PDA

View Full Version : Yams Feb 7th: A Re-cap



Dashing Bob S
29-01-2010, 01:06 PM
As I understand it, Hearts are due to pay back £17.6 m of monies due to them by the other parts of their conglomerate, UBIG or the Lith Bank.

It seems likely that, if the decision is purely Vlad's, this payment will be deferred as he can continue to salt away transfer and ST revenues from the club.

However, there are other shareholders involved and financial pressures on both the band and the parent conglomerate.

So what are the chances of Vlad being overuled on Feb 10 and the Yams being forced into administration?

TheBall'sRound
29-01-2010, 01:22 PM
As I understand it, Hearts are due to pay back £17.6 m of monies due to them by the other parts of their conglomerate, UBIG or the Lith Bank.

It seems likely that, if the decision is purely Vlad's, this payment will be deferred as he can continue to salt away transfer and ST revenues from the club.

However, there are other shareholders involved and financial pressures on both the band and the parent conglomerate.

So what are the chances of Vlad being overuled on Feb 10 and the Yams being forced into administration?

Would be surprised if there wasn't another debt to equity "rescue" package to the value of the outstanding sum.

More good news for the more naive yams (so, all of them then).

Dan Sarf
29-01-2010, 01:35 PM
Not the slightest chance of it. Why would Vlad kill the maroon goose that lays the golden eggs? (Any protesting shareholders in his various conglomerates will be dispatched by poisoned umbrella.) :greengrin

Andy74
29-01-2010, 01:39 PM
Would be surprised if there wasn't another debt to equity "rescue" package to the value of the outstanding sum.

More good news for the more naive yams (so, all of them then).

Anyone with a little knowledge know how that would work? Is there enough equity left to transfer for that value?

Can they just issue more shares and dilute the rest?

Surely even then it would be diffcult to suggest that any equity was worth £17m!

HibeeB
29-01-2010, 01:39 PM
As I understand it, Hearts are due to pay back £17.6 m of monies due to them by the other parts of their conglomerate, UBIG or the Lith Bank.

I mentioned this to a couple of deluded ones this week and they pleaded ignorance (I know, they would).

They also asked where this information came from.

I just said it is common knowlege.

But I couldn't give them a definite source.

I am not getting at you Bob, but does anyone know where this comes from?

I would love to bring this up every time I meet the Jambos because it brings out the worst in them, but I feel like I am setting a trap for myself because I don't have a decent source for it.

I'm not looking for a link. Just something to back up the story in a wind up.

KerPlunk
29-01-2010, 01:45 PM
I know, I know, it's a bit dated but still.............cannae help masel :cool2:

YouTube - Hitler Calls In The Administrators At Tynecastle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEU0rH3XYgY&feature=related)


YouTube - romanovs monkeys fighting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8N7wwf3JUM&feature=related)


From the comments section on today's Yam article in EEN :-
Jimmy Melville,
29/01/2010 13:48:01
#22 You should read page 10 of last years accounts. It categorically states that there is a £17.6m "short-term" loan payable on February 10th 2010.

Mr Fedotovas said in his recent email to ST holders (when asked about the £17.6m), quote: "At present we are considering and assessing plans for a further funding-for-equity deal which is realistic...."

We do owe the money and you should do a little homework before making a fool of yourself on a public forum.:blah:

Sergey
29-01-2010, 01:51 PM
I mentioned this to a couple of deluded ones this week and they pleaded ignorance (I know, they would).

They also asked where this information came from.

I just said it is common knowlege.

But I couldn't give them a definite source.

I am not getting at you Bob, but does anyone know where this comes from?

I would love to bring this up every time I meet the Jambos because it brings out the worst in them, but I feel like I am setting a trap for myself because I don't have a decent source for it.

I'm not looking for a link. Just something to back up the story in a wind up.

Last years Yam accounts that were issued at their AGM.

I have the page somewhere as a PDF and will try to post it in this thread.

Hibstrooper
29-01-2010, 01:52 PM
I've given up hoping that clock is going to finally tick it's last tock.

I doubt they would be lining up people like Darren Barr for next season on contracts higher than Hibs/Aberdeen could offer if it was all about to go down the pan.

I'm happy for them to clamber on like they are just now with results like 0-3 at home to the sheep. On their current path I can't see them making big advances whilst we are a team that seems to be going places - so long may that continue!

