good money on a new stadium for the yams ? Already millions wasted on the trams.


Nothing would surprise me with this council! As long as Hibs get the same amount of assistance then, I would have no issue with it happening. But first, the council would have to knock this bedroom tax on the head. Far more needy things needing done than that needy bunch over there!!

[CropleyWasGod]

Nothing would surprise me with this council! As long as Hibs get the same amount of assistance then, I would have no issue with it happening. But first, the council would have to knock this bedroom tax on the head. Far more needy things needing done than that needy bunch over there!!

That's not in their power.

[WindyMiller]

I bet the council will jump in with a "Joint venture" and bail them out. If that did happen i'd expect our board to be getting in touch and asking for the same amount of money for us to invest in our team.


I'm surprised you can even face getting up in the morning.


:paranoid:

[Thecat23]

I'm surprised you can even face getting up in the morning.


:paranoid:

Just gave up thinking they are doomed. No point any more. This thread has been going how long? Think the quicker we stop worrying about them the better it will be if they crawl out it. If they did go pop then it's a bonus.

[Hibee87]

That's not in their power.

It will be when we become independant :wink:

any way back on the topic the council cant/wont build a stadium for the yams. At least not in the near future. The council and skint for a start, and to use tax payers money to build a stadium that is not needed would be met with objections at every turn, including the non football supporting element within the council. cardownie can bleet on about this as long as he wants but i cant see how they would get approval for this.

and even if the ydid, it would be a replacement for meadowbank, take years to plan, and even longer to build. it would have a running track and be used by the public and at the most i can only see around a 10,000 seat stadium as there is no call for anything bigger. including athletic events. theyll be playing in dunfermline long before a new stadium ;)

[CropleyWasGod]

It will be when we become independant :wink:

any way back on the topic the council cant/wont build a stadium for the yams. At least not in the near future. The council and skint for a start, and to use tax payers money to build a stadium that is not needed would be met with objections at every turn, including the non football supporting element within the council. cardownie can bleet on about this as long as he wants but i cant see how they would get approval for this.

and even if the ydid, it would be a replacement for meadowbank, take years to plan, and even longer to build. it would have a running track and be used by the public and at the most i can only see around a 10,000 seat stadium as there is no call for anything bigger. including athletic events. theyll be playing in dunfermline long before a new stadium ;)

It won't be in the Council's power if we become independent either. It will still be a Government matter.

However, I agree with you on the stadium question. It's been said often on here:- the idea of a Council-funded stadium is a non-starter. Even allowing for the idea (myth? truth?) that we have a Yam-dominated Council, they are politicians before they are football fans. They will not support a scheme that has the disapproval of 90% of the electorate.

[CropleyWasGod]

Just gave up thinking they are doomed. No point any more. This thread has been going how long? Think the quicker we stop worrying about them the better it will be if they crawl out it. If they did go pop then it's a bonus.

Not nearly as long as the story itself has been running. Pick any one from (1) the day the Pieman took the SMG money (2) the day VR took over (3) the day he sacked Burley.

The truth is that it has been, in commercial terms, a slow creeping demise. That has continued and will continue to do so, until its eventual conclusion. No-one knows yet what that will be, (IMO there is much enjoyment and disappointment yet to be had), but until that happens this thread will continue.

[NOLA]

"I hope the fans remember that if you believe, if you go for it, then everything is possible. You can win the Scottish Cup and become a champion."

So if we just believe then we can win a scottish cup too. Lol simple really.

[Aldo]

I think you'll find that in this current financial climate that the council don't have that sort of money to spend.

Do you really think the tax payer will be happy with their money being spent in bailing out that lot with a new stadium etc.

There would be utter uproar. My uncle and cousins live in Edinburgh and have said they will refuse to pay council tax if they do?? We shall see

[The_Horde]

"I hope the fans remember that if you believe, if you go for it, then everything is possible. You can win the Scottish Cup and become a champion."

So if we just believe then we can win a scottish cup too. Lol simple really.

But apparently no amount of believing can stop you from going bust, losing the league cup to a wee team or failing to win the champions league in 5 years?

[The_Horde]

"Believe" ahahaha

[#FromTheCapital]

;3553326']"Believe" ahahaha

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcToh-y9faCEA5SAkphRJAxP5DiKY8bX-i70PVZQCXFkwVY-TfNzOA (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=2OZa62QavtJZxM&tbnid=1jbFpZt0RcHMJM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bebo.com%2Fc%2Fphotos%2Fview% 3FPhotoAlbumId%3D3906262124%26PhotoId%3D3906275234 %26MemberId%3D2599773747%26PhotosOfMemberId%3D&ei=jvdaUfHZL4aH0AWqsICICQ&bvm=bv.44442042,d.ZWU&psig=AFQjCNFlUOOfpoB4Hj1z1goKDH0SWtLYgQ&ust=1365002393753502)



beLIEve

[Ross4356]

:agree: You can put yer mortgage on that

Yous sound like Celtic fans

[The_Horde]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcToh-y9faCEA5SAkphRJAxP5DiKY8bX-i70PVZQCXFkwVY-TfNzOA (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=2OZa62QavtJZxM&tbnid=1jbFpZt0RcHMJM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bebo.com%2Fc%2Fphotos%2Fview% 3FPhotoAlbumId%3D3906262124%26PhotoId%3D3906275234 %26MemberId%3D2599773747%26PhotosOfMemberId%3D&ei=jvdaUfHZL4aH0AWqsICICQ&bvm=bv.44442042,d.ZWU&psig=AFQjCNFlUOOfpoB4Hj1z1goKDH0SWtLYgQ&ust=1365002393753502)



beLIEve
:hilarious

[LeighLoyal]

Says he's put £60m into Hearts, I.E £60m of other folks money going by what his bank owes! UKIOS are as shameless as oldco hun and Murray's personal bankers in Bank of Scotland. At least he owned UKIOS mind you so that makes the old hun worse!

[Hibercelona]

Says he's put £60m into Hearts, I.E £60m of other folks money going by what his bank owes! UKIOS are as shameless as oldco hun and Murray's personal bankers in Bank of Scotland. At least he owned UKIOS mind you so that makes the old hun worse!

I don't know.

Maybe the oldco just about shade it, but Hearts are certainly doing their best to at least try and equal their deceased brothers.

[#FromTheCapital]

Says he's put £60m into Hearts, I.E £60m of other folks money going by what his bank owes! UKIOS are as shameless as oldco hun and Murray's personal bankers in Bank of Scotland. At least he owned UKIOS mind you so that makes the old hun worse!

Eastern Europeans live by a completely different set of rules to us. All of the deals they strike are back handers or done by slipping an envelope full of cash under the table in order to avoid tax. Corruption and money laundering is rife, there's no telling where some of that 60 million came from but you can guarantee that it's illegal.

[CropleyWasGod]

Eastern Europeans live by a completely different set of rules to us. All of the deals they strike are back handers or done by slipping an envelope full of cash under the table in order to avoid tax. Corruption and money laundering is rife, there's no telling where some of that 60 million came from but you can guarantee that it's illegal.

You are Nigel Farage and I claim my £5.

[greenginger]

I would be surprised if there were not already moves being made by Yam leaning Councilors and Officials to build a case for the purchase of the PBS from the council capital budget.

The excuse, sorry reason will be to protect and enhance the value of the Council's existing properties ( the old Tynecastle school, the nursery and the office buildings currently let to HOMFC.

It makes commercial sense to square off a development site and lease the ground back to the Yams until they build their new Wonga Dome, after carrying out any necessary safety works of course.

In other words, be prepared for a stitch-up !

[crewetollhibee]

What is the current position re their stadium's safety certificate ? Is it up-to-date ? Overdue ? Who issues it ?

[NOLA]

Yous sound like Celtic fans

Gonnae no

[brog]

Surely though Vlad effectively remains in charge at PBS. If I remember correctly the whole board of UBIG resigned but Fedotovas stated there was no change to shareholding. Again, from memory some diligent poster on here identified Vlad or his proxies as owning about 70+% of UBIG & as they own Yams has anything changed? If not then just who does own or is in charge at the asylum?

[CropleyWasGod]

Surely though Vlad effectively remains in charge at PBS. If I remember correctly the whole board of UBIG resigned but Fedotovas stated there was no change to shareholding. Again, from memory some diligent poster on here identified Vlad or his proxies as owning about 70+% of UBIG & as they own Yams has anything changed? If not then just who does own or is in charge at the asylum?

We can only go on what information is in the public domain. Sure, the latest we know is that Vlad, through UBIG, is probably still the biggest fish. On the other hand, we don't know whether he still has those shares in UBIG, for example.

My guess is that, since he knows he personally will get s'd-all out of it, he doesn't really care any more. Hence his saying that it's up to "the administration".

[brog]

We can only go on what information is in the public domain. Sure, the latest we know is that Vlad, through UBIG, is probably still the biggest fish. On the other hand, we don't know whether he still has those shares in UBIG, for example.

My guess is that, since he knows he personally will get s'd-all out of it, he doesn't really care any more. Hence his saying that it's up to "the administration".

Agreed but I'd be astonished if Vlad's not the man still in control. The quotes today re a sale of 51% are being attributed to him ( I know that's not particularly meaningful ) but no one else has stood up & said they're in charge. As other posters have said it's time this whole sorry farce was brought to an end!.

[inglisavhibs]

As far as I can see this is pretty much a non story at the moment. Vlad has had them up for sale for a while now, and apart from acknowledging he is potless (we already knew) and that he will sell to the FOH (or whoever) for what he can get, it still doesnt answer any of the questions that would effect the hearts. I.e what happens to the stadium, what happenes to the debt, and what is happening to UBIG? all the story about selling to FOH is irrelevant until we/they know about the debt and stadium.......which I guess we will have a cleared picture in a week or 2 once the 'proper' administrator is appointed at Ukio and he/they release any findings on HMFC and/or UBIG.
You are correct, this is old hat and repeating that Hearts fate will be determined by the new bank's decision on the 25m they are owed by UBIG/ Hearts. Talking about the debt, i thought under SPL rules that Hearts had to disclose their accounts from last year by 31st March?

[CropleyWasGod]

You are correct, this is old hat and repeating that Hearts fate will be determined by the new bank's decision on the 25m they are owed by UBIG/ Hearts. Talking about the debt, i thought under SPL rules that Hearts had to disclose their accounts from last year by 31st March?

They have to lodge them with the SFA by then. They may have done so.

[inglisavhibs]

They have to lodge them with the SFA by then. They may have done so.
Fair point.

[Criswell]

I like Vlad's quote about Hearts now operating at a profit and therefore do not need any more funding. Funny...I seem to remember a recent ultimatum to their fans along the lines of: unless we can raise £1.6 million asap the games up! So youse had better start forking out for these mickey mouse "shares" or else!

[greenginger]

They have to lodge them with the SFA by then. They may have done so.

I wonder if the SFA would respond to a polite inquiry on the subject. :greengrin

[Leithenhibby]

I wonder if the SFA would respond to a polite inquiry on the subject. :greengrin


You know you want too! .... :agree:

[Braids Hibby]

I like Vlad's quote about Hearts now operating at a profit and therefore do not need any more funding. Funny...I seem to remember a recent ultimatum to their fans along the lines of: unless we can raise £1.6 million asap the games up! So youse had better start forking out for these mickey mouse "shares" or else!
He's playing the clowns for fools and they still dance to his tune. Deluded or what :)

[hibs0666]

I wonder if the SFA would respond to a polite inquiry on the subject. :greengrin

[email protected] :wink:

[HIBERNIAN-0762]

[email protected] :wink:

Strongly but politely worded letter sent....:agree::agree::agree:

[jacomo]

Stuart Bathgate is promoting the latest hopeful scenario in the Scotsman today:

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/top-football-stories/confusion-over-romanov-s-statement-on-hearts-sale-1-2873832

It seems to run something like this: the Hearts supporters' groups all make friends and agree a joint bid for a debt-free club (presumably this means going into administration to wipe out the c. £20m that Hearts owe).

This leaves the £6.8m security over the stadium, but apparently the ground isn't worth that, so the Lithuanian Central Bank decides not to bother selling Tynecastle and allows Hearts to continue playing there indefinitely.

[Spike Mandela]

Every single solution put forward by Hearts fans or prospective buyers involves avoiding paying debt. Every insolvency event from the Pars, Dundee, Motherwell right through to Rangers involves the shedding of large amounts of debt.

Football debts are so worthless it is a wonder any companies want to do business with a football club.

Hibs for instance want to be seen as a model football club but in truth the way it is being run is to avoid Farmer and Petrie ending up losing a lot of money not to safeguard Hibs. Nothing at all wrong with that and admirable but If Hibs were to play the game, splash the cash, enjoy some good times then have an insolvency event it is the owners that suffer not the fans. We'd no doubt end up run by the next set of mugs, starting debt free until they'd racked up enough debt for the next insolvency event.

Administration is the way forward in football, the cheats charter , the pre packed way to success on the field.

Imagine if administration rules were actually tough and genuinely designed to recover creditors money. Imagine Rangers with no faux punishments, carrying on as they were but hamstrung by having to pay back ALL the debt to creditors they racked up over athe period of a payment plan with sanctions for non payment. Now that would be justice.

[connerg]

Every single solution put forward by Hearts fans or prospective buyers involves avoiding paying debt. Every insolvency event from the Pars, Dundee, Motherwell right through to Rangers involves the shedding of large amounts of debt.

Football debts are so worthless it is a wonder any companies want to do business with a football club.

Hibs for instance want to be seen as a model football club but in truth the way it is being run is to avoid Farmer and Petrie ending up losing a lot of money not to safeguard Hibs. Nothing at all wrong with that and admirable but If Hibs were to play the game, splash the cash, enjoy some good times then have an insolvency event it is the owners that suffer not the fans. We'd no doubt end up run by the next set of mugs, starting debt free until they'd racked up enough debt for the next insolvency event.

Administration is the way forward in football, the cheats charter , the pre packed way to success on the field.

Imagine if administration rules were actually tough and genuinely designed to recover creditors money. Imagine Rangers with no faux punishments, carrying on as they were but hamstrung by having to pay back ALL the debt to creditors they racked up over athe period of a payment plan with sanctions for non payment. Now that would be justice.

Well said, i like the "cheats charter" bit. :top marks

[CropleyWasGod]

Every single solution put forward by Hearts fans or prospective buyers involves avoiding paying debt. Every insolvency event from the Pars, Dundee, Motherwell right through to Rangers involves the shedding of large amounts of debt.

Football debts are so worthless it is a wonder any companies want to do business with a football club.

Hibs for instance want to be seen as a model football club but in truth the way it is being run is to avoid Farmer and Petrie ending up losing a lot of money not to safeguard Hibs. Nothing at all wrong with that and admirable but If Hibs were to play the game, splash the cash, enjoy some good times then have an insolvency event it is the owners that suffer not the fans. We'd no doubt end up run by the next set of mugs, starting debt free until they'd racked up enough debt for the next insolvency event.

Administration is the way forward in football, the cheats charter , the pre packed way to success on the field.

Imagine if administration rules were actually tough and genuinely designed to recover creditors money. Imagine Rangers with no faux punishments, carrying on as they were but hamstrung by having to pay back ALL the debt to creditors they racked up over athe period of a payment plan with sanctions for non payment. Now that would be justice.

The administration rules are, in part, designed to allow businesses to re-start, thus saving the State in benefits and maximising tax take. That is what happened in Rangers' case and in many other businesses every day.

Where would you expect the money for the creditors to come from? If that was to come from the phoenix company in every case, there would be no point in any administration.

[lord bunberry]

The administration rules are, in part, designed to allow businesses to re-start, thus saving the State in benefits and maximising tax take. That is what happened in Rangers' case and in many other businesses every day.

Where would you expect the money for the creditors to come from? If that was to come from the phoenix company in every case, there would be no point in any administration.

But its got to the stage were football clubs are just going down the administration route to avoid paying debts while well run clubs are suffering due to a lack of success on the pitch. There's nothing we can do about the law's of this country but the football authorities need to make going into administration an option that clubs would fear

[Spike Mandela]

The administration rules are, in part, designed to allow businesses to re-start, thus saving the State in benefits and maximising tax take. That is what happened in Rangers' case and in many other businesses every day.

Where would you expect the money for the creditors to come from? If that was to come from the phoenix company in every case, there would be no point in any administration.

Did Rangers not just have a share issue and raise £22m? Could Rangers not pay lower wages and pay off their debt? Are they not playing in a multimillion pound property which could have been given to creditors as collateral?Yes club onfield would suffer but it's their own fault , isn't it. If any business is worth anything as a going concern it should be used to pay off creditors first before investing large sums , in this case, on players wages.

Saving the state in benefits and maximising tax take? Come on CWG you are having a laugh HMRC are getting shafted right left and centre and I hardly think the amount in benefits to Rangers or Hearts employees is going to cripple the government.

No doubt administration is a lucrative business for the financial types among us but is nothing but a businessman's tool of last resort to avoid debt.

[CropleyWasGod]

But its got to the stage were football clubs are just going down the administration route to avoid paying debts while well run clubs are suffering due to a lack of success on the pitch. There's nothing we can do about the law's of this country but the football authorities need to make going into administration an option that clubs would fear

Hence the re-vamp of the rules to hit clubs with the 1/3 penalty.

[southsider]

Renting out your spare room to a pal for £25 a week would have Joe Public up in court feaster than a bank boss passing the buck. But screw the state, other companies and your creditors for zillions....Murray, White, The Wonga Dome Boys and hey lads try again next week but just change the names to Murrays, Whyte or maybe Pink Dome and its all fun and games again in the boardroom.

[CropleyWasGod]

Did Rangers not just have a share issue and raise £22m? Could Rangers not pay lower wages and pay off their debt? Are they not playing in a multimillion pund property which could have been given to creditors as collateral?Yes club onfield would suffer but it's their own fault , isn't it. If any business is worth anything as a going concern it should be used to pay off creditors first before investing large sums , in this case, on players wages.

Saving the state in benefits and maximising tax take? Come on CWG you are having a laugh HMRC are getting shafted right left and centre and I hardly think the amount in benefits to Rangers or Hearts employees is going to cripple the government.

No doubt administration is a lucrative business for the financial types among us but is nothing but a businessman's tool of last resort to avoid debt.

1. the company that took over Rangers are a different company from the one that racked up the debt. Why should they be responsible for that debt? If you took over, for example, HMV, would you want to take on the debt?

2. the question of the property has still to be sorted out, as you know.

3. HMRC have been shafted, but the administration route allows them the chance to recoup some of that by keeping people in jobs. Again, if you took over HMV, you would keep most of the staff. That is a plus for the taxpayer.

[7Hero]

Every single solution put forward by Hearts fans or prospective buyers involves avoiding paying debt. Every insolvency event from the Pars, Dundee, Motherwell right through to Rangers involves the shedding of large amounts of debt.

Football debts are so worthless it is a wonder any companies want to do business with a football club.

Hibs for instance want to be seen as a model football club but in truth the way it is being run is to avoid Farmer and Petrie ending up losing a lot of money not to safeguard Hibs. Nothing at all wrong with that and admirable but If Hibs were to play the game, splash the cash, enjoy some good times then have an insolvency event it is the owners that suffer not the fans. We'd no doubt end up run by the next set of mugs, starting debt free until they'd racked up enough debt for the next insolvency event.

Administration is the way forward in football, the cheats charter , the pre packed way to success on the field.

Imagine if administration rules were actually tough and genuinely designed to recover creditors money. Imagine Rangers with no faux punishments, carrying on as they were but hamstrung by having to pay back ALL the debt to creditors they racked up over athe period of a payment plan with sanctions for non payment. Now that would be justice.

Excellently put Spike, the hibs model isn't worth a sook, were all still waiting for the day where we will be pumping all these debt ridden clubs.. Simply never going to happen, the rest will get away with murder while we balance the books all in the name of sporting integrity..

[greenginger]

Renting out your spare room to a pal for £25 a week would have Joe Public up in court feaster than a bank boss passing the buck. But screw the state, other companies and your creditors for zillions....Murray, White, The Wonga Dome Boys and hey lads try again next week but just change the names to Murrays, Whyte or maybe Pink Dome and its all fun and games again in the boardroom.

Not quite accurate. You can rent out rooms in your house/flat up to a total of £4250/year tax free, under the HMRC rent-a-room scheme.
But I agree with the point you are making. :greengrin

[Lucius Apuleius]

As far as I can see we have great difficulties in seperating the law from emotions. Of course The Rangers are going to claim that all the trophies etc belong to them and their history is continuous, so would we, lets be honest. Problem is of course that by law they are a different company and not liable for the debts Rangers FC amassed. It is time to let it go in my opinion. That does not mean that I don't argue with every hun I meet (a lot) that they have a moral and in my view social responsibility to repay the small businesses that the Oldco owed money to. Neither does this mean that I have any sympathy with them by the way and that.:greengrin

The new rules brought in by the SFA have to be swingeing enough to punish. That is the bit that remains to be seen if they will or not.