Malthibby
29-01-2010, 01:54 PM
I sit guffawing my way through that, each & every time I watch it. It is a piece of genius.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Golden Bear
29-01-2010, 01:59 PM
It's wonderful to gloat and hope our illustrious neighbours go well and truly down the swanee.

However the mad one allegedly has a personal fortune of £820 million so I've no doubt he will help out his beloved team in their hour of need. (well maybe)


:rolleyes:

Sergey
29-01-2010, 02:09 PM
Apologies about the quality, but I didn't make the PDF (just nicked it)



http://www.hibs.net/message/picture.php?albumid=20&pictureid=165

HibeeB
29-01-2010, 02:22 PM
Last years Yam accounts that were issued at their AGM.

I have the page somewhere as a PDF and will try to post it in this thread.


:aok:

Cheers.


That's all I needed to know.


Off for some more jambo baiting :devil:

Caversham Green
29-01-2010, 02:51 PM
Anyone with a little knowledge know how that would work? Is there enough equity left to transfer for that value?

Can they just issue more shares and dilute the rest?

Surely even then it would be diffcult to suggest that any equity was worth £17m!

It can't work with this one Andy. The debt is due to Ukio Bankas, but the shareholders are UBIG - they are two completely separate companies although Vlad has shares in the former and a controlling interest in the latter. If they were to do it, they would issue new shares to UBIG to the nominal value of £17.6m (i.e. dilute the existing shareholding) and UBIG would have to pay the money over to Ukio. It's free money for the yams and an incredibly foolish move by UBIG and it all depends on how much cash UBIG have available. However, to issue new shares they would first have to call a general meeting (AGM or EGM) which needs 21 days notice - too late for 7th Feb.


I think the two most likely solutions are:

Ukio refinance the debt - Indications are that Ukio are cash-hungry, and because HoMFC are insolvent, the new debt would immediately be bad
UBIG buy the debt from Ukio - possibly at a discount since it's almost irrecoverable in the hands of Ukio.
Scenario 2 sems the most likely to me - UBIG could then take steps to recover or reduce the debt by taking on ownership of the PBS, a DfE swap or a combination of the two. If there is to be a further DfE, my gut feeling is that it would be for no more than £5m.

Just a thought, but the apparent resurrection of the new stand plans might just be a sweetener ahead of them taking ownership of Tynie.

greenginger
29-01-2010, 02:57 PM
It's wonderful to gloat and hope our illustrious neighbours go well and truly down the swanee.

However the mad one allegedly has a personal fortune of £820 million so I've no doubt he will help out his beloved team in their hour of need. (well maybe)


:rolleyes:


Vlad's assets have never been anywhere near £820 million except may'be on Kickback. The Times rich-list had him at about £200 million back in 2008 with his bank shares worth a "buy-out" price of £5 per share. Today's price 30pence a share and the collapse of the Aluminium market has screwed his investment in UBIG.
Vlad did not get a mention in the 2009 rich list so I don't he must be down to his last £20 million or so.

I don't think its the Ukio Bankas shareholders who will be a problem for Hearts but more likely the Lith. Central Bank. At the moment the Ukio is only a few bad loans short of falling below the required Capital Adequacy level. Intervention from the authorities would question why so much badly needed Lithuanian resources were tied up in a non-performing loan to one of Vlad's foreign play things.

Barney McGrew
29-01-2010, 03:17 PM
At least everyone at Hertz is free the weekend of the 6th and 7th of February so they can finalise the details of what they're going to do about it :cool2:

Caversham Green
29-01-2010, 03:21 PM
At least everyone at Hertz is free the weekend of the 6th and 7th of February so they can finalise the details of what they're going to do about it :cool2:

Maybe the players will all donate their appearance money and win bonuses.


Oh, wait....

Andy74
29-01-2010, 03:25 PM
It can't work with this one Andy. The debt is due to Ukio Bankas, but the shareholders are UBIG - they are two completely separate companies although Vlad has shares in the former and a controlling interest in the latter. If they were to do it, they would issue new shares to UBIG to the nominal value of £17.6m (i.e. dilute the existing shareholding) and UBIG would have to pay the money over to Ukio. It's free money for the yams and an incredibly foolish move by UBIG and it all depends on how much cash UBIG have available. However, to issue new shares they would first have to call a general meeting (AGM or EGM) which needs 21 days notice - too late for 7th Feb.