[CropleyWasGod]

As far as I can see we have great difficulties in seperating the law from emotions. Of course The Rangers are going to claim that all the trophies etc belong to them and their history is continuous, so would we, lets be honest. Problem is of course that by law they are a different company and not liable for the debts Rangers FC amassed. It is time to let it go in my opinion. That does not mean that I don't argue with every hun I meet (a lot) that they have a moral and in my view social responsibility to repay the small businesses that the Oldco owed money to. Neither does this mean that I have any sympathy with them by the way and that.:greengrin

The new rules brought in by the SFA have to be swingeing enough to punish. That is the bit that remains to be seen if they will or not.

Indeed. The longer this season goes with no action from the UKIO administrator, the less likely HMFC's punishment will be "swingeing".

Had they had the 18-point penalty, and faced relegation, that would have been morally just. However, if administration takes place after the end of the season, the penalty is likely to be about a dozen.

[lord bunberry]

Hence the re-vamp of the rules to hit clubs with the 1/3 penalty.

Its not enough of a deterrent though. If hearts had made the top 6 they could have went into administration and the worse they would finish is 6th. Administration should mean automatic relegation that season. For the vast majority of clubs in financial trouble its because they have overspent trying to gain an advantage on the pitch

[Spike Mandela]

1. the company that took over Rangers are a different company from the one that racked up the debt. Why should they be responsible for that debt? If you took over, for example, HMV, would you want to take on the debt?

2. the question of the property has still to be sorted out, as you know.

3. HMRC have been shafted, but the administration route allows them the chance to recoup some of that by keeping people in jobs. Again, if you took over HMV, you would keep most of the staff. That is a plus for the taxpayer.

1 . My original post was talking about the original 'company' continuing as Rangers paying back the debt it accrued and none of this newco, pre pack con trick. As for the new 'company' and all that phoenix club nonsense if they aren't responsible for the debt why should they get the assets on the cheap. Reason we all know is because it is another big business con but far too complex for us plebs to understand of course.

2. i will be long dead before any question is raised over the value of the property bought and Charles Green won't be losing any sleep over paying any more. Just ain't going to happen.

3. HMRC preferred to choose liquidation in Rangers case to try to set an example but it will be years before they recoup any money they have lost by relying on the continuing taxes from Sevco. Another piss poor reason for letting them off with buckets of debt.

If they can't pay their debt shut them down till they can, that would lead to financial fair play suddenly being important but of course isn't an revenue stream for administrators, lawyers and accountants.

[CropleyWasGod]

1 . My original post was talking about the original 'company' continuing as Rangers paying back the debt it accrued and none of this newco, pre pack con trick. As for the new 'company' and all that phoenix club nonsense if they aren't responsible for the debt why should they get the assets on the cheap. Reason we all know is because it is another big business con but far too complex for us plebs to understand of course. As I say, that will be investigated by BDO. It's their job.

2. i will be long dead before any question is raised over the value of the property bought and Charles Green won't be losing any sleep over paying any more. Just ain't going to happen. It is. See above. Sorry to hear of your imminent demise.:greengrin

3. HMRC preferred to choose liquidation in Rangers case to try to set an example but it will be years before they recoup any money they have lost by relying on the continuing taxes from Sevco. Another piss poor reason for letting them off with buckets of debt. In your scenario, ie shutting them down, HMRC would get nothing.

If they can't pay their debt shut them down till they can, that would lead to financial fair play suddenly being important but of course isn't an revenue stream for administrators, lawyers and accountants.

Would that be the case for all companies, or just for those you have particular loathing for? And are you happy to pick up the tab for the lost taxes and increased benefits?

[Spike Mandela]

Would that be the case for all companies, or just for those you have particular loathing for? And are you happy to pick up the tab for the lost taxes and increased benefits?

We have already haven't we? We were paying whilst others weren't.

Why not make companies pay their debt CWG or do administrators only care about them and not their creditors? I know the official answer to that but would be hard pressed to believe Duff and Phelps gave the creditors anything but the necessary lip service.

I guess we are not going to see eye to eye on this CWG and respect your informed opinions over my more laymans emotive opinions but I truly rank football administration scandals up there with the scandals of politicians expenses and bankers bonuses.

[CropleyWasGod]

We have already haven't we? We were paying whilst others weren't.

Why not make companies pay their debt CWG or do administrators only care about them and not their creditors? I know the official answer to that but would be hard pressed to believe Duff and Phelps gave the creditors anything but the necessary lip service.

I guess we are not going to see eye to eye on this CWG and respect your informed opinions over my more laymans emotive opinions but I truly rank football administration scandals up there with the scandals of politicians expenses and bankers bonuses.

Spike, I feel your pain. I've had to tell the same story to many a client who has suffered at the hands of incompetent or rogue customers, and I have been there myself. The emotion is worse here because it's about football, which most of us have a greater emotional investment in than our work.

To answer your question, how can you make companies pay when there is no money? It's as simple as that. If there have been shady dealings by the directors then, yes, they can be made to pay. And that may happen with RFC yet. But, the phrase "blood out of a stone" is one I have used many times, and that's, sadly, the most common situation.

[Keith_M]

Would that be the case for all companies, or just for those you have particular loathing for? And are you happy to pick up the tab for the lost taxes and increased benefits?


CWG, I admire your commitment to the cause but here (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/former-celtic-star-declared-bankrupt.20655041) is an example of why most people think the current system isn't working. I've quoted the relevant parts below.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"FORMER Celtic star Pierce O'Leary has been declared bankrupt with debts of more than £200,000.
The former Republic of Ireland international, who now runs a cleaning business in Glasgow, was declared insolvent after failing to settle large bills."

"He is thought to have applied for bankruptcy after running up debts of £214,378. It was approved by Scotland's insolvency service, the Accountant In Bankruptcy, last week."

"Mr O'Leary lives with his family in a luxury home in Thorntonhall, South Lanarkshire, one of Scotland's most exclusive areas."

"Company accounts show the company changed its name to McWiggan Services in January. A new company, called Safehands Cleaning, has been set up, with Mr O'Leary's wife appointed as a director."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

So, to summarise, his company goes mammaries skyward owing over 200k. He changes the name of the company and puts it into administration. He then starts a new company with the same name as the old one and carries on working from the same offices (sound familiar?).

But it's OK, his new company will be paying tax to HMRC.......

[Ozyhibby]

I can understand why everyone thinks admin is an easy option but it really is not. Especially for Hearts.
I imagine that any attempt to borrow by any Scottish football club will be rejected for the foreseeable future. The new Rangers struggled to even get a Bank account. They had to raise their working capital through a share issue.
A new Hearts is going to need lots of money fairly quickly as they need a new stadium. Borrowing from a bank will not be an option and another share issue will not raise the required amount.
They will come back in some form but it won't be pretty.

[CropleyWasGod]

CWG, I admire your commitment to the cause but here (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/former-celtic-star-declared-bankrupt.20655041) is an example of why most people think the current system isn't working. I've quoted the relevant parts below.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"FORMER Celtic star Pierce O'Leary has been declared bankrupt with debts of more than £200,000.
The former Republic of Ireland international, who now runs a cleaning business in Glasgow, was declared insolvent after failing to settle large bills."

"He is thought to have applied for bankruptcy after running up debts of £214,378. It was approved by Scotland's insolvency service, the Accountant In Bankruptcy, last week."

"Mr O'Leary lives with his family in a luxury home in Thorntonhall, South Lanarkshire, one of Scotland's most exclusive areas."

"Company accounts show the company changed its name to McWiggan Services in January. A new company, called Safehands Cleaning, has been set up, with Mr O'Leary's wife appointed as a director."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

So, to summarise, his company goes mammaries skyward owing over 200k. He changes the name of the company and puts it into administration. He then starts a new company with the same name as the old one and carries on working from the same offices (sound familiar?).

But it's OK, his new company will be paying tax to HMRC.......

I have never said the current system is perfect. However, it's what we have at the moment, and it has its good points and, obviously, its bad ones. I have yet to hear of anything that is better.

A few practical points from the O'Leary story:-

1. HMRC will be aware that a new company has been set up in the name of Mrs. O'L. They will be watching closely. The VAT office, in particular, have a procedure whereby anyone associated with a company that is insolvent have to declare that fact. Mrs.O'L will have to do that. In some cases I have known, they ask for monthly returns to start with (rather than quarterly ones), to protect their position. I have also heard of bonds having to be put up.

2. suppliers, it they are diligent, will either refuse to deal with the new company or get money up front. That will hurt.

3. the company's bank should have a personal guarantee from Mrs. P, and a charge over the house.

4. given 1 and 2 and, particularly, Mr P's record in business, it won't be long before the company is in trouble again.

Point 1 protects us. 2 and 3 protects the major creditors. Point 4 satisfies those of us who believe in karma.

[lapsedhibee]

I have never said the current system is perfect. However, it's what we have at the moment, and it has its good points and, obviously, its bad ones. I have yet to hear of anything that is better.

A few practical points from the O'Leary story:-

1. HMRC will be aware that a new company has been set up in the name of Mrs. O'L. They will be watching closely. The VAT office, in particular, have a procedure whereby anyone associated with a company that is insolvent have to declare that fact. Mrs.O'L will have to do that. In some cases I have known, they ask for monthly returns to start with (rather than quarterly ones), to protect their position. I have also heard of bonds having to be put up.

2. suppliers, it they are diligent, will either refuse to deal with the new company or get money up front. That will hurt.

3. the company's bank should have a personal guarantee from Mrs. P, and a charge over the house.

4. given 1 and 2 and, particularly, Mr P's record in business, it won't be long before the company is in trouble again.

Point 1 protects us. 2 and 3 protects the major creditors. Point 4 satisfies those of us who believe in karma.

Accountants have a strange idea of what pain is.

Monthly returns rather than quarterly? Please!

I appreciate what you're saying is correct, but imo your defence of the existing position is only exacerbating the annoyance which laypeeps feel, with total justification, at these cons.

Peeps like O'Leary who are quite clearly at it, no doubt with the full assistance of an accounting professional or two, should be thrown in the workhouse. I'll quite happily cough up the extra share of my tax to ensure this happens.

[CropleyWasGod]

Accountants have a strange idea of what pain is.

Monthly returns rather than quarterly? Please!

I appreciate what you're saying is correct, but imo your defence of the existing position is only exacerbating the annoyance which laypeeps feel, with total justification, at these cons.

Peeps like O'Leary who are quite clearly at it, no doubt with the full assistance of an accounting professional or two, should be thrown in the workhouse. I'll quite happily cough up the extra share of my tax to ensure this happens.

The pain comment was on the need to pay suppliers up front. To a bad businessman like PO'L, that will hurt. As will paying his VAT monthly.

If PO'L is "at it", as you put it, then he can be prosecuted. Wrongful trading is a crime, not a con.

And, again.... I am not defending the existing position. Merely telling it like it is. If anyone can come up with a better way,....... etc etc.

[lapsedhibee]

The pain comment was on the need to pay suppliers up front. To a bad businessman like PO'L, that will hurt. As will paying his VAT monthly.

If PO'L is "at it", as you put it, then he can be prosecuted. Wrongful trading is a crime, not a con.

He is at it, but can't be prosecuted, because the current law allows him to be at it. That (I think) is what Spike was objecting to. And I don't know why you're not too! :wink:

[proud_and_green]

I have never said the current system is perfect. However, it's what we have at the moment, and it has its good points and, obviously, its bad ones. I have yet to hear of anything that is better.

A few practical points from the O'Leary story:-

1. HMRC will be aware that a new company has been set up in the name of Mrs. O'L. They will be watching closely. The VAT office, in particular, have a procedure whereby anyone associated with a company that is insolvent have to declare that fact. Mrs.O'L will have to do that. In some cases I have known, they ask for monthly returns to start with (rather than quarterly ones), to protect their position. I have also heard of bonds having to be put up.

2. suppliers, it they are diligent, will either refuse to deal with the new company or get money up front. That will hurt.

3. the company's bank should have a personal guarantee from Mrs. P, and a charge over the house.

4. given 1 and 2 and, particularly, Mr P's record in business, it won't be long before the company is in trouble again.

Point 1 protects us. 2 and 3 protects the major creditors. Point 4 satisfies those of us who believe in karma.

What is not clear to me is whether this was a company put into administration or similar. The articles says he declared himself bankrupt, that is not a company procedure. It is more than possible that this was a private business which he funded himself. If there were any assets which could be realised for his creditors and these have been transferred while he was insolvent then the creditors through the insovency administrator have a right to challenge the alienation.

Many people seem to have an 18th century view of insolvency processes. They are no longer meant to be a punishment, we don't send people to jail for trying to do well in a business but failing - we do though send them to jail for fraudulent practice. In america they encourage entrepreneurs because that is how you grow an economy and in a recession it is blooming difficult to keep a business afloat and sometimes even with all the best will in the world businesses go under owing money.

[CropleyWasGod]

He is at it, but can't be prosecuted, because the current law allows him to be at it. That (I think) is what Spike was objecting to. And I don't know why you're not too! :wink:

Yes he can be prosecuted.

If he took on debt after the company can be held to have been insolvent, then that's against the law. It's wrongful trading, for which he can be prosecuted. Moreover, he can be held personally liable for any debts incurred after that date.

[Keith_M]

A few practical points from the O'Leary story:-

1. HMRC will be aware that a new company has been set up in the name of Mrs. O'L. They will be watching closely. The VAT office, in particular, have a procedure whereby anyone associated with a company that is insolvent have to declare that fact. Mrs.O'L will have to do that. In some cases I have known, they ask for monthly returns to start with (rather than quarterly ones), to protect their position. I have also heard of bonds having to be put up.

2. suppliers, it they are diligent, will either refuse to deal with the new company or get money up front. That will hurt.

3. the company's bank should have a personal guarantee from Mrs. P, and a charge over the house.

4. given 1 and 2 and, particularly, Mr P's record in business, it won't be long before the company is in trouble again.

Point 1 protects us. 2 and 3 protects the major creditors. Point 4 satisfies those of us who believe in karma.


I'm sorry, but that's all 'ifs, buts and maybes'. There is nothing substantive whatsoever in that to ensure that what is right and just will be done.



I have never said the current system is perfect. However, it's what we have at the moment, and it has its good points and, obviously, its bad ones. I have yet to hear of anything that is better.


To be honest, that is pathetic.

I normally enjoy what you write but you appear to me to be trying to defend the indefensible. You've failed miserably

[CropleyWasGod]

What is not clear to me is whether this was a company put into administration or similar. The articles says he declared himself bankrupt, that is not a company procedure. It is more than possible that this was a private business which he funded himself. If there were any assets which could be realised for his creditors and these have been transferred while he was insolvent then the creditors through the insovency administrator have a right to challenge the alienation.

Many people seem to have an 18th century view of insolvency processes. They are no longer meant to be a punishment, we don't send people to jail for trying to do well in a business but failing - we do though send them to jail for fraudulent practice. In america they encourage entrepreneurs because that is how you grow an economy and in a recession it is blooming difficult to keep a business afloat and sometimes even with all the best will in the world businesses go under owing money.

That's a fair point. I actually just assumed that it was poor journalism, equating bankruptcy with administration.

Your last paragraph is very true. What hasn't been considered is that it may not have been O'Leary's fault. We (me included) are assuming that he was either "at it" or just a crap businessman. Sometimes, though, it's out of one's hands. If, for example, a big housebuilder goes under, then there is a domino effect. Materials suppliers, utility companies, subbies, cleaning contractors.... they all suffer. It's often the case that one insolvency leads to many others. Without the full facts of this case, it's probably wrong to judge him.


I'm sorry, but that's all 'ifs, buts and maybes'. There is nothing substantive whatsoever in that to ensure that what is right and just will be done.




To be honest, that is pathetic.

I normally enjoy what you write but you appear to me to be trying to defend the indefensible. You've failed miserably

Once again, I am not defending it. I am saying how it is. As I said to Spike, I have been on the receiving end of many a client who has the same complaints about the system, and I am always on their side.

[lapsedhibee]

Yes he can be prosecuted.

If he took on debt after the company can be held to have been insolvent, then that's against the law. It's wrongful trading, for which he can be prosecuted. Moreover, he can be held personally liable for any debts incurred after that date.

How many peeps who run up huge debts like him actually are prosecuted? Presumably in most cases there would have been a point beyond which they shouldn't have run up any more, but do. Many prosecuted?

There's a widespread perception that peeps do get away with things they shouldn't. The the huns is just a particularly flagrant example.

On the question of whether throwing peeps in workhouses would dampen the country's entrepreneurial spirit, it might well. So what? How much worse off would the country be with Murray, Whyte, Goodwin (and many, many others) sewing mailbags? :dunno:

[CropleyWasGod]

How many peeps who run up huge debts like him actually are prosecuted? Presumably in most cases there would have been a point beyond which they shouldn't have run up any more, but do. Many prosecuted?

There's a widespread perception that peeps do get away with things they shouldn't. The the huns is just a particularly flagrant example.

On the question of whether throwing peeps in workhouses would dampen the country's entrepreunerial spirit, it might well. So what? How much worse off would the country be with Murray, Whyte, Goodwin (and many, many others) sewing mailbags? :dunno:

On your first question, I have no idea. At a guess, probably not enough.

On the last point, that's a 10-pager. I reckon that, with the economy the way it is and with jobs for young people at a premium, that generation will increasingly turn to self-employment as the way forward. Discouraging that would have serious social and economic costs.

Entrepreneuralism (is that a word?) is not just about those characters you mention. It's also about the guy who paints your house, your corner-shop, your IFA. I wouldn't fancy a society without them, where we are reliant on Tesco and the likes.

[lapsedhibee]

On your first question, I have no idea. At a guess, probably not enough.

On the last point, that's a 10-pager. I reckon that, with the economy the way it is and with jobs for young people at a premium, that generation will increasingly turn to self-employment as the way forward. Discouraging that would have serious social and economic costs.

Entrepreneuralism (is that a word?) is not just about those characters you mention. It's also about the guy who paints your house, your corner-shop, your IFA. I wouldn't fancy a society without them, where we are reliant on Tesco and the likes.

There's plenty incentives for self-employment and running a business - for example, if you do it right you make money and you're your own boss. Entirely unnecessary to foster an atmosphere where it is widely believed that if you get into financial difficulties you can wave bye bye to all the peeps to whom you owe money and start again under a different trading name.

I have come across a few peeps who have got into such difficulties and gone bankrupt. Only one that I know of has made a point of repaying his old debts after a restart. Great credit to him for doing that voluntarily - but that attitude should be the norm, not an isolated, eccentric instance.

[CropleyWasGod]

There's plenty incentives for self-employment and running a business - for example, if you do it right you make money and you're your own boss. Entirely unnecessary to foster an atmosphere where it is widely believed that if you get into financial difficulties you can wave bye bye to all the peeps to whom you owe money and start again under a different trading name.

I have come across a few peeps who have got into such difficulties and gone bankrupt. Only one that I know of has made a point of repaying his old debts after a restart. Great credit to him for doing that voluntarily - but that attitude should be the norm, not an isolated, eccentric instance.

Agreed on your general point.

I don't know of anyone, personally, who has ever gone into business with the attitude of "oh well, if it fails, sod the suppliers, I'll start again". The kind of people I deal with normally have their house and family life on the line. And, yes, generally those are the type of people who would pay back their creditors if they could. Playing Devil's Advocate (again:greengrin), those are the type of people who perhaps should have some protection if things don't work out, whether by their own fault or otherwise.

[The Falcon]

How many peeps who run up huge debts like him actually are prosecuted? Presumably in most cases there would have been a point beyond which they shouldn't have run up any more, but do. Many prosecuted?



But if someone on benefits does a few jobs on the side to feed their family, buy their kids christmas presents or whatever there is absolutely no doubt that they will be prosecuted. None whatsoever. And if its proved they have benefitted by more than £3000 they will go to jail.

Oldhun collect VAT from customers to the tune of £14m which they do not pass over to the exchequer and zippo happens. The dive for the cover of administration and they all walk away. The administrators then sell property valued in their books at £100m+ for £1.5m which is then revalued by Newhun weeks later at £40m and everythings fine and legal. So it is. Jobs a good un.

Edit; It was actually valued at £40m "on acquisition" with further "intangibles" valued at £19m "on acquisition".

[God Petrie]

Im going to move to North Korea where everything is fair.