I think the two most likely solutions are:

Ukio refinance the debt - Indications are that Ukio are cash-hungry, and because HoMFC are insolvent, the new debt would immediately be bad
UBIG buy the debt from Ukio - possibly at a discount since it's almost irrecoverable in the hands of Ukio.
Scenario 2 sems the most likely to me - UBIG could then take steps to recover or reduce the debt by taking on ownership of the PBS, a DfE swap or a combination of the two. If there is to be a further DfE, my gut feeling is that it would be for no more than £5m.

Just a thought, but the apparent resurrection of the new stand plans might just be a sweetener ahead of them taking ownership of Tynie.

Thanks CG, I'm presuming if they get ownership of Tynie any move into adminstration would then be a real disaster as they will have no ground to sell and importantly no ground to play on.

Caversham Green
29-01-2010, 03:40 PM
Thanks CG, I'm presuming if they get ownership of Tynie any move into adminstration would then be a real disaster as they will have no ground to sell and then play on.

The loan is secured on Tynie anyway, so ownership/sale proceeds would probably go to Ukio/UBIG either way. TBH I don't think administration would be that bad for the yams - it would 'draw a line' under their debt and get then financially reorganised for the future. The one down side might be that they could lose Tynie if the option of playing at Murrayfield is still open - most clubs in administration can keep their grounds through some arrangement because the ground is integral to their business - i.e. they couldn't operate without it.

Andy74
29-01-2010, 03:51 PM
The loan is secured on Tynie anyway, so ownership/sale proceeds would probably go to Ukio/UBIG either way. TBH I don't think administration would be that bad for the yams - it would 'draw a line' under their debt and get then financially reorganised for the future. The one down side might be that they could lose Tynie if the option of playing at Murrayfield is still open - most clubs in administration can keep their grounds through some arrangement because the ground is integral to their business - i.e. they couldn't operate without it.

So lets say HMRC were due £3m they didn''t get and succesful got a winding up order.

Is the worst that happens that something gets sold to meet the £3m in this case because the rest of the debt is due really to the owners?

There's nothing which says all debts have to be settled is there, or would the winding up force the repayment of the £40m, or the best they could get from the sale of assets?

If Tynie had to be sold that'd leave them with possibly no players of value and no ground but the Hearts membership the leagu and possibly the SPL still intact.

Or, is it likely that admisistration would see their debt be cancelled, Tynie kept, players of value let go, but starting again in the SPL still with a penalty but Tynie to play at and no debt to worry about?

Scorrie
29-01-2010, 04:02 PM
i dont pretend to understand all of this but surely if the yams go into administration, wouldn't they have to go down to Irn Bru Third Division as Livi did? :confused:

Sergey
29-01-2010, 04:20 PM
The loan is secured on Tynie anyway, so ownership/sale proceeds would probably go to Ukio/UBIG either way. TBH I don't think administration would be that bad for the yams - it would 'draw a line' under their debt and get then financially reorganised for the future. The one down side might be that they could lose Tynie if the option of playing at Murrayfield is still open - most clubs in administration can keep their grounds through some arrangement because the ground is integral to their business - i.e. they couldn't operate without it.

If Vlad was to move the title deeds to UBIG (from HoMFC Plc) then the club is devoid of any real tangible asset and would still be £40m in debt.

As an aside, Vlad has previous in bankrupting companies in exactly the same way, ie, moving assets between inter-companies while racking up debt in one.

He did this at the beginning of the millennium with his umbrella company, The Lithuania Textile Corporation. The inter-company that was raped back then was a Kaunas firm called Dirbtines Pluostas [sp], which co-incidentally went to the wall owing £40m. 1500 + poor folks of Kaunas also lost their jobs as a result. A subsequent fraud investigation cleared Romanov of any personal wrongdoing.

But hey, that's Eastern Europe for you!

jacomo
29-01-2010, 04:45 PM
i dont pretend to understand all of this but surely if the yams go into administration, wouldn't they have to go down to Irn Bru Third Division as Livi did? :confused:

You would have thought so, altho that Livi decision was an absolute farce, causing fixture chaos.

Caversham Green
29-01-2010, 07:50 PM
So lets say HMRC were due £3m they didn''t get and succesful got a winding up order.

Is the worst that happens that something gets sold to meet the £3m in this case because the rest of the debt is due really to the owners?