[proud_and_green]

How many peeps who run up huge debts like him actually are prosecuted? Presumably in most cases there would have been a point beyond which they shouldn't have run up any more, but do. Many prosecuted?

There's a widespread perception that peeps do get away with things they shouldn't. The the huns is just a particularly flagrant example.

On the question of whether throwing peeps in workhouses would dampen the country's entrepreneurial spirit, it might well. So what? How much worse off would the country be with Murray, Whyte, Goodwin (and many, many others) sewing mailbags? :dunno:

What is this obsession with prosecution of people in debt. What evidence do you have to suggest that he did anything wrong let alone anything criminal? If every businessman who went bust was prosecuted nobody would go into business.

Having worked in insolvency in the 90s i dealt with a lot of people who victims of circumstances and a few who were 'at it'. A classic example of the domino effect is what happened in North Lanarkshire. Ravenscraig was the major employer for the whole area, it provided the mojority of the domestic money, almost every other business in N Lanarks depended on that income to survive. When Ravenscraig went the knock on impact on all the small businesses was huge, butchers, hairdressers, window cleaners, plumbers all went to wall. That increased the unemployement queue which multiplied the effect. The only people making money were the insolvency administrators.

Strangely enough we are in the middle of a huge recession and people are going bankrupt, companies are going into administration and some are being liquidated. That's what happens unfortunately in a recession. And, perish the thought, but perhaps that is what happened to O'Leary.

[CropleyWasGod]

But if someone on benefits does a few jobs on the side to feed their family, buy their kids christmas presents or whatever there is absolutely no doubt that they will be prosecuted. None whatsoever. And if its proved they have benefitted by more than £3000 they will go to jail.

Oldhun collect VAT from customers to the tune of £14m which they do not pass over to the exchequer and zippo happens. The dive for the cover of administration and they all walk away. The administrators then sell property valued in their books at £100m+ for £1.5m which is then revalued by Newhun weeks later at £40m and everythings fine and legal. So it is. Jobs a good un.

Edit; It was actually valued at £40m "on acquisition" with further "intangibles" valued at £19m "on acquisition".

It's not, though.

[lapsedhibee]

What is this obsession with prosecution of people in debt. What evidence do you have to suggest that he did anything wrong let alone anything criminal? If every businessman who went bust was prosecuted nobody would go into business.

I didn't say I wanted peeps prosecuted. I said some of them should be in a workhouse. For less obvious scammers than Murray, Whyte, Green, etc, a spell in the stocks would be adequate. Rescinding a knighthood doesn't necessarily cut it for me.

You miss the point where you ask whether O'Leary did anything criminal. What some peeps on this thread are arguing is that the law is far too lenient, and encourages financial misbehaviour.

If everyone who got into debt was required, by law, to eventually pay it back there would still be business. It would probably be conducted in a different way though.

[proud_and_green]

I didn't say I wanted peeps prosecuted. I said some of them should be in a workhouse. For less obvious scammers than Murray, Whyte, Green, etc, a spell in the stocks would be adequate. Rescinding a knighthood doesn't necessarily cut it for me.

You miss the point where you ask whether O'Leary did anything criminal. What some peeps on this thread are arguing is that the law is far too lenient, and encourages financial misbehaviour.

If everyone who got into debt was required, by law, to eventually pay it back there would still be business. It would probably be conducted in a different way though.

The law doesn't encourage financial misbehaviour, it is actually quite clear about what is right and what is not. The point is where do you draw the line between a business which finds that, for what ever reason, can no longer repay its debts. All businesses run with debt at some point, good businesses have plans for ensuring that they live within their means and plan the repayment of those loans, others ever extend and others still have plans for the repayment but then extenal circumstances mean they cannot follow through onntheir plans. The mistake that many businesses make is trying to keep going for too long with the result that the business incurs greater debts. This is often because the partners/directors etc have so much riding on the success including their own homes and they want it to succeed to the point that their glass is half full rather than half empty.

Bankruptcy laws aim to make the individual repay the debt from their assets and often include personal contributions for the duration of the bankruptcy. But another aim of banruptcy is to give people some light at the end of the tunnel, meaning they can and are encouraged to be useful contributors to the economy.

On the criminal side. There are a range of offences which an insolvency practitioner can report a debtor for and often do and they work with the various agencies to ensure that those who are 'at it' do not get away with 'it'. Similarly criminal procedings can be taken against the directors of a company and often are.

[lapsedhibee]

The law doesn't encourage financial misbehaviour, it is actually quite clear about what is right and what is not. The point is where do you draw the line between a business which finds that, for what ever reason, can no longer repay its debts. All businesses run with debt at some point, good businesses have plans for ensuring that they live within their means and plan the repayment of those loans, others ever extend and others still have plans for the repayment but then extenal circumstances mean they cannot follow through onntheir plans. The mistake that many businesses make is trying to keep going for too long with the result that the business incurs greater debts. This is often because the partners/directors etc have so much riding on the success including their own homes and they want it to succeed to the point that their glass is half full rather than half empty.

Bankruptcy laws aim to make the individual repay the debt from their assets and often include personal contributions for the duration of the bankruptcy. But another aim of banruptcy is to give people some light at the end of the tunnel, meaning they can and are encouraged to be useful contributors to the economy.

On the criminal side. There are a range of offences which an insolvency practitioner can report a debtor for and often do and they work with the various agencies to ensure that those who are 'at it' do not get away with 'it'. Similarly criminal procedings can be taken against the directors of a company and often are.

Yes you're stating what is the case and that it's basically fine and dandy. Not everyone agrees.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes you're stating what is the case and that it's basically fine and dandy. Not everyone agrees.

I don't think anyone is saying that the law is fine. No law is perfect, and there are always ways of playing the system to minimise their effects.

There will be better brains than ours working on improvements to insolvency law, I am sure, but thus far this is what we have. What is good, IMO, is that the publicity on the Rangers and Hearts cases has brought things to public attention in a way that wouldn't have happened otherwise. That has provoked debate, which is always good, and it may also speed up reform, if that is what is needed.

[lapsedhibee]

I don't think anyone is saying that the law is fine. No law is perfect, and there are always ways of playing the system to minimise their effects.

There will be better brains than ours working on improvements to insolvency law, I am sure, but thus far this is what we have. What is good, IMO, is that the publicity on the Rangers and Hearts cases has brought things to public attention in a way that wouldn't have happened otherwise. That has provoked debate, which is always good, and it may also speed up reform, if that is what is needed.

Probably true but my thoughts are based on about twenty years of this scene being repeated every few months in exactly the same way, so I don't think any immensely large brains have been working on things in the background:

(1) Letter comes through the door advising that company X is busted and insolvency practitioners Y have been appointed.

(2) A whole lot more letters come through the door, many advising how the insolvency practitioners' fees are racking up.

(3) A final letter comes through the door advising that company X had assets A and liabilities B, that the insolvency practitioners' fees will be A minus tuppence and that there will be no dividend to ordinary creditors.

(4) A bit later, you hear in the pub that the peeps who ran company X are now trading as company Z. You do not hear in the pub that the peeps running company Z are determined to devote a percentage of their profits to repaying the creditors of company X.

The whole process in my experience serves mainly to provide a living for insolvency practitioners.

Unsatisfactory!

[Swedish hibee]

Are they bankrupt yet?

[Moulin Yarns]

Are they bankrupt yet?

Thank goodness, back on topic :wink:

[The Falcon]

It's not, though.

But there will be very little, if any, consequences to their actions. BDO may have something to say but in reality they make a comeent or two, D+P may get a little slap on the wrists (metaphorically speaking) but nothing of any significance will happen. The job is done and the sting is complete.

[Gus Fring]

Are they bankrupt yet?

Morally? Yes
Financially? Almost

[Seveno]

Can O'Leary be charged with fraudulently taking over the 'Yams are going bust' thread ?

[CropleyWasGod]

Can O'Leary be charged with fraudulently taking over the 'Yams are going bust' thread ?

His wife would take the rap.

(I keep wanting to type Pee-nis O'Leary, but the swear filter won't let me. Have we come to this, when fundamental organs of human existence are proscribed by the admin pricks? :greengrin)

[Mikey]

To be honest, that is pathetic.

I normally enjoy what you write but you appear to me to be trying to defend the indefensible. You've failed miserably

Is there really any need for that? He's telling us how things work, not giving an opinion.

[blackpoolhibs]

Is there really any need for that? He's telling us how things work, not giving an opinion.

Aye perhaps, but why cant he tell us what we all want to hear? :greengrin

[Lucius Apuleius]

Aye perhaps, but why cant he tell us what we all want to hear? :greengrin

You are a lean mean love machine.

[blackpoolhibs]

You are a lean mean love machine.

Funny you should say that, because you are the 4th person to do so this week. :faf:

[southsider]

Morally? Yes
Financially? Almost

Can someone "in the know" not just gie us the news we have been waiting for....that's it folks they are broon breed, kaput, finito, The pink wonga dome is being turned into an air raid shelter. Cant trust them Koreans now can we ?????

[Mikey]

Funny you should say that, because you are the 4th person to do so this week. :faf:

Aye, but the previous 3 were all on Monday :wink:

[Hibercelona]

This thread will still be going in 5 years time with people asking if they are dead yet.

[CropleyWasGod]

This thread will still be going in 5 years time with people asking if they are dead yet.

I think we should be flattered if people are asking the question on here rather than through MSM.

[HIBERNIAN-0762]

Simple question here..

Why hasn't there been one peep out of the media (TV or newspapers) about any of the talk that goes on in this section?

The media love a story like this but so far apart from a brief moment of hope regarding administration there has been not one word said.

Just askin like.....

[blackpoolhibs]

Aye, but the previous 3 were all on Monday :wink:

Yip and one was a woman. :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

Simple question here..

Why hasn't there been one peep out of the media (TV or newspapers) about any of the talk that goes on in this section?

The media love a story like this but so far apart from a brief moment of hope regarding administration there has been not one word said.

Just askin like.....

Cos the media read the Private Members' Forum. That's where the real stories are. :greengrin

Seriously, the media don't respect these types of fora as much as they should. For them, we are full of gossip and rumour.

[TrinityHibs]

This thread will still be going in 5 years time with people asking if they are dead yet.

I just googled Are Hearts dead? Actually I googled are Zombies dead? and got

they are undead. They were once alive people . They died, and became a mobile dead body through a virus, disease, fungus, parasite or something else.

Replace parasite with Vlad and thats good enough for me. In fact do you need to make any changes?

This answers the often repeated question are they dead? No they are undead..people who were once alive but became infected.
To be fair to Zombies the yams have poorer dress sense, use fewer skin care products, are less co-ordinated, dont have their personal hygiene issues as sorted and look in two different directions at the same time. On a positive note our deluded friends have solved the problem of what do charities do with donated clothes that sub saharan tribesmen and Albanian travellers consider to be a bit naff and like the zombies and the daleks, they have contributed to an endless supply of u tube clips of them trying to unsuccessfully navigate stairs. I am sure I have seen more than one of the undead at the Wongadome.:agree:

[Kaiser1962]

Yip and one was a woman. :wink:

And one was a guy :wink:

[blackpoolhibs]

And one was a guy :wink:

So its out then, you know Boltonhibs. :greengrin

[Kaiser1962]

So its out then, you know Boltonhibs. :greengrin

that would be the third one that wasnt a woman or a guy..........:greengrin

[Gus Fring]

Simple question here..

Why hasn't there been one peep out of the media (TV or newspapers) about any of the talk that goes on in this section?

The media love a story like this but so far apart from a brief moment of hope regarding administration there has been not one word said.

Just askin like.....

The media rarely report on a club (or any business really) going bust until its on the verge of happening, (Rangers and Dunfermline are 2 perfect examples, HMV and Jessops are 2 good non football examples) Hearts reacted somewhat aggressively towards STV so this will have had an impact on others who want to print stories, true or not. The only 2 media outlets left covering Hearts financial issues are the BBC and the Evening News. Both of whom still think Romanov is in charge and the main reporter at the evening news covering this matter is Barry Anderson, who just rewrites whatever the BBC wrote that morning. He's contradicted himself so many times I've lost count.

There has been far more investigating here than in the press. It was this very thread that discovered their arrears with the council (that the media picked up on days later). Many posters are also keeping an eye on the news in Lithuania and the goings on at companies house.

[CropleyWasGod]

The media rarely report on a club (or any business really) going bust until its on the verge of happening, (Rangers and Dunfermline are 2 perfect examples, HMV and Jessops are 2 good non football examples) Hearts reacted somewhat aggressively towards STV so this will have had an impact on others who want to print stories, true or not. The only 2 media outlets left covering Hearts financial issues are the BBC and the Evening News. Both of whom still think Romanov is in charge and the main reporter at the evening news covering this matter is Barry Anderson, who just rewrites whatever the BBC wrote that morning. He's contradicted himself so many times I've lost count.

There has been far more investigating here than in the press. It was this very thread that discovered their arrears with the council (that the media picked up on days later). Many posters are also keeping an eye on the news in Lithuania and the goings on at companies house.

On which note, the striking-off proposal is still there. :greengrin

AH SAYS, BARRY, THE HEARTS ARE GONNY GET STRUCK OFF!!!!

Do you think that'll make tomorrow's EEN?

[Gus Fring]

On which note, the striking-off proposal is still there. :greengrin

AH SAYS, BARRY, THE HEARTS ARE GONNY GET STRUCK OFF!!!!

Do you think that'll make tomorrow's EEN?

Is there a reason it's still active? Is something going to happen with it or is it just tardiness on the part of whoever will stop it happening?

[CropleyWasGod]

Is there a reason it's still active? Is something going to happen with it or is it just tardiness on the part of whoever will stop it happening?

I have only ever known HMRC to object to a striking-off proposal, but then they are the only people who actively review them.

I reckon it's just the slow-moving wheels of bureaucracy at HMRC that have slowed the objection process down.

That all said, I don't actually know when the proposal was made; the CH website isn't clear. Any objections have to made within 90 days, otherwise.... bang.

[Albanian Hibs]

I just googled Are Hearts dead? Actually I googled are Zombies dead? and got

they are undead. They were once alive people . They died, and became a mobile dead body through a virus, disease, fungus, parasite or something else.

Replace parasite with Vlad and thats good enough for me. In fact do you need to make any changes?

This answers the often repeated question are they dead? No they are undead..people who were once alive but became infected.
To be fair to Zombies the yams have poorer dress sense, use fewer skin care products, are less co-ordinated, dont have their personal hygiene issues as sorted and look in two different directions at the same time. On a positive note our deluded friends have solved the problem of what do charities do with donated clothes that sub saharan tribesmen and Albanian travellers consider to be a bit naff and like the zombies and the daleks, they have contributed to an endless supply of u tube clips of them trying to unsuccessfully navigate stairs. I am sure I have seen more than one of the undead at the Wongadome.:agree:

Ahem!? I have never heard my husband refer to any item of clothing as naff! Please dont refer to us in the same sentence as they jambo tramps!

[OsloHibs]

Can someone "in the know" not just gie us the news we have been waiting for....that's it folks they are broon breed, kaput, finito, The pink wonga dome is being turned into an air raid shelter.

This is what I'm waiting for...
Who's buying all their cakes? Thought everyone in Edinburgh was into Krispy Kream now :confused:

[southsider]

Tell the jambo's....just gorget about football, get on yir hands and knees and crawl, coz vlads got ye fot the long hawl

[clerriehibs]

I have only ever known HMRC to object to a striking-off proposal, but then they are the only people who actively review them.

I reckon it's just the slow-moving wheels of bureaucracy at HMRC that have slowed the objection process down.

That all said, I don't actually know when the proposal was made; the CH website isn't clear. Any objections have to made within 90 days, otherwise.... bang.

I appreciate all the info will be on post 1849 on page 287, but what exactly is a striking off proposal?

[Caversham Green]

I appreciate all the info will be on post 1849 on page 287, but what exactly is a striking off proposal?

It's a statement of intent to delete a company from the Register of Companies - effectively to kill it off. It's usually used where a company has stopped trading and is no longer needed, but where a company consistently fails to produce accounts and annual returns within the statutory time limits the Registrar will start proceedings to strike it off.

[CropleyWasGod]

It's a statement of intent to delete a company from the Register of Companies - effectively to kill it off. It's usually used where a company has stopped trading and is no longer needed, but where a company consistently fails to produce accounts and annual returns within the statutory time limits the Registrar will start proceedings to strike it off.

:agree:

I have also known it to be used (not by my clients, of course!) as a tool of evading one's responsibilities and debts. Whether this is the case with HMFC is open to potentially libellous gossip. :greengrin

[lord bunberry]

It's a statement of intent to delete a company from the Register of Companies - effectively to kill it off. It's usually used where a company has stopped trading and is no longer needed, but where a company consistently fails to produce accounts and annual returns within the statutory time limits the Registrar will start proceedings to strike it off.

If they submit their accounts will the striking off procedure be cancelled automatically

[CropleyWasGod]

If they submit their accounts will the striking off procedure be cancelled automatically

If that's the reason for the proposal, yes.

[Gus Fring]

:agree:

I have also known it to be used (not by my clients, of course!) as a tool of evading one's responsibilities and debts. Whether this is the case with HMFC is open to potentially libellous gossip. :greengrin

Allegedly.

[Dr Jimmy]

Hearing that the yams lith big wigs (exc VR) are in town. Something is happening or being discussed. The young player of year event is not the reason.

Also heard they are not getting their share of the pooled cup final money until the sfa get some answers on questions they have raised on the yams "financial processes" around a player recently transferred.

Only passing on info, not suggesting I am ITK.

[HIBERNIAN-0762]

Hearing that the yams lith big wigs (exc VR) are in town. Something is happening or being discussed. The young player of year event is not the reason.

Also heard they are not getting their share of the pooled cup final money until the sfa get some answers on questions they have raised on the yams "financial processes" around a player recently transferred.

Only passing on info, not suggesting I am ITK.

Thank goodness for some positive news! :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

Hearing that the yams lith big wigs (exc VR) are in town. Something is happening or being discussed. The young player of year event is not the reason.

Also heard they are not getting their share of the pooled cup final money until the sfa get some answers on questions they have raised on the yams "financial processes" around a player recently transferred.

Only passing on info, not suggesting I am ITK.

Not sure the SFA can do that for a competition that's not theirs.

[Dr Jimmy]

Not sure the SFA can do that for a competition that's not theirs.

SFL then FFS........

[Keith_M]

Not sure the SFA can do that for a competition that's not theirs.


I'm unsure about this but, aren't the SFL answerable to the SFA? Meaning, that the SFA have oversight of all other organisatons?


:dunno:

[CyberSauzee]

All transfer registrations must go through the SFA.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Thats Hearts now 17pts above Dundee, does anybody think they would get away with going into Admin in say the final week of the season if they are 20 or more pts above Dundee? Or would that be unworkable?

[bigwheel]

Thats Hearts now 17pts above Dundee, does anybody think they would get away with going into Admin in say the final week of the season if they are 20 or more pts above Dundee? Or would that be unworkable?

You can't decide when to go into admin - you can either have the a funds to continue trading or you don't ...it's not a choice you make ....

[Treadstone]

You can't decide when to go into admin - you can either have the a funds to continue trading or you don't ...it's not a choice you make ....

Leeds 2006-2007 would disagree. After it became apparent that they were relegated all bar the mathematics in this season. They went into admin to absorb the points penalty for that season and start 2007-2008 of a clean slate points wise.

[Aldo]

Leeds 2006-2007 would disagree. After it became apparent that they were relegated all bar the mathematics in this season. They went into admin to absorb the points penalty for that season and start 2007-2008 of a clean slate points wise.

I really do think that this is what's going to happen. They're a bunch of cheating sneaky *******s ENDOF.

[PatHead]

Leeds 2006-2007 would disagree. After it became apparent that they were relegated all bar the mathematics in this season. They went into admin to absorb the points penalty for that season and start 2007-2008 of a clean slate points wise.

...........and the Football League disagreed. If I remember correctly Leeds went into admin at half time on the final game of the season when all was lost. The Football league still imposed the penalty as effective from the next season. They didn't get away with it.

[Keith_M]

You can't decide when to go into admin - you can either have the a funds to continue trading or you don't ...it's not a choice you make ....



I thought a company could actually make that decision for themselves, to voluntarily put themselves into Administration. Didn't Rangers do that very thing last season?


:dunno:

[Treadstone]

...........and the Football League disagreed. If I remember correctly Leeds went into admin at half time on the final game of the season when all was lost. The Football league still imposed the penalty as effective from the next season. They didn't get away with it.