There's nothing which says all debts have to be settled is there, or would the winding up force the repayment of the £40m, or the best they could get from the sale of assets?

If Tynie had to be sold that'd leave them with possibly no players of value and no ground but the Hearts membership the leagu and possibly the SPL still intact.

Or, is it likely that admisistration would see their debt be cancelled, Tynie kept, players of value let go, but starting again in the SPL still with a penalty but Tynie to play at and no debt to worry about?

If the winding up order was granted they would actually be wound up. A receiver (probably the Official Receiver) would be appointed and all the assets sold to pay off the debts as far as possible. Apart from current PAYE and VAT (I think) HMRC would have to stand in line with the other creditors. The exception is the secured creditor who would get as much of the proceeeds of selling Tynie as they needed to cover their debt.

Administration would see the selling off of as many of the assets as the administrator felt was necessary and negotiation of payment plans to settle as much of the debts as the creditors would agree to. The difference is that HoMFC would still be operating at the other end of the process as a leaner and more efficient business (although their higher value players would likely have been sold off). Tynie could either be handed back to the creditor (who could then either sell it on or rent it back to HoMFC); sold to another company to rent to HoMFC or sold to a developer - the presence of Murrayfield making the last one a possibility. A change of ownership would probably follow.


i dont pretend to understand all of this but surely if the yams go into administration, wouldn't they have to go down to Irn Bru Third Division as Livi did? :confused:

I think there must have been more to the Livi situation than met the eye. As far as I'm aware the penalty would be the 10 point deduction.

TornadoHibby
29-01-2010, 07:52 PM
If the winding up order was granted they would actually be wound up. A receiver (probably the Official Receiver) would be appointed and all the assets sold to pay off the debts as far as possible. Apart from current PAYE and VAT (I think) HMRC would have to stand in line with the other creditors. The exception is the secured creditor who would get as much of the proceeeds of selling Tynie as they needed to cover their debt.

Administration would see the selling off of as many of the assets as the administrator felt was necessary and negotiation of payment plans to settle as much of the debts as the creditors would agree to. The difference is that HoMFC would still be operating at the other end of the process as a leaner and more efficient business (although their higher value players would likely have been sold off). Tynie could either be handed back to the creditor (who could then either sell it on or rent it back to HoMFC); sold to another company to rent to HoMFC or sold to a developer - the presence of Murrayfield making the last one a possibility. A change of ownership would probably follow.



I think there must have been more to the Livi situation than met the eye. As far as I'm aware the penalty would be the 10 point deduction.

But isn't "the creditor" you refer to the bank that Vlad "controls"? :wink: :confused:

Caversham Green
29-01-2010, 07:59 PM
But isn't "the creditor" you refer to the bank that Vlad "controls"? :wink: :confused:

It is, and because there's a security on Tynie they would most likely get the full proceeds of the sale or ownership of the ground. That could be more than they would stand to get in interest and/or repayments if HoMFC continued as they are now. If it isn't, they'll just keep milking the cow until it dries up.

TornadoHibby
29-01-2010, 08:10 PM
It is, and because there's a security on Tynie they would most likely get the full proceeds of the sale or ownership of the ground. That could be more than they would stand to get in interest and/or repayments if HoMFC continued as they are now. If it isn't, they'll just keep milking the cow until it dries up.

I think that there are bigger issues than getting cash out from the sale of the ground although that might be terminal for continuity of the SPL membership and for the club itself! :agree:

If the entity which "owns" the football club becomes insolvent then I suspect that the SPL, SFA and SFL memberships would have to be re-applied for in the name of the new entity and that would mean (I think) that they would have to start at the bottom league! :cool2:

The points deduction I think only applies if the insolvent entity "owning" the football club is in a form of insolvency that can be rescinded hence it retains the various memberships enabling the League position to be retained subject to the penalty of a points deduction! :cool2:

Maybe someone with more knowledge of the membership(s) terms could confirm beyond reasonable doubt! :dunno:

MacBean
29-01-2010, 08:11 PM
good read guys, thanks for the info, certainly helps clue me up as im not really in the know with this kinda thing :top marks

ancient hibee
29-01-2010, 08:20 PM
Because of the interlocking nature of all the companies I'm not so sure that the secured creditor would be able to claim Tynecastle.It might be treated as a fraudulent preference in allowing a member of the group to benefit from the failure of another member.