Good point although it was clear what their intention was, I was referring to the post about the voluntary/compulsory entering of administration.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I thought a company could actually make that decision for themselves, to voluntarily put themselves into Administration. Didn't Rangers do that very thing last season?


:dunno:

That was my belief too when I made my previous post re Hearts.

[Gus Fring]

A company can go into administration when they choose. Leeds situation was because they obviously tried to skirt the rules. The SPL probably wouldn't have the stones to do the same.

Hearts most selfish option would be to do it days before the last game of the season if/when they are mathematically clear of Dundee (they're currently 14 points clear, they need to be at least 18)

[CropleyWasGod]

You can't decide when to go into admin - you can either have the a funds to continue trading or you don't ...it's not a choice you make ....

Yes you can.

[greenginger]

And coming out of admin. might not be the painless experience hoped for.

Their cousins from Govan will testify to that !

[southsider]

Is their tax not due at the end of April ? S/t holder at pbs told me it was and admin. is a certainty. Lets hope so....no wait liquidation sounds better.

[CropleyWasGod]

Is their tax not due at the end of April ? S/t holder at pbs told me it was and admin. is a certainty. Lets hope so....no wait liquidation sounds better.

Which tax?

If you mean the first instalment of the £4.5m, I think it's May. No idea if that's the beginning, middle or end.

[JimBHibees]

Which tax?

If you mean the first instalment of the £4.5m, I think it's May. No idea if that's the beginning, middle or end.

Is that the HMRC one that allisbarry seems to think they are paying up 50-60k a month?

[CropleyWasGod]

Is that the HMRC one that allisbarry seems to think they are paying up 50-60k a month?

Yeah.

At the time of the agreement, the media suggested it was payable in three annual instalments, starting in May. Barry's investigative efforts have me doubting that now. :cb

[MrSmith]

From this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20592369 it would appear they have settled one and scheduled the rest. It is ambiguous though in terms of scheduled payments either monthly or yearly or monthly/yearly??

Same here: http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/hearts/204009-hearts-settle-big-tax-case-with-hmrc-to-pay-15m-bill-over-three-years/

[justlikebrazil]

For a club that are going tits up its in the sun today that they are trying to sign Chris Humphreys from Motherwell!!! A just want them to die :-(

[HIBERNIAN-0762]

For a club that are going tits up its in the sun today that they are trying to sign Chris Humphreys from Motherwell!!! A just want them to die :-(

It's all bluff and bluster, plus the fact any player signing for this mob needs their head seen to, this is just baloney to get the mugs to part with cash for season tickets..

Just please die...soon..

[Gus Fring]

Celtic were interested in him last season as well. As it stands Hearts still have a transfer embargo in place. Humphrey is 25 so they can't sign him until that's lifted. If you want them to die, seeing them increase their outgoings is a good sign. I personally hope they sign him on a wage they can I'll afford.

As said though its all BS to keep the fans happy. "We're signing so and so" "Fan ownership is coming" "We're making a small profit" is all just nonsense to keep the money coming in. In fairness, Hearts aren't going to turn round and say "We're screwed" as they've already played that card one this season.

[Treadstone]

As said though its all BS to keep the fans happy. "We're signing so and so" "Fan ownership is coming" "We're making a small profit" is all just nonsense to keep the money coming in. In fairness, Hearts aren't going to turn round and say "We're screwed" as they've already played that card one this season.

"We're signing so and so" ✓
"Fan ownership is coming" ✓
"We're making a small profit" TBA

Jamie Borthwick ‏@jamiekborthwick (https://twitter.com/jamiekborthwick)2h (https://twitter.com/jamiekborthwick/status/321539597505028096)
I'll be speaking to Alex Mackie today as Foundation of Hearts reveal details of their plan to have #HMFC (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23HMFC&src=hash) fan-owned.

[Sergey]

"We're signing so and so" ✓
"Fan ownership is coming" ✓
"We're making a small profit" TBA

Jamie Borthwick ‏@jamiekborthwick (https://twitter.com/jamiekborthwick)2h (https://twitter.com/jamiekborthwick/status/321539597505028096)
I'll be speaking to Alex Mackie today as Foundation of Hearts reveal details of their plan to have #HMFC (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23HMFC&src=hash) fan-owned.

Is this Jamie Borthwick related to this upstanding Yam?

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/1972836/Dirty-faker.html

[Treadstone]

Is this Jamie Borthwick related to this upstanding Yam?

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/1972836/Dirty-faker.html

Are they not all related ?!

[Ross4356]

Did they ever get that fan on the board?

[Gus Fring]

Did they ever get that fan on the board?

Three speed one I think, one of the ones with the wee pin you pull to make it rotate.

:******:

[Seveno]

Celtic were interested in him last season as well. As it stands Hearts still have a transfer embargo in place. Humphrey is 25 so they can't sign him until that's lifted. If you want them to die, seeing them increase their outgoings is a good sign. I personally hope they sign him on a wage they can I'll afford.

As said though its all BS to keep the fans happy. "We're signing so and so" "Fan ownership is coming" "We're making a small profit" is all just nonsense to keep the money coming in. In fairness, Hearts aren't going to turn round and say "We're screwed" as they've already played that card one this season.

It's actually Barry Humphreys that they are after and they can't sign him until he has completed his Dame Edna Everage Farewell Tour.

[#FromTheCapital]

Statement from Foundation of Hearts on how they plan to run some *****y football team and keep them playing at a pink bus shelter next to a farm

http://www.foundationofhearts.org/news/

[Hibby70]

Statement from Foundation of Hearts on how they plan to run some *****y football team and keep them playing at a pink bus shelter next to a farm

http://www.foundationofhearts.org/news/

At least they get a certificate.

[MrSmith]

All ifs, ands and buts!

Nothing new there! However no clarity in regards to Romanv, UKIO, UBIG, the new owners or the likelihood of debt remaining and being part of settlement.

[CropleyWasGod]

All ifs, ands and buts!

Nothing new there! However no clarity in regards to Romanv, UKIO, UBIG, the new owners or the likelihood of debt remaining and being part of settlement.

To be fair, they have to talk it up. It's a chicken-and-egg situation. The more people they can get involved, the more chance there is of doing a deal. The more chance of a deal, the more likely UKIO's administrators will talk to them.

Any negativity, and fans will back off, which will make it more likely that UKIO will too.

But I agree with you, there really is nothing new.

[ancient hibee]

They seem to want to offer for/buy the shares before they've raised the money-interesting concept.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Who would buy shares in a club with 25 million of debt?

[Seveno]

They seem to want to offer for/buy the shares before they've raised the money-interesting concept.

Well it worked for the big Weegie brother. :cb

[#FromTheCapital]

This whole idea of fan ownership in hearts case is never going to work. They get fans to pledge money up to £100 per month. This seems to be central to everything they hope to acheive. Really what is a pledge worth?..... **** all. They're struggling to get 11k fans through the gates just now, why would they expect fans to give them enough money to buy the club? Hearts have absolutely no chance of survival if this is their only option.

[Treadstone]

This whole idea of fan ownership in hearts case is never going to work. They get fans to pledge money up to £100 per month. This seems to be central to everything they hope to acheive. Really what is a pledge worth?..... **** all. They're struggling to get 11k fans through the gates just now, why would they expect fans to give them enough money to buy the club? Hearts have absolutely no chance of survival if this is their only option.

Non starter for me. How are they going to get fans to give and KEEP on giving ? A mobile phone type contract ? No chance.

[#FromTheCapital]

Non starter for me. How are they going to get fans to give and KEEP on giving ? A mobile phone type contract ? No chance.


Exactly, it's got so many flaws I don't know where to start. If anyone hopes to keep hearts alive they're going to need a lot of money up front that they're willing to waste. Not a bunch of pledges made by random football fans (many of whom will be hibees, made a few myself :greengrin)

[StevieC]

Statement from Foundation of Hearts on how they plan to run some *****y football team and keep them playing at a pink bus shelter next to a farm

http://www.foundationofhearts.org/news/

So the jist of it is ...

Give us loads of money and you will get the opportunity to vote an unpaid (possibly inexperienced) football supporter on a 9 man (or woman :greengrin ) board that will have no financial investment for a club turning over £8m a year and £25m in debt.

Seems like thye've got it all under control and ... all is barry.

[jdships]

Statement from Foundation of Hearts on how they plan to run some *****y football team and keep them playing at a pink bus shelter next to a farm

http://www.foundationofhearts.org/news/


In principle it sounds a great idea but in practice - well ?
Funding and the safeguarding of funding is their big problem
No one in their right mind will invest in a football club .

[greenginger]

Non starter for me. How are they going to get fans to give and KEEP on giving ? A mobile phone type contract ? No chance.


I seem to remember the last Yam ownership love-in did'nt last too long and there were only two cardigan wearers involved.

Pie-man and Leslie Deans lasted a couple of seasons before they were at each others throats over whose turn it was to be Chairman ! :greengrin

[Gus Fring]

Hearts didn't even meet the target for their "share issue". Now a 3rd party is asking for even more money from even more fans for something that might never happen? It's never going to work.

Hearts only chances of survival are if they get some rich lunatic whose prepared to a massive hit to keep the club alive or for their debt to disappear somehow, either through some jiggery pokery at UBIGs end or because they've "done a rangers".

All the idiots running and supporting that club are adamant they are now "almost self sufficient" In the last 12 months Hearts have had 2 cup finals, a visit from spurs, a share issue, deferred payment of taxes, early payment for 1 player and the sale of another, it's not exactly sustainable.

[StevieC]

Statement from Foundation of Hearts on how they plan to run some *****y football team and keep them playing at a pink bus shelter next to a farm

I don't get the talk about getting purchasing the shares from UBIG? The shares are worthless and buying them makes no sense at all.

What is required is hard cash, and damn good negotiating skills, to prize the security over Tynecastle away from the Lithuanian administrators. Secure Tynecastle and you secure the football team (albeit after a Sevco style liquidation process).

For them to secure Tynecastle they would need to agree a repayment plan (and probably show a sustainable business plan) with the Lithuanian administrators for around £7m of the £25m debt.

If their business plan includes a monthly donation from "members" to sustain the plan they'll be lucky to even get a face to face meeting with the administrators.

[Kato]

Statement from Foundation of Hearts on how they plan to run some *****y football team and keep them playing at a pink bus shelter next to a farm

http://www.foundationofhearts.org/news/

"the purchase of these shares – should this be achieved"

So the big huge obstacle is discussed in that little bit of a small sentence then it just goes on to waffle about how the *"upper echelons" of their *"corridors of power" will be structured.

(copyright, Barry Anderson)

I hope this pompous bunch of cardigan wearers take them over. They are clowns.

[Treadstone]

As said though its all BS to keep the fans happy. "We're signing so and so" "Fan ownership is coming" "We're making a small profit" is all just nonsense to keep the money coming in. In fairness, Hearts aren't going to turn round and say "We're screwed" as they've already played that card one this season.

You forgot to say "Wheel out old favourite quoting Yam bluster"

Barry Anderson ‏@BarryAnderson_8 (https://twitter.com/BarryAnderson_8)30m (https://twitter.com/BarryAnderson_8/status/321902156305289216)
First of a 2-part John Robertson interview in today's News. Speaks on not getting manager's job & why #HMFC (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23HMFC&src=hash) will have a big budget next year

[21.05.2016]

You forgot to say "Wheel out old favourite quoting Yam bluster"

Barry Anderson ‏@BarryAnderson_8 (https://twitter.com/BarryAnderson_8)30m (https://twitter.com/BarryAnderson_8/status/321902156305289216)
First of a 2-part John Robertson interview in today's News. Speaks on not getting manager's job & why #HMFC (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23HMFC&src=hash) will have a big budget next year

Usual yam tactic - when in doubt roll out (literally!) wee fat robbo to spiel some more bull**** that the fans cling onto.

[Treadstone]

Usual yam tactic - when in doubt roll out (literally!) wee fat robbo to spiel some more bull**** that the fans cling onto.

:hilarious

[Aldo]

It's okay buying the club but once you've bought it its what comes with it. These deluded fools think that once you've bought it it all miraculously disappears.

Head in the sand brigade. Lot of folk Gonnae lose even more money as a result of all this.

[Treadstone]

It's okay buying the club but once you've bought it its what comes with it. These deluded fools think that once you've bought it it all miraculously disappears.

Head in the sand brigade. Lot of folk Gonnae lose even more money as a result of all this.

Which is unlikely to be Swynecastle.

[Aldo]

Which is unlikely to be Swynecastle.

Yip. Just tweeted #allisbarry and asked him how big is big when it comes to a budget when you skint.... 2 scones and an apple turnover. They just don't get it yet do they??

#headsinthesandbrigade

[Phil MaGlass]

whats the chances of them going into administration before the end of the season only be docked the points and still be safe from the drop?

[Aldo]

whats the chances of them going into administration before the end of the season only be docked the points and still be safe from the drop?

This is what I think. Wait until they've amassed the right amount if points and the renter administration.

Think Leeds did this a few years back but still got docked points the following season.

[CropleyWasGod]

whats the chances of them going into administration before the end of the season only be docked the points and still be safe from the drop?

They have to finish 18/19 points ahead of Dundee for that to happen.

[Aldo]

They have to finish 18/19 points ahead of Dundee for that to happen.

CWG if they had been mathematically safe befor now then it would of happened.

[Geo_1875]

You forgot to say "Wheel out old favourite quoting Yam bluster"

Barry Anderson ‏@BarryAnderson_8 (https://twitter.com/BarryAnderson_8)30m (https://twitter.com/BarryAnderson_8/status/321902156305289216)
First of a 2-part John Robertson interview in today's News. Speaks on not getting manager's job & why #HMFC (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23HMFC&src=hash) will have a big budget next year

~AllisBarry is surely wrong here. They won't just have a "big budget" next year. Surely it will be a HUMUNGOUS WARCHEST.

And will they wait until next year or will it be in place for next season?

[Treadstone]

~AllisBarry is surely wrong here. They won't just have a "big budget" next year. Surely it will be a HUMUNGOUS WARCHEST.

And will they wait until next year or will it be in place for next season?

C'mon now Geo , there is a part two to be squeezed out of this.

[CropleyWasGod]

CWG if they had been mathematically safe befor now then it would of happened.

Not sure I agree. It's much more complicated than just football-related matters.

If they go into administration, it will be a short one, and liquidation will follow fairly quickly. From that perspective, they need to avoid it.

[Aldo]

Not sure I agree. It's much more complicated than just football-related matters.

If they go into administration, it will be a short one, and liquidation will follow fairly quickly. From that perspective, they need to avoid it.

Shame it couldn't be as simple as pulling the plug and bang they're gone.

Hence huge reason they are hanging on by their finger tips.... They know what will happen if admin is entered.

[Geo_1875]

Today's EE #AllisBarry and the Fat Striker saying HoMFC will have a budget in excess of £3 million.

They don't say if that's the transfer budget, the budget for playing staff or the budget for the whole shooting match.

Then again it could be the pie budget for hospitality when Blobbo visits.

[Saorsa]

Today's EE #AllisBarry and the Fat Striker saying HoMFC will have a budget in excess of £3 million.

They don't say if that's the transfer budget, the budget for playing staff or the budget for the whole shooting match.

Then again it could be the pie budget for hospitality when Blobbo visits.I wonder who's money they'll be stealing this time

[truehibernian]

Today's EE #AllisBarry and the Fat Striker saying HoMFC will have a budget in excess of £3 million.

They don't say if that's the transfer budget, the budget for playing staff or the budget for the whole shooting match.

Then again it could be the pie budget for hospitality when Blobbo visits.

'Cos Robbo's finger has always been on the pulse right enough :rolleyes: more like all over the half time pies :agree:

Hearts will toil next season - big time.

[Don Giovanni]

Is this Jamie Borthwick related to this upstanding Yam?

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/1972836/Dirty-faker.html

No, they are not related.

I believe Jamie used to post on .net occasionally, as a known Jambo.

[Treadstone]

No, they are not related.

I believe Jamie used to post on .net occasionally, as a known Jambo.

He is doing a webchat right now (1pm) on the Floundering of Hertz.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/220882-hearts-fan-takeover-web-chat/

[Treadstone]

Web chat just started and already :


hearts4life:
my view is put hearts in administration, get the assets cheaper then start from scratch clean slate away from the bad rubbish connected with the club at the moment

[Treadstone]

Another one:


Your Name:
I would like the fans to own 50% with a 'white knight' owning the other 50% or something along those lines

http://sport.stv.tv/football/220882-hearts-fan-takeover-web-chat/

[Aldo]

Web chat just started and already :



What you've posted.... That's their thinking alright but I get a funny feeling they're in for a wee shock.

[Treadstone]

What you've posted.... That's their thinking alright but I get a funny feeling they're in for a wee shock.

Even more of a shock when they realise that 50% of this is mischievous Hibees.


Jamie Borthwick: As of last week, FoH had around £50,000 per month in hypothetical pledges. They need more than that. The capital projects such as a replacement Main Stand would be funding separately, as far as I am led to believe.

[Aldo]

Even more of a shock when they realise that 50% of this is mischievous Hibees.



Lol.

Funding for new stand would be separate god they are deluded. 50,000 a month in wait for it 'hypothetical' pledges.

So is this a figure they've grasped out the air??

[Treadstone]

Lol.

Funding for new stand would be separate god they are deluded. 50,000 a month in wait for it 'hypothetical' pledges.

So is this a figure they've grasped out the air??

Aldo. The webchat is comedy gold. I think 'vlad' is a trolling Hibby.

[Aldo]

Aldo. The webchat is comedy gold. I think 'vlad' is a trolling Hibby.

Bet it is. WFR cannae see what's happening cos of the bottle. 3 million quid budget... They better get baking and the car boot sales up and running!!

[Prof. Shaggy]

Aldo. The webchat is comedy gold. I think 'vlad' is a trolling Hibby.

I'd put the mortgage on "Sevenille" being one.

[adhibs]

Whats pur budget? 4m springs to mind for sone reason

[hibs0666]

I'd put the mortgage on "Sevenille" being one.

You called? :wink:

[Treadstone]

You called? :wink:

Very good. Especially enjoyed "financial basket case" and "full horror of the current financial situation":aok:

[Prof. Shaggy]

You called? :wink:

Just to say I love you.:wink:

[Ozyhibby]

£50k a month only just covers the money for their tax bill. Hardly going to change anything even if it were real pledges.

[BonnieFitbaTeam]

Lol.

Funding for new stand would be separate god they are deluded. 50,000 a month in wait for it 'hypothetical' pledges.

So is this a figure they've grasped out the air??


Even if by some miracle it was true, 80% will go straight back out the door for the first three years to kep Hector off their backs.

[Treadstone]

After seeing some of the questions and responses on the webchat, there is no way I can see this getting off the ground. Far too many intangibles currently and a concept foreign to the average fan in Scotland. Whatever is pledged will no way reflect what they will receive and donations are more likely to fall than rise. Mackie and FoH are living in cloud cuckoo land.

[GreenCastle]

Reading this - I really don't think they have a clue :greengrin Post 216 shows the notes from their meeting.

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/126782-notes-from-meeting-with-foh-on-442013/page__st__200

[greenginger]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/06/uk-bosnia-birac-idUKBRE93503W20130406


No surprise here then. When are the bombs going to drop nearer home. :greengrin

[Golden Bear]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/06/uk-bosnia-birac-idUKBRE93503W20130406


No surprise here then. When are the bombs going to drop nearer home. :greengrin

Meltdowntime.

:wink:

[Bishop Hibee]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/06/uk-bosnia-birac-idUKBRE93503W20130406


No surprise here then. When are the bombs going to drop nearer home. :greengrin

Nothing to worry about, doesn't affect Hearts, all is Barry.

[JeMeSouviens]

Reading this - I really don't think they have a clue :greengrin Post 216 shows the notes from their meeting.

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/126782-notes-from-meeting-with-foh-on-442013/page__st__200

This is brilliant. They have f-all money, f-all hope of getting any money, the Norgs are tyre kickers, they don't trust supporters' direct, they've no idea of the position the Liths will adopt on the debt or the stadium.

Sounds like a well advanced takeover just waiting to happen! :agree::rolleyes::greengrin

[Aldo]

Let me get this right


50,000 a week over a year = 2.6 million (just to survive) minimum.
Money due to HMRC
Money to buy the club
12 million ish to build a new super duper stand
Debt 25 million plus
O forgot to add the 3 million quid budget suggested by WFR
Stadium is only worth 5.5 million

They've admitted that bigger monthly pledges of money are doubtful.

No bank willing to lend anyone any money that involves HOMFC

Tell you what after reading that all I can say is

#yourheedsinthesand
#wearegoingtosurvive

But best if all

#allisbarrybarry