TornadoHibby
29-01-2010, 08:24 PM
Because of the interlocking nature of all the companies I'm not so sure that the secured creditor would be able to claim Tynecastle.It might be treated as a fraudulent preference in allowing a member of the group to benefit from the failure of another member.

I think that could only be a problem for the secured creditor if the security was granted within 6 months of the date of insolvency! :cool2:

As Vlad has been there for around 5 years I would surmise that the security, if granted to "his" bank, was granted around the time HBOS were taken out by Ukio Bankas/UBIG! :wink:

Caversham Green
29-01-2010, 11:05 PM
Because of the interlocking nature of all the companies I'm not so sure that the secured creditor would be able to claim Tynecastle.It might be treated as a fraudulent preference in allowing a member of the group to benefit from the failure of another member.

But Ukio, who hold the security aren't a member of the group - there are no significant shareholding links between UBIG/Ukio or Ukio/Hearts - so that problem will only arise if the debt is moved to UBIG.

One obstacle I can see is that the directors could be prosecuted for continuing to trade while insolvent. That's usually a fairly toothless provision, and according to the 2008 accounts they had assurances from UBIG that support would continue. This would normally be enough to avoid prosecution but in this case the directors of Hearts are also directors of UBIG so that defence is very weak.

TornadoHibby
29-01-2010, 11:12 PM
But Ukio, who hold the security aren't a member of the group - there are no significant shareholding links between UBIG/Ukio or Ukio/Hearts - so that problem will only arise if the debt is moved to UBIG.

One obstacle I can see is that the directors could be prosecuted for continuing to trade while insolvent. That's usually a fairly toothless provision, and according to the 2008 accounts they had assurances from UBIG that support would continue. This would normally be enough to avoid prosecution but in this case the directors of Hearts are also directors of UBIG so that defence is very weak.

I think that the number of directors who get prosecuted for "reckless trading" whilst they should reasonably have known that the company was insolvent is ridiculously low compared to the number of "questionable" insolvencies that arise each year! :agree:

Serious fraud sometimes even gets over-looked with regard to this provision I understand! :agree:

Perhaps RBS and HBOS directors might well have been in the frame for persuading people to subscribe for rights issues when they did and when they should reasonably have known the value of their loan security now that we know what happened next when only Government intervention of unheard of proportions prevented them from becoming insolvent but were they? :confused:

Sergey
29-01-2010, 11:16 PM
But Ukio, who hold the security aren't a member of the group - there are no significant shareholding links between UBIG/Ukio or Ukio/Hearts - so that problem will only arise if the debt is moved to UBIG.

One obstacle I can see is that the directors could be prosecuted for continuing to trade while insolvent. That's usually a fairly toothless provision, and according to the 2008 accounts they had assurances from UBIG that support would continue. This would normally be enough to avoid prosecution but in this case the directors of Hearts are also directors of UBIG so that defence is very weak.

And in what you say there lies an obstacle.

We're not talking about Co vs Co in the UK courts....we're getting into the murky waters that's Lithuanian business practice.

This is untrodden ground, and the SPL are browning themselves for the worst eventuality.

The appointment of JJ might be a signal that something is afoot to alleviate the immediate due payment, but the next week will tell.

Jamesie
29-01-2010, 11:22 PM
But Ukio, who hold the security aren't a member of the group - there are no significant shareholding links between UBIG/Ukio or Ukio/Hearts - so that problem will only arise if the debt is moved to UBIG.

One obstacle I can see is that the directors could be prosecuted for continuing to trade while insolvent. That's usually a fairly toothless provision, and according to the 2008 accounts they had assurances from UBIG that support would continue. This would normally be enough to avoid prosecution but in this case the directors of Hearts are also directors of UBIG so that defence is very weak.

In Scotland, they are more likely to just be disqualified from acting as a director. The former DTI is not nearly as aggressive in relation to Scottish cases as it is in England.

Kato
30-01-2010, 01:30 AM
Shabby's sacking puts next weeks deadline into a different perspective.

It's fair to say that the jamtards are currently peeing their crusties because a big fat man they like has been made their new manager.

While they are all looking in that direction Vlad can do what the hell he likes with shares/ground deeds/debt shuffling and they won't notice or say too much as they are all standing in a circle patting each other on their backs at the return of the fat man they like.

Crafty ****er that Vlad. I like him.

I bet he's good at Monopoly, and probably chess as well.